U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CA050-2016-04-EA
2016
Water Sources & Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Applegate Field Office 708 West 12th Street Alturas, CA 96101
Eagle Lake Field Office 2550 Riverside Drive Susanville, CA 96130
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Phone: (530) 233-4666
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 2-3 1.1 Introduction/Background ...... 2-3 1.2 Proposed Action Location ...... 2-4 1.3 Programmatic EA Approach ...... 2-7 1.4 Purpose and Need ...... 2-7 1.5 Land Use Plan Conformance ...... 2-8 1.6 Permits and Approvals Required ...... 2-8 1.7 Decision to be Made ...... 2-8 1.8 Scoping and Public Involvement ...... 2-9 1.8.1 History of the Planning and Scoping Process ...... 2-9 1.9 Summary of Comments ...... 2-9 1.10 Issues ...... 2-9 1.11 Resources Evaluated ...... 2-10 2.0 Description of proposed action and alternatives ...... 2-12 2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ...... 2-12 2.1.1 Water Source Enhancement Projects ...... 2-13 Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures ...... 2-13 Installation of New Water Developments ...... 2-14 2.1.2 Riparian Enhancement Projects ...... 2-16 Riparian Vegetation Projects ...... 2-16 Stream Enhancement Projects ...... 2-19 Riparian Fence Projects ...... 2-21 Road Removal/Realignment ...... 2-23 2.1.3 Project Design Features and Processes ...... 2-24 2.1.4 Project Implementation Monitoring ...... 2-29 2.2 Alternative 2: No Action ...... 2-29 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ...... 2-29 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and Environmental IMPACTS ...... 3-31 3.1 Assumptions ...... 3-31 3.2 General Description...... 3-32 3.3 Environmental Impacts ...... 3-32 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-32 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-32 3.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 3-32 3.5 Impacts from the Programmatic Approach ...... 3-34 3.6 Affected Resources ...... 3-34 3.6.1 Cultural Resources ...... 3-34 3.6.2 Livestock Grazing & Socioeconomics ...... 3-40 3.6.3 Soils ...... 3-46
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
3.6.4 Vegetation ...... 3-50 3.6.5 Riparian Wetlands and Riparian Areas, including Surface Water Quality ...... 3-56 3.6.6 Wildlife/Fisheries/Migratory Birds ...... 3-61 4.0 CONSULTATION and COORDINATION ...... 4-82 Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted ...... 4-82 4.2 List of Preparers ...... 4-82 Appendix A- Literature Cited ...... 4-83 Appendix B- Glossary...... 4-90 Appendix C- Example Determination of National environmental polocy act Adequacy, Pre- Project Clearances and Draft Decision Record ...... 4-94 Appendix- Habitat Objectives (Table 2-2 from the Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Amendment [ARMPA]) ...... 4-102
2-2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction/Background This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of protecting and enhancing water sources and riparian habitats that include wet meadows and springs found on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Applegate Field Office (AGFO) and Eagle Lake Field Office (ELFO).
The BLM is required by Congress to manage public land under a Multiple-Use mandate. This means that the BLM must manage for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, mining, renewable energy development, cultural resources, and free roaming wild horses and burros (WH&B). These uses often conflict with one another. Protecting and enhancing water sources and riparian habitats from potential degradation is the main objective of this EA.
Water Sources Water sources in the project area include both lentic and lotic ecosystems. Lentic resources pertain to standing water such as lakes, reservoirs, seeps, springs, and ponds. Lotic ecosystems are defined as moving water such as creeks, streams, brooks, and rivers. These water sources are found throughout the two field offices and are utilized by wildlife, livestock and free roaming horses and burros.
Some of these water source sites have been developed to increase efficiency and prevent degradation to the source. For example, a developed water source could be a site where water is piped from a natural spring to a trough. The majority of these developments have been in place for 10+ years and need to be improved and/or maintained in order to keep producing water or to improve site conditions. The remaining water sources have not been developed or protected, and with the current dry conditions across the landscape are in need of enhancement and protection.
Riparian Habitats Riparian habitat exhibits vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian habitat includes lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Riparian areas in this region also include springs, seeps and wet meadows. Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil.
Riparian habitats are an important resource and habitat for wildlife species, including sagebrush obligate species such as the Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (GRSG). These areas provide water, abundant insects and forbs for food. They also provide perennial grasses and shrubs for cover. Riparian habitats are of primary importance for GRSG as late brood- rearing and summer habitats; providing essential nutritional components for chicks (Klebenow and Gray 1968; Johnson and Boyce 1991; Connelly et al., 2004). The loss of quality brood- rearing habitat, resulting in reduced chick growth and poor recruitment, is one mechanism associated with the decline of GRSG populations (Aldridge and Brigham 2001; Connelly et al.,
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
2004; Crawford et al., 2004; Gregg 2006). Low chick survival rates are typically attributed to poor-quality brood-rearing habitat (Atamian et al., 2010).
On September 15, 2015 the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) and Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by the Nevada and California BLM State Directors. This document applies to the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-regional Planning Area, and amended the 2008 Eagle Lake Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Alturas and Surprise Field Offices (now the Applegate Field Office) RMPs. The ARMPA identifies and incorporates measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat.
1.2 Proposed Action Location The project area includes all lands within the BLM AGFO and ELFO (Figure 1). The AGFO and ELFO combined encompass approximately three million acres of public lands in northeastern California and northwestern Nevada. This region is part of the Great Basin and is considered a sage steppe ecosystem. Sagebrush is the dominant shrub, and perennial grasses and forb species make up most understories. Sagebrush species are co-dominant with ponderosa pine, Oregon white oak and mixed ceanothus chaparral in the western part of the AGFO. Trees such as western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) are also present in this area of the Great Basin. Although this is a native species, it has invasive tendencies and is encroaching into sagebrush- steppe plant communities across the Great Basin.
The AGFO manages approximately two million acres in California and Nevada. These lands are located on the western end of the Great Basin and encompass the lower slopes surrounding the Warner Mountains and much of the Modoc Plateau. Over one million acres of the AGFO are located in northwestern Nevada included some management over a National Conservation Area. The western portion of the AGFO includes the Southern Cascades. The climate is classified as Mediterranean Montane and typified by cold, dry winter’s precipitation falling primarily as rain or snow between October and May. The rain shadow effect of the Southern Cascades blocks much of the precipitation from actually reaching the region (Barbour et al., 2016). The region experiences brief springs, and extended hot summers with isolated thunderstorms and fall rains.
Dominant vegetation types include perennial grasslands, alkali desert scrub, sagebrush steppe, western juniper woodlands, transition zones of mixed sage–western juniper, oak and pine woodlands (including eastside pine), mid-montane forests in the Big Valley mountains, and meadow and riparian formations. Large animal species that characterize the area include mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, mountain lion, coyote, and black bear; WH&B are also present. Principal uses of the lands include livestock grazing, developed agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction, and recreation.
The ELFO manages about one million acres located south of the AGFO. This area is still a part of the Modoc Plateau. The western edge of the ELFO is where the Great Basin meets the confluence of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Cascade Range and continues east to the Smoke Creek Desert. Climate mirrors the AFGO with cold dry winters, short and variable springs that precede long hot summers and late autumn rains.
2-4
The dominant vegetation types are grasses, Great Basin shrubs, sagebrush, sagebrush/western juniper, western juniper, conifer, and riparian plants. The characteristic large mammals are mule deer, pronghorn, mountain lion, black bear and coyote. There are also populations of WH&B. The principal land use activities are livestock grazing, agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction and recreation.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Figure 1.2. Project Area and Vicinity
2-6
1.3 Programmatic EA Approach This Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) considers a suite of projects that share a common purpose of establishing, maintaining or enhancing water sources and riparian habitats. Addressing these projects in a programmatic manner establishes the scope and sideboards of the activities, and provides an analysis of a portion of the environmental consequences of similar projects. The BLM identified these programmatic activities because they are consistent with projects completed within the two field offices in the past to maintain or improve water sources and riparian habitats.
Water source and riparian enhancement activities analyzed in the PEA would be implemented through a tiered process intended to increase efficiency in implementing additional enhancement activities by establishing desired outcomes, standardized best management practices, and supporting implementing actions that would benefit riparian habitats. The majority of these projects could be implemented through a Determination of NEPA adequacy (DNA).
When the PEA is not sufficient to implement individual projects, subsequent site-specific analysis through the use of tiering. Tiering is the “…coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements [or environmental assessments (CEQ 2014)] with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basin-wide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared” (40 CFR § 1508.28).
Implementation of specific projects after the PEA is approved would require on-the-ground surveys for special status wildlife and plant species, cultural resources and other resources and uses that cannot be covered in adequate detail in a PEA analysis. The results of those surveys would be analyzed for each project area prior to implementing projects. All projects would meet current direction for land management and appropriate consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) would be completed necessary. During the evaluation of a site specific project, the Field Office Manager would determine the appropriate level of environmental analysis to comply with NEPA and other statutes and regulations. That analysis would be completed prior to issuance of a decision to implement the project. Project proposals and draft Decision Records would be written and posted on the AGFO or ELFO BLM websites and available for at least 15 days for public review. Following public review, Decision Records would be subject to Administrative Remedies in accordance with 43 CFR Chapter 4 regulations. See Appendix E for pre-project clearances and a template for a DNA and Decision Records that could be used for project-specific decisions.
1.4 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed action is to efficiently implement specific project designs and best management practices to better manage and enhance water sources, riparian habitats and the resources associated with those sites within the AGFO and ELFO.
Current conditions within the field offices indicate numerous degrading water sources and riparian habitats. This degradation also occurs on other resources associated with those areas
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
such as vegetation and cultural resources. The proposed action is necessary to improve water sources and riparian habitats and all associated resources throughout the field offices. The programmatic approach is necessary to increase the number of projects that the field offices can implement over the next 10 years. The proposed action is also needed to establish, enhance and maintain GRSG habitats as outlined in the 2015 GRSG ARMPA. The ARMPA provides specific goals, objectives and management actions for GRSG and its habitat.
1.5 Land Use Plan Conformance The actions proposed and analyzed in this PEA were developed to be consistent with the management objectives for public lands identified in the following documents: Record of Decision and Eagle Lake Field Office Resource Management Plan (2008) Record of Decision and Alturas Field Office Resource Management Plan (2008) Record of Decision and Surprise Field Office Resource Management Plant (2008) Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment and Record of Decision (2015)1 Record of Decision for the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (2008)
1.6 Permits and Approvals Required For projects proposing new water developments that store or divert natural, flowing surface waters, applicable water rights would be obtained, if necessary.
1.7 Decision to be Made The information and analysis provided in this PEA will assist the Field Office Managers in deciding between the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. NEPA regulations require that prior to making this decision the Authorized Officer must first make a finding of whether the Proposed action analyzed in the PEA has a significant impact. In making that determination, the Field Office Managers will consider both the context of the action and the intensity of the impacts, including the 10 factors outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27(b). If the Field Office Managers determine the Proposed action will not likely result in significant effects, then the BLM will issue a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). In deciding between the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative, the Field Office Managers will consider the extent to which the alternatives:
Enhance water and riparian resources; Establish an efficient process for analyzing and implementing projects; Impact GRSG and its habitat.
1In 2015 the Alturas and Surprise Field Offices were administratively combined into the Applegate Field Office. The 2015 RMP amendments for the Greater Sage-Grouse applied to RMPs for Alturas, Surprise and Eagle Lake Field offices.
2-8
1.8 Scoping and Public Involvement 1.8.1 History of the Planning and Scoping Process August through October 2015: Internal Scoping with BLM, AGFO and ELFO Interdisciplinary Teams. October 30th, 2015: Scoping letters of the objectives and proposed actions with a map were sent to all interested and affected parties, including local tribes, interest groups, and individuals. September 1st, 2016: Request for public comment letter was sent out sent to all interested and affected parties, including local tribes, interest groups, and individuals. 1.9 Summary of Comments Six comment letters were received from groups and individuals after the October 30th letter. The comments and concerns received from the public are summarized as follows: The PEA needs to consider the impacts to natural and other resources associated with new anthropogenic disturbances including: . Soils . Vegetation, including special status plants . Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species . Noxious weeds and invasive species . Wildlife, including sensitive species and GRSG . Lands with wilderness characteristics . Livestock grazing The PEA should analyze an alternative to reduce grazing by livestock and wild horses instead to completing new projects. The programmatic approach is too vague to adequately consider the impacts of riparian enhancement projects.
The Interdisciplinary team reviewed concerns and comments submitted during public scoping, the goals and objectives and management direction from applicable land use plans and other guidance in preparation of this assessment and has either incorporated or analyzed them within the environmental impact analysis for the individual resources in Chapter 3 of this PEA.
{Comment summary for September 1st letter will be placed here for the final draft once the comments have been reviewed} 1.10 Issues An “issue” is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with the proposed action based on some anticipated environmental effect. An issue has a cause and effect relationship with the proposed action or alternatives; is within the scope of the analysis, has not been decided by law, regulation, or previous decision, and is amendable to scientific analysis rather than conjecture.
Identification of issues for this assessment was accomplished by considering the resources that could be affected by implementation of one of the alternatives. Selected issues are identified below.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
1.11 Resources Evaluated The following resources have been evaluated to determine if there are issues that may be impacted by the Proposed action. Table 1. Resource issues Identified for Detailed Analysis Resource Issue How would the proposed actions items impact cultural resources that are not Cultural Resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? How will maintaining existing spring and fence projects impact cultural resources? How would riparian fence projects impact water and forage availability to livestock grazing? How would “rest requirements” after vegetation projects Livestock Grazing impact livestock grazing? How would implementing new water developments impact the maintenance responsibilities for the livestock grazing operators? How would the use of equipment impact soil productivity and erosion? How Soils would the no action alternative impact the erosion and compaction of productive soils in riparian habitats and streambeds? How would the removal of soils impact vegetation? How would the proposed Vegetation action and no action alternative impact vegetation communities in and around riparian zones? Wetlands/Riparian/ How would the no action alternative impact riparian and water quality? Floodplains/Meadows/Water Quality How would permanent surface disturbance impact GRSG? How would Wildlife/Fisheries/Migratory equipment use, human presence and noise impact wildlife species? How Birds would the installation of fences impact predation on GRSG? How would the proposed action and no action alternative cumulatively impact GRSG?
Table 2. Resource Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Resource Rationale Federal actions are not subject to conformity determinations under 40 CFR 93. The Air Quality/Global activities inherent to the proposed action are not of the nature and scope that would Climate Change affect air quality or global climate change. Issues identified such as installation of fences, juniper removal and installation of structures that entail ground disturbance were removed as an issue discussed in the analysis section due to the implementation of specific project design features in Cultural Resources Section 2.1.3. The project design features were developed to avoid or minimize negative direct and indirect impacts to eligible or unevaluated cultural resources derived from the proposed action, so that no individual project results in a significant impact to the cultural resources. Permitted and non-permitted actions items and processes within Areas of Special Designation are outlined in Section 2.1.3. By implementing the site-specific processes and project design features the permitted actions would have minimal Areas of Special impacts to Areas of Special Designation, however, they would not be at the scale to Designation (ACEC, warrant detailed analysis. The proposed action items that would have larger WSA, NCA, measurable impacts to Areas of Special Designation were eliminated since they Wilderness, WSR) would not conform to current manuals and the RMPs. However, the analysis of implementing riparian enhancement projects within lands with special designations could be used in future site-specific environmental analysis consistent with the tiering process.
