BLM ortoise T Desert EA - of Interior 0029 . - Dr Interior 89130 the 2016 the - Assessment Pines OFFICE Management of of Management Restoration Nevada orrey S010 T Land - ea Habitat Land of N. ARING egas, 702–515–5000 Ar V NV - Department of 4701 Las onmental PREP Bureau U.S. eau BLM Department - Burned Bur Envir DOI U.S. Desert Mojave
Environmental Assessment Mojave Desert Burned Area Restoration of Desert Tortoise Habitat DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2016-0029-EA This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment iii Table of Contents
_1. Introduction ...... 1
_1.1. Identifying Information ...... 1 1.1.1. Title, EA Number, and Type of Project ...... 1 1.1.2. Location of Proposed Action ...... 1 1.1.3. Preparing Office and Lead Agency ...... 1 _1.2. Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 _1.3. Background ...... 2 _1.4. Scoping, Public Involvement and Issues ...... 6
_2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 7
_2.1. Description of the Proposed Action ...... 9 2.1.1. Description of Areas Burned ...... 9 2.1.1.1. Clarifications of Terms Used ...... 10 2.1.2. Overview Map and Tables ...... 10 2.1.3. Herbicide Treatments and Herbicide Use ...... 15 2.1.4. Seeding ...... 16 2.1.5. Habitat Islands ...... 17 2.1.6. Access ...... 18 2.1.7. Monitoring ...... 18 2.1.8. Timeline ...... 20 2.1.9. Stipulations ...... 20 2.1.9.1. Air quality ...... 20 2.1.9.2. Floodplains ...... 21 2.1.9.3. Geology/Mineral Resources ...... 21 2.1.9.4. Lands/Access ...... 21 2.1.9.5. Paleontology ...... 21 2.1.9.6. Recreation ...... 21 2.1.9.7. Utility Corridors ...... 21 2.1.9.8. Visual Resources ...... 21 2.1.9.9. Wastes (hazardous or solid) ...... 22 2.1.9.10. Water Resources/Quality ...... 22 2.1.9.11. Wetland/Riparian Zones ...... 22 2.1.9.12. Woodland/Forestry ...... 22 _2.2. Description of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 22 2.2.1. Alternative 2 — No Action ...... 22 _2.3. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 22 2.3.1. No Use of Proposed Herbicides for Vegetation Control ...... 22 2.3.2. Full Restoration of Burned Areas ...... 23 2.3.3. Mechanical Mowing/Disking ...... 23 2.3.4. Mechanical Blading ...... 23 2.3.5. Grazing Domestic Livestock ...... 23 2.3.6. Use of Forage Kochia ...... 23 _2.4. Conformance ...... 24
Table of Contents iv Environmental Assessment
2.4.1. Record of Decision for the Approved Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (October 1998) ...... 24 2.4.2. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (2009) ...... 25 2.4.3. Record of Decision for the Approved Ely District Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2008) ...... 25 2.4.4. Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans ...... 26
_3. Affected Environment: ...... 29
_3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ...... 31 3.1.1. Geographic Scope ...... 31 3.1.2. Existing Condition ...... 31 3.1.3. Surveys ...... 31 3.1.4. Reference ...... 31 _3.2. Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns ...... 32 3.2.1. Geographic Scope ...... 32 3.2.2. Existing Condition ...... 32 3.2.3. Surveys (Class III) ...... 32 3.2.4. References ...... 33 _3.3. Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally List Species (Including BLM Sensitive Species) ...... 33 3.3.1. Geographic Scope ...... 33 3.3.2. Existing Condition ...... 33 3.3.3. Surveys ...... 34 3.3.4. References ...... 34 _3.4. Fuels and Fire Management ...... 35 3.4.1. Geographic Scope ...... 35 3.4.2. Existing Condition ...... 35 3.4.3. Surveys ...... 35 3.4.4. References ...... 35 _3.5. Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds ...... 35 3.5.1. Geographic Scope ...... 35 3.5.2. Existing Condition ...... 36 3.5.3. Surveys ...... 36 3.5.4. References ...... 36 _3.6. Migratory Birds ...... 36 3.6.1. Geographic Scope ...... 36 3.6.2. Existing Condition ...... 36 3.6.3. Surveys ...... 37 3.6.4. References ...... 38 _3.7. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Wildlife Species and Critical Habitat ...... 38 3.7.1. Geographic Scope ...... 38 3.7.2. Existing Condition ...... 38 3.7.3. Surveys ...... 38 3.7.4. References ...... 39 _3.8. Vegetation Excluding Federally Listed Species ...... 39 3.8.1. Geographic Scope ...... 39
Table of Contents Environmental Assessment v
3.8.2. Existing Condition ...... 39 3.8.3. Surveys ...... 42 3.8.4. References ...... 42 _3.9. Wild Horse and Burro ...... 44 3.9.1. Geographic Scope ...... 44 3.9.2. Existing Condition ...... 44 3.9.3. Surveys ...... 44 3.9.4. References ...... 44
_4. Environmental Effects ...... 45
_4.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ...... 47 4.1.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 47 4.1.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 47 4.1.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 47 4.1.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 47 4.1.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 48 4.1.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 48 _4.2. Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns ...... 48 4.2.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 48 4.2.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 48 4.2.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 49 4.2.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 50 4.2.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 50 4.2.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 50 _4.3. Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species (Including BLM Sensitive Species) ...... 50 4.3.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 50 4.3.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 51 4.3.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 51 4.3.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 52 4.3.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 52 4.3.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 53 _4.4. Fuels and Fire Management ...... 53 4.4.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 53 4.4.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 53 4.4.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 53 4.4.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 54 4.4.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 54 4.4.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 54 _4.5. Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds ...... 55 4.5.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 55 4.5.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 55 4.5.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 55 4.5.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 56 4.5.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 56 4.5.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 56 _4.6. Migratory Birds ...... 56 4.6.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 56
Table of Contents vi Environmental Assessment
4.6.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 56 4.6.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 56 4.6.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 57 4.6.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 57 4.6.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 57 _4.7. Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Candidate Wildlife Species & Critical Habitat . 57 4.7.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 57 4.7.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 57 4.7.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 57 4.7.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 58 4.7.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 58 4.7.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 59 _4.8. Vegetation Excluding Federally Listed Species ...... 59 4.8.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 59 4.8.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 60 4.8.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 60 4.8.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 62 4.8.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 62 4.8.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 63 _4.9. Wild Horse and Burro ...... 63 4.9.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 63 4.9.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 64 4.9.2.1. Analysis of Effects ...... 64 4.9.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 64 4.9.2.3. Mitigation Measures ...... 65 4.9.2.4. Residual Effects ...... 65
_5. Consultation and Coordination ...... 67
_5.1. Scoping ...... 69 _5.2. Consultation ...... 69 _5.3. Public Participation ...... 69 _5.4. List of Preparers ...... 69
_6. References ...... 71
Appendix A. MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION ...... 79
Appendix B. AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM ...... 85
Appendix C. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR HERBICIDE APPLICATION ...... 93
Appendix D. ENERGY/UTILITY CORRIDORS ...... 95
Table of Contents Environmental Assessment vii
Appendix E. GLOSSARY ...... 97
Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment ix
List of Figures Figure 1.1. Locations of Large Fires in Southern Nevada 1984–2007 ...... 4 Figure 1.2. Desert Tortoise Habitat in Southern Nevada ...... 5 Figure 2.1. Location of Priority Burned Areas Proposed for Restoration ...... 12 Figure 2.2. Example of Project Area ...... 13
List of Figures This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment xi
List of Tables Table 2.1. Overview of Projects within Designated Areas ...... 10 Table 2.2. Total Impacted Acres ...... 11 Table 2.3. Work Schedule Timeline ...... 20 Table 4.1. Project Site Occurrence within ACECs ...... 47 Table 4.2. Acres of disturbance by treatment technique in each Field Office...... 49 Table 5.1. List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted ...... 69 Table 5.2. List of Preparers ...... 69 Table B.1. Resources or Concerns Considered for Analysis ...... 85
List of Tables This page intentionally left blank Chapter 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 1
1.1. Identifying Information
1.1.1. Title, EA Number, and Type of Project
Mojave Desert Burned Area Restoration of Desert Tortoise Habitat
DOI-BLM-NV-S010–2016–0029–EA 1.1.2. Location of Proposed Action
Public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM):
Southern Nevada District Office (SNDO), Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO) and Red Rock Canyon and Sloan Canyon National Conservation Areas of Clark County, Nevada.
Ely District (EYD), Caliente Field Office (CFO) of Lincoln County, Nevada.
All burned areas within desert tortoise habitat would be considered for restoration. Potential restoration sites are areas previously burned by large fires in desert tortoise habitat and/or critical habitat. The priority sites for this project would be the Scenic and Loop fires of 2006 and 2005 and areas which burned in 2005, collectively named the Southern Nevada Complex (Figure 2.1). These include the: Halfway (Duzak), Goodsprings, Tramp, Fork, and Coyote Springs sub-complex fires. The Coyote Springs subcomplex is comprised of the Dry Middle, Dry Rock, and Garnet fires. 1.1.3. Preparing Office and Lead Agency
BLM Southern Nevada District Office (SNDO), 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130 Las Vegas Field Office (Lead Agency), 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130 Red Rock Canyon/Sloan Canyon NCA Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130
BLM Ely District Office Caliente Field Office, 1400 S. Front St., Caliente, NV 89008
1.2. Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose for this action is to re-establish or increase the abundance of native vegetation in desert tortoise habitat in areas burned in 2005 and 2006 by fires of the Southern Nevada Complex and the Scenic and Loop fires. To reduce the risk of large fires reburning these areas or originating within the former burns and spreading to adjacent desert tortoise habitat. In addition to addressing the need to limit the conversion of tortoise habitat to invasive grassland, this project would help identify and refine the most effective and affordable techniques for restoring large disturbed areas of the Mojave Desert. The initial treatment target for this project is 1803.97 acres (730.04 ha) within the Southern Nevada District Office and 370.1 acres (149.77 ha) within the Caliente Field Office.
Chapter 1 Introduction Identifying Information 2 Environmental Assessment
1.3. Background
The winter of 2004-2005 brought relatively heavy rainfall that fed production of invasive annual grasses including red brome (Bromus rubens), that formed continuous fuels between widely-spaced shrubs. Between June 22, 2005 and July 10, 2005, eleven fires burned 740,000 acres (299,470 ha) in southern Nevada (USFWS 2006). These fires, collectively called the Southern Nevada Complex (Figure 2.1), burned large swaths of creosote bush-bursage-Joshua tree shrubland. One of the direct impacts of fire on desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) that inhabit shrublands invaded by annual grasses is death caused by burns. The impacts of fire and invasive annuals to the vegetative community where desert tortoise occur may have a more profound and lasting negative indirect effect on desert tortoise populations and, therefore, the recovery of this federally threatened species. Most Mojave Desert shrubs are not adapted to frequent wildfires. Long periods of time is required between fires for re-establishment when the duration between fires is shortened many shrub species disappear from the landscape. Non-native annual brome grasses are or are becoming dominant in many of the burned sites within the Southern Nevada Complex, creating ideal conditions for reburning. More than 50,000 acres (20,235 ha) reburned in 2011-2012. In some areas that have burned more than once, brome has almost completely replaced native species creating an invasive grassland (BLM 2012). Shifts in the dominant vegetation from native shrubland to invasive grassland, along with emigration of tortoises away from burned habitat, lower survival for vulnerable life history stages of tortoise, and lower growth and reproductive output of tortoises are among the likely long-term effects of the fires (Esque et al. 2003; Brooks and Esque 2002). The shift to invasive grasslands shortens fire return intervals (Brooks and Matchett 2006) and increases landscape susceptibility to fire which further threatens adjacent desert tortoise habitat (Brooks 1999). The 2011 Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011) stresses the need to reduce exotic plant populations, increase native annual plants and perennial plants used by the tortoise for food and shelter. Effective techniques for enhancing recovery of native vegetation and limiting the transition of desert shrublands to invasive grasslands are still in development and have not been attempted on a large scale. Abella et al. (2015) demonstrated the feasibility of augmenting native annual tortoise forage plants, but found broadcast and pelletized seeding with perennial shrub species ineffective. Irrigation, fencing to protect seeds and seedlings from granivores or herbivores, and pelletizing seeds are among the techniques being researched (Scoles-Sciulla et al. 2014, Suazo et al. 2013; Brooks 2000; Taylor and Harmon 1990). In 2005, the BLM Southern Nevada District collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to implement experimental post-fire restoration treatments to accelerate the re-vegetation of burned tortoise habitat. Restoration techniques included directed seeding with native plant seeds, pre- and post-emergent herbicide application to control invasives, and outplanting of greenhouse-raised native seedlings. Several outcomes from USGS monitoring of this 2005-2009 project emerged: Directed seeding increased establishment of short-lived perennial plants. The herbicide imazapic amplified this seeding effect and suppressed invasive annuals in the seed bank 2-3 years after treatment (DeFalco et al. 2009 unpublished report, Scoles-Sciulla et al. 2014, Drake et al. 2015). It was also determined that adult tortoise movements into the interior of burned areas coincided with growing canopy cover during the 5 years following the fire, but tortoises subsequently shifted back to unburned habitat once short-lived perennials that provided cover declined (Drake et al. 2015).
Chapter 1 Introduction Background Environmental Assessment 3
Furthermore, the long-lived, slow-growing shrubs that typify unburned shrublands did not establish as well in burned habitat. These late-colonizing species are integral to long-term sustainability of low-elevation tortoise habitat (creosote bush-bursage-Joshua tree). Poor establishment of long-lived perennial shrubs during the 2005-2009 project could have been related to their low numbers in the seed mixtures, the source of seed used, and/or seedling condition prior to outplanting (seedling age and greenhouse pruning practices that alter shoot and root allocation). However, the life history of the shrub species (i.e., infrequent reproduction, transient seed bank, seed predation, exacting germination requirements, and/or slow growth) contribute to the challenge of developing viable restoration techniques for reestablishing native shrubs in large burned areas (Defalco et al 2009, unpublished).
The proposed project would mitigate these negative impacts to desert tortoise habitat through the application of a range of standard and experimental treatments. The overall goal of the proposed action is to re-vegetate, recover, and reduce the risk of future fires on as much burned desert tortoise habitat as possible. Objectives to meet the overall goal include:
● Configuring and implementing herbicide treatments in large burned areas using herbicide to reduce brome grasses in combination with seeding of early-colonizing species to rapidly establish native cover for use by tortoises.
● Creating habitat islands in association with herbicide treatments using re-vegetation approaches such as diversionary seeding, manual sowing, and outplanting that would promote the establishment of long-lived native shrubs important for tortoise habitat.
BLM would coordinate with USGS to implement these restoration treatments and establish a comprehensive monitoring effort to validate the implementation and success of the project, and also allow analysis of the per-acre costs for achieving success and managing desert tortoise habitat.
Chapter 1 Introduction Background 4 Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 Introduction Background
Figure 1.1. Locations of Large Fires in Southern Nevada 1984–2007 Environmental Assessment 5
Chapter 1 Introduction Background
Figure 1.2. Desert Tortoise Habitat in Southern Nevada 6 Environmental Assessment
1.4. Scoping, Public Involvement and Issues
Internal scoping among all impacted field offices and external scoping for those areas with high public use helped identify the issues and concerns addressed in this EA. Internal scoping was done with meetings and written communications with BLM resource specialists in the Southern Nevada and Ely Districts in addition to meetings with National Park Service (NPS) and United States Geological Survey (USGS). External scoping was done with public meetings regarding sites within Red Rock National Conservation Area. All issues and concerns raised were considered during the development of the range of alternatives described in the EA. Relevant issues identified through internal and external scoping and addressed in the EA are as follows:
● Risks of proposed herbicide use, including aerial and ground application, to control invasive plant species
● Protection of cultural resources and Native American concerns
● Potential impacts to fish and wildlife and vegetation, including special status and/or threatened or endangered species
● Potential impacts to wild horse and burro populations from herbicide application and project activities
● Potential impacts to recreation and visual resources and public access
● Compatibility with existing land uses
Chapter 1 Introduction Scoping, Public Involvement and Issues Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 9
2.1. Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is for the BLM, in cooperation with the USGS, to re-vegetate, recover, and reduce future fire risk within the areas of desert tortoise habitat burned in 2005 and 2006. These fires include Southern Nevada Complex, Scenic and Loop. The objectives to meet the overall goal are: 1. Configure and install herbicide treatments in large burned areas using herbicide to reduce brome grasses. Herbicide would be applied aerially, with vehicle-mounted equipment, with backpack, and hand sprayers. 2. Apply seeds of early-colonizing species to rapidly establish native cover for use by tortoises. Locally-adapted seeds would be broadcast or pelletized and broadcast, aerially or by hand and sown into a small divot or raked into the ground with hand tools. 3. Create habitat islands to promote the establishment of long-lived native shrubs important for tortoise habitat. The techniques used to create these habitat patches would be: A) diversionary seeding with sterile commercial seeds, B) manual sowing of seeds, C) outplanting of greenhouse-grown or transplanted native plants, D) re-establishing biological soil crust. 4. Monitor effectiveness of the treatments using a scientifically robust sampling strategy, including control plots outside burned areas, to measure native vegetation establishment, reduction of invasive species, effects of treatments on rodent populations (for seed predation and dispersal), and biological soil crust development. The proposed action would employ the herbicide application and directed seeding techniques found to provide short-term cover and food for tortoises in one-time burned habitat patches in the 2005-2009 restoration project (DeFalco et al. 2009). Up to 90,000 seedlings would be planted and up to several hundred pounds of native perennial seed sown, adjusting perennial seed mixes, seed sources, and greenhouse techniques based upon the information learned during the 2005-2009 restoration treatments and upon the availability of seed. Monitoring plots would be established in a randomized block design and monitored for five years post-implementation, so that managers could compare effectiveness and costs of each restoration technique and combination of techniques. For example, herbicide treatment would coincide with approximately half the outplanting sites creating an opportunity to assess the effects of herbicide and planting vs. just planting or just herbicides on vegetation response. Monitoring would be used to assess the effects of the treatments on small rodents which play a vital role in both seed dispersal and seed predation. A small area of each monitoring plot would be set aside for research, including the effects of treatments on biological soil crusts as well as the contribution of re-introduced biological soil crust to disturbed soils. 2.1.1. Description of Areas Burned
While all burned areas in desert tortoise habitat would be considered for restoration, priority sites would be those large fires which burned in 2005 and 2006, including multiple large fires collectively named the Southern Nevada Complex, as well as the Loop fire and Scenic fire. Table 2.1 shows information about each of the fires targeted for restoration, including acres burned by fire name and whether sites will occur in desert tortoise critical habitat or Area of Critical
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Description of the Proposed Action 10 Environmental Assessment
Environmental Concern (ACEC). The Coyote Springs subcomplex includes several fires that originated on the Desert National Wildlife Refuge and spread onto BLM lands. The Halfway fire was mostly in the BLM Ely District Office (EYDO), but the southern perimeter occurs in the Southern Nevada District Office (SNDO). The Goodsprings fire includes a portion of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (RRCNCA); the Loop and Scenic fires are entirely within the RRCNCA. Tramp and Fork fires occurred in the Gold Butte region all project sites will be located within an ACEC.
Wilderness and areas of the fire that occur within the jurisdiction of other agencies will be excluded from any proposed actions. Likewise, springs and designated floodplains will be avoided, with no aspects of the proposed action occurring within 1/4 mile (0.4 km) of these features. 2.1.1.1. Clarifications of Terms Used
● Burned Area: The following individual fires will be grouped into what will be termed burned areas. The Scenic and Loop fires will be one burned area called the Red Rock burned area. The Dry Rock, Dry Middle and Garnet Fires will be one burned area called the Coyote Springs burned area. The Fork andTramp fires will be one burned area called the Gold Butte burned area. The Goodsprings fire will be called the Goodsprings burned area. The Halfway fire will be called the Halfway burned area.
● Project Site: There will be fifteen project sites distributed across the burned areas. Project sites are areas where herbicide treatments, planting and monitoring will occur. The project sites will be treated at a rate of four every year for three years. It should be noted that this EA only analyzes the thirteen project sites within Southern Nevada District Office. This was done in order to allow more time for the Caliente Field office to analyze the other two project sites.
● Herbicide Treatment Area: Any action involving herbicide application will be termed a herbicide treatment and any area that is being treated with herbicide will be termed a herbicide treatment area.
● Project Area: When all of the project sites within a burned area are being referred to collectively, this will be termed the ‘project area’ (ex. The Goodsprings project area).
● Habitat Island: Thirty-two habitat islands will be located within each project site. Treatment techniques will be selected for each habitat area. Sites will be revisited after establishment for monitoring purposes. See Section 2.1.5 Habitat Islands for additional information.