2-10
Resource Rationale No minority or low income groups would be affected by the disproportionately high Environmental and adverse human health or environmental effects because the proposed action has Justice low probability of causing significant environmental consequences. Farmlands, Prime or Some farmlands may be within the project area; however, none are expected to be Unique impacted by any of the proposed action items. The proposed action items would have minimal effects to fire and fuels. 5,000 acres Fire and Fuels of juniper removal around riparian areas would impact the fuel loads in the project area; however, the impacts to fire and fuel loads would be minimal. The Native American tribal governments that have cultural affiliation within the project area include the Greenville Rancheria, Honey Lake Maidu, Pit River Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Cedarville Indian Rancheria, Fort Bidwell Tribe, Summit Lake Tribe, the Klamath Tribes, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. A scoping letter concerning this PEA was sent to each tribe on October 30, 2015. Per 36 CFR Part 800 and 43 CFR Part 8100 (BLM), as amended, a consultation letter with a general Native American summary of the proposed project, and map including the project area were sent to the Religious Concerns tribes concerning this PEA or individual meetings with tribes occurred beginning in November 2015. No comments have been received to date. Tribal consultation on the entire project has been initiated and will continue for the duration of the project as specific projects are identified. Any concerns raised during tribal consultation would be addressed prior to project implementation activities.
{Comment summary for September 1st letter will be placed here for the final draft once the comments have been reviewed} Treatment areas would be surveyed for invasive plants and noxious weeds. Newly discovered populations of noxious weed species would be mapped and treated using management techniques outlined in Integrated Invasive Plant Management EA for each office. Noxious Weeds and Activities associated with the proposed action that are prone to noxious weeds would Invasive Species be monitored for the introduction of new occurrences for three years post-treatment. For all the projects where ground disturbance and heavy equipment would be used, specific protocol is outlined in Section 2.1.3 to reduce any potential impacts to less than a significant level. Recreation occurs throughout the project area. Implementing any of the proposed action items would have no measurable effect to recreation. There would be some Recreation impacts to recreational resources such as wildlife viewing, but it is anticipated to be minimal. The primary economy that could be affected by the proposed action items would be livestock operations. New developments and fence projects could add additional Socio-economics management responsibilities to livestock operators; however, the specific project design features and processes outlined in Section 2.1.3 would reduce any potential impacts to less than a significant level. Any projects that occurred in habitat used by federally listed species would be T&E Fauna designed to reach a “may affect not likely to adversely affect” determination and would be consulted with the USFWS. Any projects that occurred in habitat used by federally listed species would be T&E Flora designed to reach a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination and would be consulted with the USFWS. Visual Resources BLM’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) system provides a way to identify and
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Resource Rationale evaluate scenic values to determine the appropriate levels of management. The VRM system in the project area are categorized as follows: Class I Objective: To preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. These areas are the designated Wilderness Study Areas in both field offices. Class II Objective: To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Class III Objective: To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Class IV Objective: To provide for management activities which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. The proposed action items are in conformance with Class III and IV objectives; however, specific project design features outlined in Section 2.1.3 must be implemented in Class I and II areas. By implementing these design features the proposed action items would have no measurable impacts to VRM. How would riparian fence projects impact water availability to WH&B? This issue was eliminated from further analysis due to the implementation of specific project design features outlined in Section 2.1.3. All of the proposed action items would have beneficial impacts to WH&B. There would be some short-term impacts such as displacement when projects were being constructed; however, once the projects are Wild horse and Burro built WH&B would come back to the area and return to existing use patterns. The no action alternative could have greater impacts than the proposed action since many of the springs within the Herd Management Areas are degraded and in need of improvement. By not completing this PEA, the BLM would have to write separate EAs for each improvement, which would decrease BLMs ability and efficiency to improve the ecosystem and rangeland health. How would the presence of fences impact the ingress and egress of wildlife to water sources? How would riparian fence projects increase the collision risk to wildlife? These issues would be minimized by applying project design features outlined in Wildlife Section 2.1.3. Only fence designs in accordance with Handbook-1741-1 would be constructed. These designs were developed to minimize impacts to wildlife species associated with moving through fences. Fences would also be marked to prevent wildlife collisions in accordance with the Fence Collision Risk Tool (NRCS 2012). Waste - Hazardous/ No actions associated with the proposed action would have impacts to Waste. Solid
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Under this alternative, a range of water source and riparian enhancement actions would be undertaken.
This alternative addresses a suite of activities intended to enhance water source and riparian conditions. Site-specific projects identified in the future would be assessed for consistency with
2-12
the scope and effects addressed in this PEA. To ensure consistency and to examine site-specific conditions and effects, the BLM would conduct site specific survey and design and consider the site specific environmental effects resources and uses found at the project site prior to any project implementation. The analysis would examine the project’s location and proposed activities and identify applicable project design criteria. Projects found to be consistent with the scope and effects considered in this alternative would be implemented. Those that do not would be modified to be consistent with this alternative, or would require a separate NEPA analysis. Since this PEA includes two field offices, projects would be prioritized by resource specialists (e.g., hydrologists, biologists) based on each site’s condition, access, availability of partners and funding as well as the location. Projects that benefit GRSG within Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs), Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) could be prioritized higher than projects outside of these areas. Project Design Features (PDFs) would be selected and implemented in conjunction with actions to avoid or mitigate identified impacts to the environment. Required design features (RDFs) brought forward from the ARMPA are included for the purpose of reducing adverse environmental effects to GRSG and its habitat that might stem from project implementation. The PDFs and RDFs noted in Section 2.1.3 would be considered for each proposed project. However, only those PDFs and RDFs that are appropriate to the location and activity would be selected. Work would be completed through BLM labor, volunteers, agreements and contracts. 2.1.1 Water Source Enhancement Projects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures Modification to existing structures includes the removal, replacement, and/or modification of existing structures at water sources and conducting rehabilitation of soils and vegetation necessary to achieve or make progress toward meeting Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and achieve land health standards and other objectives. Proper functioning condition (PFC) is a qualitative method for assessing the condition of riparian wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process and a defined, on the-ground condition of a riparian- wetland area (Prichard 2003). Structures include fences, gates, pipelines, head-boxes, troughs, pit reservoirs, wells, tanks, pumps, solar panels, wind power generators and wildlife guzzlers and associated facilities.
The intention of modifying existing structures is to improve their functionality to improve water source availability and vegetation composition and riparian protection. Installation of materials such as geoweb, geotextile, concrete, bentonite and gravel could also occur. These materials would be used to armor sites under troughs and to harden water crossings in order to prevent erosion, protect archaeological resources and improve habitat conditions for wildlife, livestock and WH&B using the sites.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Approximately 150 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum total disturbance of 100 acres over the next 10 years. Disturbance associated with this action includes the removal of vegetation, soil and rocks in order to modify or rehabilitate existing developed sites. Disturbance would be calculated within each project area during site specific design. Work would be completed through BLM labor, volunteers, agreements and contracts. Large equipment would include, but is not limited to, rubber tracked backhoes, tractors, and 1-ton trucks.
The photo below is an example of a spring development that needs to be modified to prevent resource damage and riparian area function.
Installation of New Water Developments Installations of new water developments include the construction, operation and maintenance of new water facilities at sites where no current developments exists. New water developments are often necessary to protecting water sources and associated riparian habitats. The objective of installing new water developments outside of riparian areas is to provide reliable water sources for wildlife and improve distribution of livestock and WH&B, particularly where new water sources would decrease hot season grazing on riparian areas.
Water Source Availability Developments: These developments could include wildlife guzzlers and associated infrastructure, pipelines, troughs, fences, wells, pit reservoirs, tanks, pumps, solar panels and wind power generators. Installation of materials such as geoweb, geotextile, concrete and gravel could also occur. These materials would be used to armor sites under troughs and to
2-14
harden water crossings in order to prevent erosion and improve water availability for wildlife, livestock and WH&B.
Approximately 15 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum total disturbance of 50 acres over the next 10 years. Disturbance associated with this action includes the removal of vegetation, soil and rocks in order to develop new sites. Disturbance would be calculated within each project area during site specific design. Work would be completed through BLM labor, volunteers, agreements and contracts. Large equipment would include, but is not limited to, rubber tracked backhoes, tractors, and 1-ton trucks.
The photo below is an example of a new trough that was placed in a previously disturbed site outside a riparian area and a wildlife guzzler and associated infrastructure.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
2.1.2 Riparian Enhancement Projects Riparian Vegetation Projects Riparian vegetation projects would include planting native vegetation within or immediately adjacent to riparian plant communities. The riparian zone is defined in the RMPs as an area one- quarter mile wide encompassing riparian and adjacent vegetation. Proposed riparian vegetation project activities would occur concurrent with cool-season moisture (between November and April) and specific seed mixtures and seedlings would be identified during the site-specific analysis portion of the project.
Approximately 15 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Project areas for seeding/seedlings would have a maximum impact area of 1,500 acres over the next 10 years. The impact area would be the total area that would be seeded or planted. Disturbance associated with vegetation projects would be temporary with the exception of drill seeding and seedling planting where minor disturbance would occur associated with driving off designated routes and digging holes. Work would be completed through BLM labor, volunteers, agreements and contracts. Large equipment would include, but is not limited to, rubber tracked backhoes, tractors, seeders, and 1-ton trucks.
Seeded areas (broadcast/drill) would be rested from livestock grazing until resource monitoring data verifys the treatment objectives are being met. Below are the methods proposed for riparian vegetation projects:
Broadcast Seeding: This method would be implemented on degraded riparian areas, in transition areas between riparian to upland communities or on the drier edges of riparian zones that have bare ground exposed. This method would include broadcasting seed by hand, vehicle or aircraft. Broadcast seeding involves no ground disturbance at the seeding sites. Broadcast treatments are designed to deliver seed while maintaining ecological stability, minimizing soil impacts, and reducing the risk of the establishment of invasive annual grasses and noxious weeds. Broadcast seeding of upland species such as sagebrush would usually not be conducted directly in riparian zones. Sagebrush could be seeded on sites adjacent to riparian zones that are degraded to maintain an ecological diverse transition from true riparian to upland or terrestrial plant communities. Sagebrush seeds are particularly suited to broadcast applications due to their small size they do not typically require full burial in order to achieve adequate seed-soil contact for germination.
Drill Seeding: Drill seeding activities would occur on flatter topography such as floodplains and would occur when the ground is dry or frozen. Seed drills are a mechanical apparatus towed behind a tractor or all-terrain vehicles (ATV) (depending on the size of the drill). Seed is dispersed from hoppers through tubes to small furrows created by discs on the drill. The result is that seeds are buried to improve germination and establishment. The size of the drill would be selected during site specific project design; with the selection driven primarily by the size of the area to be treated. Disturbance associated with this activity includes driving off designated routes and the soil disturbance created by the drill disc.
2-16
The photos below are examples of drill seeding sites along a drainage in the Eagle Lake Field Office.
Auger and Plug Seedlings: Shovel spades and gas-powered augers would be used to dig a 5-8 inch wide hole approximately 18 inches deep. Then bare root or containerized seedling plugs would be manually planted and covered. If planting sedges, containerize or plugs can be directly planted into stream banks or along the edges of riparian zones. For example, in some areas, seedlings would be planted in a pattern designed to establish islands of cover, which would be expected to naturally fill in with plants over time. Some seedlings, especially shrubs would need to be protected with materials such as Vexar tubing to prevent grazing or browsing by livestock, wildlife and WH&B. Disturbance associated with this activity includes the use of equipment to dig holes for planting.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Below is a photo of volunteer’s hand planting seedlings with protective Vexar tubing.
Other Riparian Vegetation Projects
Juniper Treatments: Juniper trees encroaching into riparian areas would be removed using hand restoration methods which would be accomplished by crews with chainsaws or large shears to cut down juniper trees. The trees would either be piled and burned or left on site. Cut juniper could also be placed around riparian sites and springs to temporarily protect them. The treatment or combination of treatments to be used would be based on the site-specific conditions of each project. These treatments would be considered in areas that benefit the hydrological functioning conditions of riparian habitats, drainages and springs. Juniper treatments would be monitored in accordance with the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration FEIS (BLM 2008) or appropriate methods identified prior to treatment.
Juniper treatment areas would be rested from livestock grazing until resource monitoring data verified the treatment objectives are being met. These areas would only be treated if they could be protected or rested using fencing, protective materials or in coordination with livestock permittees. Rest could be achieved using fenced enclosures and pasture rotation. Entire allotments would only be rested if needed to meet Land Health Standards.
Approximately 50 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Project areas would impact a maximum of 5,000 acres over the next 10 years. Work would be completed through BLM labor, volunteers, agreements and contracts. Disturbance associated with this activity includes falling of trees, piling and burning. All areas would be accessed using
2-18
existing roads.
Below are before and after photos of a juniper treatment that occurred around a spring and riparian site.
Stream Enhancement Projects Stream enhancement projects would be implemented for riparian sites identified as non- functioning or functioning at risk and site-specific analysis indicates high probability of success. Restoration would be prioritized in areas that have not crossed an ecological threshold. Site- specific designs intended to trap sediment and stabilize or rebuild floodplains would be implemented. Project designs include coffer dams, gabion-type structures, weirs or vanes made of rock or other materials, engineered log jams, strategic placement of woody debris, rip-rap (large stones), wattles, or flow deflectors. Some areas that are developed would be fenced to exclude livestock and WH&B in order to protect the structures until stabilization is achieved. Specific structure type and locations would be determined by an interdisciplinary team prior to the implementation phase of the projects.
Approximately 5 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum distubance of 50 acres over the next 10 years. Disturbance would be associated with the use of equiptment to move material, install structures and travel off exisiting roads. Of the 50 acres of proposed disturbance, no more than 20 acres would be outside of the active stream channel. Work would be completed through BLM labor, volunteers, agreements and contracts. Large equipment would include, but is not limited to, rubber tracked backhoes, tractors, dozers, and 1-ton trucks.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Photos below are examples of Stream Channel Restoration Projects.
*Photos provided by Rockin TD Ranch
2-20
Photos below are examples of rock weirs placed in a stream drainage.
Riparian Fence Projects Riparian fence projects include construction and maintenance of fences designed to prevent livestock or WH&B grazing in riparian zones. Sites would be identified and selected based on rangeland health evaluations, riparian function and GRSG Habitat Objectives (Appendix D). Fences would be classified as temporary or permanent at the time based upon restoration needs. Various fencing materials and construction techniques would be used based on site locations, specific PDFs would be in place so that they meet all wildlife-friendly standards. Depending on site specific circumstances, fencing would either be barbed-wire, buck-and-pole or liberty pipe. Barbed-wire fencing would include anti-strike bird markers as needed. Fences would be installed by BLM personnel, volunteers or contractors.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
All of the fenced areas would be monitored and assessed for meeting or making progress towards GRSG Habitat Objectives (Appendix D). Other monitoring and management goals can be found in the following BLM Technical References: TR 1737-17 (2001) and TR 1737-20 (2006). If the vegetation inside the fence needs to be managed (i.e. targeted grazing or prescribed burning), BLM would follow all necessary procedures to allow that limited use or action. Any grazing system to be implemented within a riparian zone would need an interdisciplinary team approach to implement a riparian grazing management plan. The plan would entail identifying the resource conditions, developing management objectives, developing and implementing riparian grazing management strategies, and adaptive monitoring of the soil, vegetation, and other biological parameters (See Wyman et al., 2006).
Approximately 60 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would fence off a maximum of 500 acres over the next 10 years. Disturbance associated with this action would include rock removal, driving off designated routes and soil disturbance along fenceline. If the proposed fence were to cross a road, a gate or cattle guard would be installed. All necessary surveys would be completed prior to a cattle guard being sntalled. Large equipment would include, but is not be limited to, rubber tracked backhoes, bobcat tractors and trucks.
Photo examples of Riparian Fencing Projects:
Buck-and-Pole Fence
2-22
Liberty Pipe Fence materials
Road Removal/Realignment Throughout the field office areas there are roads that exist immediately adjacent to riparian areas within riparian zones. Many of these roads were constructed without consideration for riparian habitats and are now impacting the function of those riparian systems. Roads would be decommissioned and re-routed as necessary around riparian areas to provide vehicle access consistent with transportation planning. Depending upon the topography, soils and geology, re- routing roads could require use of heavy equipment to construct roads in a manner that does not create excessive erosion.
Approximately 10 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum total disturbance of 20 acres over the next 10 years. Disturbance associated with this activity would include, ripping, blading, vegetation and top-soil removal. Large equipment would include, but is not limited to, rubber tracked backhoes, tractors, dozers and pickup trucks. New routes would be designed and approved through a BLM interdiciplinary team to ensure no advers impacts to resources.
Decommissioned routes would be rehabilitated using various techniques such as ripping, verticle mulching, seeding and barrier placement.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
The photo below is an example of a road that traverses a riparian zone.
2.1.3 Project Design Features and Processes Project Design Features are measures incorporated into the site-specific design of the project to eliminate or minimize adverse impacts to the environment as well as meet the project objectives. These PDFs would be implemented as part of the proposed action. Below also outlines the process in which resources would be reviewed during the site specific identification. All proposed projects in GRSG habitat management areas would incorporate applicable management decisions, restrictions, and required design features (RDFs) outlined in the 2015 GRSG ARMPA.
Cultural Resources
1. Where possible, sites eligible or unevaluated for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be avoided and any ground disturbance will be limited to previously disturbed areas, resulting in no effect or no adverse effect to the site. 2. Archaeological monitor(s) will be present during ground disturbing activities in areas of archaeological sensitivity as determined by the BLM archaeologist. 3. No drill seeding will occur on NRHP eligible and unevaluated sites. 4. When designing fence projects (either temporary or permanent), sites eligible or unevaluated for the NRHP should be included within the exclosure. For sites that are substantial in size or it is impractical to include the entire site within the fence, the BLM archaeologist will be involved in designing the exclosure. The most vulnerable portions of the archaeological site, as determined by the BLM archaeologist, will be located within the fence. 5. A BLM archaeologist will be involved in the juniper treatment projects so that there are no direct or indirect adverse impacts to cultural resources. 6. During repair and/or maintenance or existing infrastructure heavy equipment that will be used on NRHP eligible or unevaluated sites will have rubber tires. In order to reduce
2-24
subsurface disturbance to the site, turning heavy equipment on the site is prohibited (travel must maintain a single direction within the site). 7. Use of heavy equipment will not occur when the soil is damp or wet as to avoid unnecessary soil disturbance from soil clumping to the equipment. 8. Archaeological resources (e.g., prehistoric rock features) will not be dismantled or altered for construction materials (i.e., to create rock jacks for fences or rip-rap for stream enhancement projects).
Process once surveys, scoping, and consultations are conducted:
1. If no cultural resources are located, then the project can be implemented. 2. If cultural resources are located, but are determined not eligible for the NRHP, then the project can be implemented. 3. If cultural resources are located and are unevaluated or are eligible for the NRHP, then one of the three below options can be taken: a. Modify the project to avoid the cultural resource or develop the project in a manner that does not alter the site’s eligibility, as determined by the BLM archaeologist. b. Abandon the project. c. Complete a site specific NEPA document. Livestock Grazing 1. Livestock operators would be consulted early on in the process and notified prior to project implementation. 2. BLM would work with grazing permittees to ensure that the proposed projects would not remove critical water availability. 3. Maintenance responsibilities would be determined during the site specific implementation of the proposed actions; Cooperative Range Improvement Agreements would be executed as necessary. 4. Vegetation treatments would be rested from livestock grazing until resource monitoring data verified the treatment objectives are being met. Seeding and seedlings projects would only occur if they could be protected or rested using fencing, protective materials or in coordination with livestock permittees. 5. Rest could be achieved using fenced enclosures and/or pasture rotation. Entire allotments would only be rested if needed to meet Land Health Standards. 6. If a riparian fence project area is large enough that it could impact the livestock grazing authorization (i.e. number of AUMs authorized), a separate NEPA analysis would be completed or the project would be deferred to when the permit renewal was assessed. Soils 1. A Soils specialist or other qualified BLM staff would ensure completion of necessary surveys and determine appropriate site-specific project design features and restrictions. 2. No construction or routine maintenance activities shall be performed during periods when the soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment. If such equipment creates ruts in excess of six inches deep, the soil shall be deemed too wet to adequately support construction equipment.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
3. All soil disturbing activities that could result in a high potential of soil erosion would be rehabilitated with site appropriate seedlings or reseeded with BLM approved seed mix to prevent soil erosion. 4. Where possible, new water developments that would be available to livestock and WH&B would be placed in locations with the least productive soils (within the site specific project area) to prevent unnecessary soil loss and erosion potential. Vegetation 1. A Botanist or other qualified BLM staff would ensure completion of necessary surveys. 2. If Special Status plant species (SSP) are located a determination will be made if the reproductive viability of the species will be negatively impacted. If negatively impacted a Biological Evaluation will be prepared to address the status, condition of the species across its range, and any mitigation needed to reduce or eliminate the threat to the viability of the SSP. 3. Planting and seeding would take place in the late fall to mid spring to maximize the highest level of soil moisture. 4. Seedlings would be protected using materials such as Vexar tubes or seedlings would be placed within fence exclosures. 5. If the vegetation inside a fence exclosure needs to be managed (i.e. targeted grazing or prescribed burning), BLM would follow all necessary procedures to allow that use or action. Riparian/Wetlands/Floodplains/Meadows/Water Quality 1. A Hydrologist or other qualified BLM staff would ensure completion of necessary surveys to develop and determine appropriate site-specific design features and restrictions. Special Designation Areas (WSA, WSR, ACECs, NCA, Wilderness)
Water Source Enhancement Projects: 1. Modifications to existing structures: This action item would be permitted in Areas of Special Designation under this EA. 2. New Developments: This action item would not be permitted under this EA within WSA and Wilderness. A separate site specific EA would have to be prepared; however, applicable analysis for affected resources such as vegetation, wildlife, etc could be tiered to this PEA. New development projects would be allowable within ACEC, WSR and NCA.
Riparian Enhancement Projects 1. Riparian Vegetation Projects: Broadcast seeding and planting seedlings would be permitted in Areas of Special Designation under this EA. Drill seeding would not occur under this EA within WSA and Wilderness. If it is determined that a site could benefit from drill seeding a separate site specific EA would be prepared; however, applicable analysis for affected resources such as vegetation, wildlife, cultural etc. could be tiered to this PEA. Drill seeding would be allowable within ACEC, WSR and NCA. Juniper removal would be permitted in Areas of Special Designation under this PEA with the
2-26
exception of designated wilderness. 2. Riparian Fence Projects: Fencing project could occur within Areas of Special Designation under this PEA. Fences would be designed to sit on the surface, have outlined temporary durations or protect or enhance wilderness characteristics or other values. 3. Road Removal/Realignment: Road removal/rehabilitation could occur within Areas of Special Designation under this PEA. Road realignment would not occur under this PEA within WSA and Wilderness. Road removal/realignment projects would be allowable within ACEC, WSR and NCA. 4. Stream Enhancement Projects: These projects would not occur under this PEA within WSA and Wilderness. Stream Enhancement projects would be allowable within ACEC, WSR and NCA.
* No new roads (temporary or permanent) would be proposed within Areas of Special Designation under this PEA. Only existing roads would be used to access projects.
Process when proposing site specific projects: 1. Notice of proposed action (NOPA) would be prepared and scoped with interested parties. 2. Wilderness Specialist would ensure completion of necessary surveys to develop and determine appropriate site-specific design features and restrictions. 3. Minimum requirements analysis would be prepared for projects proposed in designated wilderness. Only those projects which are determined to meet the minimum requirements for lands managed as wilderness would be proposed for implementation. 4. Minimum-tool analysis would be prepared for projects within WSA. 5. Proposed projects in WSA would have to document how they meet the standards and guidelines outlined in the WSA BLM Manual 6330, Wilderness 6340 and the RMPs.
Invasive Plants and Noxious Weeds 1. Herbicide Use: Only herbicides approved for use in or near water would be utilized within 10 feet of water’s edge. Treatments would only occur as spot treatments. 2. All equipment associated with the proposed action would be pressure washed prior to engaging in project activities and before transport to new work areas, in order to minimize the potential spread of invasive plants and noxious weed species. 3. Equipment operators and project inspectors would be provided with a noxious weed identification guide for species that are known to occur in northeast California and Nevada. 4. If a noxious weed site is discovered, project activities would cease and the Noxious Weed Coordinator notified of the occurrence. Project activities would not resume in the area until treatments and prevention procedures are in place. 5. Livestock Permittees would be notified prior to herbicide treatments within an allotment. Safety measures designed to protect livestock are outlined in the Integrated Invasive Plant Management EA (2013) would be followed.
Visual Resource Management In VRM Class I and II areas: 1. Proposed project features would be masked using topography and project design.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
2. Improvements constructed of non-natural materials (concrete, plastic, etc.) would be painted a BLM approved environmental color (Standard Environmental Color Chart CC-001: June 2008). 3. In juniper treatments areas, downed trees would be cut into small enough segments so the tree trunks and limbs are not readily visible above surrounding shrubs and grasses. 4. If cut juniper trees are large enough to be visible among shrubs and grasses, tree trunks and limbs would be cut, piled and burned under the direction of an approved burn plan. Wild Horse and Burro 1. BLM would work with grazing permittees and stake holders within Herd Management Areas (HMAs) in improving/maintaining water sources. 2. Maintenance responsibilities would be determined during the site specific implementation of the proposed actions. 3. Riparian fence projects would only be implemented in HMAs if water could be provided outside of the fence or if there was adequate water availability present in the HMA that would not adversely impact WH&B.
Wildlife/Fisheries/Migratory Birds 1. A BLM wildlife biologist would ensure the completion of necessary wildlife surveys to develop and determine appropriate site-specific design features and seasonal timing restrictions. 2. All fences would be designed or fitted with markers to prevent wildlife collision. The Sage-Grouse Fence Collision Risk Tool to Reduce Bird Strikes (NRCS 2012) will be applied site specifically. 3. All fencing projects would be designed to be wildlife friendly and would not inhibit wildlife’s ability to egress or ingress riparian and water resources. Design and construction of fences will be consistent with BLM H-1741-1, Fencing Standards Manual (BLM 1990). 4. Any projects that occurred in habitat used by federally listed species would be designed to reach a “may affect not likely to adversely affect” and would be consulted with the USFWS. 5. Applicable Required Design Features (RDF) outlined in Appendix C of the 2015 GRSG ARMPA would be brought forward during the site specific analysis process. 6. GRSG seasonal timing restrictions could include: . In breeding habitat within 4 miles of active and pending GRSG leks from March 1 through June 30 a. Lek—March 1 to May 15 b. Lek hourly restrictions—6 p.m. to 9 a.m. c. Nesting—April 1 to June 30 . Brood-rearing habitat from May 15 to September 15 a. Early—May 15 to June 15 b. Late—June 15 to September 15 . Winter habitat from November 1 to February 28
2-28
If state/district/field staff conclude that they can modify the seasonal timing restrictions as set forth in the ARMPA, staff will be required (per the ARMPA) to document this analysis in the activity’s project file, as well as the coordination that took place with the local BLM biologist and NDOW/CDFW to reach this conclusion. This rationale is also required to be placed within the “environmental consequences” section of the proposed activity’s EA or EIS. If the NEPA document associated with the proposed activity is a DNA or a CX, the field and district office will ensure the rationale and coordination is documented in the proposed activity’s project file. BLM Nevada will also ensure that this coordination process with NDOW related to seasonal timing restriction variations is spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding between BLM Nevada and NDOW.
2.1.4 Project Implementation Monitoring This PEA outlines thresholds for analysis that cannot be exceeded (i.e., acres disturbed over 10 years). In order for these thresholds to not be exceeded, the BLM has established a monitoring plan where the planning and environmental specialist for the field offices would report to the District office annually on the projects that have been completed under this PEA. This information would be captured in a spreadsheet that both field offices have access to.
When a project is proposed, the proposed acres would be checked with this spreadsheet to ensure that acre thresholds are not being exceeded. This would occur during the initiation of the project and NEPA document.
2.2 Alternative 2: No Action The No Action Alternative is the current management situation. Water sources and riparian enhancement projects would continue to be proposed, analyzed and implemented through preparation of individual environmental assessments (EA) or categorical exclusions (CX). Under this alternative, water sources and riparian enhancement projects would not be implemented in a programmatic manner. It is assumed that if the No Action Alternative were selected fewer projects such as the ones outlined in the proposed action would be implemented over the next 10 years.
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis Reduced Livestock Grazing/Habitat Restoration Alternative. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because reducing livestock grazing levels and/or changes in permitted livestock use is accomplished through the permit renewal process. This alternative is outside the scope of analysis and would not address the purpose and need for the proposed action, which is to improve water source and riparian habitats, enhance wildlife habitat including GRSG habitat, and increase the efficiency for completing projects. If a need for new water source or riparian enhancement projects are identified during the grazing permit renewal process, the analysis in this PEA would be utilized in considering the environmental consequences of incorporating those projects into new grazing authorizations.
Reduced Wild Horse and Burro (WH&B) Appropriate Management Level (AML) Alternative.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because reducing AMLs requires adjustments based upon site specific monitoring of WH&B impacts on resources. This process could be accomplished through a multiple use analysis including livestock, during grazing permit renewals and specific WH&B Herd Management Area gather EAs. This alternative is outside the scope of analysis and would not address the purpose and need for the proposed action, which is to improve riparian function, water source and riparian habitats, enhance wildlife habitat including GRSG habitat and increase the efficiency for completing projects. Appropriate Management Level is defined as the “optimum” number of wild horses (or burros) which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoids a deterioration of the range. (109 IBLA 119; also reference Dahl vs. Clark, supra at 592).The Analysis for this document would be tiered to when completing Livestock Grazing and WH&B NEPA analysis. BLMs current process to conduct gathers is handled and funded out of the Washington DC BLM Office (WO). The field offices apply for funding and support to gather WH&B and the WO ranks and approves the requests. The BLM Eagle Lake Field Office has applied for gathers, but has not been approved since 2010.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
2-30
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.1 Assumptions Several assumptions were made during the analysis process. These assumptions were necessary to provide a standard basis for comparison between alternatives. However, it must be stated that all proposed action items, including implementation and maintenance, are subject to federal budgets.