Additional terms used in this document are defined in the Glossary (Appendix E). 2.1.2. Overview Map and Tables
Table 2.1. Overview of Projects within Designated Areas
Site Name Burned Acres Total Number of Project Sites within Projects Sites Project sites Critical Habitat within an ACEC Coyote Springs 9956.2 2 2 2 Goodsprings 33437 3 0 0 Halfway (Caliente Field Office)* 71087 2 1 1 Tramp 27580.7 2 1 2
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Overview Map and Tables Environmental Assessment 11
Red Rock (Scenic and Loop fires) 2565.49 3 0 0 Fork 43698.1 3 0 2
*Project sites outside of the Southern Nevada District office jurisdiction will be analyzed by the affected office.
Table 2.2. Total Impacted Acres
Las Vegas Field Office Red Rock Field Office *Caliente Field (NCA) Office Non-Critical Habitat Total 925.25 878.72 185.05 Herbicide use 452.5 452.5 90.5 Habitat Islands 395.2 395.2 79.04 Roads 77.55 31.02 15.51 Critical Habitat Total 555.15 - 185.05 Herbicide use 271.5 - 90.5 Habitat Islands 237.12 - 79.04 Roads 46.53 - 15.51
*Project sites outside of the Southern Nevada District office jurisdiction will be analyzed by the affected office.
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Overview Map and Tables 12 Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Overview Map and Tables
Figure 2.1. Location of Priority Burned Areas Proposed for Restoration Environmental Assessment 13
Additional maps showing details for each individual burned area are found in Appendix A.
Figure 2.2. Example of Project Area
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Overview Map and Tables 14 Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Overview Map and Tables Environmental Assessment 15
2.1.3. Herbicide Treatments and Herbicide Use
Authorized hazardous fuel treatments in the form of herbicide treatments would be implemented at each project site, the configuration of which, including the number of herbicide treatments, their length and width, and their orientation, would be designed during discussions among USGS scientists, BLM fire behavior experts and herbicide application experts such as the Lake Mead Exotic Plant Management Team (EPMT). The general configuration and size would be based on published studies such as Finney (2001) and practical considerations including cost and accessibility.
The maximum width of the treated swaths would be approximately 61 m (200 ft.) and a maximum total length of approximately 6.5 km (4.03 mi.) per project site. Maximum herbicide treatment area per project site sufficient to accommodate re-vegetation treatments would be 36.6 ha (90.5 acres). This would be a maximum total of 476 ha (1,176.5 acres) in SNDO and 73 ha (181 acres) in the Caliente Field Office. Due to the expected large size of these herbicide treatments, herbicide would be applied by low-flying aircraft, or by ground personnel using backpack and/or vehicle-mounted boom sprayers where aerial application is impractical. A BLM-approved drift inhibiting adjuvant will be added to herbicide that is to be applied aerially. Aerial application would not be used in the Red Rock burned area. Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTVs) would be used to support ground applications but will be restricted to designated routes in the Red Rock burned area (see Section 2.1.6) .
Herbicide containing imazapic (such as Plateau®) would be applied as a pre-emergent (recommended concentration of ≥ 3.2 oz. active ingredient/acre) in late fall when tortoise activity is slowing prior to hibernation and before exotic annuals germinate in response to winter rains. Additional BLM-approved surfactants/adjuvants would be added to the herbicide to aid with adherence, absorption during ground-based application.
Glyphosate as a post-emergent herbicide is not preferred, but if environmentally extenuating circumstance prevent the timely application of the pre-emergent herbicide in the late fall, then glyphosate could be used to keep project timeline goals intact. Glyphosate would not be applied aerially at any site, but would be applied using ground-based methods.
All herbicide applications would comply with standard operating procedures listed in Appendix B of the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (BLM 2007). All handling, storage, application and disposal of herbicides and adjuvants would comply strictly with all label instructions and BLM Best Management Practices (BMPs). Any spills, exposures or discoveries of hazardous or solid wastes would be reported immediately to the approving official and as required by state law and agency policy. A Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) would be submitted and approval obtained prior to any herbicide application. All herbicide mixers and applicators would carry any necessary pesticide applicator credentials as required by the State of Nevada and the BLM, and a federally certified applicator will supervise operations.
Aircraft used for aerial application would be specially equipped for herbicide application and operated by a pilot who is qualified for herbicide application. Aircraft would be equipped with a differential global positioning system (GPS) that allows logging of the position of aircraft as well as whether the spray boom is on or off. Aircraft would be equipped with a spatially registered flow controller to compensate for variation in aircraft speed as it flies up and down over terrain. Aerial application would be performed at low altitude, and sites would be remote
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Herbicide Treatments and Herbicide Use 16 Environmental Assessment upland tortoise habitat so that herbicide drift onto human habitations and riparian areas would be avoided. Perimeters of every herbicide treatment would be spatially documented using GIS from field-collected way points and/or remote sensing data if possible.
Timing of herbicide treatments would be scheduled to avoid wildlife sensitive seasonal times, such as migratory bird nesting, and desert tortoise season. The chemical proposed is for terrestrial use and would not be applied directly to water or to areas where surface water is present. No application would be done during windy or gusty conditions or if it is raining or forecasted to rain within 48 hours of application. Label specifications will guide aircraft, backpack sprayer, herbicide, adjuvant and drift inhibitor usage along with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), application rate, coverage, mixing methods, droplet size to reduce runoff and drift, and herbicide storage and disposal (See Appendix C for additional information on Standard Operating Procedures for Herbicide Application).
2.1.4. Seeding
Native fast-growing, low-stature perennials or annuals that readily re-seed themselves are desirable for reseeding the created herbicide treatment areas. Potential candidates for consideration include, but are not limited to: globe mallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua); low woolygrass (Dasyochloa pulchella [=Erioneuron pulchellum]); desert marigold (Baileya multiradiata); and sixweeks fescue (Vulpia [=Festuca] octoflora. Seeds may be pelletized prior to application in order to provide some protection from granivores and decay until conditions allow for germination. Seeds would be broadcast or hand sowed in the herbicide treatment areas during the season they typically germinate. In addition, species that are currently being grown for tortoise forage by the National Park Service’s Song Dog Native Plant Nursery (Lake Mead NRA, Boulder City, Nevada) would be included when available.
The herbicide treatment areas created by the proposed action (See Section 2.1.3) would be seeded with native plant species that would spread by hand operated or vehicle drawn equipment within the herbicide treatment areas to replace the invasive annual grasses treated by herbicide. Crews would hand rake seeds into the soils to protect them from seed predators. These native seeds should be able to germinate and establish while the non-native bromes are suppressed, thereby competing with any brome seeds that do germinate. Native annuals do not spread as quickly or grow as densely as the non-native bromes; therefore they do not contribute significantly to fuel loading and fire hazard.
Seeding may be accomplished by aerial application using a aircraft so equipped, or by broadcast application using a hand operated or all-terrain vehicle (ATV) mounted seed spreader. Aerial seeding would not be used in the Loop or Scenic fires (See Section 2.1.6); instead seeds will be sown by hand and raked into the ground or planted into shallow divots in the soil where practical.
Vertical mulching, including placing dead plant material, and minor soil surface scarification or divots would be implemented where appropriate to provide ecosystem structure for seed capture and microsite modification. Some seeding would be directed outside of herbicide treatment areas within the burned areas in order to augment plant recovery and as a control for the assessment of herbicide treatment area seeding effectiveness.
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Seeding Environmental Assessment 17
2.1.5. Habitat Islands
Within each project site 32 habitat islands, each approximately 50 m x 200 m, or one hectare (2.47 acres), in size, would be selected for different combinations of four treatment techniques. Each year of the proposed action more habitat islands would be added to the project site being monitored, but once a habitat island is created it would not be revisited except for monitoring and maintenance activities. This would amount to a maximum total of 416 hectares (1027.52 acres) within the Southern Nevada District and 64 hectares (158.08 acres) within the Caliente Field Office. The four treatment techniques are as follows: 1. Diversionary broadcast seeding In order to determine granivore populations, seed preference, and seed caching habits, a subset of the habitat islands would be seeded with sterile commercial seeds. This also would help to reduce the predation of live seed to increase the chance of success of seeding. This experimental treatment would be monitored for effects, if any, to existing fuel load. 2. Sowing of seeds manually The long-lived species for consideration include, but are not limited to: creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia). These and other native species would be used for the treatments based on their expected occurrence in the unburned reference vegetation in tortoise habitat and based on seed availability. Seeds of the long-lived species – Larrea tridentata (creosotebush), Ambrosia dumosa (bursage), and Yucca brevifolia (Joshua tree) – would be obtained from either local collections, BLM’s Seeds of Success collections, or commercial collections near the project sites and/or representing the same or similar climate zone. Seed viability would be tested either using tetrazolium treatment or through germination assay in a growth chamber. Seeds would be used at each treatment site as either directly seeded in concert with diversionary seed, hand-planted at 2-4 cm (0.8–1.6 in.) depth, or used to propagate seedlings at a nursery for subsequent planting. 3. Outplanting of propagated seedlings or salvaged plants Holes for outplanting seedlings or salvaged plants will be dug to approximately 0.3 m (1 ft.) wide by 0.3 m (1 ft.). If needed, plants would be protected from herbivorous wildlife by installing shelters, cages, and/or fencing for individual plants or habitat patches as needed. Such protective devices would be removed after the first or second year. Practical consideration including cost and accessibility will inform water schedules. Ideally water would be applied by hand, temporary reservoir irrigation systems or vehicle-mounted sprayers at the time of planting. Additional watering may occur during the first to second growing seasons to establish and maintain plants. DriWater or other similar moisture supplements may be installed to enhance soil moisture during the establishment period. Water sources will be clean, but do not need to be potable. 4. Re-introduction of biological soil crust Biological soil crusts occur naturally on southern Nevada soils, and are symbiotic aggregates of various species of cyanobacteria, green algae, mosses, microfungi, lichens, and/or liverworts. They enhance soil stability for protection from erosion, retain soil moisture, add nutrients to the soil, and inhibit growth of annual grasses (Belnap et al. 2001, Rosentreter et
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Habitat Islands 18 Environmental Assessment
al. 2007). Where appropriate, biological soil crusts would be introduced or re-established at burned areas by translocating specimens of such crusts from unburned islands or adjacent areas at or near the same fire site if possible, and placing the specimens as propagules to inoculate the soil. The locations of inoculated sites would be documented for monitoring to determine survival and spread of the biological soil crusts. Soil crust may be transported to a lab facility or other location and propagated to increase the amount of biological material available for re-application at the project sites. 2.1.6. Access
Access to project sites within each burned area for creation of habitat islands, watering, plant cage removal and all other project activities requiring the use of a vehicle would occur on previously existing dirt roads or within areas previous disturbed by fire whenever possible. Vehicles such as UTV, super-duty trucks, trailers, water buffalos and water trucks are the only vehicles anticipated to access these sites and only on an “as needed” basis. Staging and all other all disturbance activities would occur within previously disturbed or burned areas. This access travel is anticipated to occur over a short period of time and once habitat islands are established they will not be revisited by vehicles unless additional maintenance is required. All temporary disturbances caused by off road travel would be restored by raking, placement of vertical mulch, rock staining, and/or other standard restoration techniques to line of sight from the main designated route. All monitoring activities for the project will accessed on foot from existing designated routes. All activities that occur within the Red Rock burned area would exclude the use of aircraft and travel off of designated routes. For temporary disturbances caused by off road travel, minor alteration to the area where the road prism exists may occur (i.e. rock displacement, minor grading etc.). Each temporary disturbance caused by off road travel would measure approximately 2.5 m (8 ft.) in width, and length would vary depending on the project site. Maximum estimated disturbance by vehicles per project site would be 6.28 ha (15.51 acres). The maximum amount of temporary disturbance that would be caused by off road travel is 81.5 ha (201.5 acres) in the SNDO and 12.5 ha (31 acres) in the Caliente Field Office. An estimated 8.4 ha (21 acres) of temporary disturbance would be restored via the techniques listed in the previous paragraph in the Southern Nevada District and 1.3 ha (3.1 acres) in the Caliente Field Office. The operators of vehicles, equipment and personal gear (including, but not limited to support vehicles, pickups and passenger vehicles, including those of the operator or invited visitors) would be responsible for ensuring that all project related vehicles and equipment would be clean and free of vegetation and soil before site arrival to or departure. This would mitigate the transport of noxious weeds. 2.1.7. Monitoring
Herbicide treatment implementation monitoring would occur on belt transects (2 m × 50 m) (6.5 ft. x 164 ft.) distributed within herbicide treatment areas and adjacent to herbicide treatment areas (control) during spring; the number of transects would be based on adequacy of sampling procedures. Controls would be placed >25 m away and parallel to the herbicide treatment areas. There will be a maximum of 40 transect belts per project site. Access for all monitoring activities will occur from existing and designated routes. For those project sites that can not be accessed from existing or designated routes, travel will be on foot.
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Access Environmental Assessment 19
Annual plant cover and average height would be estimated separately for native (unseeded, and seeded species if applicable) and exotic species in a subset of 2 m × 2 m (6.5 ft. x 6.5 ft.) quadrats positioned at 10-12 m (33–39 ft.), 20-22 m (66–72 ft.), 30-32 m (98–105 ft., and 40-42 m (131–138 ft.) within the transect belts; all annual species would be tallied within each quadrat on each transect to determine whether annual species richness is promoted within the herbicide treatment areas. The occurrence of perennial species and their predominant status (pre-reproductive, reproductive, dead) would be tallied within the twenty-five 2 m × 2 m quadrats along each transect belt. Frequency would be calculated from these occurrences (for example, reproductive Baileya multiradiata: 20 out of 25 quadrats = 0.80). Frequency is desirable in this monitoring effort over other metrics, such as density or cover, because it can rapidly detect plant establishment after broadcast seeding with little time spent per transect (Elzinga et al. 2001); thus, multiple transects can be efficiently measured across all sites. All monitoring sites will be marked on the ground with a metal rebar stake and numbered tag for easier location in subsequent visits.
Additional reference plots in nearby unburned habitat, and on the same ecological sites as the treatment plots, would be included for setting the standard for evaluating restoration success. Four replicated 100 m (328 ft.) line-intercept transects would be randomly located in reference sites within each site: percent cover by species as well as status (live, dead, reproductive, vegetative) would be quantified.
Long-lived species are most vulnerable at the seedling stage, which is strongly influenced by seed predators and herbivores. For example, it is important to know whether diversionary seeding attracts species such as kangaroo rats that predominantly plant seeds in shallow caches, or other species that larder horde thereby removing seeds from the possibility of seedling establishment. Also, restoration treatments are expected to promote rodent burrowing behavior, which results in cover sites for small desert tortoises (M. Nafus et al, in press.), and is an indicator of recovering desert tortoise habitat. Whereas habitat islands are expected to provide protection for small mammals and their seed-dispersing activities, they may also encourage small mammal herbivores such as cottontail rabbits or antelope ground squirrels that kill outplanted seedlings. Periodic trapping and censuses would determine if small mammals are influencing re-vegetation treatments. A grid of trapping stations would be overlaid onto one replicate per burned area of the diversionary seeding, manual sown, and control treatment plots after treatments are applied. A Sherman trap baited with rolled oats and bird seed would be set at each station before sunset with each station spaced 10 m (33 ft.) apart and extending 10 m outside the plot. Rodents would be identified to species, traps would be collected at sunrise, and remaining bait collected and removed from the plots. Rabbits and antelope ground squirrels would be monitored quarterly to determine their population status in relation to losses of the outplanted seedlings. Methods would be based on established techniques (Driscoll 2010, Esque et al., in review).
Live seedlings emerging from seed treatments and seedling survival from outplanting would be counted in early spring to determine initial transplant survival and summer survival following seasonal water stress. Seed treatments, species identity, number of plants, and status (live/dead; vegetative/flower/seed) would be censused by subsampling the 50 m × 200 m habitat island treatment areas. The outplanting treatments would be monitored by recording the status of each numbered outplanted seedling.
Introduced biological soil crusts would be monitored to determine the survival and growth of propagules. Monitoring may be by morphological groups (preferred) or by individual species composing the aggregate biological soil crust. Reference sites should include adjacent
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Monitoring 20 Environmental Assessment to unburned areas as well as untreated burned areas. Methods for monitoring would follow recommendations found in BLM Technical Reference 1730-2 (Belnap et al. 2001).
Access for all monitoring activities will occur from existing and designated routes. For those project sites that cannot be accessed from existing or designated routes, travel will be on foot. 2.1.8. Timeline
The following table shows the work schedule for twelve project sites (sites numbered 1 through 12) that would be implemented and monitored in a staggered-start design where one-third of the sites would be initiated during the first year (1-4), the second third during the second year (5-8), and so on (9-12), and subsequent monitoring would follow. Although only five burned areas are initially proposed for treatment, some large burned areas may have multiple treatment sites, so there may be more or less that 12 total sites. All project sites would be receive multiple re-vegetation treatments that would reinstate long-lived species including: broadcast seeding with diversionary seeds (DIV), manual sowing of seeds (SOW), outplanting of seedlings (OUT), and untreated controls (CON).
Table 2.3. Work Schedule Timeline
Month Task Set-up and Implementation FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Feb Select sites 1–12 Apr-May Characterize unburned reference vegetation 1–12 May-Jul Acquire seeds for re-vegetation treatments 1–12 Jul-Aug* Apply DIV and SOW treatments 1–4 5–8 9–12 Sep Herbicide treatment & Install weather stations 1–12 Oct Propagate seedlings for OUT treatment 1–4 5–8 9–12 Oct-Nov Plant OUT treatment 1–4 5–8 9–12 *July-Aug coincides with optimal timing for creosote bush, bursage, and Joshua tree.
Month Task Implementation Monitoring FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Feb Initial monitoring of OUT survival 1–4 5–8 9–12 Mar-Apr Monitor annuals and perennials on herbicide 1–4 1–8 1–12 5–12 9–12 treatment areas Apr-May Monitor DIV, SOW, and CON perennials 1–4 1–8 1–12 5–12 9–12 Jun-Jul Monitor summer survival of OUT perennials 1–4 1–8 5–12 9–12 Aug-Sep** Monitor granivores on DIV, SOW, CON 1–4 5–8 9–12 **Aug-Sep follows seeding of creosote bush, bursage, and Joshua tree. 2.1.9. Stipulations
The following stipulations will be adhered to in implementation of the proposed action. 2.1.9.1. Air quality
Fugitive dust emissions will be mitigated through the use of water, where and when appropriate. Best management practices will be followed during any soil disturbing activities for the duration of the project.
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Timeline Environmental Assessment 21
2.1.9.2. Floodplains
Research plots will not be located within FEMA designated floodplains. The BLM District Hydrologist will be consulted prior to finalizing plot locations. 2.1.9.3. Geology/Mineral Resources
No minerals will be excavated, and all mineral materials will remain on site. 2.1.9.4. Lands/Access
Temporary disturbance for access to project sites will be rehabilitated upon completion of the project with best restoration management practices and techniques. 2.1.9.5. Paleontology
If fossils or fossil trackways are noted during any surface disturbing activities, the area will be flagged for avoidance and the BLM Paleontological Lead will be notified. 2.1.9.6. Recreation
Ensure that public access is maintained either through or around the plots. 2.1.9.7. Utility Corridors
The proposed project shall be compatible with identified energy/utility transport modes and avoid conflicts with other land uses and future uses within the corridors. Prior notification with authorized ROW holders is recommended to ensure no conflicts with construction and/or operations and maintenance. Be aware of liabilities pertaining to environmental hazards, safety standards, and military flying/radar areas. See Appendix D Energy/Utility Corridors. 2.1.9.8. Visual Resources
● The color of the tank and weather station will be a standard environmental color such as covert green or shadow gray.
● Utilize only solid color posts, green or red, with no white markings on the top. Posts may be painted with as standard environmental color such as covert green or shadow gray.
● Signage, if used, will be tan lettering on brown. The backs of the signs will need to be painted with the covert green, shadow gray or other standard environmental color.
● Approval of the color of material or equipment to be left on site, after the initial restoration or the burn areas, will be obtained from a visual resource specialist prior to ordering and installation.
● Installation of equipment of material on lands classified as VRM Class I (Wilderness) will not occur.
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Stipulations 22 Environmental Assessment
2.1.9.9. Wastes (hazardous or solid)
Standard stipulations will apply (see Appendix C). 2.1.9.10. Water Resources/Quality
Herbicide will be applied at the rate and method indicated on the product label directives and will be applied during dry weather conditions. No proposed treatments or restoration activities will be implemented within 0.4 km (0.25 mile) of known springs. All water needed for project implementation (plant watering, herbicide mixing, dust abatement, etc.) will be hauled in from domestic sources; no water will be taken or used from onsite natural aquatic resources. 2.1.9.11. Wetland/Riparian Zones
Research plots shall be located at least 0.4 km (0.25 mile) from any springs. The BLM District Hydrologist will be consulted prior to finalizing plot locations. 2.1.9.12. Woodland/Forestry
To the extent practical, cacti and yucca within the project areas should be avoided by drive and crush driving. If unable to be avoided, cactus and yucca plants must be salvaged and then replanted as part of the restoration efforts to remove the presence of the temporary drive and crush route. 2.2. Description of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
2.2.1. Alternative 2 — No Action
Under the no action alternative, herbicide treatment areas would not be created and burned desert tortoise habitat would not be restored. Invasive annual grasses would continue to spread and to pose a fire hazard due to the continuous layer of fine fuels they produce that can ignite readily and spread fire rapidly. These grasses would continue to compete with native vegetation and impede natural succession to a native plant community. Desert tortoises in these areas would have reduced quality and quantity of native plants for forage, impacting their physical and reproductive health. Future fire damage would be managed on a case by case basis with emergency stabilization and restoration treatments as deemed necessary. 2.3. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail
The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. 2.3.1. No Use of Proposed Herbicides for Vegetation Control
The action of excluding the use of herbicides for vegetation control was considered but eliminated from further consideration. Only allowing for manual removal in place of herbicide use, would not allow for effective control of non-native vegetation species at project sites. Ineffective control of non-native vegetation species, in particular Bromus species, could significantly impact the purposes of the proposed project.