Assumptions for the Proposed Action Approximate number of projects and maximum acres impacted that could be implemented over the next 10 years: Modification & Removal projects- Approximately 150 projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum distubance of 100 acres over the next 10 years. New Water Developments- Approximately 15 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum distubance of 50 acres over the next 10 years. Riparian Vegetation projects- Approximately 15 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Project areas for seeding/seedlings would have a maximum impact area of 1,500 acres over the next 10 years. Juniper treatments: Approximately 50 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Project areas would impact a maximum of 5,000 acres over the next 10 years. Stream Enhancement projects- Approximately 5 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum distubance of 50 acres over the next 10 years. Riparian Fencing Projects- Approximately 60 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would fence off a maximum of 500 acres over the next 10 years. Road Removal/Realignment projects- Approximately 10 of these projects would be completed over the next 10 years. Projects would have a maximum distubance of 20 acres over the next 10 years.
Assumption for the No Action Alternative: It is assumed that if the No Action Alternative were selected fewer projects such as the ones outlined in the proposed action would be implemented over the next 10 years.
Assumptions for Both Alternatives: All proposed projects would be subject to appropriate field surveys, project design to incorporate necessary design features, and appropriate environmental review and completion of a decision record prior to implementation. Seedings would be successful. Short-term effects occur within five years of implementation; long-term effects occur greater than five years after implementation. Ecological health and ecosystem functioning depend on a number of factors, including vegetation cover, species diversity, nutrient cycling and availability, water infiltration and availability, percent cover of weeds and climatic trends.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
3.2 General Description The Great Basin is a temperate desert with hot, dry summers and snowy winters. Topography is considered Basin and Range and consists of wide valleys bordered by mountains. Elevations in the AGFO and ELFO range between approximately 3000 feet on the valley floors to about 8000 feet at some peaks. Annual precipitation ranges are from six inches in the lower elevations to about 24 inches in the higher elevations. Some surface water comes from snow melt which can develop into seasonal or intermittent streams. There are a few perennial streams present but most of the widespread perennial water sources are small springs and seeps scattered across the landscape.
3.3 Environmental Impacts The following section describes the affected environment, followed by the environmental consequences for each resource. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects contained in the following chapter include considerations brought forward in both internal and external scoping.
Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects are defined as effects caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are defined as effects caused by the action but occurring later in time or further removed in distance.
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis include: juniper cutting/removal on public and private lands, domestic livestock grazing, wild horse grazing within Wild Horse Management Areas (WHMA), and recreational uses on lands within the region of the proposed action. The Cumulative Assessment Area (CAA) defines the area in which cumulative effects are considered in light of the proposed action. The CAA for this document would include the two field office areas with a timeframe of 10 years.
3.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Riparian and Range Improvement Projects The BLM has completed multiple riparian enhancement projects in the past. All of these projects were either completed using an environmental assessment (EA) or a categorical exclusion (CX). Currently the Eagle Lake Field Office completed a CX to maintain all existing riparian and water source structures within the field office area. They have started to implement those projects that qualify. With the importance that GRSG conservation has imposed on riparian sites, the BLM would continue to complete these types of projects in the future. BLM and livestock permittees have completed numerous range improvements which include fencing, troughs, pipelines, pit reservoirs and associated facilities. In the past 5 years the Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Offices have completed 140 projects similar to the ones outlined in the proposed action. The majority of these projects are maintenance; however, some were new developments such as exclosures and water sources. Juniper Removal Juniper trees have been cut by local residents for fence posts and firewood for at least 100 years. In the past several decades juniper has also been removed through cutting or burning to decrease tree canopy cover and increase vegetative composition of shrubs and
3-32
grasses on public and private lands.
Local residents will continue to cut juniper. Under existing NEPA documents, the BLM will continue to treat juniper-encroached areas using mechanical removal, hand removal, and prescribed fire. This work will primarily occur in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and important wildlife habitats. This work will focus at the landscape level and include large blocks of land that are actively being encroached by juniper.
Juniper treatments will continue to occur on non-BLM-managed land. This work would generally be smaller in scope and can range from 20-1000 acres. Both the Eagle Lake and Applegate Field Offices have completed programmatic EAs to treat juniper encroachment and have started to implement projects. Mechanical removal and chipping of juniper was recently completed on multiple treatment units within the two field office areas. Mechanical and hand removal, chipping and burn piles of juniper are planned to take place over the next 3-5 years on approximately 20,000 acres within the two field office areas. Domestic Livestock Grazing Domestic livestock grazing has occurred within the field office areas for at least 150 years. Over the past forty years the amount of livestock grazing in the allotments in the Project area has been reduced. Livestock grazing management practices have also been modified to reduce or eliminate impacts to uplands and riparian/wetland sites. Livestock grazing continues to be authorized under the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act in all or portions of the grazing allotments associated with the Project area. Season of use are generally three to six months long, and livestock turnout areas and multiple pastures are used to manage the frequency, duration and intensity of grazing and browsing. Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas WH&B within Herd Management Areas (HMAs) occupy and utilize resources in portions of the Project area. Since 1979, the BLM has conducted periodic gathers of WH&B within the HMAs to remove excess animals to manage the population size within the established AML ranges. Within the Twin Peaks HMA, populations of WH&B are at least double the established AML. The large number of WH&B are causing degradation to upland and riparian/wetland sites within portions of the Project area. Increases are due to yearly population growth combined with a Bureau-wide reduction of gathers that has been mandated as a result of Bureau holding facilities reaching maximum capacity. WH&B are expected to continue to thrive within the HMAs in the Project area. Gathers and removals are expected to occur, as authorized, to manage these populations. Recreation Recreation use has occurred mainly in the form of hiking, camping, hunting, limited motorized recreation, and general sightseeing. Activities that have occurred with low frequency are wildlife observation, nature study, and archaeological sightseeing. Recreation use is expected to continue at approximately the same levels as they presently occur. Realty and Minerals Actions. The realty and minerals program issues leases, grants and permits for facilities such as roads, pipelines, power-lines, communication sites, gravel pits, etc. Currently both field
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
offices process approximately 20 rights-of-ways (ROW) a year. The majority of these ROWs are renewing existing authorizations; however, approximately 10 percent are new and entail ground disturbance. Ground disturbance varies by projects from less than one acre for small sites and roads to occasionally 50 acres for larger transmission and pipeline projects. There are currently no pending applications for large ROWs (50 acres or more). Approximately 25 mineral material sites are located on BLM lands within the two field offices. These range in size from 2 acres to 17 acres. On average the BLM authorizes expansions (new ground disturbance) on these pits of no more than 10 acres every 10 years. Other mineral actions would include mining. One open pit mine was authorized in the past but closed in the 1980’s. There are currently no active mining operations occurring within the two field offices.
3.5 Impacts from the Programmatic Approach Under the proposed action water source and riparian enhancement activities analyzed in the PEA would be implemented through a tiered process intended to increase efficiency in implementing additional enhancement activities by establishing desired outcomes, standardized best management practices, and supporting implementing actions that would benefit riparian habitats. The number of projects that could be completed over the next 10 years is outlined in section 3.1.
Under the No Action Alternative the BLM would have to complete separate EA or CX documents for each water source and riparian enhancement projects. This would decrease the efficiency and the BLMs ability to complete these types of projects. This alternative would be less efficient when compared to the proposed action. 3.6 Affected Resources
3.6.1 Cultural Resources Affected Environment Within both the AGFO and ELFO, naturally occurring water sources and riparian areas contain relatively high incidence of significant archaeological sites. The importance of springs in the high desert cannot be overemphasized; areas within 200 meters of springs are more than three times likelier than average to contain a prehistoric archaeological site (King et al. 2004).
The vast majority of known archaeological sites around springs in the AGFO and ELFO are prehistoric. These archaeological resources range from less than 100 years old to more than 10,000 years old and can be described as: • Complex, lowland habitation sites; • Complex, upland seasonal habitation sites; • Complex, upland resource processing sites; • Small, simple lithic scatters; • Quarries; • Rock shelters; • Sites associated with ethnographic place names; • Sacred sites; • Rock art; • Rock features (i.e., rock stacks, rock alignments, hunting blinds, etc.).
3-34
The remaining sites are historic in age or contain a historic component. These sites typically relate to homesteading, ranching, and agricultural activities of the last 150 years. These archaeological resources may include: • House structures and early homesteads; • Ranch complexes; • Historic fences, rock walls, corrals, and horse traps; • Historic spring developments; • Mines or assay pits; • Historic roads, trails, or rail lines; • Civilian Conservation Corps-related sites; • Basque sheep herding-related sites; • Other historic debris.
Within the AGFO there are at least 235 known sites within 50 meters of springs. These sites range from less than one acre to 734 acres in size, with an average size of 42 acres. A number of these sites have been evaluated as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, while the majority remains unevaluated. Approximately 234 cultural resources inventories have occurred within 50 meters of springs. Of these, 52 were completed within the last 10 years.
Within the ELFO there are at least 38 known sites within 50 meters of springs. Excluding the historic Nobles Emigrant Trail, these sites range from less than one acre to 197 acres in size, with an average size of 16 acres. A number of these sites have been evaluated as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, while the majority remain unevaluated. Approximately 60 cultural resources inventories have occurred within 50 meters of springs. Of these, 36 were completed within the last 10 years.
Previous inventories around springs have varied over time due to evolving methodologies, skill sets, and technology. A large portion of the previous surveys around springs occurred in the 1970s. Often these surveys were conducted in conjunction with Section 106 compliance work, while others were part of independent or non-project related surveys. In general, the surveys prior to the mid-2000s will be inadequate as the pedestrian surveys often utilized 100-meter spacing between transects, did not utilize GPS to accurately record the site, and/or have substandard paperwork. So while the presence of a number of sites near riparian areas is known, the importance of these sites would need to be determined at the project level through re- inventorying and evaluation.
About a third of the surveys around springs have been completed within the last five years. These surveys were Class III pedestrian surveys using 30 meter (or less) spacing between transects and the sites were recorded with GPS devices with sub-meter accuracy. Re-recording known sites around springs in the past few years has often increased the site size and diversity of artifacts and features. Consequently, while many earlier surveys provide a good guideline for how often archaeological sites occur around springs, they often do not provide sufficient information regarding the complexity of these sites.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
The two field offices have been occupied by five tribes: the Northern Paiute, the Pit River, the Mountain Maidu, the Washoe, and the Modoc.
Northern Paiute The Northern Paiute occupied a vast area in the Great Basin and the traditional territories of four bands are located in portions of the field offices. The Kidütikado (Groundhog-Eaters) traditional territory predominantly focuses around Surprise Valley (in California), Big Valley (in Oregon) and Warner Valley (in Oregon) (Kelly 1932; Stewart 1939). The Aga' ipañinadökadö (Fish Lake Eaters) traditional territory predominantly focuses around Summit Lake (in Nevada) and the Black Rock Desert (in Nevada) (Stewart 1939). The Kamödökadö (Jack-Rabbit Eaters) traditional territory predominantly focuses around Gerlach, Nevada and Smoke Creek (in Nevada) (Stewart 1939). The Wadadökadö (Wada-Seed Eaters) traditional territory predominantly focuses around Honey Lake (in California) along the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada (Stewart 1939).
Pit River The Pit River is composed of 11 tribes whose traditional territories span from the Big Bend of the Pit River and Montgomery Creek in north eastern California to the Warner Mountain range near the California-Nevada border, and from Goose Lake near the California-Oregon border to Eagle Lake (in California) (Merriam 1926). The tribes include (from west to east): Madesi (Big Bend, California), Itsatawi (Burney, California), Atsugewi (Hat Creek Valley, California), Illmawi (Burney Creek and Hat Creek, California), Ajumawi (Fall River, California), Aporige (Dixie Valley, California), Atwamsini (Big Valley, California), Astarimawi (Canby, California), Hammawi (Likely, California), Kosealekte (Alturas, California), and Hewesidewi (Goose Lake, California) (Merriam 1926; Kniffen 1928; Garth 1953).
Modoc The Modoc traditionally inhabited a small but geographically diverse region that today includes portions of northeastern California and southern Oregon. Modoc territory centered around Lower Klamath (California), Tule and Clear Lakes (California), as well as the Lost River watershed (Oregon and California) (Kroeber 1925; Ray 1963). This territory was divided into three geographic areas, with the Gumbatwas (“people of the west”), the Paskanwas (“river people”), and Kokiwas (“people of the far-out country”) occupying respective areas (Ray 1963). Gumbatwas territory extended from Lower Klamath Lake and Lost River Valley in the west to the northwestern corner of Tule Lake (and through the lake to its southeastern corner), then southeast to the southernmost tribal territory line in the Glass Mountain vicinity (Ray 1963). The Paskanwas occupied the area between Lost River Gap and Tule Lake, a majority of which is located in southern Oregon. Lastly, the Kokiwas occupied eastern Modoc territory, which included the eastern shore of Tule Lake, portions of the Upper Lost River, the Clear Lake vicinity, and the western shore of Goose Lake (Stern 1998).
Mountain Maidu The Maidu are composed of three tribes: the Maidu or Mountain Maidu (northeastern), the Konkow (northwestern), and the Nisenan (southern). Each of these tribes speaks one of the three Maiduan languages which together comprise the Maiduan language family, a member of the Penutian language stock (Shipely 1978). The traditional area of the Mountain Maidu lies within
3-36
the ELFO boundary (King et. al., 2004). Most of Maidu territory consisted of high mountain valleys; however, the Maidu also occupied the Honey Lake vicinity. This area consisted of sagebrush and alkali flats and barren ridges around Honey Lake, as well as the sloughs, meadows, and marshes formed by the tributaries of the Susan River and Willow Creek.
Washoe The Washoe or Wašiw traditionally utilized the area east of the Sierra Nevada Crest, around Honey Lake (California), west of Pyramid and Walker lakes (Nevada), and north of Mono Lake (California) for resource procurement, trade, and occupation. Their primary habitation area was more focused around Lake Tahoe (California and Nevada) and south of Honey Lake (Kowta 1988, The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 2016). The Washoe are tied to both the Great Basin and California subsistence economies. They relied on both acorns from California and pinyon from the Great Basin (d’Azevedo 1986).
Riparian areas have traditionally served two primary functions: the utilitarian function as locations to acquire water, gather plants, and hunt, as well as spiritual places (power places, good luck springs, and medicinal springs) (Roybal and Haller 1982). In addition, certain springs and riparian areas served as landmarks and campsites (Rucks and Tiley 2011). Lakes, rivers, and streams to various extents provided fish and the marshes adjacent these bodies of water provided places to hunt waterfowl, collect eggs, and gather important plants like tule, cattails, willow, and certain root crops (Kelly 1932; Garth 1953; Kniffen 1928). Other important edible, utilitarian and medicinal plants, such as wild rose, wild mint, sedge, western columbine, dogbane, willow, and tobacco could be found around springs and meadows. Traditionally, springs and lakes also played an important role in the spiritual aspect of life, from being important components of coming-of-age rituals (Voegelin 1942; Kelly 1932; Garth 1953) to being the residence of spirits who could bestow power, luck, or healing to individuals (Roybal & Halley 1932; Kelly 1932; Garth 1953; Voegelin 1942). While some individual springs and lakes were widely known and used by groups, more often not everyone visited the same springs to obtain luck or healing (Roybal and Haller 1982). Moreover, the residence of spirits at specific springs is not static; springs that were damaged or neglected could potentially lose their influence while others could become more influential (Roybal and Haller 1982; Kelly 1932).
Locations of Native American traditional uses (Traditional Cultural Properties [TCPs]), such as traditional plant gathering areas or locations used for ceremonies, are often not known to the BLM, but may still be present in the Project area. The ELFO and AGFO consult with 11 Native American Tribal Governments for the purpose of identifying areas that are in need of special management or protection such as traditional gathering locations. This information may be important when selecting native species for planting projects around riparian and other areas.
As cultural resources are non-renewable resources, the cumulative impacts to cultural resources have been occurring throughout history, with the most detrimental anthropogenic impacts occurring within the past 150 years. Such impacts around riparian areas derive from livestock grazing, WH&B, the installation of pit reservoirs, wells, troughs, and tanks, the construction of roads, underground pipelines, overhead transmission lines, wildland and prescribed fires, vegetation treatments, unauthorized looting and damage, and indirectly through erosion and restricted access or availability. These impacts have occurred on private and public lands
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
through authorized and non-authorized uses.
Cumulative impacts to traditionally significant springs appear to be two-fold. The privatization of lands, removal or re-routing of roads, and creation of fences have restricted access to certain riparian areas (Roybal & Haller 1982). Spring developments and other management actions have potentially impaired the visual, auditory, and feeling of spiritual places. Restricted access, grazing practices, and the introduction of non-native invasive species have directly and indirectly affected the availability of traditionally important plants located around riparian areas. These cumulative impacts to traditionally important springs has potentially lead to damage to the cultural integrity of the springs or has hindered the capability of traditional practitioners to practice and/or pass traditional knowledge to successive generations.
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action):
Direct and Indirect Effects Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), sites that maintain sufficient integrity can be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places based on four criteria: criterion A (sites associated with significant events in American history or broad pattern in American history); criterion B (sites associated with the lives of persons significant in the past); criterion C (the site contains unique or master craftsmanship techniques, materials, or style); and/or criterion D (the site contains information that would contribute to the understanding of human history or prehistory). Sites that are determined not eligible for the NRHP are not afforded further protection under the NHPA and would not be mitigated under the proposed action. Consequently, ineligible sites could be potentially obliterated or partially obliterated through the proposed action items (i.e. through the construction of a road or pit reservoir, through the installment of stream enhancement projects, tanks, or underground pipelines, or through drill seeding).
The Project Design Features for the proposed actions have been developed to avoid or minimize any potential the negative direct and indirect impacts to eligible or unevaluated cultural resources that derive from the proposed actions, so that no individual project results in significant impact to the cultural resources. Evaluation of archaeological sites may require subsurface testing and excavation as well as artifact collection in order to assess the integrity of the site and evaluate the site under criterion D of the NHPA.
Some of the proposed action items have the potential to benefit cultural resources around springs. Fenced exclosures that enclose the archaeological site or other cultural resources within their boundaries would alleviate the impacts incurred from livestock and WH&B. Such impacts include the surface and subsurface disturbance of cultural deposits resulting in the dispersion and mixing of cultural constituents and the introduction of contaminants to buried deposits as a result of WH&B and livestock trailing and wallowing (ASPPN 1990; Logsdon 1976; Nielsen 1991; Osborne et al. 1987). Trailing and wallowing also results in the crushing, breaking, and alteration of surface artifacts (ASPPN 1990; Logsdon 1976; Nielsen 1991; Osborne et al. 1987). The
3-38
restoration of riparian areas could provide a suitable environment for the re-establishment of perennial forbs and grasses reducing erosion problems within cultural resource sites (see below in the cumulative impacts of the No Action Alternative).
However, there are existing spring developments that were constructed prior the NHPA being implemented (those constructed prior to 1966). In these cases, the inventory and analysis for cultural resources around those spring developments is absent or inadequate and consequently the impacts from livestock and WH&B grazing (see above) have occurred on eligible or unevaluated sites. By maintaining the existing spring developments as-is, these direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources would not change in type or severity, but nonetheless would continue to occur. Under this Programmatic EA, these types of direct and indirect impacts would continue to potentially occur at up to 150 cultural resource sites.
The process of re-routing roads away from riparian areas may have the indirect benefit of removing existing road segments off archaeological sites, thus reducing the impacts from roads. These impacts include the crushing, breaking, and alteration of artifacts in the road as well as the indirect breaking of artifacts and surface disturbance resulting from drivers using areas adjacent the road to park or turn around. Continual driving on roads results in soil compaction which results in crushing or breaking of artifacts and buried deposits. In addition, soil compaction and the alteration of the soil properties can result in erosion (Iverson et al. 1981; Webb et al. 1978) which can indirectly impact archaeological sites by displacing artifacts.
Furthermore, removing juniper from an archaeological site would reduce fuel densities which could also indirectly benefit cultural resources during a fire. Artifacts associated with the historic sites, such as wooden structures, and glass and metal artifacts may be damaged or completely destroyed by fire (Haecker 2012). Extreme heat can damage stone tools and lithic debris on or near the site’s surface (Deal 2012). Rock art can be damaged both indirectly and directly from fire (Kelly & McCarthy 2012). Certain rock types are subject to spalling from heat; smoke and soot can deteriorate rock art. The prehistoric sites located in areas of heavy fuel would be at most risk. Sites located in areas of fine flashy fuels would be at less risk of exposure to intensive heat over a long duration of time. Regarding prescribed fire in aspen stands, the transfer of heat through conduction (i.e. direct contact with the fire) or radiation (i.e. being near the fire) can damage or kill the main stem of the aspen tree and could negatively impacts aspen trees with silvaglyphs (carvings on a tree). The reduction of juniper within cultural sites in and around riparian areas would indirectly benefit archaeological resources by reducing the chances that these impacts would occur during a fire.
Cumulative Effects Due to the nature of the management action or the implementation of the PDFs, the proposed action items will have no negative cumulative effects. Individual projects that would have adverse effects to cultural resources would be analyzed in a separate EA and the cumulative
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
effects would be addressed in that document.
Alternative 2 (No Action): Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative the proposed action items would not occur under a programmatic manner. Fewer projects outlined in the proposed action would be implemented and cultural resources would be addressed during each project analysis. The existing impacts would continue to occur and cultural resources would not garner the potential benefits of the Proposed Management Action unless similar management actions were proposed through site specific individual NEPA evaluation.
Cumulative Effects Similar to the Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative, the cumulative impacts from the proposed action would not occur as a result of this programmatic EA. Likewise, existing impacts would continue to occur on cultural resources. Riparian areas that are lacking the necessary vegetation to retard erosion would continue to erode, indirectly impacting archaeological sites through the displacement of soil and artifacts.
3.6.2 Livestock Grazing & Socioeconomics Affected Environment Within the project area, horses, sheep and cattle are grazed under grazing authorizations in areas delineated as allotments. Each allotment has a permitted season of use and Animal Unit Months (AUMs). The Applegate Field Office administers 2 horse, 9 sheep, and 211 cattle authorizations across 205 grazing allotments for a total of 147, 346 AUMs. The Eagle Lake Field Office administers 66 cattle and 3 sheep authorizations across 55 active grazing allotments for a total of 52,000 AUMs. The general season of use is from April through October of each year. Livestock numbers and AUMs vary from year to year depending on soil and forage conditions and water availability. These grazing allotments between the two field offices represent approximately 2.9 million acres of public lands. 1,904,000 managed by the Applegate Field Office and 988,000 acres managed by the Eagle Lake Field Office.
There are approximately 1,800 range improvements across the two field offices. Types of improvements include but are not limited to seedings, exclosure fences, windmills, stockponds and spring developments.
Utilization of key species (grasses, forbs and shrubs) by permitted livestock is limited to moderate (40% - 60%) use levels across the project area. On allotments not meeting or making progress toward meeting land health standards due to current levels of livestock forage utilization, maximum allowable utilization levels on key species are reduced.
Distribution of livestock is one of the biggest challenges facing livestock permittees due in part to a lack of reliable sources of water. Over-use in riparian areas has been and continues to be a chronic issue. In order to reduce some of this over-use, riparian exclosure fences have been
3-40
installed. As is the case with many of the fences, there is a need for upgrades and maintenance to bring them back to fully functional.
Range improvements (fences, spring developments, windmills, etc.) have been developed over the years to improve management and provide a reliable source of drinking water for livestock. These projects were generally constructed by either the BLM or the livestock permittees and are in many cases over 50 years in age and in need of replacement and/or heavy maintenance. Many of these improvements no longer function, forcing livestock at these sites to drink from puddles or other sources of water that are contaminated and/or full of sediment. Many of the roads that exist across the project area were created by BLM personnel and livestock permittees accessing range improvements to either construct or maintain them.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Figure 2. Project Area Grazing Allotments
3-42
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action):
Direct and Indirect Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures: The proposed action would impact approximately 150 existing developments; this represents approximately 8% of the total range improvements within the two field offices. Implementation of this action item would impact livestock and livestock grazing permittees by improving the function of the existing structures and developments. Repairing and enhancing existing developments could provide livestock more access to clean drinking water. This action item would provide more tools for the livestock permittees to distribute their animals and better manage their allotments. Installation of New Water Developments: Implementation of this action item would have similar effects as modifying existing structures. This action could add approximately 15 new developments over the next 10 years. These new developments would potentially provide greater access to more water and new areas of available forage for livestock. If the maintenance of these new developments is assigned to the permittees, this could add an additional workload cost to the livestock operations. By using the project design features outlined in section 2.1.3, the impacts to permittees would be reduced. By involving the permittees in the process early on, BLM and permittees could agree on maintenance plan prior to implementing the project. This would allow for transparency and to not cause an undue hardship to the permittees. The locations of the improvements could be mutually beneficial to all parties and the cost of the added maintenance could be outweighed by the benefit to the permittee.
By developing more water sources, there would be more opportunity for both the BLM and livestock permittees to alter the timing of use by livestock. For example, water sources that are frequented by livestock could be shut-off in order to pressure cattle to use other portions of the allotments. Riparian Vegetation Projects: The proposed action would treat a maximum of 6,500 acres (1,500 seeding/seedlings, 5,000 juniper treatments) over the next 10 years. These areas would be rested from livestock grazing until resource monitoring data verified the treatment objectives are being met or it was determined that the seeding or planting was unsuccessful. Implementation of this action item could impact livestock operators by reducing the availability of 6,500 acres of generally high quality forage open to grazing; however, by utilizing the PDFs in section 2.1.3, impacts to permittees would be reduced. Seeding and seedlings projects would only occur if they could be protected or rested using fencing, protective materials or in coordination with livestock permittees. Coordination efforts would occur prior to implementation to prevent any undue hardship with permittees. Long term benefits of improved riparian function would provide an overall improvement in ecosystem function and provide for a more sustainable supply of forage and clean water to livestock.
Stream Enhancement Projects:
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
The proposed action would implement enhancement activities that would equate to a maximum disturbance of 50 acres. Implementation of this action item would have similar effects as riparian vegetation and fencing projects.
Implementation of this action item would also have similar effects as new developments and modifying existing structures. By consulting with permittees early on, any conflicts relating to proposed projects would be addressed and reduced.
Riparian Fence Projects: The proposed action would cause a temporary and/or permanent loss of 500 acres of lands currently open to livestock grazing. This would impact livestock grazing operations by reducing the amount of available forage and water to livestock. These 500 acres represent less than a 1% percent closure when comparing to the total acres open to livestock grazing within the two field offices; however, these areas generally contain very high quality forage when compared to the uplands. Implementation of this action item would have similar effects as riparian vegetation projects. Providing this rest could cause the permittee some hardship depending on several factors including the location of the fence project; however, the impacts would not likely be detrimental to the livestock permittees operations. Maintenance of these fences, if assigned to permittees, would add an increased workload and cost to permittees.
Road Removal/Realignment Projects: Implementation of this action item would have similar effects as modifying existing structures. By consulting with permittees prior to implementation, any conflicts with access would be removed.
Cumulative Effects For all of the following action items, recreationists and wild horse and burros would continue to use the project area. Cumulatively, ecosystem function would be expected to improve. There could be a financial impact to the permittee if some of these action items overlap each other in timing if there is an increased need for them to be riding and herding or performing additional maintenance.
Implementation of all the proposed actions: Cumulatively, there would be some added hardship to permittees by reducing the availability of areas of generally high quality forage and adding additional time requirements for maintenance of new and improved range improvements. This hardship would be offset with the increased access to more areas with forage and clean water and provide an overall benefit to permittees when considered cumulatively. The additional maintenance that would be required from installing new and modifying existing range improvements would fall within the terms of most grazing permits and would be more consistent with what is already required in Terms and Conditions. The exception to this would be if there is additional maintenance added from the construction of new exclosures. If this were to occur, the cumulative impact would be negative to those permittees that were affected.
3-44
Alternative 2 (No Action): Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative the proposed action items would not occur under a programmatic manner. Fewer projects outlined in the proposed action would be implemented since BLM would have to complete individual NEPA documents. Implemented projects would result in similar impacts to livestock and livestock grazers as described in the proposed action; however, those impacts would change due to the reduced number of projects and impacted areas.
Under the No action alternative the beneficial and adverse impacts outlined in the proposed action would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action. Some projects would be implemented in the future using individual site specific analysis; however, those impacts would be apparent at a slower rate. Below outlines the impacts from not completing each action item through the programmatic process.
Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures: By not implementing this action item, water sources would be expected to continue to degrade. Livestock would not have improved access to clean water, and would not be expected to use new areas of the allotments. Permittees would not have improved opportunity to distribute their cattle. Riparian Vegetation Projects: By not implementing this action item, there would be no rest requirements and livestock would not be limited from using these areas. Livestock would not benefit from the overall improvement in ecosystem function nor the increased sustainable supply of forage and clean water.
Riparian Fence Projects: By not implementing this action item, there would be similar effects as riparian fencing projects. In addition this would reduce the chance for potential long term reductions in AUMs or reduced access for livestock to riparian areas.
Stream Enhancement Projects: By not implementing this action item, there would be similar effects as riparian fence projects.
Road Removal/Realignment: By not implementing this action item, there would be similar effects as modifying existing structures.
Cumulative Effects For all of the following action items, recreationists and wild horses and burros would continue to use the project area. Cumulatively, ecosystem function would not be expected to improve as quickly as the proposed action. If the ecosystem function does not improve, livestock grazing permits allotted AUMs could be reduced and impact the permittees operations.
Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures, Installation of New Water Developments, Riparian Vegetation Projects, Riparian
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Fence Projects, Stream Enhancement Projects and Road Removal/Realignment: Implementation of this action item when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would have overall negative impacts to livestock and grazing permittees. Livestock would not have improved access to clean drinking water nor improved distribution. Maintaining existing range improvements would occur at a slower rate since an individual NEPA analysis (CX or EA) would have to be completed for each project. This could have greater cumulative impacts to the permittee since range improvements would be maintained at a slower rate and create poor distribution within the allotments. 3.6.3 Soils Affected Environment Soils across the project area are generally semi-arid, young and poorly developed. Chemical and biological processes that form soil such as weathering of rock, accumulation of organic matter, decomposition of plant materials and nutrient cycling proceed slowly in these environments. These soils are made up of associations of different soil types. This, combined with the large scale of the project area makes it difficult to clearly identify each soil type at each project site. (ELFO RMP, AFO RMP, SFO RMP). The dominant soils include mollisols, vertisols, and aridisols. Vertisols support vernal pools and ephemeral streams (ELFO RMP, AFO RMP, SFO RMP). Riparian wetland soils perform a variety of functions that are of vital importance, not only in a watershed, but also to flora, fauna and humans whose existence depends on the quality of these environments. Riparian wetland soils serve as a medium for a complex set of physical, chemical and biological processes. These interactions enable a riparian wetland area to: Capture and store water from adjacent land, high flows and precipitation; Infiltrate water from different sources for gradual release into streams and ground water; Store water between rains which initiates carbon sequestration in wetlands and helps offset carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption; Act as a medium for plants and microorganisms to cycle nutrients; Store nutrients that would otherwise be discharged from the watershed; Filter pollutants; Dissipate energy (US 2001). The amount of ground water, oxygen in the soil, and soil texture will determine the vegetative composition of a riparian area. Human and natural caused influences on soils will in turn affect vegetation and the functionality of the riparian area.
Soils in the project area are becoming increasingly vulnerable to surface erosion as understory vegetation beneath the canopies of western juniper stands is replaced by bare ground (Bates et al., 1998; Miller et al., 1994). Un-vegetated soil surfaces are especially at risk of erosion during high intensity convective storms and during periods when the soil is frozen. In addition, when western juniper is present in riparian areas and meadows large hoofed grazers tend to congregate under the shade, near the water. This type of overuse severely degrades a site. As it becomes overgrazed, soils become compacted and are unable to support vegetation. As a result, bare ground increases and water flow and water quality are reduced (Sigua and Coleman 2009).
There are seven soil surveys in the project area. Detailed soil survey information for this Project
3-46
area can be found in the following documents: Soil Survey of Susanville Area, Parts of Lassen and Plumas Counties, California (2004), Soil Survey of Washoe County, Nevada, North Part (1999), Soil Survey of Washoe County, Nevada, Central Part (1997), Soil Survey of Surprise Valley-Home Camp Area, California and Nevada (2006), Soil Survey of Modoc County, California, Alturas Area (1980), Soil Survey of Intermountain Area, California, Parts of Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, and Siskiyou Counties (2000), and Soil Survey of Butte Valley-Tule Lake Area, California, Parts of Siskiyou and Modoc Counties (1994). The Soil Surveys can be accessed at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/soilsurvey/soils/survey/state/.
A soil survey provides baseline physical and biotic features expected for an area. In addition, soil surveys provide Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD). An ESD describes what vegetation is expected to occur in each soil association. Most of the soil surveys were updated online by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 2007. Detailed soils information for site specific areas can be found on the NRCS website (Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (Web Soil Survey). Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.
The Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) associated with the three RMPs includes information of soils, including generalized impacts of the types of projects evaluated in this PEA. The soils sections from the EISs are incorporated by reference into this document. Specifically the ELFO RMP EIS at Sections 3.12 (Affected Environment) and 4.11 (Environmental Consequences), the AFO RMP EIS at Sections 3.12 (Affected Environment) and 4.12 (Environmental Consequences), and the SFO RMP EIS at Sections 3.10 (Affected Environment) and 4.11 (Environmental Consequences).
The Final EIS for the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (2008) considered management actions on encroaching juniper on certain public lands within the area evaluated in this PEA. The EIS included information on soil resources (Section 3.6) and analysis of the impacts of managing junipers on soils (Section 4.5.2).
The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the RMPs described above are incorporated by reference. They provide a description of the diversity and conditions of the soil resources within the project area and generalized impacts of implementing water source and riparian projects on soil resources within the project area.
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Direct and Indirect Effects Project implementation would entail a site specific analysis of the soils and the impacts to soil resources before any ground disturbing activities are conducted. The NRCS Soil Surveys and field data collected during project surveys would provide information on limitations and suitability of various management practices.
Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures, Installation of New Water Developments, Road Removal/Realignment, and Stream Enhancement projects: Implementation of the proposed action items would result in soil surface disturbance of up to 220
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
acres. This acre figure is the total amount of potential disturbance from modifications, new water developments; stream enhancements and road projects over the next 10 years (see Section 3.1). This represents less than 1 percent of the total productive soils within the field office areas. Disturbance is associated with the installation of developments and any type of earth moving activities could result in higher potential for wind and water erosion on soils.
All soil disturbing activities that include the use of heavy equipment could result in a high potential of soil erosion. By using PDFs outlined in Section 2.1.3, these areas would be rehabilitated with site appropriate seedlings or reseeded with BLM approved seed mix to prevent soil erosion. Soil resources would be expected to stabilize within one to five years and in the long-term, soil productivity and stability would be improved at project locations with the exception of the permanent developments where soils are removed and productivity would be lost.
By improving water sources across the rangeland it is expected that livestock and WH&B distribution would improve. As distribution improves, soils that were compacted and degraded by livestock or WH&B would increase productivity. This increase would also reduce the erosion impacts associated with livestock or WH&B use. Overall rangeland health standards and proper functioning condition would improve.
Riparian Vegetation and Riparian Fence Projects: These projects would result in disturbance associated with the construction of fences, drill seeding and seedling planting. The use of equipment to implement these actions could disrupt biological soil crust along the fences and within vegetation treatments; however, this impact would be short-term and minimal.
Riparian vegetation projects would cause short-term direct impacts, especially from drill and seedling/plug plantings. As native vegetation colonizes at a site, there would be decreased erosion, increased nutrient availability and greater water availability throughout the soil profile. Positive impacts include increased vegetative density, cover, and biomass and decreased bare ground, and increased moisture retention. In the case of juniper removal there would potentially be a decrease in evapotranspiration and an increase in water availability (Thurow and Hester 2003) which benefits understory plant species and therefore, increases suitable habitat and forage.
There could be indirect impacts from leaving cut juniper on site. Bates et al. 2007 indicated that leaving juniper debris on site did not benefit establishment and growth of perennial grasses. Furthermore, juniper debris provided a favorable environment for establishment of annual grasses and weedy species. Less ground cover is provided by annual species than native perennial species and this could result in long-term negative impacts such as less soil infiltration and increased runoff and surface erosion.
Riparian fence projects would improve soils within the project areas when compared to the No Action alternative. By constructing fences, riparian sites would be less impacted by livestock and WH&B pressure which causes compaction and a loss of soil productivity.
3-48
Cumulative Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures, Installation of New Water Developments, Riparian Vegetation Projects, Riparian Fence Projects, Stream Enhancement Projects, Road Removal/Realignment Projects: Implementation of all the proposed action items when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would have minimal impacts to soils.
Cumulative effects to these areas include casual recreation, livestock grazing, wildlife, WH&B use, juniper removal and realty and mineral extraction. All of these uses combined can put a increased amount of pressure on these small riparian areas that occur across the landscape. Assuring that water sources are in functioning condition and that they provide a clean source of water off site for livestock and WH&B also ensures that the riparian area provides habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities for humans. The proposed action strives to improve ecological function and conditions for all of the uses mentioned.
Alternative 2 (No Action): Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed action items would not occur under a programmatic manner. Fewer projects outlined in the proposed action would be implemented since the BLM would have to complete individual NEPA documents. Implemented projects would result in similar impacts to soils as described in the proposed action; however, those impacts would change due to the reduced number of projects and impacted areas.
Under the No action Alternative, the beneficial and adverse impacts outlined in the proposed action would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action. Some projects would be implemented in the future using individual site specific analysis; however, those impacts would be apparent at a slower rate. Below outlines the impacts from not completing each action item through the programmatic process.
Direct and Indirect Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures and Installation of New Water Developments: Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to soils from the use of equipment on erosion and productivity would be reduced since projects would be implemented at a slower rate. Since few projects would be completed within the project areas, impacts of this alternative include continued congregation of livestock and WH&B in riparian areas. Erosion and compaction of productive soils in riparian habitats and streambeds would continue. Head-cuts would continue to enlarge and continual down-cutting of degraded riparian areas would result in a decline of obligate and facultative wetland plants and increase obligate and facultative upland species. Changes in the structure and composition of vegetation would be less fine roots, increased bare ground and erosion and an increase in fine sediments transported into riparian areas.
Riparian Vegetation Projects: Under this alternative vegetation projects would not be applied to streams and riparian areas at the same rate as the proposed action. Impacts to soils from drill seeding and planting would not occur at the same levels as the proposed action. The ecological potential of some riparian
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
systems would not be achieved. Rhizomatous and soil binding sedges and native perennial grasses would continue to be replaced by shallow rooted and early seral species such as Baltic rush and Kentucky bluegrass. Water tables could drop and other riparian species such as willow (Salix species.) would be replaced by upland shrub species.
Juniper removal on uplands adjacent to riparian areas or to degraded riparian/wetland areas would occur but at a slower rate when compared to the proposed action. Studies suggest that the amount of precipitation reaching the soil surface can be reduced by an extended juniper canopy (Miller et al., 2005). When the canopies of cut trees are removed the duff remaining can have similar effects on water infiltration. The potential for interception from juniper foliage is greater in juniper woodland than in a shrub-steppe community (Eddleman et al., 1994). Basically, this means that when juniper is present on rangelands less water is available to plants. Less water in the soil also reduces infiltration and nutrient cycling.
Riparian Fence Projects: Under this alternative fewer fence projects would occur compared to the proposed action since individual NEPA document would have to be prepared. The impacts from fences and equipment to soils would be reduced; however, livestock and WH&B would continue to have access to most riparian areas and streams. Soils would continue to be compacted and unable to support vegetation. Indirect effects could occur at some heavily used sites to the extent were they would cease to produce water.
Road Removal/Realignment: Under this alternative fewer road projects would occur when compared to the proposed action since individual NEPA document would have to be prepared. Increased degradation and erosion from road use in and near riparian soils would continue and sediments would be transported into adjacent drainages and riparian areas. Vehicle traffic would continue and result in further compaction of riparian soils. Roads could become ditches or act as dams preventing water from entering natural channels or riparian areas and accelerated erosion (e.g., sheet, rill, and gully erosion) would increase (USDOI 2003).
Cumulative Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures, Installation of New Water Developments, Riparian Vegetation Projects, Riparian Fence Projects, Stream Enhancement Projects, Road Removal/Realignment Cumulative effects to these areas include casual recreation, livestock grazing, wildlife, WH&B use and juniper removal. All of these uses combined can put a high amount of pressure on small riparian areas that occur across the landscape. Keeping riparian developments in a nonfunctioning condition would ensure that they would eventually stop producing water and support riparian vegetation. Under this alternative improvements would occur at a lower rate over time and degradation would occur at a faster rate. It is possible that these areas could revert to upland landscapes and soils would lose riparian productivity.
3.6.4 Vegetation Affected Environment
3-50
The AFO, SFO, and ELFO RMPs discuss goals for vegetation types across the field office. The main goal is to achieve and maintain the biotic integrity of vegetation associations and alliances that would be sufficiently resilient to the loss of structure and function in the event of a severe disturbance such as wildfire, and have the potential to recover following such events (BLM 2008). The majority of the vegetation within the project area is comprised of sagebrush-steppe and small remote riparian areas that dot the landscape. The western part of the AGFO transitions to Oregon white oak woodlands, oak-pine woodlands and mixed ceanothus chaparral associations that are interspersed with riparian areas and wetlands. Soils and vegetation are inherently linked because soils support vegetation and vegetation holds soils in place to reduce erosion and to provide nutrients. As previously discussed in Section 3.1.3, Soils, each soil map unit and inclusion have an associated ESD. An ESD describes site characteristics and discusses expected plant communities and species that may occur within each soil association.
Riparian areas consist of lotic systems, waterways that flow, such as rivers and streams and lentic systems such as springs and seeps. Meadows are also a type of riparian area. Meadows are a product of excess surface water and /or elevated water tables (Chambers et al., 2004). Riparian vegetation species differ from upland species because these species require a higher level of soil moisture than upland species.
Riparian plant species within the project area consist of shrubs, grasses, grass-like plants and forbs (wildflowers). A synopsis of Modoc Plateau vegetation are often comprised of grass-likes such as sedges, (Carex ssp.) rushes, (Juncus ssp.) and horsetail (Equisetum ssp.). Meadow or lentic plant alliances include Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), small-fruited sedge (C. integra) short-beaked sedge (C. simulata), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis) and dry meadows supporting upland (facultative and facultative upland) species such as Douglas sedge (Carex douglasii), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and Nevada bluegrass (P. nevadensis) and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda). Alkaline areas include inland salt grass (Distichlis spicata). Vernally wet riparian areas and vernal pools are being invaded by the exotic North African grass (Ventenata dubia).
The most dominant forb, or wildflower species occurring within the project area are wintercress’s (Barbarea orthocerus and Nasturium officinale), Philadelphia fleabane (Erigeron philadelphicus), Scouler’s St. Johnwort (Hypericum scouleri), and seep monkeyflower, (Mimulus guttatus).
Upland species that are found in dry meadows or riparian areas include grasses such as Agrostis, Bromus, and Poa, and forbs that include bird’s foot trefoil, (Lotus corniculatus) western buttercup (Ranunculus occidentalis) and bedstraw (Galium aparine). Shrubs are also quite common in riparian areas and include willow, (Salix ssp.) wild rose, (Rosa ssp.) currant (Ribes ssp.) silver sage (Artemisia cana) and cherry (Prunus ssp.). Tree species include Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and Salix lasiandra.
Some riparian areas support aspen (Populus tremuloides). These are found at a range of elevations and are concentrated along stream banks, stream terraces, and toe slopes of hills.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Aspens may be mixed with white fir (Abies concolor), western juniper or mountain big sagebrush. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Project implementation would entail a site specific analysis of vegetation conditions and probable impacts. This would occur prior to conducting any ground disturbing activities. The NRCS Soil Surveys and field data collected during project surveys would provide information on limitations and suitability of various management practices. Depending on the proposed action and the impacts to vegetation the effects would be direct or indirect, and long- or short-term. The type of disturbance and magnitude of the proposed action would be addressed in a site specific EA.
Due to implementation of PDF’s and Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the ELFO, AFO, and the SFO RMPs, impacts are anticipated to be minimal or short-duration (less than 2 years) from the treatments proposed. Scheduling activities during dry weather would mitigate major surface disturbance associated with equipment and ground disturbing activities, or any appropriate stabilization or post-treatment practices that would be implemented. Conifer removal and seeding may require at least two years of rest from livestock grazing.
Direct and Indirect Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures: This proposed action could disturb a maximum of 100 acres of vegetation over the next 10 years. These projects would directly and indirectly impact vegetation that is located in the immediate area. As structures are removed or installed at a site it is anticipated that some plants would be damaged or die. Some projects where soils are removed would impact vegetation production however; those impacts are expected to be minimal. Vegetation removal or compaction impacts are expected to be short-term since plants are expected to recover within one to two growing seasons after activities cease. All soil disturbing activities that could result in a high potential of soil erosion would be rehabilitated with site appropriate seedlings or reseeded with BLM approved seed mix to prevent soil erosion.
The proposed action is also expected to long-term effects at individual project sites. Removing and or repairing old non-functioning structures such as troughs and troughs would allow sites to recover and move toward proper functioning condition.