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Description of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Environmental Assessment 23
2.3.2. Full Restoration of Burned Areas
Fully restoring the burned areas in desert tortoise habitat was considered but eliminated from further consideration. In 2005 alone, more than 740,000 acres (299,470 ha) were burned in southern Nevada. Restoration of all burned acres would be cost prohibitive and impractical to implement in a reasonable timeframe. 2.3.3. Mechanical Mowing/Disking
Removing invasive grasses through mowing or disking by use of heavy equipment such as a harrow, mower or masticator was considered but eliminated from further consideration. Mowing would not remove enough of the annual grasses due to varying size (some plants would be shorter than the mower blades), and mowing or disking would spread grass seeds and would not prevent some grass seeds already in the soil from germinating. 2.3.4. Mechanical Blading
Removing invasive grasses through blading by use of heavy equipment such as bulldozer, bobcat or grader was considered but eliminated from further consideration. This method would cause greater ground disturbance and could promote the growth of annual invasive grasses by spreading seeds. Blading such large areas would disturb any existing tortoise habitat and burrows and possibly injure or kill tortoises and other wildlife in the area. 2.3.5. Grazing Domestic Livestock
Removing invasive grasses through the grazing of domestic livestock such as sheep or goats was considered but eliminated from further consideration. A large amount of livestock would need to be concentrated in the target areas and managed intensively, including water hauling, herding and temporary fencing to ensure that they remained in the treatment locations. Timing restrictions would apply when using targeted grazing to reduce impacts to desired plant species and desert tortoise. Targeted grazing would only be allowed during early spring green up when the targeted annual grasses have emerged and other desired (perennial) grasses are mostly dormant, or in the fall after desired grasses and forbs become dormant. 2.3.6. Use of Forage Kochia
Planting forage kochia, Bassia prostrata, to reduce invasive grasses was considered but eliminated from further consideration. The use of this species in the Mojave Desert would be experimental and would not meet the key objective of restoring desert tortoise habitat and forage. Forage kochia is a perennial shrub that has been used to reduce the spread of fire in some rangeland improvement projects in the western US, and in some cases has been able to out-compete cheatgrass. However, it is not native to the U.S. and can become invasive and prevent the reestablishment of some native plant communities. Forage kochia has been found to have a negative association with native plant species (Gray and Muir 2013). In addition, this species is neither suitable for tortoise shelter, nor is it a beneficial forage species for tortoises. Tortoises are not known to utilize shrub species for forage (Oftedal et al., 2002), and they do not regularly consume species from this family, perhaps because of a higher incidence of oxalates,
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Full Restoration of Burned Areas 24 Environmental Assessment which can have potential health consequences for desert tortoises (Jacobson et al. 2009). Use of native plants would provide the most suitable forage and the best potential for the restoration of desert tortoise habitat, which is the ultimate purpose of the proposed project. 2.4. Conformance
The proposed action is in conformance with BLM Land Use Plans which allow for: management for species diversity, cultivation of native plants, and chemical control of noxious weeds on site-specific planning. It is specifically provided for in or is clearly consistent with the following plans: . 2.4.1. Record of Decision for the Approved Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (October 1998)
● Objective VG1 Maintain or improve the conditions of vegetation on public lands to a Desired Plant Community or to a Potential Natural Community. Management Direction VG1a. Manage to achieve a Desired Plant Community or to a Potential Natural Community. ● Objective VG2 Restore plant productivity on disturbed areas of the public lands. Management Direction VG2a. Rehabilitate, reclaim, or revegetate areas subjected to surface-disturbing activities, where feasible. When rehabilitating disturbed areas, manage for optimum species diversity by seeding native species, except where non-native species are appropriate. ● Objective AC-1 Establish areas of critical environmental concern specifically for management of desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave and Eastern Mojave recovery units identified in the Tortoise Recovery Plan (SS-31a) (see Table 2-2). Manage a sufficient quality and quantity of desert tortoise habitat which, in combination with tortoise habitat on other Federal, State and private land, will meet recovery plan criteria. Maintain functional corridors of habitat between areas of critical environmental concern to increase the chance of long-term persistence of desert tortoise populations within the recovery unit. ● Objective FW-2 Re-establish native fauna (including naturalized species) to historic habitat and improve population numbers in current use areas. ● Objective FW-3 Support viable and diverse native wildlife populations by providing and maintaining sufficient quality and quantity of food, water, cover, and space to satisfy needs of wildlife species using habitats on public land. ● Objective SS-1 Manage special status species habitat at the potential natural community or desired plant community, according to the need of the species. ● Objective SS-2 Manage habitat to further sustain the populations of federally listed species so they would no longer need protection of the Endangered Species Act. Manage habitats for non-listed special status species to support viable populations so that future listing would not be necessary.
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Conformance Environmental Assessment 25
● Objective SS-3 Manage desert tortoise habitat to achieve the recovery criteria defined in the Tortoise Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994) and ultimately to achieve delisting of the desert tortoise.
2.4.2. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (2009)
● Objective 1A.8. Implement management actions to preserve and ensure habitat suitability for native wildlife species; minimize habitat fragmentation from roads; work as a partner in implementing the Clark County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. (App. 1, Part C., Special Status Species).
● Objective 1B.5. Implement strategies to minimize habitat type conversion fires stemming from invasive exotic annual grasses.
● Objective 3.2. Maintain or improve the condition of vegetation to its Potential Natural Community (PNC).
● Objective 3.2a. Maintain a canopy cover of 20% (minimum), a basal cover of 5% (minimum) perennial native grass species, and manage for perennial native grass species composition (by dry weight) of 5-10%, as limited by PNC.
● Objective 3.3a. Rehabilitate, reclaim or revegetate with native species, areas subjected to surface disturbing activities and closed roads, where feasible.
2.4.3. Record of Decision for the Approved Ely District Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2008)
● Objective — Vegetation Resources: Manage for resistant and resilient ecological conditions including healthy, productive, and diverse populations of native or desirable nonnative plant species appropriate to the site characteristics.
General Vegetation Management:
○ VEG-1: Emphasize treatment areas that have the best potential to maintain desired conditions or respond and return to the desired range of conditions and mosaic upon the landscape, using all available current or future tools and techniques.
○ VEG-4: Design management strategies to achieve plant composition within the desired range of conditions for vegetation communities, and emphasize plant and animal community health at the mid-scale (watershed level).
○ VEG-7: Determine seed mixes on a site-specific basis dependent on the probability of successful establishment. Use native and adapted species that compete with annual invasive species or meet other objectives. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (2009) 26 Environmental Assessment
2.4.4. Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans
The Proposed Action and alternatives are in compliance with the following Executive Orders, Laws, Regulations, State Statutes and Regulations, and Agency Policy: ● The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1782, October 21, 1976, as amended 1978, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990-1992, 1994 and 1996) ● The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended 1975 and 1994) ● Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7602, December 31, 1970, as amended 1977, 1990, 2004) ● Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., 1972) ● The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982, 1984, and 1988) ● Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d, June 8, 1940, as amended 1959, 1962, 1972, and 1978) ● Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) ● Executive Order 13186 ─ Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (2001) ● Noxious Weed Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq., 1975) ● Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999) ● National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. § 470 as amended through 2000) and its parallel authority, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800) ● Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice (Feb. 11, 1994, 59 CFR 7629) ● Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access to “Indian Sacred Sites”, (May 24, 1996) ● Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (Public Law 96-95; 1 U.S.C. § 470aa-mm) ● Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-195) ● Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq., 1996) ● Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–148) ● Final Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, September 2000 ● Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), 2011 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans Environmental Assessment 27
● Nevada Revised Statutes and associated Nevada Administrative Codes: Chapter 503, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping, Miscellaneous Protective Measures; Chapter 527, Protection and Preservation of Timbered Lands, Trees and Flora; Chapter 555, Control of Insects, Pests and Noxious Weeds
Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3. Affected Environment: This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 31
The BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) requires that all environmental documents address specific resources or concerns of the human environment. The list of elements contained in the BLM handbook has been expanded by BLM Instruction Memoranda and Executive Orders. The potentially affected resources and concerns identified for this analysis, along with the rationale for including or not including them in this analysis, are listed in the Affected Resources Form (see Appendix B). Resources identified as not present or not affected by the proposed action in the project areas will not be analyzed in any further details in chapters 3 and 4 and are as follows: Air quality; BLM natural areas; environmental justice; farmlands; floodplains; greenhouse gas emissions; geology/mineral resources/energy production; hydrology condition; lands with wilderness characteristics; lands/access; livestock grazing; paleontological resources; rangeland health standards; recreation; renewable energy/transmissions; socio-economics; soils; threatened, endangered or candidate plant species; utility corridors; visual resources; wastes (hazardous or solid); water resources/quality; wild and scenic rivers; wilderness and wilderness study areas; and woodland and forestry. The following items have been evaluated for the potential for impacts to occur, either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, due to implementation of the Proposed Action. 3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
3.1.1. Geographic Scope
All project areas including roads, herbicide treatment areas, and habitat islands that occur within ACECs. 3.1.2. Existing Condition
Some of the proposed project areas will occur within the following Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), respectively: Tramp Fire occurs within the Gold Butte ACEC (part A); the Garnet, Dry Rock and Dry Middle Fires occur within the Coyote Springs ACEC; the Fork Fire occurs primarily within the Gold Butte ACEC (part B); and the Halfway Fire occurs within the Mormon Mesa ACEC (part C), in SNDO. An ACEC is defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, Section 103(a)) as an area within the public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. The above mentioned ACECs have been established, in part or wholly, to protect desert tortoise and critical desert tortoise habitat. 3.1.3. Surveys
No surveys were conducted for this project. 3.1.4. Reference http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/lvfo_recreation/accessing_your_public/ acec_information.html
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 32 Environmental Assessment
3.2. Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns
3.2.1. Geographic Scope
Southern Nevada is situated on the southern edge of the Great Basin Desert and the eastern edge of the Mojave Desert. Prehistorically water was the critical factor in determining human occupation. The heaviest concentrations of cultural sites were located along the permanent rivers—the Virgin, the Muddy, and the Colorado—and ephemeral washes. Other site concentrations are found near springs, seeps, and even large concavities in bedrock that retain water known as tinajas, or tanks. Southern Nevada displays a unique blend of three indigenous prehistoric cultures: the Great Basin, the Southwest, and the Lower Colorado River. Warren and Crabtree (1986) define five prehistoric periods: the Lake Mojave, the Pinto, the Gypsum, the Saratoga Springs, and the Shoshonean period, which extends up to the time of European contact. Historically, southern Nevada was visited by Europeans as early as 1829 when Antonio Armijo made the first traverse of the Mojave Desert over what became known as the Old Spanish Trail. The mainline of the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake (SPLA&SL) railroad was completed in 1905. Shortly thereafter, the town of Las Vegas was founded after a land auction although several Mormon settlements in the area had been established earlier and subsequently abandoned.
3.2.2. Existing Condition
The majority of cultural resource sites in southern Nevada remain in good to somewhat less than pristine conditions. Those sites most visible, such as rock art or built structures, have sustained the majority of the damage. Over the last two decades with the burgeoning population of southern Nevada, incursions into previously remote areas and even the most distant cultural sites have been impacted by visitors whether by driving cross-country, discarding trash, or forming social trails across sites. The more blatant impacts include flagrant vandalism of rock art panels or dismantling wooden structures for firewood. In extreme cases, vandals have even poured combustible liquids over cliff faces and ignited the material leaving a trail of black soot across petroglyph panels.
3.2.3. Surveys (Class III)
Fire surveys were conducted in support of Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) activities; however, these surveys do not meet the BLM Class III standards and specific Habitat Islands proposed for restoration treatment have not yet been identified. Therefore a phased approach to identifying and evaluating historic properties will be implemented as prescribed in the programmatic agreement (PA). This PA will guide the BLM in meeting its Section 106 responsibilities and will be developed in consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), tribes affiliated with the areas, and other interested parties. Prior to authorizing any surface disturbing activities, Class III inventories will be completed of all Habitat Islands and proposed new access routes unless the acreage has been inventoried within the last 20 years. Pedestrian transects will be spaced no more than 30-m/100-ft apart. The BLM will avoid all impacts to cultural resources; if cultural sites are discovered and cannot be avoided, then another Habitat Island will be substituted for restoration treatment.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns Environmental Assessment 33
3.2.4. References
Warren and Crabtree (1986). In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume II Great Basin. Pahrer, Stanley 3.3. Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally List Species (Including BLM Sensitive Species)
3.3.1. Geographic Scope
Project sites and lands immediately adjacent to them. 3.3.2. Existing Condition
The proposed project areas may support, and is adjacent to, lands that support wildlife characteristic of the Mojave Desert. These areas can range from 1,900 to around 5,000 feet elevation. Biological diversity varies according to topography, plant community, proximity to water, soil type, and season. For a comprehensive discussion of potential wildlife species that may be present, refer to the most recent Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the BLM Southern Nevada District.
BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species
BLM sensitive species are species that require special management consideration to avoid potential future listing under ESA and that have been identified in accordance with procedures set forth in BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. A complete list of BLM sensitive species within the area can be found in the RMP. Many of these species as well as other wildlife species of concern are also discussed in the Nevada State Wildlife Action Plan (NDOW 2012) and the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Sensitive bird species are also provided protection by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and thus are discussed in the Migratory Bird Section. The following sensitive species could potentially be impacted by the proposed action:
Chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater)
Chuckwalla occur in rocky desert, lava flows, hillsides, talus slopes, and rock outcrops mostly below 5000 feet, where creosote bush is typically the dominant plant species. Chuckwalla will seek shelter in rock crevices and bask on rocks during the day. They are herbivorous, preferring annuals, but they will also eat perennial vegetation. Chuckwallas are relatively common throughout their Nevada range and likely occur within the project area, but would be localized on rock outcroppings.
Banded Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum)
Gila monsters occur in desert washes and rocky upland desert scrub at elevations below 5,000 feet. Banded Gila monsters frequently utilize lower slopes of mountains and nearby plains. They will use and are occasionally encountered out in gentler terrain of alluvial fans. Hence, Gila monster habitat overlaps habitats of both the desert tortoise and chuckwalla. Threats to
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: References 34 Environmental Assessment this reptile include illegal collection, traffic fatalities, and habitat destruction from urban and agricultural development.
Mojave shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis occipitalis)
The Mojave shovel-nosed snake is a burrowing, nocturnal snake frequenting washes, dunes, sandy flats, loose soil, and rocky hillsides in sandy gullies or pockets among the rocks throughout the Mojave Desert.
Desert glossy snake (Arizona elegans)
The Desert glossy snake is a burrowing, nocturnal snake that occurs in a variety of habitat throughout the Mojave Desert including light shrubby to barren desert, grasslands and woodlands. The desert glossy snake generally prefers open areas where the ground is sandy to loamy.
Nevada shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis talpina)
The Nevada shovel-nosed snake is a nocturnal burrowing snake that typically stays underground in the daytime and occurs in washes, dunes, sandy flats, loose soil and rocky hillsides with sandy gullies of pockets of sand. Their habitat consists of sparse vegetation including creosote bush, desert grasses, cactus and mesquite.
Mojave Desert sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes cerastes)
The Mojave Desert sidewinder is a nocturnal snake hiding in the day in animal burrows or coiled camouflaged in a shallow self-made pit at the base of a shrub. This species is most common where there are sand hummocks topped with creosote bushes, mesquite, or other desert plants but may also occur on flats, barren dunes, hardpan, and rocky hillsides.
Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni)
Bighorn sheep habitat preference includes open, usually treeless vegetation types with plant communities containing grasses, sedges, and forbs for foraging, typically in close proximity to steep, rocky terrain for predator escape where they exhibit remarkable agility. Moisture is primarily derived through their diet of a variety of desert plants, however, surface waters are a vital component of their survival and important to population health. Desert bighorns have a lengthy lambing season that can begin in December and end in June. There is NDOW identified potential habitat in the Virgin Mountains, Tramp Ridge, Azure Ridge, Anderson Ridge, Spring Mountains range, and Arrow Canyon range where the proposed action would occur. 3.3.3. Surveys
No project specific surveys were conducted for this project. 3.3.4. References
2008. BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Management U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (as revised December 2008)
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Surveys Environmental Assessment 35
3.4. Fuels and Fire Management
3.4.1. Geographic Scope
Area of analysis is the Mojave ecoregion in the Southern Nevada District. 3.4.2. Existing Condition
Fire is a natural component of ecosystems and has historically played a minor role in the promotion of plant succession and plant community development in the Mojave Desert. A natural lack of continuous vegetation cover (fuels) made fire rare to nonexistent in Mojave communities. Historically, these types did not burn often enough or in patches large enough to support dominance of fire-adapted plants. Most Mojave species do not readily regenerate following fire; this is true of creosote bush, which has limited sprouting ability and is poorly adapted to fire (Brown and Minnich 1986). The increased presence of red brome, an invasive annual grass, has promoted fires in areas where fire was previously infrequent due to insufficient fuels (Phillips 1992). Following fire in the Mojave Desert, red brome biomass increases; this increase in biomass may persist for more than 60 years (Brooks 2012). The project areas of focus burned in 2005 and 2006, and since that time some natural recovery has occurred along with emergency stabilization projects. Vegetation is poorly adapted to be resilient against fire and once burned can be outcompeted by non-native annuals that perpetuate the cycle of frequent fires (Brooks 2012). 3.4.3. Surveys
No specific project surveys conducted. 3.4.4. References
Brown, D.E. and R.A. Minnich. 1986. Fire and creosote bush scrub of the western Sonoran Desert, California. The American Midland Naturalist 116:411-422.
Phillips, B.G. 1992. Status of non-native plant species, Tonto National Monument, Arizona. Technical Report NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/46. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit. 25 pp.
Brooks, M.L. 2012. Effects of high fire frequency in creosote bush scrub vegetation of the Mojave Desert. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(1):61–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF10140. 3.5. Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds
3.5.1. Geographic Scope
Non-native invasive annual grasses such as red brome (Bromus rubens) and Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus) are some of the most abundant non-native vegetation species in the Mojave Desert (Brooks 1999) including the project areas.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Fuels and Fire Management 36 Environmental Assessment
3.5.2. Existing Condition
Invasive plant species and noxious weeds impact native ecosystems by altering soil conditions, hydrology, and fire intensity and frequency. They modify an ecosystem from a reference state to a new state that is generally irreparable. Weeds can modify successional species pathways, compete with native pollinator plants and reduce biodiversity. Many invasive species are found throughout the Mojave region. The following have been identified within the burned area project boundaries: red brome (Bromus rubens), downy brome/cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Mediterranean grass, Stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), Russian thistle (Salsola kali, S. tragus), and Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii). The main invasive species of focus is red brome because of the ability to establish in half as much water as natives and as a fine fuel source altering fire patterns (USDA 2014). In addition, removal of red brome can have a positive impact on the density and biomass of native annual species (Brooks 2000). 3.5.3. Surveys
Annual BLM weed inventory reports (2012-2015) record the presence of invasive and noxious weed species including red brome, downy brome/cheatgrass, Mediterranean grass, Russian thistle, and Sahara mustard across the Southern Nevada District including within the boundaries of the project area. 3.5.4. References
Brooks, M.L. 1999. Habitat invasibility and dominance by alien annual plants in the western Mojave Desert. Biological Invasions 1(4):325-337. Brooks M. L. 2000. Competition between alien annual grasses and native annual plants in the Mojave Desert. American Midland Naturalist 144: 92-108. USDA 2014 Field guide for managing red brome in the southwest. September 2014. 3.6. Migratory Birds
3.6.1. Geographic Scope
Project sites and lands immediately adjacent to them. 3.6.2. Existing Condition
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et. seq.) protects migratory birds and their nests. A list of MBTA protected birds are found in 50 C.F.R. 10.13. The list of birds protected under this regulation is extensive and the project site has potential to support many of these species, including BLM sensitive species, and their nests. The breeding season, which generally occurs from February 15th through August 31st, is typically when these species are most sensitive to disturbance. The following sensitive bird species have the potential to be impacted by the proposed action: Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Existing Condition Environmental Assessment 37
The Western burrowing owl is a diurnal bird of prey specialized for shrub-steppe habitats. Burrowing owl habitat in the Mojave Desert typically consists of open, dry, treeless areas on the desert floor. Burrowing owls most frequently use mammal burrows created by other animals such as ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), coyotes (Canis latrans), or desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). The burrows are used for nesting, roosting, cover, and caching prey. In recent decades, the range and species count have been declining primarily due to agricultural, industrial, and urban development that reduce burrow availability.
Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei)
In Southern Nevada, Bendire’s thrashers occur mostly in Joshua tree woodlands with dense grass, but they can also occur in desert scrub habitats with cholla cactus, mesquite, or in sagebrush with scattered junipers. They normally avoid dense woodlands and areas with very sparse vegetation. They typically nest in mesquite, cholla, juniper, Joshua trees, and other yucca species. Their population trend in Southern Nevada is unknown, but they are declining in other parts of their range.
LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei)
LeConte’s thrasher is a year-round resident in the Mojave Desert of Southern Nevada. In Nevada, they are associated with saltbush flats and wash systems and nest in cholla, sagebrush, small trees, or shrubs. This thrasher species prefers open habitats for foraging with sparse vegetation for cover and is a good indicator of habitat quality. Their population trend in Southern Nevada is unknown.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Loggerhead shrike prefer open country with nesting habitat preference toward scattered trees and shrubs. They are commonly found in shrub habitat types comprising savanna, desert scrub, and occasionally, open woodland. Perches are an important habitat component used for hunting. If natural perches are unavailable, they will perch on poles, wires or fence posts. Population trend data in Nevada has shown an unexplained 5 percent decline per year since 1966.
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Generally, the golden eagle can be found in open country, open wooded country, and barren areas, especially in hilly or mountainous regions. Nesting typically occurs on rock ledges, cliffs, or in large trees. They hunt while soaring or from tall perches and can have territories ranging from 35 to 90 square miles. Population trends in Nevada are unknown, but golden eagles can be impacted due to loss or fragmentation of habitat and mortality due to collisions with vehicles or wind turbines or electrocution by power lines. The golden eagle is also protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The 1978 amendment to the act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the taking of golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations.
3.6.3. Surveys
No project specific surveys were conducted.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Surveys 38 Environmental Assessment
3.6.4. References
1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 50 C.F.R. 10.13. Amended 1998.
3.7. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Wildlife Species and Critical Habitat
3.7.1. Geographic Scope
Non-critical and designated critical desert tortoise habitat throughout the Southern Nevada District, including the Mormon Mesa and Gold Butte/Pakoon Critical Habitat Units.
3.7.2. Existing Condition
Threatened and endangered species are placed on a federal list by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and receive protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The only federally protected species known to occur in the vicinity of the project areas are the threatened Mojave Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). The proposed project is within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise.
The Mojave Desert tortoise occurs primarily on flats and bajadas with soils ranging from sand to sandy-gravel. They are also found on rocky terrain and slopes. Tortoises occur in saltbush scrub, creosote scrub, and blackbrush scrub habitat types. Within these vegetation types, desert tortoises can potentially survive and reproduce provided their basic habitat requirements are met. Desert tortoise habitat quality varies based on the availability of habitat requirements including sufficient quality and quantity of forage species, various plants for shelter, suitable substrates for burrowing, nesting, and overwintering shelter sites providing for protection from predators and environmental extremes; healthy populations also require adequate area for movement, dispersal, and gene flow.
Historical desert tortoise population survey data indicate that the areas surrounding the project sites vary from very low density to very high density. However, as the proposed project will occur entirely within previously burned areas of tortoise habitat, it is expected that tortoise densities inside of these areas will be very low. Within these fire damaged areas, tortoise habitat quality is diminished due to a significant loss of suitable cover and forage plant species and an increase in predation and non-native, invasive weeds.
As the purpose of this project is to restore fire-affected tortoise habitat, the proposed scope of this project will include lands within designated critical desert tortoise habitat that have been adversely affected by wildfires.
3.7.3. Surveys
No project specific surveys were conducted.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: References Environmental Assessment 39
3.7.4. References
1973. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). 3.8. Vegetation Excluding Federally Listed Species
3.8.1. Geographic Scope
The geographic scope of this analysis are Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub and Sonoran-Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub habitat types within the burned areas of interest for this project, with a one mile buffer around the perimeter of each burned area. 3.8.2. Existing Condition
Vegetation communities within the burned areas that are being targeted are diverse and vary among geographic location, elevation, precipitation regimes, and soil types. The primary targets of this restoration project are desert tortoise habitat, so the vegetation communities that would be impacted by the proposed action are Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub and Sonoran-Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub (Lowry et. al. 2005).
These plant community types are relatively common throughout the Southern Nevada District Office, but are important habitat for the federally threatened Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agasizzii). Because of the geographic scope of this project, and the different vegetation communities and resource concerns that exist in different regions, the affected environment for burned areas in similar locations and with similar resource concerns will be described, and then the specific sensitive plants that are part of the affected environments will be discussed separately.
The western-most burned area is the Goodsprings fire boundary. The interior of this burned area primarily consists of the Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub vegetation type, although the northeast corner of the fire perimeter is typified by Sonoran-Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub. This burned area is within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) seed transfer zone model’s “Zone 2,” which generally has cooler temperatures for the Mojave Desert, relatively more precipitation, and a lower winter: summer precipitation ratio. There is no mapped mesquite/acacia woodland within the burned area perimeter. There are several sensitive plant species that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the target vegetation zones on BLM land in the burned area perimeter. These include yellow two-toned penstemon (Penstemon bicolor bicolor), Utah agave (Agave utahensis), halfring milkvetch (Astragalus mohavensis hemigyrus), and Spring Mountains milkvetch (Astragalus remotus).
Just to the north of the Goodsprings burned area are the Loop and Scenic burned areas, which are within the Red Rock National Conservation Area. Both the Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub and Sonoran-Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub plant community types are found within these burned areas. They are within the USGS seed transfer zone model’s “Zone 2.” There is no mapped mesquite/acacia woodland within either of these burned area perimeters. There are several sensitive plant species that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the target vegetation zones on BLM land in the burned area perimeter. These include yellow two-toned
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: References 40 Environmental Assessment penstemon (Penstemon bicolor bicolor) and rough angelica (Angelica scabrida). Penstemon bicolor bicolor occurs along the northern boundary of both burned areas.
North of the city of Las Vegas, and northeast of the previously-discussed burned areas, are the adjacent Coyote burned area. The Coyote burned area overlaps US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) land, and both burned areas are within the Coyote Springs ACEC, which was designated for its value as desert tortoise habitat. The habitat is Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub interspersed with tall perennial grasses including big galleta grass (Hilaria rigida) and indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides). They are within the USGS seed transfer zone model’s Zones 2, 3, and 4. Zone 3 has moderate temperature and precipitation and a higher winter: summer precipitation ratio; Zone 4 has moderate temperatures and precipitation and a lower winter: summer precipitation ratio. There is no mapped mesquite/acacia woodland within either of these burned area perimeters. There are no mapped sensitive species within the burned area boundaries, but there are several species that are known from adjacent areas and therefore may have the potential to be within the burned area boundaries. These are rosy two-toned penstemon (Penstemon bicolor roseus) and meadow valley sandwort (Arenaria stenomeres). Outside of the project boundary to the southwest of the burned area is unconfirmed, but modeled, potential plant habitat for white bearpoppy (Arctomecon merriamii) and Las Vegas buckwheat (Eriogonum corymbosum).
In the southeast corner of the state of NV, on the border of Utah, are the Tramp and the Fork burned areas. Both the Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub and Sonoran-Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub plant community types are found within these burned areas. Higher elevations in these areas support sagebrush steppe and pinyon-juniper woodland habitat types. They are within the USGS seed transfer zone model’s Zones 2 and 4. There are many mesquite/acacia woodlands mapped within these burned area perimeters. There are several sensitive plant species that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the target vegetation zones on BLM land in the burned area perimeter. These include Las Vegas bearpoppy (Arctomecon californica), seriate crossidium (Crossidium seriatum), chalk liveforever (Dudleya pulverulenta), golden buckwheat (Eriogonum corymbosum aureum), Mokiak buckwheat (Eriogonum mokiacensis), rough menodora (Menodora scabra), halfring milkvetch (Astragalus calycosus), Aven Nelson’s phacelia (Phacelia anelsonii) , and Las Vegas buckwheat (Erigonum corymbosum). The populations of Arctomecon californica are on or outside the western boundary of the Tramp burned area, with a few scattered populations in the southern portion of the Fork burned area. The populations of Eriogonum corymbosum are at the eastern intersection of the two burned areas, and mostly outside of the burned area perimeters. However, despite not having many occurrences mapped within these burned areas, large areas within the Tramp burned area have been modeled as potential Eriogonum corymbosum aureum, Arctomecon californica, and white bearpoppy (Arctomecon merriamii) habitat.
The final burned area, Halfway (Duzak), is in the Caliente Field Office, and is just north of the boundary of the Southern Nevada District Office. Both the Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub and Sonoran-Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub plant community types are found within this burned area. They are within the USGS seed transfer zone model’s “Zone 2.” Records for mesquite/acacia habitat and sensitive species are not as robust for this region.
Arctomecon californica is a BLM sensitive species (State of Nevada critically endangered [NRS 527.270], Nevada Natural Heritage Program global rank G3, state rank S3) covered under the MSHCP. The majority of populations of this species occur in Clark County, Nevada on low badland hills, ridges, and benches. These plants are typically associated with gypsum soils in
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Existing Condition Environmental Assessment 41
Mojave desert scrub and salt desert scrub habitats on gypsum outcrops (Clark County, 2000). Population trends have been in decline due to habitat loss in the Las Vegas Valley and difficulties with restoration of habitat and a lack of success with propagation or transplanting techniques. Threats include off-highway vehicles, collection of flowers for their aesthetic value, habitat degradation and loss from development, mining, cattle and wild horse and burro trampling, and habitat fragmentation (Clark County, 2000). Arctomecon merriamii is a BLM sensitive species (Nevada Natural Heritage Program global rank G3, state rank S3) covered under the MSHCP. It is distributed through the western part of Clark County, which contains about 1/3 of the total population. It is found in salt desert scrub and Mojave desert scrub habitats. It occupies limestone and dolomite ridges, rocky slopes, and rocky canyon washes, as well as on roadsides (Clark County, 2000). Population trends are stable, although populations adjacent to Las Vegas Valley are under constant threat of extirpation. Threats to populations include loss of habitat, urbanization, flower collecting, trampling by cattle or wild horses and burros, off-highway vehicles, and habitat degradation (Clark County, 2000). Angelica scabrida is a BLM sensitive species (USFS sensitive, Nevada Natural Heritage Program global rank G2, state rank S2) covered under the MSHCP. It is endemic to the Spring Mountains, and is primarily found in one canyon in the Spring Mountains. One of the only other populations is within the Red Rock Canyon NCA, and it grows in mixed conifer communities and near springs, and on the wash margins in riparian woodlands and shrublands (Clark County, 2000). Its population is presumed stable but it is threatened by concentrated recreation, wildflower collecting, and habitat degradation, including habitat degradation resulting from competition and encroachment of exotic species (Clark County, 2000). Astragalus remotus is a BLM sensitive species (Spring Mountains NRA species of concern, Nevada Natural Heritage Program global rank G2, state rank S2) covered under the MSHCP. It is endemic to the Spring Mountains and is only locally abundant in a few locations between Rocky Gap in Red Rock Canyon to Goodsprings. It occurs in pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, grassland, blackbrush, and Mojave desert scrub habitats in gravelly soils and on rocky hillsides. Ecosystem threats include plant community conversion to exotic annuals because of changes in fire regimes, recreational uses including hiking and mountain biking, and trampling by wild horses and burros. Penstemon bicolor bicolor is one of the more prevalent BLM sensitive species that occurs within the proposed project areas. It is included in the MSHCP as a high priority evaluation list species. Records of plants are almost entirely from the very perimeters of the burned areas. Habitat is calcareous or carbonate soils in washes, roadsides, rock crevices, outcrops, or similar places receiving enhanced runoff, at 2500-5480 feet elevation (Morefield 2001). This species regularly hybridizes with other Penstemon spp., and also faces habitat destruction because of development. Eriogonum corymbosum is another high value BLM sensitive species, and a high priority evaluation species under the MSHCP. Astragalus mokiacensis is a BLM sensitive species and a medium priority evaluation species under the MSHCP. Penstemon bicolor roseus is a BLM sensitive species and a watch list species under the MSHCP. None of the discussed plant communities or sensitive species are adapted to fire, and fires in these habitat types frequently lead to habitat conversion to invasive annual grasslands that are less productive for the Mojave desert tortoise. There have been declines of these vegetation types since
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Existing Condition 42 Environmental Assessment
1998 because of BLM realty actions and congressionally mandated land transfers (land sales, patents, and rights-of- way authorizations). This decrease has predominantly been on multiple-use lands within designated disposal boundaries and utility corridors. Important threats to these ecosystems include direct and indirect impacts resulting from anthropogenic activity, invasion by non-native annual grasses, and increased fire frequency. Anthropogenic activities include grazing; development; highway and road construction; utility corridor construction; and recreational activity (casual OHV, concentrated OHV activities, and competitive races). Disturbances associated with these activities are fragmented habitat and increased edge effects, which create conditions that facilitate establishment of invasive species, particularly invasive annual grasses.
Since 1998, large acreages of creosote bursage scrub in the planning area have burned due to colonization of invasive grasses. Higher densities of invasive annual grasses and increased fire frequency lead to decreased ecosystem functioning, a higher risk of wildfire, and result in lower-quality habitats for wildlife. Historically, the Sonoran-Mojave creosote bush-white bursage desert scrub ecosystem burned infrequently and contained substantial bare interspaces between shrubs with only low densities of annual grasses present. Currently, non- native annual grasses, including red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), and Mediterranean grass (Schismus sp.), grow in significant densities under and between shrubs and create standing dead material that carries fire quickly between larger plants and increases fire return intervals. This process creates a positive feedback mechanism for invasive grass species, which are better adapted to frequent wildfires than native desert vegetation.
Temporary impacts to vegetation in this category can take decades to centuries to recover depending on the impact. It has been estimated that without active restoration, it takes the Mojave Desert 76 years for re-establishment of perennial plant cover and 215 years for re- establishment of perennial and annual species cover (Abella 2010). If disturbance is too frequent, recovery may be delayed or prevented entirely as soils become eroded or severely compacted. Slow recovery from disturbance means that impacts to this vegetation community can accumulate and have cumulative impacts over time. 3.8.3. Surveys
No specific project surveys conducted. 3.8.4. References
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of Land Management lands in 17 western states Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management FES 07-21. Washington, DC.
Clark County. 2000. Final Clark County multiple species habitat conservation plan and environmental impact statement for issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of 79 species in Clark County, Nevada. Las Vegas, NV.
Brisbin, H, Thode, A, Brooks, M, Weber, K. 2013. Soil seed bank responses to post fire herbicide and native seeding treatments designed to control Bromus tectorum in a pinyon-juniper woodland at Zion National Park, USA. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6(1): 118-129.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Surveys Environmental Assessment 43
Bahm, MA, Barnes, TG. 2011. Native grass and forb response to pre-emergent application of imazapic and imazapyr. Natural Areas Journal 31(1): 75-79.
Owen, SM, Sieg, CH, Gehring, CA., 2011. Rehabilitating downy brome (Bromus tectorum)-invaded shrublands using imazapic and seeding with native shrubs. Invasive Plant Science and Management 4:223-233.
DeFalco, LA, Fernandez, GCJ, Nowak, RS. 2007. Variation in the establishment of a non-native annual grass influences competitive interactions with Mojave Desert perennials. Biol Invasions, 9:293–307
Klinger, RC, ML Brooks, EC Underwood, R McKlinley. 2016. Linking Short and Long-term Patterns of Post-fire Vegetation Dynamics to Models of Invasive Plants in the Mojave Desert. 41st Desert Tortoise Council Annual Meeting and Symposium, Las Vegas, NV. 19-21 February 2016.
BASF. 2011. Plateau herbicide specimen label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld2LP015.pdf
Elseroad, AC, Rudd, NT. 2011. Can imazapic increase native species abundance in cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invaded native plant communities? Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:641-648.
Lee, H, Rustgia, S, Kumara, N, Burkea, I, Yenisha, JP, Gilla, KS, von Wettstein, D, Ullricha, SE. 2011. Single nucleotide mutation in the barley acetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS) gene confers resistance to imidazolinone herbicides. PNAS 108(21): 8909-8913.
Sheley, RL, Carpinelli, MF, Morghan, KJR. 2007. Effects of imazapic on target and nontarget vegetation during revegetation. Weed Technology 21: 1071-1081.
Shinn, SL, Thill, DC. 2004. Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technology 18(1): 60-65.
Bededam, S. 2004. Establishment tolerance of six native sagebrush steppe species to Imazapic (Plateau) herbicide: implications for restoration and recovery. Thesis, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University. Accessed: 07/20/2016 at http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/22932/ BekedamSteven2005.pdf?sequence=3
Morefield, JD (ed.). 2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Carson City: Nevada Natural Heritage Program compiled for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon and Reno, Nevada.
Abella, SR. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts of the American Southwest. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 7(4): 1248-1284.
Lowry et al. 2005. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: final report on land cover mapping methods. Logan, UT: RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University. 50 p.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: References 44 Environmental Assessment
3.9. Wild Horse and Burro
3.9.1. Geographic Scope
The assessment area for analysis includes the five herd management areas and surrounding areas occupied by wild horses and burros within the Southern Nevada District. 3.9.2. Existing Condition
Wild horses and burros are found within five herd management areas (HMAs) throughout the Southern Nevada District. The Gold Butte project area is within the Gold Butte HMA and Red Rock project area is within the Red Rock HMA. Red Rock HMA is managed specifically under the 2005 Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA) and 4700 series of the Code of Federal Regulations require the BLM to not only protect wild horses and burros, but also manage them according to certain requirements. These requirements include the following:
● Manage in a manner to maintain a thriving natural resource ecological balance
● Ensure that excess animals are removed as necessary to protect the range from deterioration associated with an overpopulation of wild horses and burros
● Manage wild horses and burros as populations of healthy animals in balance with the other uses and productive capacity of their habitat
● Maintain the free-roaming behavior of the herds 3.9.3. Surveys
No specific project surveys conducted. 3.9.4. References
BLM 2014c. Southern Nevada Draft Resource Management Plan 2014
BLM 2007. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment: Wild Horse and Burro Chapter 4. Environmental Effects This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 47
4.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
4.1.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would allow the current conditions in fire affected areas within ACECs to persist unmitigated. For ACECs with Relevance and Importance (R&I) values that include desert tortoise habitat, burned areas will continue to lack the key habitat requirements for maintaining healthy desert tortoise populations. 4.1.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.1.2.1. Analysis of Effects
4.1.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Wildfires have significantly and adversely affected the R&I values of these ACEC’s by diminishing the number of live tortoises that inhabit them and the amount of available cover sites and forage for tortoises, within their boundaries. As all proposed project actions will occur within areas that have been severely affected by wildfires, there will be no negative impacts to the R&I values of these ACECs from the proposed action. Additionally, it is expected that the proposed actions, if successful, will enhance the R&I values of the ACECs by reestablishing native annual and perennials plant species in previously burned and/or weed infested areas, returning the burn areas to suitable tortoise habitat.
4.1.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
Table 4.1. Project Site Occurrence within ACECs
Site Name Number of Project Sites within ACEC ACEC Coyote Springs 2 Coyote Springs Valley ACEC Halfway (Caliente Field Office)* 2 Mormon Mesa ACEC Tramp 2 Gold Butte ACEC Part A and Part B Fork 3 Gold Butte ACEC Part B
*Project sites that are in the Caliente office will be analyzed later in a DNA.