Installation of New Water Developments: The proposed action could disturb a maximum of 50 acres of vegetation over the next 10 years. This would represent a loss of riparian and upland vegetation at the vicinity of the project where improvements are installed. Some of the disturbance is expected to be permanent and vegetation is not expected to recover within the footprints of the developments. However majority of the disturbance would be temporary and expected to recover once the projects are seeded. Indirect impacts include proper livestock distribution, recovery of riparian vegetation, improved rangeland health and achievement toward proper functioning condition.
Riparian Vegetation Projects: The proposed action would treat a maximum of 6500 acres (1500 acres seeding/seedlings and
3-52
5000 acres of juniper treatments) over the next 10 years. These projects would directly and indirectly impact vegetation that is located in the immediate area of each project. It is anticipated that some plants would be damaged or die during project implementation activities such as overland travel, piling, burning and drill seeding. This impact would be expected to be less than 5 percent of the treatment areas. This is expected to be a short-term disturbance and plant communities are expected to recover once activities cease.
The anticipated indirect impacts are expected to have positive effects. As native vegetation becomes established and or enhanced in time, it is expected that these riparian areas would become closer to achieving a proper functioning condition. Ecological conditions would be expected to achieve a mid to late seral community status.
Riparian Fence Projects: The proposed action would treat approximately 60 riparian areas, fencing a maximum of 500 acres over the next 10 years. These projects would directly and indirectly impact vegetation that is located in the immediate area. As old fences are removed or new fences are installed at a site it is anticipated that some plants would be damaged or die. This is expected to be a short-term disturbance and plants are expected to recover once restoration activities cease.
The anticipated indirect impacts are expected to have positive effects at project sites. Replacing old non-functioning fences with new wildlife friendly fencing would exclude large hoofed grazers but would allow wildlife to access these areas. This action would allow the site to recover and achieve a higher level of proper functioning condition. If prescriptive grazing or a grazing system is implemented, desirable vegetation would be allowed to set seed and recover from grazing pressure.
Stream Enhancement Projects: Approximately five of these projects would disturb a maximum of 50 acres over the next 10 years. These projects would directly and indirectly impact vegetation that is located in the immediate area. As restoration activities occur it is anticipated that some plants would be damaged or die during the process. This is expected to be a short-term disturbance and plants are expected to recover after restoration activities cease.
The anticipated indirect impacts are expected to have positive effects at project sites. Stream enhancement projects would strive to enhance water flow and water quality. Other long-term benefits would be raised water tables, increased fine root mass, increased obligate and facultative wetland species, and improved riparian and wetland health. These projects could include streambank vegetation enhancement and/or establishment projects. Over time, these sites should recover and achieve a higher level of proper functioning condition.
Road Removal/Realignment: Approximately 10 of these projects would be completed and would have a maximum total distubance of 20 acres over the next 10 years. These projects would directly and indirectly impact vegetation that is located in the immediate area. As road realignments and/or road removals occur it is anticipated that some plants would be damaged or die during the process. Road removals are expected to have short-term impacts to vegetation. Realignments may have
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
more permanent impacts to vegetation occurring in the path of the new road. However, the area to be decommissioned would have positive and long lasting impacts to vegetation. The anticipated indirect impacts are expected to have positive effects at project sites. Road removals and realignment projects strive to remove roadways from riparian areas and to improve function and condition. Overall, this action would allow the site to recover and achieve a higher level of proper functioning condition.
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are similar to those described under Soils. The NRCS has implemented multiple riparian improvement projects on private lands near or adjacent to BLM administered lands but that information may not be available due to privacy concerns by the private landowner. Multiple riparian enhancement projects have also been implemented by the Forest Service. It is expected that cumulative effects from actions taken on both private and federal lands would be indirectly beneficial to water quality as vegetation condition improves throughout the project area. Implementation of all the proposed action items when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would have overall beneficial impacts to riparian vegetation.
Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures, Installation of New Water Developments, Riparian Vegetation Projects, Riparian Fence Projects, Stream Enhancement Projects, Road Removal/Realignment Cumulative effects to these areas include casual recreation, livestock grazing, wildlife, WH&B use, juniper removal and realty and mineral extraction. All of these uses combined could put an increased amount of pressure on small riparian areas that occur across the landscape. Assuring that water sources are in functioning condition and that they provide a clean source of water off site for livestock and WH&B also ensures that the riparian area provides habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities for humans. The proposed action strives to improve ecological function and conditions for all of the uses mentioned.
Alternative 2 (No Action): Under the No Action Alternative the proposed action items would not occur under a programmatic manner. Fewer projects outlined in the proposed action would be implemented since BLM would have to complete individual NEPA documents. Implemented projects would result in similar impacts to vegetation as described in the proposed action; however, those impacts would change due to the reduced number of projects and impacted areas.
Under the No Action Alternative, the beneficial and adverse impacts outlined in the proposed action would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action. Some projects would be implemented in the future using individual site specific analysis; however, those impacts would be apparent at a slower rate. Below outlines the impacts from not completing each action item through the programmatic process.
Direct and Indirect Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures:
3-54
Under this alternative fewer projects would occur and impacts from disturbance would be reduced. Old non-functioning structures would not be replaced with new functioning ones at the same rate as the proposed action. Conditions would continue on the same trajectory and improvement would occur at a slower rate than the proposed action since there would be fewer improvement projects implemented. Livestock and WH&B would continue to impact these water sources causing further soil compaction, resulting in vegetation loss and soil erosion. Over time, it is anticipated that these areas would continue to decline. Installation of New Water Developments: Under this alternative there would be no new water developments installed without a separate individual NEPA analysis. Plants would not experience the same direct effects as outlined in the proposed action. Plant populations would continue to survive under current conditions. Indirect effects would be that degraded areas would not receive improvement at the rate of the proposed action. While individual NEPA document are being prepared areas could continue to degrade and could cross a threshold where restoration or rehabilitation efforts would fail or be marginally successful.
Riparian Vegetation Projects: Under this alternative there would be fewer riparian vegetation projects implemented. Plants would not experience direct effects. Plant populations would continue to survive under current conditions. Indirect effects would be that areas in need of improvement would not receive improvement. Sites currently on a functioning downward trend would eventually degrade and may cross a threshold where restoration or rehabilitation efforts would be less successful.
Riparian Fence Projects: Under this alternative there would be fewer riparian fence projects. Plants in areas in need of fencing would continue to be trampled and grazed until individual NEPA analysis was completed. Indirect effects would be that areas in need of protection from grazers would not receive protection. These areas could eventually degrade and may cross a threshold where restoration or rehabilitation efforts would be less successful.
Western juniper that is encroaching into riparian areas and meadows would be left to grow and shade out riparian plant species. These trees would continue to provide shade at these water sources and attract large hoofed grazers such as cattle and WH&B. Providing shady areas near water sources reduces grazing dispersal across the landscape.
Stream Enhancement Projects: Under this alternative fewer stream enhancement projects would be implemented. Direct effects would include continued stream uses. Water quality and stream conditions would not improve. Plant populations would continue to survive under current conditions. Indirect effects would be that areas in need of improvement would not receive improvement. Sites currently on a downward functioning trend would eventually degrade and may cross a threshold where restoration or rehabilitation efforts would be less successful.
Road Removal/Realignment:
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Under this alternative, roads occurring in riparian areas and meadows would not be removed or realigned at the same rate as the proposed action. Plants occurring in these roads would continue to be smashed each time a vehicle drives on the road. Plant populations would continue to survive under current conditions. Indirect effects would be that areas in need of improvement would not receive improvement. Sites currently on a functioning downward trend would eventually degrade and may cross a threshold where restoration or rehabilitation efforts would be less successful.
Cumulative Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures, Installation of New Water Developments, Riparian Vegetation Projects, Riparian Fence Projects, Stream Enhancement Projects and Road Removal/Realignment: Cumulative effects to these areas include casual recreation, livestock grazing, wildlife, WH&B use and juniper removal. All of these uses combined could put an increased amount of pressure on small riparian areas that occur across the landscape. Keeping riparian developments in a nonfunctioning condition could eventually lead to those sources not producing water or supporting riparian vegetation. Under this alternative it is possible that these areas could revert to upland landscapes. It is also possible that during the transition exotic annuals could become established and possibly remain dominant plant species for many decades. These impacts are greater than those impacts associated with the proposed action.
3.6.5 Riparian Wetlands and Riparian Areas, including Surface Water Quality The AFO, SFO and ELFO RMP EISs include information of wetlands and riparian areas, including generalized impacts of the types of projects evaluated in this PEA.
The Final EIS for the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (2008) considered management actions on encroaching juniper on certain public lands within the area evaluated in this PEA. The EIS included information on soil resources (Section 3.6) and analysis of the impacts of managing junipers on soils (Section 4.5.2).
The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the EISs described above are incorporated by reference. They provide a description the diversity and conditions of the soil resources within the project area and generalized impacts of implementing water source and riparian projects on soil resources within the project area.
Affected Environment Riparian and wetland communities in the project area occur along the edges of and within creeks, lakes, and playas. Wetland and riparian communities could include marshes, swamps, lakeshores, wet meadows, estuaries, and springs or seeps. Riparian-wetland areas make up less than one percent of the total land base; however, they are some of the most productive and highly prized resources on BLM-managed public lands. Wildlife species use riparian areas proportionately more than any other type of habitat. In addition, riparian areas are highly prized for their economic and natural values and other uses, which include livestock grazing, recreation (hiking, fishing, photography, biking, and off-highway vehicle use), Native American cultural uses, and educational experiences for students.
3-56
These sections described the conditions of water related resources including water quality and conditions of associated riparian vegetation communities. The referenced sections did not quantify the length of stream reaches or the number and size of meadows associated with spring systems.
A query of the National Hydrologic Dataset, developed by the US Geological Survey (USGS) for the public lands within the project area, identified 311 miles of perennial streams and 1023 spring/seep locations. Assuming a riparian width of 50 feet associated with perennial streams the area of riparian habitat would be an estimated 1885 acres. Springs and seeps (which are small springs) also have associated meadows or woody riparian communities. These riparian areas vary widely, but assuming an average riparian community of one acre for each spring. The total riparian communities associated with springs and seeps are estimated at 1023 acres.
Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas are lands along perennially and intermittently flowing rivers, streams, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit vegetation dependent on free water in the soil.
Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, lakeshores, sloughs, bogs, wet meadows, estuaries, and some riparian areas.
Where riparian habitats in the project area are not meeting goals and objectives, grazing by livestock and WH&B is often identified as the primary cause. Overgrazing riparian vegetation could make streambanks more vulnerable to destabilizing effects of livestock and WH&B trampling. The erosive force of water reduces vegetation and exposes soils to drying out by wind and sunlight. When this occurs it reduces water storage capacity of the riparian area, reduces shade and thereby increases stream water temperature, encourages invasion of undesirable plants, speeds up runoff, and reduces filtration of sediment necessary for building streambanks, wet meadows, and floodplains. The AGFO has ungrazed riparian areas that are in an early seral ecological condition with very low herbaceous diversity. The dominant plant species is Baltic rush which has accumulated a thick thatch layer that precludes other more desirable native species from colonizing the site.
Where riparian habitats are meeting goals, this is often the result of protective fencing or implementation of prescriptive livestock grazing practices to reduce frequency and duration of hot season use on riparian areas. Many of these efforts have been undertaken in cooperation with the livestock industry as well as other agencies and entities and have included both public and private lands.
Environmental Consequences
Water resources management actions would be expected to increase infiltration on upland sites, increase groundwater recharge, increase spring flow, reduce peak flows during flood events, and increase the stability of base flows during late summer and winter. Although some of the water resources management actions (particularly bioengineering measures) would result in direct
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
short-term effects through surface disturbance or vegetation removal, the long-term result would be an increase in hydrologic function and sediment regime for water-dependent ecosystems. Therefore, the long-term effect of water resources management actions on vegetation, particularly riparian and wetland communities is expected to be beneficial. According to Sada and Vinyard (2002), the historical decline in Great Basin endemic aquatic fauna taxa can be attributed to a small number of factors including water diversion, livestock use and the introduction of non-native fauna. Changes in water resource management have the potential to make changes to some of these factors and therefore have the potential to provide benefits to aquatic species.
Long-term beneficial effects to water quality, primarily expressed as lower water temperature and sediment filtration, could be expected from improvements in riparian vegetation quantity and diversity. As woody cover and other adjacent riparian vegetation increases, water temperature in both flowing and standing water could be expected to decrease due to more shading. These changes to vegetation also provide increased filtering of sediments. In the short term water quality could be expected to decrease in some areas where projects removed vegetation as part of their construction phase or disturbed riparian soils.
Bacteria and nutrient loading from fecal material (either from livestock, horses or wildlife) also decreases water quality. Livestock and horses are much more likely to spend time in riparian areas during the hot season (July through September) than at other times of the year. Concentrations of these animals in riparian areas increases bacteria and nutrient loading in those areas via direct defecation into waters or re-suspension of bacteria currently in the stream sediments (Sherer et al. 1992).
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action):
Direct and Indirect Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures: Implementation of this action item could reduce long-term impacts on up to 100 acres of riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains and meadows. Altering the grazing regime to avoid uses during critical vegetation growth periods could provide rest. This would also reduce short-term impacts from hoof pocking and shearing, which change water flow patterns, increase soil compaction on sensitive riparian soils. This action could also increase the function and productivity of a spring resulting in an impact to the associated riparian site and water quality. Specific project design features outlined in the proposed action would be implemented during site specific analysis that would minimize impacts to prevent any degradation to riparian, wetlands, floodplains and meadows.
Installation of New Water Developments: Installing new water developments would create disturbance to the riparian areas during construction. However, the disturbance is expected to be insignificant and of short duration. Once the installation is complete, riparian soils should settle and vegetation should recover within one to two growing seasons. Indirect effects to riparian vegetation are expected to be positive because piping water away from the source would reduce negative effects from
3-58
concentrated trampling to riparian areas. In the long-term, riparian vegetation and water quality are expected to benefit from drawing livestock use away from damaged areas.
Riparian Vegetation Projects: Implementation of this action item would benefit up to 6500 acres (1500 seeding/seedlings, 5000 juniper treatments) of riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains and meadows. Planting native vegetation would increase productivity of the existing native plant community and make progress to healthy riparian ecosystems. Removing juniper trees from riparian, wetlands, floodplains, and meadows could provide several benefits to soils, water, and riparian vegetation.
Western juniper shades out understory plants, utilizes large amounts of water and provides shade. If juniper trees would be removed from riparian, wetland, floodplain, and wet meadow sites, WH&B, livestock and other wildlife would not be attracted to these sites as a shaded gathering area. Together with increased movement, this would reduce the intensity of use at many of these sites. Removing juniper trees eliminates competition for water, sunlight, and other nutrients and allows riparian vegetation to thrive. Little to no short-term impacts are expected from this action. Long-term benefits to water quality from increased shading and filtering of sediments would be expected but would be based in part on how much use a site receives from livestock and horses.