4.1.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts to R&I values can result from the effects of past, present, or other future reasonably foreseeable activities occurring at, or near, the same time and location as the proposed action. It is likely that this project will result in positive impacts to ACEC’s R&I values. These positive cumulative impacts are expected to materialize as individual project sites are implemented incrementally according to the proposed action resulting in restoration of R&I values in burned areas within those ACECs.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 48 Environmental Assessment
4.1.2.3. Mitigation Measures
Any impacts to R&I values of ACEC’s may be mitigated through mitigation measures under Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Wildlife Species section (section 4.8) 4.1.2.4. Residual Effects
Residual effects may be contingent on the proponent’s adherence to mitigation measures/stipulations stated above and the efficacy of restoration activities on the affected lands. In the best case scenario, it is expected that full recovery of R&I values, including desert tortoise habitat, will take several decades after implementation of this restoration plan. 4.2. Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns
4.2.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
Burned areas remain open and devoid of vegetation until non-natives and invasive grasses proliferate. Fast growing invasive grasses such as red brome and cheatgrass increase fuel loads and allow fires to spread to previously unburned areas and also encourage multiple burns in the same areas. Leaving the burned areas untreated also encourages looting of cultural sites; the casual passerby is more likely to notice artifacts resulting in an increased risk of theft. 4.2.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
A Class III pedestrian inventory will be completed prior to permitting any surface disturbing activities. Restoration treatments can adversely affect historic properties, however, avoidance will be the standard mitigation measure prescribed. While most of the vehicle access will be along existing roads and washes, in some cases new access routes will be inadvertently created by the passage of equipment. Class III inventories of all proposed routes will be completed; however, only a portion of these routes are scheduled for reclamation. Even one or two passages of a solo vehicle can encourage recreationists to drive farther into isolated terrain. If the Class III inventories discover an area that is rich in cultural resources, this area can be avoided and another less sensitive area substituted. In addition, all access routes that bypass or encourage travel into a sensitive area will be reclaimed or access will be blocked with vertical mulch or boulders. Native American Concerns In general, Native Americans are concerned with maintaining and preserving their spiritual and traditional lifeways, sustainable employment including solar power and organic farming, caring for extended family, and raising the next “seven generations” of children. The tribes take a long view towards the future. Short-sighted gains may not always be the best course of action. The BLM will initiate government-to-government consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800, and consult with tribes to determine if they have religious and/or cultural affiliations to cultural sites that may be affected by the proposed undertaking. The BLM will enter into government-to-government consultation with those tribal governments and individuals who have cultural ties to the project areas being analyzed. These tribes will be
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns Environmental Assessment 49 consulted and invited to participate in the drafting of a programmatic agreement. This list of tribes may be expanded as work progresses: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Las Vegas Paiute Tribe Moapa Band of Paiutes Pahrump Paiute Tribe Timbisha Shoshone 4.2.2.1. Analysis of Effects
Avoidance will be the standard mitigation measure prescribed. The BLM has determined that reintroducing native vegetation to the burned areas is a replacement in kind and exempted from Section 106 review unless new surface disturbance is proposed. 4.2.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Table 4.2. Acres of disturbance by treatment technique in each Field Office.
Disturbance Type Las Vegas Field Caliente Field Total Acres Office Office Use of Herbicides – Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable The Four Treatment Techniques: 1027.5 158.1 1185.6
1. Diversionary Broadcast Seeding
2. Sowing of Seeds Manually
3. Out-Planting of Propagated Seedlings or Salvaged Plants
4. Reintroduction of Biological Soil Crust Disturbance from Off-Road Vehicle Access 155.1 31.0 186.1 TOTAL 1182.6 189.1 1371.7
The BLM proposes to disturb a maximum of 1371.7 acres of previously burned areas to restore tortoise habitat. The regrowth of native vegetation will not visually affect the characteristics of any historic property that may be identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criteria A, B, or C. The BLM has also determined there will be no permanent auditory, atmospheric, or vibrational effects introduced into the area once treatment is complete; therefore, Indirect Effects are not analyzed further. 4.2.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
Restoration treatments can adversely affect historic properties; therefore, avoidance will be the standard mitigation measure prescribed. A Class III pedestrian inventory will be completed prior to permitting any surface disturbing activities. No decisions have been made on specific areas for treatment within each of the Project Site Areas; however, over a period of three years the BLM will select 32 Habitat Islands (measuring
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action 50 Environmental Assessment
1-hectare/2.47-acres each) in each of the Project Site Areas. The BLM has determined that the development of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is warranted as per Part 1, Section II.C of the 2014 State Protocol Agreement (Protocol). This project specific agreement will be executed prior to the signing of the Decision Record (DR) of the Environmental Assessment (EA).
Although this PA is guided by the procedures set forth in the Programmatic Agreement between the Caliente Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding National Historic Preservation Act Compliance for Watershed Assessments in the Caliente Field Office (executed on July 23, 2013), there are important differences. Class III inventories will be completed of all Habitat Islands and proposed new access routes. The BLM will avoid all impacts to cultural resources; if complex cultural sites are discovered, another Habitat Island will be substituted for treatment. All cultural resources, except those property types listed in Appendix E of the Protocol, will treated as historic properties and will be avoided using a buffer of 30 meters to all cultural resource boundaries to ensure protection of these resources. 4.2.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Most of the vehicle access to restoration treatment areas (Habitat Islands) will be along existing roads and washes. In some cases, however, new access routes will be inadvertently created by the passage of equipment. Even one or two passages of a solo vehicle can encourage recreationists to drive farther into isolated terrain. All proposed routes will be inventoried at a Class III level, but only a portion of these routes are scheduled for reclamation. If the inventories reveal an area that is rich in cultural resources, this area will be avoided and another less sensitive area will be substituted. In addition, all access routes that bypass or encourage travel into a sensitive area will be reclaimed or access will be blocked with vertical mulch or boulders. 4.2.2.3. Mitigation Measures
Avoidance of historic properties will be the standard mitigation measure; therefore, no other mitigation measure is required. 4.2.2.4. Residual Effects
Wildfires remove any concealing vegetation whether it is overhead canopy or ground vegetation. This provides looters a clear view of cultural sites by exposing any associated artifacts. However, no residual effects to historic properties are anticipated as a result of implementing the project. 4.3. Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species (Including BLM Sensitive Species)
4.3.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would allow the current conditions in habitats affected by fire to persist unmitigated, limiting available habitat for wildlife species in those areas, including BLM sensitive species habitat. Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species (Including BLM Sensitive Species) Environmental Assessment 51
4.3.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.3.2.1. Analysis of Effects
4.3.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
The primary direct impacts of the proposed action on wildlife would be killing or maiming of ground dwelling animals, displacement of individuals, increased potential for harassment of wildlife, increased noise while conducting the proposed activities, and habitat modification. Limited information is available regarding the potential effects of herbicides, including imazipic and glyphosate, on wildlife. While some field studies suggest that appropriate herbicide use is not likely to directly affect wildlife (e.g., Cole et al. 1997, Sullivan et al. 1998), there is the potential for herbicides (used properly or improperly) to harm wildlife individuals, populations, or species (USDA Forest Service 2005). Possible adverse direct impacts to individual animals include death, damage to vital organs, change in body weight, decrease in healthy offspring, and increased susceptibility to predation. The extent of direct and indirect impacts to wildlife would vary by the effectiveness of herbicide treatments in controlling target plants and promoting the growth of native vegetation, as well as by the extent and method of treatment (e.g., aerial vs. ground) and chemical used (e.g., toxic vs. non-toxic; selective vs. non-selective); the physical features of the terrain (e.g., soil type, slope); and weather conditions (e.g., wind speed, temperature, precipitation) at the time of application. Additionally, the extent of impacts of herbicide use on wildlife would depend directly on the sensitivity of each species to the particular herbicides used, the pathway by which the individual animal was exposed to the herbicide; and indirectly, on the degree to which a species or individual was positively or negatively affected by changes in habitat. Species that reside in an area year-round and have a small home range (e.g., insects, small mammals, territorial birds), would have a greater chance of being directly adversely impacted if their home range was partially or completely sprayed as they would have greater exposure to herbicides―either via direct contact upon application or indirect contact as a result of touching or ingesting treated vegetation. Birds or mammals that eat grass sprayed with herbicides have relatively greater risk for harm than animals that eat other vegetation or seeds, because herbicide residue is higher on grass (Fletcher et al. 1994; Pfleeger et al. 1996). However, harmful doses of herbicide are not likely because herbivores are not likely to exclusively forage within the affected areas where glyphosate or imazipic is proposed to be used. Furthermore, forage availability in the areas where imazipic is proposed to be used is very limited. It is expected that the use of herbicides would primarily affect wildlife through habitat modification. The use of herbicides in desert lands and other wildlife habitat areas could provide long-term benefits to wildlife by controlling invasive plant species and promoting the establishment and growth of native plant species therefore providing more suitable wildlife habitat and forage. The actions described herein are proposed to occur exclusively on lands that have been severely impacted by fires and the introduction and colonization of invasive noxious plant species. As these lands lack the presence of native plant species (i.e. forage and cover required by most wildlife species), those species that may be present within the project area do not persist in abundant numbers and do not likely forage exclusively within the burned areas. Wildlife species that may exist within the project area are common and widely distributed throughout the
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action 52 Environmental Assessment region and the loss of some individuals and/or their habitat should have a negligible impact on populations of the species range-wide. Potential negative impacts to BLM sensitive species are not anticipated to lead to further decline of the species range-wide. Most impacts to wildlife species could be minimized through the implementation of desert tortoise stipulations. Chuckwalla, Mojave shovel-nosed snake, desert glossy snake, Nevada shovel-nosed snake, and desert sidewinder Potential impacts to these species from the proposed action would be comparable to those discussed above for Fish and Wildlife Excluding Threatened and Endangered Species. Banded Gila monster Potential impacts to the banded Gila monster from the proposed action would be similar to those discussed above for other wildlife but these can be minimized by the following special stipulations. Desert bighorn sheep Desert bighorn sheep may be disturbed by vehicles, equipment, and personnel operating in or near their habitat. Animals may seek cover on steep slopes and ridges to avoid vehicular activity and associated noise pollution. Increased impacts may occur if activities occur during lambing season. Solitude dependent species, such as the Desert bighorn sheep, may abandon the area if human activities reduce the quality of their habitat. Because the proposed actions are temporary in nature and occur in areas where bighorn sheep are not likely to occupy in significant numbers, impacts to this species are expected to be negligible. 4.3.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
The methodology used to determine effects to wildlife, including BLM sensitive species, looked at several studies that measured the impacts to animal species from herbicide use. Additionally, methodology considered the potential impacts of human activities on wildlands and various species habitats. 4.3.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts to wildlife species, including BLM sensitive species, and their habitat can result from the effects of past, present, or other future reasonably foreseeable activities occurring at, or near, the same time and location as the proposed action. As proposed, this project is likely to have positive impacts to wildlife species and their habitats by incrementally restoring lands that have been adversely affected by wildfires. 4.3.2.3. Mitigation Measures
Banded Gila Monster ● Any Gila monster encounters during project implementation must be reported immediately to the Nevada Division of Wildlife at (702) 486-5127. ● Live Gila monsters found in harm’s way on the implementation site will be captured and detained in a cool, shaded environment (<85 degrees Fahrenheit) by the project biologist trained in handling venomous reptiles until a NDOW biologist can arrive for documentation
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action Environmental Assessment 53
purposes. A clean 5-gallon plastic bucket w/ a secure, ventilated lid; an 18"x 18"x 4" plastic sweater box w/ a secure, vented lid; or, a tape-sealed cardboard box of similar dimension may be used for safe containment. Written information identifying mapped capture location, date, time, and circumstances (e.g. biological survey or construction) and habitat description (vegetation, slope, aspect, substrate) will also be provided to NDOW. ● Injuries to Gila monsters may occur during excavation, road-grading, or other project activities. In the event a Gila monster is injured, it should be transferred to a veterinarian proficient in reptile medicine for evaluation of appropriate treatment. Rehabilitation or euthanasia expenses will not be covered by NDOW. However, NDOW will be immediately notified during normal business hours. If an animal is killed or found dead, the carcass will be immediately frozen and transferred to NDOW with a complete written description of situation circumstances, habitat, and mapped location. ● Should NDOW be delayed to assist, biological personnel on site may be requested to remove and release the Gila monster out of harm’s way. Should NDOW not be immediately available to respond for photo-documentation, a 35mm or digital camera will be used to take good quality photographs of the Gila monster in situ, capturing the location of live encounter or dead salvage. The pictures, preferably on slide film, will be provided to NDOW and will include: 1. Encounter location (landscape overview with Gila monster in clear view) 2. A clear overhead shot of the entire body with a ruler next to it for scale (Gila monster should fill camera's field of view) 3. A clear, overhead close-up of the head (head should fill camera's field of view). 4.3.2.4. Residual Effects
Residual effects may be contingent on the proponent’s adherence to mitigation measures/stipulations stated above and the efficacy of restoration activities on the affected lands. In the best case scenario, it is expected that full recovery of habitat for wildlife species will take several decades after implementation of this restoration plan. 4.4. Fuels and Fire Management
4.4.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative of no seeding, outplanting, herbicide application or monitoring invasive annual grasses would continue to spread and produce biomass, potentially increasing available fuels in the project aresa and increasing the risk of future fire spread. 4.4.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.4.2.1. Analysis of Effects
The goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy are to make progress in: 1. Resilient Landscapes
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Fuels and Fire Management 54 Environmental Assessment
2. Fire Adapted Communities
3. Safe and Effective Wildfire Response
The proposed action is addressing the goal of resilient landscapes. Fire management objectives for this proposed action are to reduce the impacts of unwanted wildland fire, primarily due to invasive annual grasses, through the use of the herbicide treatments outlined in section 2.1.3. Upon successful completion of the proposed action wildfire risk will likely be reduced and native vegetation communities will be set on a path toward increased ecological function.
4.4.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Herbicide Treatments: The proposed action does not identify the specific locations, number, length, width, or orientation of the herbicide treatment areas within the project sites. This is intentional due to the multiple year, staged herbicide treatment aspect of the proposed action; as it will allow for adjustments to be made each year to incorporate what might have been learned from the previous herbicide treatments with the goal to improve following herbicide treatments. The herbicide treatments will be installed to protect and maintain critical habitat and restoration areas, and will be determined by spatial fire analysis during discussions among USGS scientists, BLM fire behavior experts and herbicide application experts. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which is the BLM processes governing preparation of projects to reduce hazardous fuel and restore healthy ecological conditions, will also be consulted.
4.4.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
The goals and outcomes of the proposed action are desirable and in conformance with local and Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) goals and objectives.
4.4.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
The total herbicide treatment area would be a maximum of 1,176.5 acres in the Southern Nevada District (Section 2.1.3). Cumulative effects to fuels and fire management, overall, are anticipated to be minor to the landscape but, in general, effects would be positive as fuel loads and continuity will be strategically reduced.
4.4.2.3. Mitigation Measures
There are no proposed mitigation measures for the proposed action. See Appendix C for Best Management Practices (BMPs).
4.4.2.4. Residual Effects
The residual effects anticipated for the herbicide treatments of the proposed action would be to reduce the risk of reburning areas that have already been burned by fire.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action Environmental Assessment 55
4.5. Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds
4.5.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative of no seeding, outplanting, herbicide application or monitoring invasive species and noxious weeds would continue to establish and spread. Native vegetation would be less likely to re-establish in burned areas leaving available niches for increased invasive plant establishment.
4.5.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.5.2.1. Analysis of Effects
There are large numbers of non-native invasive annual grasses occurring within the project sites; they would be removed from within designated herbicide treatment areas as described in Section 2.1.3. Reducing invasive grass within the project sites via herbicide application would not greatly affect the number of invasive species/noxious weeds found on the landscape as a whole. Due to the measures outlined in the proposed action (Section 2.1.5) to reduce the spread of invasive species/noxious weeds no increase in weeds as a result of project activities are anticipated.
4.5.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Herbicide Use: Herbicide treatments would reduce invasive annuals such as red brome (Bromus rubens), stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium) and Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.). The desired outcome is to reduce the growth and significant accumulation of exotic annual plant cover within the herbicide treatment areas to reduce fuel loads and continuity to ultimately influence fire behavior and reduce its effects. Herbicide would be applied once annually at each project area to control targeted vegetation in accordance with the herbicide labels. The herbicide and mixtures may contain glyphosate, imazapic, methylated seed oil, a colorant and a surfactant. At the herbicide treatment areas non-target vegetation makes up a smaller proportion of the vegetation then does target vegetation due to the disturbed and previous burned nature of these sites. Pre-emergent are preferred over post-emergent type herbicides as they will target the brome more effectively. This is a multiple year project and application would continue once every year at each project area for the duration of the project. Impacts related to the use of herbicides would be reduced by their proper use and application as described on the labels and adherence to best management practices (BMP) for handling and applying herbicide during treatments. Herbicide will be applied to the project sites outside of desert tortoise active season and when being applied by hand wildlife will be avoided. For wildlife that can’t be avoided due to the aerial herbicide application process population level effects are not anticipated.
4.5.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
The goals and outcomes of the proposed action are desirable and in conformance with local and RMP goals and objectives.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds 56 Environmental Assessment
4.5.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
The total herbicide treatment area in the Southern Nevada District would be a maximum of 1,176.5 acres (Section 2.1.3). Cumulative effects to invasive species and noxious weeds are anticipated to be positive as direct herbicide application will reduce the presence of invasive species. 4.5.2.3. Mitigation Measures
The best management practices found in appendix 7 of the Noxious Weeds Plan for the Las Vegas Field Office will be adhered to for the entirety of the project in order to mitigate the further spread of invasive species and noxious weeds, and for direction of the action to be taken in the event of herbicide spills and cleanup. 4.5.2.4. Residual Effects
The residual effects anticipated for the proposed action would not greatly impact the total population of invasive and noxious species but, the strategic reduction within project sites would greatly reduce the risk of reburning those areas that have already burned. 4.6. Migratory Birds
4.6.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would allow the current conditions in habitats affected by wildfire to persist unmitigated, limiting available habitat for migratory bird species in those areas, including BLM sensitive species habitat. 4.6.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.6.2.1. Analysis of Effects
4.6.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Impacts to migratory birds may be similar to those described for wildlife in the Fish and Wildlife section. Additionally, depending on the time of year for project implementation, there is the potential to disturb nesting birds within or immediately adjacent to the proposed action. The direct impacts of the proposed action on migratory birds, including BLM sensitive species, would be the loss of nesting habitat and forage; as well as mortality and harassment of individual animals due to increased human activity in the area. 4.6.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
The methodology used to determine effects to migratory bird species, including BLM sensitive species, looked at several studies that measured the impacts to animal species from herbicide use. Additionally, methodology considered the potential impacts of human activities on migratory bird species and their habitat.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Migratory Birds Environmental Assessment 57
4.6.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts to migratory species, including BLM sensitive species, and their habitat can result from the effects of past, present, or other future reasonably foreseeable activities occurring at, or near, the same time and location as the proposed action. As proposed, this project is likely to have positive impacts to migratory bird species and their habitats by incrementally restoring lands that have been adversely affected by wildfires. 4.6.2.3. Mitigation Measures
Special Stipulations: The proponent must comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and avoid potential impacts to protected birds within the project area. Ground disturbing projects or portions of projects should be scheduled outside of the bird breeding season which generally occurs between February 15th and August 31st. If a project has to occur during the breeding season, then a qualified biologist must survey the area for nests immediately prior to commencement of project activities. This shall include burrowing and ground nesting species in addition to those nesting in vegetation. If any active nests are found, an appropriately-sized buffer area must be established and maintained until the young birds fledge. The buffer area must connect to suitable, undisturbed habitat. As the above dates are a general guideline, if active nest are observed outside this range they are to be avoided as described above. 4.6.2.4. Residual Effects
Residual effects may be contingent on the proponent’s adherence to mitigation measures/stipulations stated above and the efficacy of restoration activities on the affected lands. In the best case scenario, it is expected that full recovery of habitat for migratory bird species will take several decades after implementation of a restoration plan. 4.7. Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Candidate Wildlife Species & Critical Habitat
4.7.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would allow the current conditions in habitats affected by wildfires to persist unmitigated, limiting available habitat for desert tortoise in those areas. 4.7.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.7.2.1. Analysis of Effects
4.7.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Formal consultation is required with USFWS due to the scope of the project. This action will be appended to the programmatic biological opinion (84320-2010-F-0365.R003). The append Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Candidate Wildlife Species & Critical Habitat 58 Environmental Assessment process may take up to 135 days. Final comments will be provided once the consultation is completed.
The proposed project must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for consultation with the USFWS on effects to federally listed species. The proposed action has a may affect, likely to adversely affect determination for the federally threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii ) and beneficial effect for its designated critical habitat. The proposed project will have no effect on any other federally protected species or their designated critical habitat due to absence of the species and/or habitat.
Desert tortoise
Potential impacts to tortoise from the proposed action would be similar to those described in the Fish and Wildlife section including loss of 155.15 acres of habitat. The primary direct impacts of the proposed action on the desert tortoise would be killing or maiming of desert tortoises and increased potential for harassment of individuals. If not noticed and avoided while conducting the proposed activities, desert tortoises could be either injured or killed (by crushing) or harassed (by being moved out of harm’s way). Indirect impacts could include increased noise, introduction and spread of weeds, and increased erosion potential. This project if successful will result in an overall beneficial effect to the species in the form of improved carrying capacity by increasing forage species and shelter sites.
4.7.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
The methodology used to determine effects to desert tortoise looked at several studies that measured the impacts to animal species from herbicide use. Additionally, methodology considered the potential impacts of human activities on desert tortoise and desert tortoise habitat, including designated critical habitat.
4.7.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat can result from the effects of past, present, or other future reasonably foreseeable activities occurring at, or near, the same time and location as the proposed action. As proposed, this project is likely to have positive impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat by incrementally restoring lands that have been adversely affected by wildfires and increasing the species’ available range.
4.7.2.3. Mitigation Measures
Special Stipulations:
Section 7 Consultation for this project is covered under the Programmatic Biological Opinion (84320-2010-F-0365.R004) contingent on compliance with the terms and conditions. Terms and conditions and minimization measures in the above Biological Opinion contain measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts, including take, to desert tortoise. A copy of the terms and conditions has been uploaded to ePlanning (Sec 7 Log # NV-052-16-055).
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action Environmental Assessment 59
4.7.2.4. Residual Effects
Residual effects may be contingent on the proponent’s adherence to mitigation measures/stipulations stated above and the efficacy of restoration activities on the affected lands. In the best case scenario, it is expected that full recovery of desert tortoise habitat will take several decades after implementation of a restoration plan.
4.8. Vegetation Excluding Federally Listed Species
4.8.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative, which would involve no seeding, outplanting, herbicide application or monitoring. It, would allow the current conversion of native plant communities to invasive annual grasslands to continue, and would likely lead to an increased fire return interval in these areas in the future. This would exacerbate habitat loss and conversion for both plant and wildlife species.
Non-native and invasive plant communities, including Bromus rubens, Bromus tectorum, Schismus barbatus, and others, are becoming established throughout the northern and eastern Mojave Desert, especially within the boundaries of the Southern Nevada District Office. These annual grasses grow in higher densities not exhibited by any other annual species historically found in the Mojave. This simultaneously results in native species being out-competed for resources, and a dramatically increased fire return interval. These fine fuels, largely consisting of C3 grasses, sprout early spring and remain rooted after they die back. Leaving fuels in place throughout the hot, dry summer months and subsequent monsoon season, where lightning can ignite these fuels and spread quickly through desert vegetation that has not adapted to fire. The vegetation communities and sensitive plants that are within, and adjacent to these burned area perimeters are threatened to varying extents by the possible conversion of habitat to invasive annual grasslands, and subsequent higher fire return intervals. Which could lead to habitat destruction, but also introduction of fire to plants that have not evolved under such a frequent fire regime (Klinger et al., 2016). This could lead to destruction of seedbanks, and mature plants, and population declines for species already pressured by habitat alteration and loss.
The environmental effects of the No Action Alternative could have long-term negative impacts on both the native vegetation communities and on sensitive plants. Failure to develop and enact an adaptive management strategy for the invasive species issues in the Mojave Desert will lead to more fires in the region. Which may result in increases in non-native and invasive species promoting more frequent fires. Habitat conversion resulting in more frequent fires will have ever-increasing impacts to human health and safety, as well as to the native plant communities and sensitive species. High-value desert vegetation, such as Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia), other yucca species (Yucca schidigera), and cacti, are all intolerant of fire. Failure to address invasive species invasions and increased fire return intervals will result in a decrease in Joshua trees, other yucca species, creosote and white bursage, and sensitive plants. That will result in the degradation of the very vegetation communities that define both the biological and cultural landscape of the Mojave Desert.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Vegetation Excluding Federally Listed Species 60 Environmental Assessment
4.8.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.8.2.1. Analysis of Effects
4.8.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
The proposed action would directly affect approximately 2,500 acres of creosote bursage scrub vegetation, although the analysis in this section will be broad enough to cover vegetation types of interest anywhere within the burned areas listed in the proposed action.
Direct effects to vegetation communities and sensitive plants could include crushing of plants by vehicles (ATVs, trailers, water trucks, and water buffalos) involved in the initial treatment of invasive plants from the ground.
Most of the proposed project areas are within the USGS seed transfer zones 2 and 4. Seed being collected for the restoration project is largely being sourced from within the same seed zones, promoting the best chance for success. Seeds collected will be adapted to similar temperature and rainfall patterns, and should be less stressed from herbicide application than species not locally sourced.
Other components of the proposed restoration will have negligible negative impacts on both native plant communities and sensitive species. When sensitive plant populations are known to occur in an area, vehicles will avoid those plant populations, and if hand spraying is being used in areas, herbicide applicators will avoid directly spraying sensitive plants. Aerial spraying will avoid known large populations of sensitive plant species with a 300 ft. buffer.
The most important potential impact to both native plant communities and sensitive plants is from herbicide use. The primary herbicide being proposed for use is a pre-emergent herbicide called imazapic. Imazapic is part of the imidazolinone (IMI) family of herbicides, which stop growth of plants by inhibiting the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), which helps to synthesize three amino acids (Leea et al., 2011). These amino acids are involved in protein synthesis and cell growth, when they are no longer produced cell division and plant growth stop (Leea et al., 2011). It is used in restoration because it can be targeted to have more drastic impacts on specific species. This herbicide is selective by targeting specific metabolism rates of different growth forms and habits of species. Small changes in the structure of the chemical composition of the herbicide will allow more specific targeting of invasive annual C3 grasses, and have fewer impacts on native species. Altering the chemical composition of the herbicide changes its shape, and impacts how well it blocks substrates from the AHAS active binding sites. Which vary in shape between different plant families and even genera (Leea et al., 2011). This herbicide acts on fast-growing plant parts, primarily the apical and root meristems, which explains its utility as a pre-emergent herbicide (it stops shoot and root growth as it is occurring after germination, preventing roots from forming and eventually killing the seedling). Used as a pre-emergent this family of herbicides have fewer impacts to perennial species, because the root structure of these plants is dormant at the time of application. However, because rate of metabolism is responsible for selectivity, unusually cool weather conditions (relative to the concentration of herbicide being used) or other environmental stressors to plants can impact the specificity and selectivity of the herbicide.
Although the herbicide being used is targeted towards invasive annual grasses, it can have some non-target impacts especially at higher concentrations. There have been varying reports of the
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action Environmental Assessment 61 non-target impacts from pre-emergent imazapic use. Some authors reported decreasing brome populations by 20% but, decreasing non-target forb cover by 25% and a reduction in shrub seedling development (Owen et al., 2011). Several studies found either no clear relationship between perennial forb success and amount of herbicide use, or varying resistance to herbicide between years with similar treatments. Concluding that site-specific and climate conditions from year-to-year may have an impact on the success of seeding native species (Shinn and Thill, 2004, Sheley et al., 2007). There are also studies that have shown positive responses of perennial forbs and grasses following imazapic treatment. This indicates that some native desert species may have imazapic resistance and may benefit from reduced competition conferred by imazapic treatment (Bekedam, 2004, Bahm and Barnes, 2011). Tolerance of native species may decrease when the plants are already stressed out by other factors (drought, insects, or other environmental conditions) (BASF, 2011). The brand-name (Plateau) label of this herbicide type indicates that many native rangeland perennial forbs are tolerant of maximum pre-emergence herbicide concentrations of between 4 and 8 oz/A (BASF, 2011). There are a few Asteraceae species that were not tolerant of any imazapic application concentration (BASF, 2011). Herbicide remains in the soil for up to 120 days post treatment, which may result in residual impacts on plants spring growth. The BLM PEIS addressing vegetation treatments using herbicides indicates that non-target impacts pose a low risk to native plants at the typical application rate for imazapic (USDI BLM, 2007). Imazapic can be effective in temporarily reducing populations of invasive annual grasses, but some non-target impacts should be anticipated and seeding may help to augment native vegetation community. (Elseroad and Rudd, 2011, Brisbin et al., 2013).
Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide (USDI BLM, 2007). It is typically used where there is no desirable vegetation left in the area (USDI BLM, 2007). It is unlikely that glyphosate would be used because it is inefficient for the size of the project, and it would have to be hand-sprayed due to the lack of specificity of the herbicide. If it is used, non-target impacts are expected to be low due to the increased accuracy of hand-spraying herbicide. If this method is used herbicide applicators will be provided with location information and photos of sensitive plant species so that they can be avoided with a 300 ft. buffer.
Under the Clark County MSHCP fire is outlined as a threat to native vegetation communities, and steps are outlined to try to prevent and reverse this scenario, when possible. Specifically, vegetation community conversion to exotic annuals due to changes in fire regimes is identified as threat 302, and the conservation action prescribed is to, “identify key habitat areas potentially susceptible to fire and manage to minimize conversion; remove or manage species from key susceptible habitat areas; provide for adaptive management responses to adverse changes (Clark County, 2000).” Sensitive plants that grow within habitats invaded by invasive annual grasses are at risk of habitat loss or destruction from more frequent wildfires. Given the mitigation measures, any potential impacts to the sensitive plant species should be short-duration and overall less harmful than the risk to their populations and long term viability, if the invasive species are not treated.
Some of the sensitive plant species that grow in or near the burned areas have very specific habitat requirements. Arctomecon californica, for example, grows on gypsum soils. Although some of the sensitive plant species grow within close proximity to burned area boundaries or treatment areas, they have such specific habitat requirements that they grow outside of target plant communities and are therefore very unlikely to be impacted by herbicide treatment. Large populations of sensitive plant species near treatment areas will have a 300 ft. buffer from aerial herbicide use to avoid direct impacts.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action 62 Environmental Assessment
Threats to other plant communities of importance, such as acacia/mesquite woodlands, are not anticipated from the proposed action. Mesquite and acacia habitat will be avoided by vehicle traffic, and any potential non-target impacts from herbicide on these populations would be expected to be temporary. Despite having some indirect and temporary impacts to existing plant communities and sensitive plant species, this project supports the goals of the BLM and the MSHCP. The proposed action would help to prevent or reverse habitat conversion to invasive annual grasslands that burn frequently and would protect sensitive species’ habitats. New knowledge and techniques in the control and restoration of sites impacted by fire and invasive annual grasses would be developed. This would allow for better control methods for invasive species throughout the Mojave Desert and would result in net positive impacts on native and sensitive plant communities. 4.8.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
Robust GIS data was used to determine the boundaries of native and sensitive plant communities in relationship to the burned areas that are part of the proposed project. Extensive literature reviews were performed to determine the mechanism of action of the herbicide, imazapic, on plants and to elucidate the potential impacts of herbicide use on the native and sensitive plant communities. Labels and instructions for use of the herbicide, as well as previous BLM NEPA (USDI BLM, 2007), were also referenced in the analysis process. 4.8.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Reasonably foreseeable actions within the proposed action areas include utility rights-of-ways, energy corridor development, fire, OHV use and events, wild horse and burro use, and dispersed recreation. These actions all have varying potential to disturb or remove native plant communities or habitat for sensitive species. Many of these actions could also result in the spread of invasive species. However, some BLM-permitted actions, such as utility corridor users, are required to do mitigation and invasive species control as part of their terms and conditions. Certain ROWs could then serve as additional places where artificial herbicide treatment areas are created, which could help to limit fire spread in the area. Climate change models show increasing drought and temperatures in the southwestern United States. This could result in further stressors to native and sensitive plant communities, and exacerbate the potential impacts from invasive species, habitat loss, and changed fire regimes. The proposed action would help to alleviate some of the stress from invasive species pressure, which would be beneficial to native and sensitive plants. Because the proposed action is expected to have a net positive impact on native and sensitive plant communities, cumulative impacts are expected to be overall less negative if the proposed action is approved. 4.8.2.3. Mitigation Measures
1. There will be a 300 ft. buffer of known, large sensitive plant populations for all aerial applications of herbicide (imazapic). 2. When sensitive plant populations are known to occur in an area, vehicles will avoid those plant populations.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action Environmental Assessment 63
3. If hand or backpack spraying is being used to spot-treat invasive species, certified applicators will avoid directly spraying herbicide (imazapic) on or within 10 ft. of sensitive plants. If glyphosate is being used instead of imazapic sensitive plants will be given a 10 ft. buffer.
4. All certified applicators applying herbicide on the ground will go through training to recognize sensitive plants species.
5. Drive and crush routes must be restored. Although these routes are temporary in nature (in use less than 7 days) there is still a potential for routes to be seen by public and become ATV routes. To avoid route proliferation, the following must be adhered to:
a. Route should only be in use and open while staff are on site (this allows public to be informed of project and prevents unauthorized use).
b. Route must be restored as restoration team makes final exit out of project area (no extra trips should be made as each trip destroys more vegetation and compacts soil.
c. Area to be restored will be determined by restoration team members on site; however, the following must be taken into consideration:
i. line of sight from nearest wash or road;
ii. any overlooks in the area where the public can see portions of temporary route.
d. Once restoration of temporary route is complete, all future site visits to project area must be made on foot and must include monitoring of temporary route (if route needs more restoration to prevent future use then restoration team will be responsible for continued restoration as well as the monitoring).
4.8.2.4. Residual Effects
The proposed action would establish native plants in these previously disturbed project sites thereby improving the overall ecological function and value of the habitat. This treatment would help to slow or reverse the prevalence of invasive plant species in native vegetation. The knowledge learned from the monitoring should help improve restoration efforts in the future which would provide a long term benefit to native vegetation.
4.9. Wild Horse and Burro
4.9.1. Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would allow the current conditions in fire affected areas within project areas to persist unmitigated.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Wild Horse and Burro 64 Environmental Assessment
4.9.2. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
4.9.2.1. Analysis of Effects
4.9.2.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
The proposed action would occur within the Gold Butte HMA and the Red Rock HMA. The potential does exist to encounter wild horses and burros and all proposed actions will need to concur with wild horse and burro management.
The use of Glyphosate and Imazapic, chosen for use by the proposed action, have been analyzed in the BLM 2007 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Glyphosate has low to medium chronic risk for scenarios involving the maximum application rate and low acute risk for scenarios involving typical application rates. As Glyphosate would be used for spot applications only, according to the proposed action, direct spraying of wild horses and burros could be easily avoided. Spot application would also allow for the avoidance of non-target species which could result in lower rates of consuming.
Imazapic is not likely to pose a risk to wild horses and burros as risk quotients fall below conservative levels. Though Imazapic could affect wild horses and burros through habitat modification by promoting establishment of growth of native species which would provide more suitable habitat and forage. The narrow linear configuration of the herbicide application, that would be used according to the proposed action, is desirable over large singular patches.
The potential does exists for individuals to encounter wild horses and burros. Depending on the time of year planting, watering, seeding and monitoring may displace wild horses and burros from the areas surrounding the project sites due to human presence but none of this is expected to have any effect of population levels or distribution. 4.9.2.1.2. Methodology for Analysis
The methodology and guiding documents used to determine effects to wild horse and burros were the Southern Nevada Draft Resource Management Plan and the Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that measured the impacts to animal species from herbicide use. Additionally, potential impacts of human activities on wild horse and burro populations were assessed. 4.9.2.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
There are 5 project areas that could potentially be located within the Gold Butte HMA and 6 project areas that could be potentially located within the Red Rock HMA. Within the Gold Butte HMA there is a potential for 452.2 acres to undergo herbicide treatments and an additional 395.2 acres to be treated as habitat islands. Within the Red Rock HMA there is a potential for 543 acres to undergo herbicide treatments and an additional 474.24 acres to be treated as habitat islands. Cumulative effects to wild horses and burros are not anticipated due to individual project sites being dispersed both geographically throughout the HMAs and over a period of time as the proposed action would be implemented incrementally over three years.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action Environmental Assessment 65
4.9.2.3. Mitigation Measures
Participants would be instructed to not harass (feed, pet, chase, etc.) wild horses and burros if encountered in or near the project areas. If they do see any wild horse and burros, they should keep a safe distance; they are wild animals and can be unpredictable, especially during foaling and breeding season (generally March-May). Workers and volunteers would be instructed not to harass (feed, pet, chase, etc.) any livestock encountered in or near the project sites. Participants would not harass (feed, pet, chase, etc.) wild horses and burros if encountered on or near the roads or work areas. If they do see any wild horses and burros, they should keep a safe distance; they are wild animals and can be unpredictable, especially during foaling and breeding season. During herbicide application, both on foot and aerially, wild horses and burros will be avoided if found in the herbicide treatment area. 4.9.2.4. Residual Effects
There are no residual effects for wild horses and burros anticipated due to the temporary nature of the activities in the proposed action.
Chapter 4 Environmental Effects This page intentionally left blank Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 69
The following agencies were consulted in the development of this document. 5.1. Scoping
Internal scoping was conducted with BLM interdisciplinary team members and other staff for comments and input from their various fields of expertise. 5.2. Consultation
The following agencies were consulted in the development of this document: Table 5.1. List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted
Purpose & Authorities for Consultation or Coordination National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Exotic Plant Management Team United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Southern Nevada Office United States Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Las Vegas Field Station Nevada Department of Wildlife
5.3. Public Participation
Due to the minimal impact of the project to humans and the environment in conjunction with the potential short and long term benefits, no external scoping or comment period was conducted under this EA. A copy of the EA will be posted on the BLM’s website once a decision has been made. 5.4. List of Preparers
Table 5.2. List of Preparers
Responsible for the Following Name Title Section(s) of this Document Jonathan P. Smith Restoration Program Manager Project Lead, Author (LVFO) Johnny Jones Arid Lands Restoration Specialist NEPA Lead, Author, Maps (Great Basin Institute/LVFO) Melissa Sanders Arid Lands Restoration Specialist Author, Affected Resources Form (Great Basin Institute/LVFO) Corrin Floyd Arid Lands Restoration Specialist Author, Maps (Great Basin Institute/LVFO) Susan Farkas Planning and Environmental NEPA Coordination Coordinator (SNDO) Nicollee Gaddis Planning and Environmental NEPA, Environmental Justice, Coordinator (SNDO) Renewable Energy/ Transmission, Socioeconomics Susanne Rowe Archaeologist (Great Basin Cultural Resources, Native Institute/LVFO) American Concerns, Paleontology Mark Boatwright Archaeologist (RRCNCA) Cultural Resources, Native American Concerns, Paleontology
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination Scoping 70 Environmental Assessment
Responsible for the Following Name Title Section(s) of this Document Boris Poff Hydrologist (SNDO) Floodplains, Hydrologic Conditions, Soils, Water Resources/ Quality, Wetlands/ Riparian Zones James Wilkinson Geologist (LVFO) Geology/ Mineral Resources/ Energy Production Kerri-Anne Thorpe Realty Specialist (SNDO) Lands/Access Steve Leslie Natural Resource Specialist/ BLM Natural Areas/ Conservation Wilderness (SNDO) Lands, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Wilderness/ WSA John Schumacher Outdoor Recreation Planner Visual Resources (LVFO) Josh Travers Outdoor Recreation Planner Recreation, Wild and Scenic (RRCNCA) Rivers Sean McEldery Superv. Fire Management Fuels/ Fire Management, Invasive Specialist (SNDO) Species/ Noxious Weeds Krystal Johnson Wild Horse and Burro Specialist Farmlands (Prime or Unique), (SNDO) Wild Horses and Burros Michelle Leiber Realty Specialist (SNDO) Utility Corridor Harry Konwin Archaeologist (CFO) Cultural Resources, Native American Concerns, Paleontology Lara Kobelt Natural Resource Specialist/ Botany Vegetation Excluding Federally (SNDO) Listed Species Aleta Nafus Noxious Weed Specialist (SNDO) Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds Mark Slaughter Natural Resources Supervisor Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species, Migratory Bird, Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Candidate Species & Critical Habitat Jimmy Lineares Natural Resource Specialist Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species, Migratory Bird, Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Candidate Species & Critical Habitat
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination Chapter 6. References This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 73
References
Abella, S.R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts of the American Southwest. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 7(4): 1248-1284.
Abella, S.R., L.P. Chiquoine, E.C. Engel, K.E. Kleinick, F.S. Edwards. 2015. Enhancing quality of desert tortoise habitat: augmenting native forage and cover plants. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 6(2):278-278.
Bahm, M.A. and T.G. Barnes. 2011. Native grass and forb response to pre-emergent application of imazapic and imazapyr. Natural Areas Journal 31(1): 75-79.
BASF. 2011. Plateau herbicide specimen label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld2LP015.pdf.
Bededam, S. 2004. Establishment tolerance of six native sagebrush steppe species to Imazapic (Plateau) herbicide: implications for restoration and recovery. Thesis, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University. Accessed: 07/20/2016 at http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/22932/ BekedamSteven2005.pdf?sequence=3.
Belnap, J., J.H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO.
Boarman, W.I. and M. Sazaki. 1996. Highway mortality in desert tortoises and small vertebrates: success of barrier fences and culverts. Pages 169-173 in Transportation and wildlife: reducing wildlife mortality and improving wildlife passageways across transportation corridors. G. Evink, D. Zeigler, P. Garrett, and J. Berry, editors. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Brisbin, H., A. Thode, M. Brooks, K. Weber. 2013. Soil seed bank responses to post fire herbicide and native seeding treatments designed to control Bromus tectorum in a pinyon-juniper woodland at Zion National Park, USA. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6(1): 118-129.
Brooks, M.L. 1999. Habitat invasibility and dominance by alien annual plants in the western Mojave Desert. Biological Invasions 1(4):325-337.
Brooks, M.L. 2000. Competition between alien annual grasses and native annual plants in the Mojave Desert. American Midland Naturalist 144:92-108.
Brooks, M.L. 2012. Effects of high fire frequency in creosote bush scrub vegetation of the Mojave Desert. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(1):61–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF10140.
Brooks, M.L. and T.C. Esque. 2002. Alien plants and fire in desert tortoise habitat of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4(2):330-340.
Brooks, M.L. and J.R. Matchett. 2006. Spatial and temporal patterns of wildfires in the Mojave Desert, 980-2004. Journal of Arid Environments 67:148-164.
Brown, D.E. and R.A. Minnich. 1986. Fire and creosote bush scrub of the western Sonoran Desert, California. The American Midland Naturalist 116:411-422.
Chapter 6 References 74 Environmental Assessment
Clark County, Nevada. 2000. Final Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by RECON for Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, Las Vegas, NV. DeFalco, L.A., G.C.J. Fernandez, R.S. Nowak. 2007. Variation in the establishment of a non-native annual grass influences competitive interactions with Mojave Desert perennials. Biol Invasions, 9:293–307. DeFalco, L.A., S.J. Scoles-Sciulla, C. Engel, N.A. Custer, O.K. Niziolek, T.C. Esque. 2009. Assessment of post-fire rehabilitation of desert tortoise habitat – Final project report. Prepared for Clark County Desert Conservation Program, Project Number 2009-USGS-808A. USGS Western Ecological Research Center. (unpublished) Drake, K.K., T.C. Esque, K.E. Nussear, L.A. DeFalco, S.J. Scoles-Sciulla, A.T. Modlin, P.A. Medica. 2015. Desert tortoise use of burned habitat in the eastern Mojave Desert. Journal of Wildlife Management 79(4):618-629. Driscoll, D.E. 2010. Protocol for golden eagle occupancy, reproduction, and prey population assessment. American Eagle Research Institute, Apache Jct., AZ. 55 pp. Elseroad, A.C. and N.T. Rudd. 2011. Can imazapic increase native species abundance in cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invaded native plant communities? Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:641-648. Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, J.W. Willoughby and J.P. Gibbs. 2001. Measuring and monitoring plant and animal populations. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA. 360 pp. Esque, T.C., C.R. Schwalbe, L.A. DeFalco, R.B. Duncan, T.J. Hughes. 2003. Effects of desert wildfires on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and other small vertebrates. Southwestern Naturalist 48(1):103-111. Esque, T.C., M. Simes, D. Shryock, K. Longshore, K. Nussear, G. Beatty, D. Brown, and B. Woodbridge. In Review. Hare today, gone tomorrow? Historical, ecological, and demographic perspectives on jackrabbits and cottontail rabbit and their importance to golden eagles in the western USA. Submitted to: Special Issue of the Journal of Raptor Research. Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science 47(2):219-228. Goergen, E.M., E.A. Leger, E.K. Espeland. 2011. Native perennial grasses show evolutionary response to Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) invasion. PLoS One 6(3):e18145. Gray, E.C., and P.S. Muir. 2013. Does Kochia prostrata spread from seeded sites? An evaluation from southwestern Idaho, USA. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 66(2):191-203 - February. Jacobson, E.R., K.H. Berry, B. Stacey, L.M. Huzella, V.F. Kalasinsky, M.L. Fleetwood, M.G. Mense. 2009. Oxalosis in Wild Desert Tortoises, Gopherus agassizii. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(4):982-988. Klinger, R.C., M.L. Brooks, E.C. Underwood, R. McKlinley. 2016. Linking short and long-term patterns of post-fire vegetation dynamics to models of invasive plants in the Mojave Desert. 41st Desert Tortoise Council Annual Meeting and Symposium, Las Vegas, NV. 19-21 February 2016.
Chapter 6 References Environmental Assessment 75
Kulpa, S.M. and E.A. Leger. 2013. Strong natural selection during plant restoration favors an unexpected suite of plant traits. Evolutionary Applications 6(3):510-523. Lee, H., S. Rustgia, N. Kumara, I. Burkea, J.P. Yenisha, K.S. Gilla, D. von Wettstein, S.E. Ullricha. 2011. Single nucleotide mutation in the barley acetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS) gene confers resistance to imidazolinone herbicides. PNAS 108(21): 8909-8913. Lowry, J.H., R.D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, J. Kirby, L. Langs, J. Prior-Magee, G. Manis, L. O’Brien, K. Pohs, W. Rieth, T. Sajwaj, S. Schrader, K.A. Thomas, D. Schrupp, K. Schulz, B. Thompson, C. Wallace, C. Velasquez, E. Waller, B. Wolk. 2005. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: final report on land cover mapping methods. Logan, UT: RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University. 50 p. Morefield, J.D. (ed.). 2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Carson City: Nevada Natural Heritage Program compiled for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon and Reno, Nevada. Nafus, M., T. Esque, R. Averill-Murray, K. Nussear, R. Swaisgood. In Press. Habitat drives dispersal and survival of translocated juvenile desert tortoises. Journal of Applied Ecology. National Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Team (Gasser). 2005. Southern Nevada Complex July 2005 Burned Area Emergency Stabilization Plan. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas and Ely Field Offices. Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno. Nussear, K.E., T.C. Esque, R.D. Inman, L. Gass, K.A. Thomas, C.S.A. Wallace, J.B. Blainey, D.M. Miller, and R.H. Webb. 2009. Modeling habitat of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Mojave and parts of the Sonoran Deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2009-1102. 18p. Oftedal, O.T., S. Hillard, D.J. Morafka. 2002. Selective spring foraging by juvenile desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in the Mojave Desert: Evidence of an adaptive nutritional strategy. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2002, 4(2):341-352. Owen, S.M., C.H. Sieg, C.A. Gehring. 2011. Rehabilitating downy brome Bromus tectorum)-invaded shrublands using imazapic and seeding with native shrubs. Invasive Plant Science and Management 4:223-233. Phillips, B.G. 1992. Status of non-native plant species, Tonto National Monument, Arizona. Technical Report NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/46. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit. 25 pp. Rosentreter, R., M. Bowker, J. Belnap. 2007. A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S. Drylands. U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, CO. Scoles-Sciulla, S.J., L.A. DeFalco, T.C. Esque. 2014. Contrasting long-term survival of two outplanted Mojave Desert perennials for post-fire revegetation. Arid Lands Research and Management 29:110-124. Sheley, R.L., M.F. Carpinelli, K.J.R. Morghan. 2007. Effects of imazapic on target and nontarget vegetation during revegetation. Weed Technology 21: 1071-1081.
Chapter 6 References 76 Environmental Assessment
Shinn, S.L., D.C. Thill. 2004. Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technology 18(1): 60-65. Suazo, A.A., D.J. Craig, C.H. Vanier, S.R. Abella. 2013. Seed removal patterns in burned and unburned desert habitats. Journal of Arid Environments 88:165-174. Taylor, A.G. and G.E. Harmon. 1990. Concepts and technologies of selected seed treatments. Annual Review of Phytopathology 28:321-339. U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1998. Record of Decision for the Approved Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office. October. ───2001. BLM Technical Reference 1730–2 Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado. ───2001b. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Integrated Weed Management on Bureau of Land Management Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office. April. ───2006. Noxious Weed Plan: Plan for Integrated Weed Management. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office. December. ───2007. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides in 17 Western States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, DC. ───2007b. Record of Decision; Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Washington DC. ───2008. Record of Decision for the Approved Ely District Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely District. August. ───2008b. BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Management U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (as revised December 2008) ───2009. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Final Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Southern Nevada District. ───2010. Southern Nevada Complex Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely District. ───2012. Final Environmental Assessment Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project. DOI-BLM-NV-S000-2011-002-EA. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Southern Nevada District. June. ───2012b. Pakoon Basin and Tweeds Points area brome management environmental assessment. DOI-BLM-AZ-A030-2011-0006-EA. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. June.
Chapter 6 References Environmental Assessment 77
───2014. Implement Watershed Restoration Plans for Desert Tortoise Habitat; SNPLMA Round 15 Conservation Initiative Project proposal. Bureau of Land Management, Ely District. ───2014b. Toquop Wash and Tule Desert watershed restoration plan preliminary environmental assessment. DOI-BLM-NV-L030-2014-0017-EA. Bureau of Land Management, Caliente Field Office. July. ───2014c. Southern Nevada Draft Resource Management Plan. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2000. Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management, Dixie National Forest. Forest Service, Intermountain Region. January. ───2014. Field guide for managing red brome in the southwest. TP-R3-16-19. Forest Service, Southwest Region. September 2014. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, endangered and threatened species effects determinations. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Biological Opinion for the Southern Nevada Complex Fire Suppression Actions and Proposed Burned Area Emergency Response Treatments, in Clark and Lincoln Counties, Nevada, and Washington County, Utah. File No. 1-5-05-F-526. Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. Issued to Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office and Ely Field Office, Nevada. ───1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Amended 1998. ───1994. Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. ───2008. Programmatic Biological Opinion (84320-2008-F-0078) for Bureau of Land Management’s Ely District Resource Management Plan. ───2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. 222 pp. ───2014. Recovery action plan for the Mojave Desert tortoise in the northeast Mojave Desert. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. Developed in coordination with the North-East Mojave Recovery Implementation Team. 61 pp. ───2014b. Programmatic Biological Opinion for BLM activities adversely affecting 19 listed species and critical habitat (File No. 84320-2010-F-0365.R003). Issued to BLM Southern Nevada District Office, Las Vegas, NV. Warren, C.N. and R. Crabtree. 1986. Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume II Great Basin. Pahrer, Stanley. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Chapter 6 References This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 79 Appendix A. MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION
Appendix A MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION 80 Environmental Assessment
Figure A.1: Tramp and Fork fire boundaries in the Gold Butte area.
Appendix A MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION Environmental Assessment 81
Figure A.2: Dry Middle, Dry Rock, and Garnet fire boundaries also known as the Coyote Springs Sub-Complex fires, located near Coyote Springs.
Appendix A MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION 82 Environmental Assessment
Figure A.3: Goodsprings fire boundary located south of highway 160 and Red Rock National Conservation Area.
Appendix A MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION Environmental Assessment 83
Figure A.4: The Halfway fire boundary, also known as the Duzak fire, is located within the Caliente field Office and Las Vegas field office in the Mormon Mesa area.
Appendix A MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION 84 Environmental Assessment
Figure A.5: Scenic and Loop fires located within Red Rock National Conservation Area and the loop road.
Appendix A MAPS OF BURNED AREAS PROPOSED FOR RESTORATION Environmental Assessment 85 Appendix B. AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM
(NP = Not Present, NI = No Impact, PI = Possible Impact)
Table B.1. Resources or Concerns Considered for Analysis
SOUTHERN NEVADA DISTRICT OFFICE Resources Determination Rationale for Determination Air Quality NI No issues, however, please ensure excessive fugitive dust emissions are mitigated through the use of water, where and when appropriate. Best management practices advised during any soil disturbing activities for the duration of the project. Areas of Critical PI The proposed project is within the Gold Butte (Part A and B), Environmental Concern Mormon Mesa, and Coyote Springs ACECs. There are potential (ACEC) impacts to the R&I values. Carry forward for analysis. BLM Natural Areas NP/NI There are no BLM Natural Areas overlapping with the fire perimeters.
The Scenic, Loop, and Goodsprings fire perimeters overlap with the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. There would be no new surface disturbance within the NCA. The reintroduction of native species to burned areas and monitoring has the potential to result in positive impacts on vegetation communities in the NCA. No further evaluation is necessary. Cultural Resources PI The BLM intends to restore almost 1,400 acres; due to the amount of disturbance associated with implementing the restoration treatments, Class III inventories will be required for all project areas prior to authorizing activities. A programmatic agreement will be executed prior to signing the Decision Record on the environmental analysis to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In drafting the programmatic, the BLM will consult with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and affiliated tribes. Environmental Justice NI The Proposed Action will not adversely or disproportionately impact minority populations, low-income communities, or Tribes (see Section 3.19 and EO 12898, Environmental Justice). No group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group would bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from the proposed action. Farmlands (Prime or NP There are no prime or unique farmland designations in the Unique) District. Fish and Wildlife Excluding PI The project has the potential to impact wildlife species in the Federally Listed Species area. Carry forward for analysis. (Includes BLM Sensitive Species) Floodplains NI Small portions of the Garnet, Coyote and Goodsprings fires are located in FEMA designated floodplains. Research plots should not be located within these floodplains to have no impacts. Please coordinate with BLM District Hydrologist prior to finalizing plot locations.
Appendix B AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM 86 Environmental Assessment
Fuels/Fire Management PI The proposed project could provide substantial improvements or benefits to fuels/fire management. The proposed project is in previously burned areas that may burn again. Installation of fuel breaks for this project are planned. Fuels/Fire Management to be carried forward for further analysis. Greenhouse Gas Emissions NI Currently, there are no emission limits for suspected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, for this project, and no technically defensible method for predicting potential climate change contributions from GHG emissions during construction of the proposed action. However, there are, and would continue to be, several efforts to address GHG emissions from federal activities, including BLM authorized uses in future planning documents. Geology/ Mineral NI There are several active mining claims and mining operations Resources/Energy in some of the areas of the proposed action. The proposed Production action will not impact the identified mining claims; however, the claimant may submit an exploration notice or plan of operations at any time. If a notice or plan of operations is submitted, the BLM will process the exploration notice or plan of operations in accordance with the regulations found at 43 CFR 3809. The BLM will accept the notice or plan of operations when it determines the requirements in the regulations found at 43 CFR 3809 have been met, at which time the claimant will have the authorization to enter the mining claims and begin exploration activities, begin developing their operation and/or begin mining. There may be an impact on the proposed action if the design of the exploration project or mining plan incorporates areas covered by the proposed action. As the identified mining claims predate the proposed action, the mining claimants have a superior right to the mineral estate and may be granted surface use.
If excavation that produces mineral materials within the ROW is necessary, the mineral materials must be used within the ROW or stockpiled onsite for disposal by the BLM. If mineral materials are to be stockpiled on site for a future disposal, specific BLM use authorization in the form of a contract, free use permit or material site right-of-way will be necessary before the stockpiled mineral materials can removed from the ROW. Hydrology Conditions NI Proposed action will restore previous hydrologic conditions. Invasive Species/Noxious PI The proposed project could provide important improvements Weeds or benefits in invasive species/noxious weed management, weeds and invasive species could be substantially reduced. The proposed project is in previously burned areas that may burn again. The areas burned because of very high amounts of invasive annual grass. The use of herbicide is planned for this project and must be assessed. Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds to be carried forward for further analysis. Lands With Wilderness NP There are no lands managed for wilderness character overlapping Characteristics with any of the burn areas. Lands/Access NI Temporary disturbance for access in predisturbed areas is acceptable if these areas are rehabilitated up on the completion of the project with best restoration management practices and techniques. Livestock Grazing PI The proposed action area is not located in any authorized grazing Management allotments. Migratory Birds NI The project has the potential to impact migratory birds in the area. Carry forward for analysis.
Appendix B AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM Environmental Assessment 87
Native American Religious PI Native American tribes affiliated with the burned areas will Concerns be consulted and invited to participate in the development of a programmatic agreement. This programmatic will provide guidance for the BLM in meeting its Section 106 responsibilities. Paleontological Resources NP The project areas are not located in any areas with known fossil-bearing geological strata. If fossils or fossil trackways are noted during any surface disturbing activities, the area will be flagged for avoidance and the BLM Paleontological Lead will be notified. Range Health Standards NI The proposed action is outside of an active grazing allotment. Four fundamentals of rangeland health are listed in Title 43 CFR § 4180.1. These include watersheds, ecological processes, water quality, and habitats. Potential impacts to these values are analyzed as part of the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife and federally listed species sections and are not analyzed in this section. Recreation NI Ensure that public access is maintained either through or around the plots. Renewable Energy/ NP Renewable Energy is not present in the proposed project areas. Transmission Socio-Economics NI The Proposed Action would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect that would place socioeconomic burdens on the citizens of Clark County and nearby cities due to the limited context and intensity of the proposal. Soils NI Proposed action will restore previous soil conditions and slow erosion caused by the fires. Threatened, Endangered or NP Based on known locations and habitat requirements, Candidate Plant Species Threatened, Endangered or Candidate plant species are not present. Threatened, Endangered PI The project has a may affect, likely to adversely affect or Proposed Candidate determination for the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and Wildlife Species & Critical may affect for its designated critical habitat. Carry forward Habitat for analysis.
Appendix B AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM 88 Environmental Assessment
Vegetation Excluding PI Vegetation- The project has the potential to impact vegetation Federally Listed Species in the project area. Carry forward for analysis. (Includes BLM Sensitive Species) BLM sensitive plant species- special stipulation below to avoid impacts to sensitive plants.
Several BLM sensitive plant species have been observed within the possible treatment areas. To ensure herbicide does not destroy sensitive plant species seed bank, no herbicide application will be used in areas that currently have sensitive plants. A site visit by native seed technician or restoration team member (that can properly identify the sensitive plants) must be made prior to herbicide application. This site visit will consist of searching historic locations for sensitive plants or evidence of plants; such as dried plant or stalks, seedpods or seeds in lying around or under debris, etc. If the historic area shows no sign of sensitive plants then herbicide application of that area can be considered. If any sensitive plant sign is observed then herbicide application will not be applied in area of sensitive plants. All information from site visits must be given to the botanist to update botany GIS layer.
For Gold Butte treatments the following areas must be surveyed before herbicide application is allowed within historic sensitive plant locations:
Tramp fire- Northwest section has a population of Las Vegas Bearpoppy (see figure 1).
Fork fire- Northeast section (southeast of GB loop route) has population of Las Vegas Buckwheat (see figure 2).
For Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area treatments the following areas must be surveyed before herbicide application is allowed within historic sensitive plant locations:
Scenic fire- Western section has population of Yellow two-toned Beardtongue (see figure 3).
Loop fire- Northwest section has Yellow two-toned Beardtongue just off of route (half doz occurrences) and NW of route (3 occurrences) (see figure 3).
Appendix B AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM Environmental Assessment 89
Utility Corridor NI The proposed action includes herbicide use, both aerially (low-flying aircraft) and ground application (using backpack and/or vehicle-mounted boom sprayers), to control invasive plant species within Clipped Priority Burned Areas 2005-2006 — Southern Nevada sub-complex sites labeled Halfway, Goodsprings, and Coyote. These sub-complex sites overlap Section 368 west-wide energy corridors and corridors of concern, and several transportation and utility corridors designated through land use planning and/or at the direction of Congress. There are existing authorized rights-of-way (i.e., overhead transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, communication lines, material site, etc.) and pending rights-of-way within the affected corridors. The proposed project shall be compatible with identified energy/utility transport modes and avoid conflicts with other land uses and future uses within the corridors. Prior notification with authorized ROW holders is recommended to ensure no conflicts with construction and/or operations and maintenance. Furthermore, to avoid conflict with Federal (i.e., Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Defense / Nellis Air Force) and non-Federal operations, the applicant shall be aware of liabilities pertaining to environmental hazards, safety standards, and military flying/radar areas.
For additional information including three maps regarding the corridors please refer to the “Corridors Review” document dated 4/26/2016, uploaded to the ePlanning ARF e-folder.
Appendix B AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM 90 Environmental Assessment
Visual Resources NI The proposed projects burn reclamation areas are located within VRM classes I, II and III. As defined in the RMP:
Class I: Not defined in the RMP.
Class II: The objective of VRM Class II lands, as defined in the Las Vegas RMP, is to “manage to retain the landscape’s existing character. In these areas, authorized actions may not modify existing landscapes or attract the attention of casual viewers.”
Class III: The objective of VRM Class III lands, as defined in the Las Vegas RMP, “is for partial retention of the existing character of the landscape. In these areas, authorized actions may alter the existing landscape, but not to the extent that they attract or focus attention of the casual viewer.”
Measures that will be taken to reduce the visual attractiveness of the project:
● The color of the tank and weather station will be a standard environmental color such as covert green or shadow gray.
● The project will utilize only solid color posts, green or red, with no white markings on the top. Posts may be painted with a standard environmental color such as covert green or shadow gray.
● Signage, if used, will to be tan lettering on brown. The backs of the signs will need to be painted with the covert green, shadow gray or other standard environmental color.
● Approval of the color of material or equipment that will be left on site, after the initial restoration of the burn areas, will be obtained from a visual resource specialist prior to ordering and installation.
● Installation of equipment or material on lands classified as VRM Class I (Wilderness) will not occur.
These will not be required as mitigating measures if the proponent incorporates them into the proposed project. If not incorporated into the proposed project they will be required as mitigating measures and a complete analysis will be done. Wastes, Hazardous or Solid NP Not present, however do include standard stipulations into the final document(s). Water Resources/ Quality NI Proposed action will restore previous run-off conditions and slow erosion caused by the fires. No significant impacts as long as herbicide will be applied at the rate and method indicated on the product label directives and is applied during dry weather conditions. Wetlands/ Riparian Zones NI The Fork, Tramp and Goodsprings fires perimeters have springs located within them. Research plots should not be located at least .25 miles away from these to have no impacts. Please coordinate with BLM District Hydrologist prior to finalizing plot locations. Wild and Scenic Rivers NP Wild and Scenic Rivers is not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions.
Appendix B AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM Environmental Assessment 91
Wild Horse and Burro PI Several of these fires occurred in portions of active herd management areas (HMAs), potential restoration activities will need to concur with wild horse and burro management. Any fencing within an HMA should be done only after the impacts are carefully analyzed through the NEPA process. If fences are essential for proper resource management, they should be constructed with particular attention to location and design. Avoid locating fences across migration routes, to prevent WH&B concentration, or the unintended trapping or death of WH&B. Fencing must be adequately flagged to limit the potential of wild horses and burros becoming entangled. Any herbicide use must be of a herbicide approved for use around foraging animals. Aerial seeding and/or herbicide application will not be done during the primary foaling season (February 1–May 30).
Individuals will not harass (feed, pet, chase, etc.) wild horses and burros if encountered on or near the project areas. If they do see any wild horses and burros, they should keep a safe distance; they are wild animals and can be unpredictable, especially during foaling and breeding season. Wilderness/WSA NI/NI The Fork fire perimeter overlaps with the Jumbo Spring Wilderness and the Million Hills Wilderness Study Area. Research plots for the Fork fire would be located outside of the Wilderness and WSA boundaries. There would be no impact.
The Halfway fire perimeter overlaps with the Mormon Mountains Wilderness. Research plots for the Halfway Fire would be located outside the Wilderness boundary. There would be no impact. Woodland and Forestry NI Cactus and yucca are considered government property and regulated under the BLM Nevada forestry program. Cactus and yucca are known to be present within the proposed project area; however, only annuals will be affected by the herbicide application. To the extent practical, cacti and yucca within the project areas should be avoided by drive and crush driving. If unable to be avoided, cactus and yucca must be salvaged and then replanted as part of the restoration efforts to remove presence of the temporary drive and crush route.
Appendix B AFFECTED RESOURCES FORM This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 93 Appendix C. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR HERBICIDE APPLICATION Herbicide Application and Handling Herbicide application will be based on information gathered from pre-project sampling, inventory and monitoring reports, and BLM. Before application, Mojave Desert Burned Area Restoration of Desert Tortoise Habitat Project or its Contractor will obtain any required permits from the local authorities. Permits may contain additional terms and conditions that go beyond the scope of this management plan. A certified applicator will perform the application in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and permit stipulations. All herbicide applications must follow United States Environmental Protection Agency label instructions. Use of pesticides shall comply with the applicable Federal and state laws. Pesticides shall be used only in accordance with their registered uses and within limitations imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. Prior to the use of pesticides, the Holder shall obtain from authorized written approval of a plan showing the type and quantity of material to be used, pest(s) to be controlled, method of application, location of storage and disposal of containers and any other information deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer. Herbicide application will not occur until after the pesticide use plan is approved. Pesticides shall not be permanently stored on the public lands authorized for use under this proposed action. Application of herbicides will be suspended when any of the following conditions exists: Wind velocity exceeds 6 miles per hour (mph) during application of liquids or 15 mph during application of granular herbicides; Snow or ice covers the foliage of noxious weeds; or precipitation is occurring or is imminent. Vehicle-mounted sprayers (e.g., handgun and injector) will be used mainly in open areas that are readily accessible by vehicle. Hand application methods (e.g., backpack spraying) that target individual plants will be used to treat small or scattered weed populations in rough terrain. Calibration checks of equipment will be conducted at the beginning of spraying and periodically to ensure that proper application rates are achieved. Hazardous Materials No hazardous material, substance, or hazardous waste, (as these terms are defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq., or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.) shall be used, produced, transported, released, disposed of, or stored within the project area at any time by the participants. Herbicides will be transported to the project site daily with the following provisions: Only the quantity needed for that day’s work will be transported; Concentrate will be transported in approved containers only and in a manner that will prevent tipping or spilling, and in a location that is isolated from the vehicle’s driving compartment, food, clothing, and safety equipment; Mixing will be done off site, over a drip catching device and at a distance greater than 200 feet from open or flowing water, wetlands, or other sensitive resources. No herbicides will be applied at these areas unless authorized by appropriate regulatory agencies; and all herbicide equipment and containers will be inspected for leaks daily. Disposal of spent containers will be in accordance with the herbicide label. Appendix C STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR HERBICIDE APPLICATION 94 Environmental Assessment
No hazardous materials are currently known to be present at the project sites. The herbicides that would be used for the proposed action are not hazardous when handled properly and applied as described on the labels in adherence to best management practices (BMP) for handling and applying herbicide during treatments. Risks are present in handling herbicide in the form of accidental spills or contact in excess of what is specified in the material safety data sheet (MSDS).
Cumulative effects to hazardous materials are not anticipated due to individual project sites being dispersed both geographically throughout the Southern Nevada District and over a period of time as they will be implemented incrementally according to the proposed action.
Herbicide Spills and Cleanup
All reasonable precautions will be taken to avoid herbicide spills. In the event of a spill, cleanup will be immediate. Applicators will keep spill kits in their vehicles and in herbicide storage areas to allow for quick and effective response to spills. Items to be included in the spill kit are: Protective clothing and gloves (PPE), absorptive clay, “kitty litter,” or other commercial adsorbent, plastic bags and bucket, shovel, fiber brush and screw-in handle, dust pan, caution tape, highway flares (use on established roads only), and detergent. Also in accordance with the herbicide label.
Adhere to the following best management practices, outline below from 49 CFR and the BLM Policy Manual 1703, for the entirety of the project in order to mitigate any hazardous material.
The participants shall immediately report any release of hazardous substances (leaks, spills, etc.) caused by the participants or third parties in excess of the reportable quantity as required by federal, state, or local laws and regulations. A copy of any report required or requested by any federal, state or local government agency as a result of a reportable release or spill of any hazardous substances shall be furnished to the Authorized Officer concurrent with the filing of the reports to the involved federal, state or local government agency.
Worker Safety and Spill Reporting
All herbicide applicators will be state certified to apply pesticides and obtain and have readily available copies of the appropriate material safety data sheets for the herbicides used. All herbicide spills will be reported in accordance with applicable laws and requirements.
The participants shall immediately notify the Authorized Officer of any release of hazardous substances, toxic substances, or hazardous waste on or near the project area potentially affecting the project area of which the participant is aware.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2000. Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management, Dixie National Forest. Forest Service, Intermountain Region. January.
United States Department of the Interior (USDI), 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. Washington, D.C.
Appendix C STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR HERBICIDE APPLICATION Environmental Assessment 95 Appendix D. ENERGY/UTILITY CORRIDORS ENERGY/UTILITY CORRIDORS REVIEW
Mojave Desert Burned Area Restoration of Desert Tortoise Habitat
DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2016-0029-EA
The proposed action includes herbicide use, both aerially (low-flying aircraft) and ground application (using backpack and/or vehicle-mounted boom sprayers), to control invasive plant species within the following Clipped Priority Burned Areas 2005-2006 – Southern Nevada sub-complex sites labeled Halfway, Goodsprings, and Coyote. These sub-complex sites overlap Section 368 west-wide energy corridors designated through land use planning and/or at the direction of Congress.
Designated Corridors
Energy corridors were designed in January 2009 under a programmatic environmental impact statement (Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States (DOE/EIS-0386)) pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) (EP Act). These energy corridors are numerically labeled WEC or COC (corridor of concerns which were identified through a settlement agreement between Wilderness Society v. United States Department of the Interior, No. 3:09-cv-03048-JW (D.N.D. Cal), referred to as Settlement.cutew
In 2004, Congress enacted the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act (LCCRDA). LCCRDA, which established “…a 2,640-foot wide corridor for utilities in Lincoln County and Clark County Nevada, as generally depicted on a map entitled ‘Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act’ and dated October 1, 2004” (P.L. 108-424, 118 Stat. 2403 § 301). Consistent with the LCCRDA, BLM designated the subject corridor for nonexclusive rights-of-way to the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and the Lincoln County Water District, for any roads, wells, well fields, pipes, pipelines, pump stations, storage facilities, or other facilities necessary for the construction and operation of a water conveyance system, as depicted on the map. This corridor is labeled SNWA.
Other corridors affected by the proposed action include those designated under the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, as amended.
The affected corridors are listed by sub-complex site. Also, described are existing authorized rights-of-way (i.e. overhead transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, communication lines, material site, etc.) and pending rights-of-way within the affected corridors.
The proposed project shall be compatible with identified energy/utility transport modes and avoid conflicts with other land uses and future uses within the corridors. Prior notification with authorized ROW holders is required to ensure no conflicts with construction and/or operations and maintenance. Furthermore, to avoid conflict with Federal (i.e. Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Defense / Nellis Air Force) and non-Federal operations, the applicant shall be aware of liabilities pertaining to environmental hazards, safety standards, and military flying/radar areas.
Appendix D ENERGY/UTILITY CORRIDORS This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment 97 Appendix E. GLOSSARY ACEC, Area of Critical Environmental Concern – Area within public lands in which special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.
Adjuvant – A chemical or substance that is added to a pesticide by the user to increase the pesticide’s efficacy. Various types of adjuvants may be used to improve herbicide activity, adapt to environmental conditions, reduce foaming, reduce drift, or improve plant absorption.
Affect, Affected – To bring about a change, influence or impact. Affected (adjective) – acted upon or influenced.
Allotment (grazing) – Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed period of time.
Annual (plant) – A plant species which completes it life cycle and dies within a single year or season.
Assessment – The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose.
ATV, All Terrain Vehicle – A motorized vehicle designed for use off of paved roads, typically less than 50 inches in width with 3 or more tires and handlebars for steering. Also see OHV.
Best Management Practices, BMPs – A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes.
Biodiversity – The variety of species found in a particular habitat, ecosystem or region. Generally, greater biodiversity indicates better environmental conditions than lesser biodiversity.
Biological Soil Crust – Biological communities that form a surface layer or crust on some soils. These communities consist of cyanobacteria (blue-green bacteria), micro fungi, mosses, lichens, and green algae and perform many important functions, including fixing nitrogen and carbon, maintaining soil surface stability, and preventing erosion. Interchangeably called cryptobiotic or cryptogamic soils/crusts, they also influence the nutrient levels of soils and the status and germination of plants in the desert. These crusts are slow to recover after severe disturbance.
Biomass – The total mass of all biological material, living or dead, in a given area, habitat or region.
Broadcast (seed) – Method of sowing plant seeds by dispersing them onto surface of the ground, either by hand, ground-based equipment, or aircraft.
Broadcast (spray) – An application of an herbicide that uniformly covers an entire area. This may include aerial spraying by aircraft or ground-level spraying with a vehicle-mounted or handheld sprayer.
Brome (grass) – A type of annual grass plant of the genus Bromus, including non-native invasive species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and red brome (Bromus rubens).
Appendix E GLOSSARY 98 Environmental Assessment
Buffer/Buffer zone – A strip of land or vegetation that is left or managed to reduce the impact that a treatment of action on one area might have on another area. Candidate Species – A plant or animal species or taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on their status and threats to support proposing the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. Canopy, Canopy Cover – The dominant overstory vegetation of an ecosystem. May also refer to a measure of the relative density or percentage of cover by vegetation or a particular species or kind of plant. Colonizing, early colonizing – Describes native plant species that germinate and grow from seeds sooner than other species at an available site. Community (plant) – A vegetation complex, unique in its combination of plants, which occurs at a particular location under particular influences. A plant community is a reflection of integrated environmental influences on the site, such a soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope aspect, and precipitation. Control – (1) The act or method of stopping the growth or spread of undesirable plants. (2) In scientific research, an area or organism that is left untreated in order to compare changes to a similar area or organism that is treated in an experimental trial or study. Cover – (1) Trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow an animal to partly or fully conceal itself. (2) The portion of an area of ground covered by plants of one or more species, usually expressed as a percentage of the ground surface. Critical Habitat – (1) The specific areas within the geographical area currently occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the species and (ii) that may require special management considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Critical habitats are designated in 50 CFR 17 and 226. The constituent elements of critical habitat are those physical and biological features of designated or proposed critical habitat essential to the conservation of the species Cultural resources – Archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures or places with important public or scientific uses, which may include definite locations (sites or places) of traditional cultural or religious importance to specific social or cultural groups. Cumulative effects – Impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Designated Routes – Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other agencies) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either seasonally or yearlong. Direct effects – Impacts on the environment that are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place.
Appendix E GLOSSARY Environmental Assessment 99
Disturbance – Damage to the structure or condition of an ecosystem or part thereof, resulting from either a natural event or human activity. Used in the literal context of actual, physical disturbance, and movement or removal of the land surface and vegetation. Emergency activities, rangeland monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational activities (e.g., hunting, hiking), and livestock grazing are not considered surface disturbance.
Diversionary Seeding – A technique intended to increase the chance of success of seeding desired crops by placing seeds of a different species nearby to encourage (divert) seed-eating animals to consume the sterile seeds instead of the live crop seeds.
Ecoregion – Geographic areas that are delineated and defined by similar climatic conditions, geomorphology, and soils.
Ecosytem – The fundamental unit in ecology, containing both organisms and abiotic environments, each influencing the properties of the other and both necessary for the maintenance of life. Includes all the organisms of an area, their environment, and the linkages or interactions among all of them; all parts of an ecosystem are interrelated.
Effect – Environmental impact resulting from an agent of change, or action.
Endangered Species – Any animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, as determined by the federal government in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
Environment – (1) The physical conditions that exist within an area (e.g., the area that will be affected by a proposed project), including land, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. (2) The sum of all external conditions that affect an organism or community to influence its development or existence.
Ephemeral – Seasonal or occasional, such as plants or washes that grow quickly or become active during or after a rain event or season.
Exotic (plant) – A non-native plant or animal species introduced into an area, and which may adapt to the area and compete with resident native (indigenous) species.
Floodplain – The area of land adjacent to a river or stream modified by seasonal or episodic flooding above normal water level, up to the high water mark.
Forage – Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption, especially by grazing or browsing animals.
Forb – Any herbaceous non-woody plant that is not grass or grass-like.
Fragmentation (of habitat) – The breaking up of a habitat or cover type into smaller, disconnected parcels.
Fuel (fire) – Vegetation, dead or alive, that can burn readily and has the potential to contribute significantly to the spread and intensity of a wildfire.
Fuel Break – A natural or man-made barrier resulting from lack or reduced amount of vegetation that would carry a wildfire more quickly or intensely.
Appendix E GLOSSARY 100 Environmental Assessment
Germinate – Begin growing as a new plant emerging from its seed.
Granivore – An animal that feeds primarily or exclusively on seeds of plants.
Grassland – Landscape-scaled ecosystem dominated by grass or grass-like plant species.
Habitat – The natural environment of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and soil conditions, or other environmental influences affecting living conditions.
Habitat Island – An area providing suitable habitat for one or more species, surrounded by currently unsuitable habitat. In this document, the intent is that desirable species planted will reproduce and spread from the habitat island outward, expanding the suitable habitat area.
Herbicide – A chemical substance manufactured to control, suppress, or kill vegetation, or severely interrupt normal growth processes.
Herbivore – An animal that primarily eats plants, such as leaves, stems or fruit.
Indirect effects – Impacts that are caused by an action, but are later in time or farther removed in distance, although still reasonably foreseeable.
Inoculate – To introduce microorganisms to a site, such as biological soil crusts.
Invasive Plants – Plant species that are non-native (exotic) to a given plant community or communities that can establish, persist and spread, with the potential to cause harm by significantly changing ecosystem composition, structure or function, or are classified as exotic or noxious plants under state or federal law.
Landscape – A large-scale ecosystem, such as a watershed or other geographic region.
Listed Species – Plant or animal species that have been listed by the federal government as Threatened or Endangered, providing for their protection under terms of the Endangered Species Act, or by a state government providing similar protection within that state.
Microsite – In ecology, a small area comprising an environment for a single or several individual organisms. A microsite could be as small as a few square centimeters or inches.
Migratory Birds – Bird species that migrate seasonally from one region to another. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act fully protects all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests and feathers).
Mitigation – A method or process by which impacts from actions may be made less injurious to the environment through appropriate protective measures. 40 CFR 1508.20 further defines mitigation as (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance; and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Monitoring – The process of tracking the implementation of land-use plan decisions or actions and collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of land management actions in meeting the desired objectives.
Appendix E GLOSSARY Environmental Assessment 101
MSHCP – The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for Clark County, Nevada.
Noxious Weed – A plant species designated by federal, state, or local government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States.
OHV, Off-Highway Vehicle – A motorized (or non-motorized) vehicle capable of or designed for cross-country travel over any type of natural terrain. Used interchangeably with ORV, Off-Road Vehicle (see 43 CFR 8340).
Pelletized (seed) – Plant seeds that have been coated with or imbedded into a substance intended to protect the seed from predation and delay germination until conditions are more suitable for growth, such as a rain event that would dissolve the coating as it wets the soil.
Perennial (plant) – A plant species that normally lives two or more years or growing seasons.
Post-Emergent – Herbicide which purpose is to control plants that have already germinated.
Pre-Emergent – Herbicide which purpose is to prevent the germination of plant seeds.
Predation, Predator (seed) – Seeking and feeding on plant seeds. An animal that feeds (preys) on seeds.
Quadrat – A unit of measure for a plot of ground used in ecological sampling or monitoring, typically 1 meter square; may also refer to a portable frame of that size used to delineate a plot during such surveying or monitoring, either randomly or in conjunction with a transect.
Range – The extent of the geographic area in which an individual or population of plant or animal lives or is distributed.
Rangeland – Land on which the native vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs; not forests.
Reburn – The burning or potential for burning of an area that was previously burned in a wildland fire. This may include burning of remaining vegetation that was not completely consumed by the original fire in the same year, or burning of the same area by a different fire in later years.
Recovery – In reference to the Endangered Species Act, a change in circumstances that results in a listed species no longer being threatened or endangered, or the process toward that end. Recovery actions are those identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as accomplishments that would lead to recovery of a particular species.
Residual effects – Those effects remaining after mitigation has been applied to the proposed action or an alternative.
Restoration – Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and structure that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over the long term.
Return interval (fire) – The average time between wildland fires in a given area.
Appendix E GLOSSARY 102 Environmental Assessment
Revegetation – Establishing or re-establishing desirable plants in areas where desirable plants are absent or of inadequate density, by management, seeding or transplanting. Right-of-way, ROW – A permit or easement that authorizes the use of lands for certain specified purposes, such as an access road, pipeline or electrical utility line. Riparian – Pertaining to or situated on or along the bank of streams, lakes, springs, and reservoirs. Scoping – An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. This involves the participation of affected federal, state, and local agencies and any affected Native American tribe, proponent of the action, and other interested persons unless there is a limited exception under 40 CFR 1507.3I Seed Bank – The supply of plant seeds on or just beneath the soil surface near the parent plant. These seeds typically germinate when environmental conditions become suitable. Seeds of Success – A BLM program of seed collections from native plant species, in which seeds collected from local areas are submitted to a national center for documentation and preservation of genetic integrity; some seeds may be returned for use in restoration projects. Sensitive Species – Those species designated by a BLM state director, usually in cooperation with the state agency responsible for managing the species and state natural heritage programs, as sensitive. This may include (1) plant or animal species susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat alterations, or (2) species that have been proposed for classification or are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species. Sensitive species are provided the same level of protection as candidate species. Shrubland – An ecosystem dominated by shrub plants such as sagebrush, blackbrush or creosote bush. Sow, sown – Planting seeds of a plant on or in the soil. Special Status Species – Refers to federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species, state listed endangered species, and/or non-listed species managed by the BLM as sensitive species. Surfactant – A material added to a liquid (such as herbicide) to reduce surface tension, thus improving the emulsifying, dispersing, spreading, wetting, or other surface-modifying properties of the liquid. Terrestrial – Of or relating to the earth, soil, or land. Threatened Species – A plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future, and listed by the federal government for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Transect – A sample area measured or surveyed for research purposes, typically for determining species presence and/or abundance. Upland – The portion of the landscape above the valley floor, stream, or riparian area. UTV, Utility Terrain Vehicle – A light-duty motorized vehicle with at least 4 tires and designed for off highway use to transport materials and personnel for work purposes.
Appendix E GLOSSARY Environmental Assessment 103
Vertical Mulching – A restoration technique in which dead or fresh-cut branches, logs, rocks or other natural materials are placed on bare soil to enhance microsite conditions for germination and growth of native plant seeds.
Wash – The channel of an ephemeral stream, usually dry but can become a temporary watercourse after heavy rains in the watershed.
Water Buffalo – A trailer-mounted water tank sued to deliver water to a site for project use.
Watershed – The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water.
Weed – A plant considered undesirable and that interferes with management objectives for a given area at a given point in time.
Wetland – An area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, such as swamps, marshes, fens, and wet meadows.
Wilderness – BLM lands that have been designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness areas must possess the characteristics required by Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964: 1) naturalness; 2) roadless and having at least 5,000 acres of contiguous public lands; and 3) outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation. They may also contain “supplemental values”, consisting of ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical importance.
Wildfire – An unplanned human or naturally caused fire in wildlands.
Wildland Fire – A fire that occurs in wildland vegetation ignited by lightning or other natural causes or by intentional or accidental human-caused fires, including wildfire or prescribed fire.
Appendix E GLOSSARY