Riparian Fence Projects: Implementation of this action item would have beneficial impacts on up to 500 acres of riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains and meadows. Fencing sites to decrease hot season livestock and wild horse grazing would cause riparian, wetlands, floodplains and meadows to improve throughout the landscape and meet specific goals and objectives outlined in the RMP. Short- term impacts to water quality would result from increased sediments and reduction of shade producing plants due to construction work associated with these types of projects. Long-term benefits would be expected to outweigh any negative impacts. Benefits would be expressed mainly as lower water temperatures and increased filtering of sediments. At least locally, some reductions in fecal coliforms would also be expected since livestock and WH&B would not be able to use riparian habitats within the fenced areas (Line 2003; Sherer et al., 1992).
Stream Enhancement Projects: These projects would be expected to have greater short- and long-term impacts to riparian vegetation and water quality than other project types. This would be because these areas would be expected to have the most improvements to be made to riparian habitat and open water habitats (either lotic or lentic). Short- term negative impacts would result from construction activities moving soil and disturbing vegetation. Some or most of these would be reduced by use of PDFs. Short-term impacts to water quality would result from increased sediments and reduction of shade producing plants due to construction work associated with these types of projects. Long-term benefits would be expected to outweigh any negative impacts. Benefits would be expressed mainly as lower water temperatures and increased filtering of sediments although reduced temperatures would occur much later, on the order of decades later in some systems. On sites that were fenced some reductions in fecal coliforms would also be expected.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Road Removal/Realignment: Realignment of roads would directly address one of the factors mentioned by Sada and Vinyard (2002), water diversion. Moving roads outside of riparian areas would decrease erosion of riparian soils, reduce sedimentation and possible pollutant contamination from vehicles and help to restore riparian areas to proper functioning condition by reducing or eliminating anthropogenic changes to water flows and stream dynamics.
Cumulative Effects All Projects: These projects are expected to benefit riparian habitat and water quality to varying degrees over many years. Combined with current ongoing changes in livestock use via new grazing permit renewals, WH&B management, GRSG habitat management, and cooperative projects with the NRCS, US Fish and Wildlife Service and state game agencies, these projects are expected to provide relatively small but widespread improvements to both riparian habitat management and indirectly to water quality. Riparian habitats would improve first with improvements in water quality coming later.
Alternative 2 (No Action): Under the No Action Alternative the proposed action items would not occur under a programmatic manner. Fewer projects outlined in the proposed action would be implemented since BLM would have to complete individual NEPA documents. Implemented projects would result in similar impacts to riparian wetlands, riparian areas, and water quality as described in the proposed action; however, those impacts would change due to the reduced number of projects and impacted areas.
Under the No action alternative the beneficial and adverse impacts outlined in the proposed action would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action. Some projects would be implemented in the future using individual site specific analysis; however, those impacts would be apparent at a slower rate. Below outlines the impacts from not completing each action item through the programmatic process.
Direct and Indirect Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures: This alternative would have fewer positive direct impacts to riparian and water quality resources as there would be fewer restoration, installation or removal projects. Impacts from livestock and WH&Bs would continue at the same rate and could cause further soil compaction resulting in vegetation loss, soil erosion, and reduced water quality. Over time, it is anticipated that these sites would continue to decline. Installation of New Water Developments: Under this alternative there would be no new water developments installed. The expected benefits to riparian vegetation and water quality would not be realized and these areas could continually degrade and may cross a threshold where restoration or rehabilitation efforts would fail or be marginally successful. Riparian Vegetation Projects:
3-60
Under this alternative there would be fewer riparian vegetation projects implemented. The long- term expected benefits to water quality from increased shading and filtering of sediments would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action. Riparian Fence Projects: Under this alternative there would be fewer riparian fence projects. Riparian plants in areas in need of fencing would continue to be trampled and grazed with concurrent effects to water quality. Without intervention these areas would eventually degrade further and may cross a threshold where restoration or rehabilitation efforts would be less successful or at the least require more intensive efforts to be successful. Stream Enhancement Projects: Under this alternative fewer stream enhancement projects would be implemented. Water quality and stream conditions would not improve. Road Removal/Realignment: Under this alternative, roads occurring in riparian areas and meadows would not be removed or realigned at the same rate as the proposed action. Continued impacts to riparian plants from compaction of roads, changes in water flow patterns and the water table would occur. Depending on site conditions, water quality would continue to be reduced due to possible pollutant contamination from vehicles.
Cumulative Effects All Projects: These projects are designed to benefit riparian habitat and water quality to varying degrees over many years and would be expected to provide relatively small but widespread improvements to both riparian habitat management and indirectly to water quality. Cumulatively, not undertaking these projects would result in some areas continuing to not meet goals for riparian habitat and in some cases water quality. Some of these projects might be undertaken via other projects such as grazing permits or work done in conjunction with state game agencies; however, the rate and quantity of habitat improvement would be less under the No Action Alternative.
3.6.6 Wildlife/Fisheries/Migratory Birds Affected Environment Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Federally listed Threatened and Endangered species known to occur within the Project Area include: Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus), Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis), Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps), Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), and Shasta Crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis). These species or their habitat will not be affected by the proposed action and will not be discussed further.
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Several BLM sensitive species and State listed species have the potential to occur within the project area. These species are listed in the table below and their potential presence within the project area. The species which are known or suspected to occur within the project area are discussed further below.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Species Status Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area
BIRDS
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus BLM Sensitive/State Yes leucocephalus) Endangered
Bank swallow (Riparia BLM Sensitive/State Yes riparia) Threatened
Burrowing owl (Athene BLM Sensitive Yes cunicularia)
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo BLM Sensitive Yes regalis )
Golden eagle (Aquila BLM Sensitive Yes chrysaetos) Greater Sage-Grouse BLM Sensitive (Centrocercus urophasianus) Yes
Greater Sandhill crane (Grus BLM Sensitive/State Yes canadensis) Threatened
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo BLM Sensitive /State Yes swainsoni) Threatened
Tricolored blackbird BLM Sensitive No (uncommon) (Agelaius tricolor)
Yellow-billed cuckoo BLM Sensitive/ No (outside species range) (Coccyzus americanus) State Threatened
MAMMALS
California bighorn sheep State Threatened Yes (Ovis canadensis sierrae)
Fringed myotis BLM Sensitive Yes (Myotis thysanodes)
Long-eared myotis (Myotis BLM Sensitive Yes evotis)
Pallid bat BLM Sensitive Yes (Antrozous pallidus)
Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus BLM Sensitive Yes
3-62
Species Status Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area idahoensis)
Small-footed myotis (Myotis BLM Sensitive Yes ciliolabrum)
Townsend’s western big- BLM Sensitive eared bat (Corynorhinus Yes townsendii)
Yuma myotis (Myotis BLM Sensitive Yes yumanensis)
REPTILE
Northern sagebrush lizard BLM Sensitive Yes (Sceloporus graciosus)
AMPHIBIAN
Oregon spotted frog (Rana BLM Sensitive/State No pretiosa) Threatened
INVERTEBRATE
Shasta crayfish State Endangered Yes (discussed above in Threatened and (Pacifastacus fortis) Endangered species)
Bald eagles are found throughout project area, although mainly as a migrant and winter resident. The bald eagle typically requires old-growth and mature stands of coniferous or hardwood trees for perching, roosting, and nesting. The bald eagle occurs during its breeding season in virtually any kind of wetland habitat such as sea coasts, rivers, large lakes or marshes or other large bodies of open water with an abundance of fish. Upland wintering habitats often consist of open habitats with concentrations of medium-sized mammals, such as prairies, meadows or tundra, or open forests with regular carrion availability.
The bald eagle is an opportunistic carnivore with the capacity to consume a great variety of prey. Throughout their range, fish often comprise the majority of the eagle's diet. The next most significant prey base for bald eagles is other water birds. Mammalian prey includes rabbits, hares, ground squirrels, raccoons, muskrats, beavers, and deer fawns.
Bank swallows live in low areas along rivers, streams, ocean coasts, or reservoirs. Their territories usually include vertical cliffs or banks where they nest in colonies of 10 to 2000 nests. Bank swallows build nests, often in large colonies, in vertical banks and bluffs. These colonies are located near large bodies of water so that there is ample room for vertical flying. Bank swallows almost exclusively eat flying or jumping insects, such as bees, wasps, ants, butterflies
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
or moths.
Burrowing owls live in open habitats with sparse vegetation such as prairie, pastures, desert or shrub steppe. In parts of their range they are closely associated with prairie dogs, badgers, and ground squirrels, whose burrows they use for nests. Burrowing owls hunt mainly insects, reptiles, and rodents.
Ferruginous hawks can be found in open country, primarily prairies, plains and badlands during the winter in northern CA. They nest in trees near streams or on steep slopes, sometimes on mounds in open desert. Their diet consists of rabbits, ground squirrels, and prairie dogs.
Golden eagles are a year-long resident and considered common within the project area. They use a variety of habitats ranging from desert, including shrublands, grasslands, coniferous forests, farmland, and areas along rivers and streams. Nesting golden eagles prefer suitable cliffs that overlook sagebrush flats, pinyon-juniper forest, or other habitats capable of supporting a suitable prey base. An early study from central California showed that mammals made up 77 percent of golden eagle diets (specifically ground squirrels, jackrabbits, and black-tailed deer fawns), although there was also an assortment of birds (including turkey vulture), snakes, and a few fish (Carnie 1954).
Greater Sage-Grouse are a year round resident within the project area. The project area is within the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone (MZ) V, which consists of populations and subpopulations in three states (Connelly et al., 2004) and all or portions of ten Greater Sage-Grouse Population Management Units (PMUs) in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California. Of the ten PMUs that fall within MZ V, five are located within the project area and include the Buffalo-Skedaddle, Likely Tablelands, Massacre, Virginia-Pah Rah, and the Vya PMUs. MZ V represents the westernmost extent of the GRSG range in California and contains a mix of habitat issues that have had long-term effects on GRSG populations. The range of GRSG has continued to decline over the last three decades, while some populations in the MZ are relatively stable.
The Lake Area Oregon, northeastern California/northwestern Nevada subpopulation includes portions of west Humboldt and north Washoe Counties in Nevada and east Lassen and southeast Modoc Counties in California. The subpopulation includes a mix of extirpated, highly threatened, and relatively stable PMUs. In the Conservation Objective Team (COT) Report (USFWS 2013), the USFWS generalizes threats to this subpopulation as isolation, small population size, conifer encroachment, fire, invasive plant species, livestock grazing, and WH&B. The California portion includes the Likely Tablelands PMU in eastern Modoc County. The population consists of only one lek that contained three strutting males in 2012 and no birds in 2013 through 2015. Up to eight leks were present on the Likely Tablelands in the 1980s. They were connected to other populations on the Devil’s Garden and farther west onto Rocky Prairie and into Round Valley to the west and Big Valley in far northwestern Lassen County, all of which are extirpated. The Likely Tablelands PMU is the site of an extensive invasion of nonnative grasses, including cheatgrass, but specifically medusahead. Repeated fires and the resulting continuous mat of medusahead have precluded all but a few localized areas of sagebrush from this landscape. The PMU is disconnected from the Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU to
3-64
the south by a 20-mile-wide band of invasive conifer.
The Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU is one of mixed habitat quality and is discussed as a stronghold in many references. Of its 1.4 million acres, restoration mapping indicates 46 percent of potential habitat (mature sagebrush) understory is dominated by annual grass, annual forbs, bare ground, or 0 to 9 percent juniper cover. An additional 19 percent of potential sagebrush habitat has crossed the threshold from sagebrush-dominated to juniper or annual grass-dominated communities (Armentrout and Hall 2005). This PMU has been subject to a highly altered fire regime that has systematically reduced sagebrush cover. In 2012, the Rush fire burned 315,000 acres, or 23 percent of the PMU. The Rush fire burned nearly the entire length of the PMU and severed its remnant western half from the stronghold populations to the east, creating another isolated GRSG population along the western edge of the range. Restoration of previous burns in this PMU has not proven successful due to the presence of invasive grasses, low-elevation Wyoming sagebrush sites, and low precipitation.
In 2012, 21 leks were active in the Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU; 11 were burned in the Rush fire of 2012. As of 2015, 15 leks were active including 8 of the leks burned. In 2016, 17 leks were active including 8 of the leks burned. Livestock grazing, both historic and present, and WH&B overpopulation are additional threats affecting this PMU, including availability of both nesting cover and late-summer brood-rearing habitats.
The remaining PMUs in the northeastern California/northwestern Nevada subpopulations are stronghold populations in northwestern Nevada and the far northeastern corner of California. The Massacre PMU has experienced much less wildland fire than the surrounding PMUs. Invasive grasses, though present, have not manifested extensively in the Massacre PMU. GRSG populations remain high and stable and are connected with stronghold PMUs at the Sheldon National Antelope Refuge and into Oregon. As of 2012, 28 leks were active in the PMU, including two leks with over 100 males. Though the high level of fire activity since the 1980s characterizing much of northern Nevada has spared this PMU, recent wildland fire activity has affected up to 100,000 acres, including 60,000 acres lost in 2012. This potentially reflects a further heightening of wildland fire activity overall, due to the effects of climate change and resultant lowering of fuel moisture levels in larger fuel types such as sagebrush. Habitat quality is further threatened by both livestock grazing and wild horse and burro overpopulation, affecting both nesting cover and availability of late-summer brood-rearing habitats.
Next to the Massacre PMU, the Vya PMU is the northwestern-most Nevada PMU and includes a sliver of northeastern California. Similar to the Massacre PMU, wildland fire and invasive grasses are less manifested than in north-central and northeastern Nevada, with overall habitat quality relatively high. However, GRSG habitat is affected by conifer encroachment. The AGFO continues to conduct large-scale conifer control in this PMU. Livestock grazing and WH&B overpopulation are additional threats. This PMU supports 16 active leks, with population declines apparent as the conifer encroachment increases fragmentation.
The Warm Springs Valley population (Virginia-Pah Rah PMU) encompasses 231,000 surface acres of BLM lands in southern Washoe County. This area is bounded on the west by Highway 395, on the south by Long Valley, Interstate Highway 80, and the cities of Reno and Sparks, Nevada, and on the east and north by State Highway 446. Wildland fires have burned
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
approximately 35 percent of this PMU, converting sagebrush-dominated shrublands to annual grasses and invasive species. Wildland fires that occurred from 1999 through 2001 were particularly devastating, burning some of the last strongholds of GRSG habitat left in the Virginia and Pah Rah mountain ranges. GRSG in these two mountain ranges occur in small isolated pockets of suitable habitat. Only three active leks are known. Current population estimates based on these leks indicate declining numbers, with a spring breeding population of 150 to 200 GRSG (NDOW 2004). Threats such as fire, infrastructure, annual grasses and invasive species, conifer encroachment, energy development, WH&B, recreation, and urbanization threatens existing GRSG habitat (USFWS 2013).
Greater sandhill cranes are known to occur within the project area. They forage for grains and invertebrates in prairies, grasslands, and marshes. Sandhill cranes breed and forage in open prairies, grasslands, and wetlands. Outside of the breeding season, they often roost in deeper water of ponds or lakes, where they are safe from predators.
Swainson’s hawk is considered a summer (breeding) resident and occupies open grasslands and shrublands but also use sagebrush flats and agricultural areas intermixed with native habitat. Nests are placed in trees, often in the only tree visible for miles. Foraging typically occurs in open areas where the Swainson’s hawk forages for insects and small prey (Floyd et al., 2007).
California bighorn sheep occur within the project area. Data from the NDOW, BLM observations and unpublished records indicate that a portion of public land within the project area lies within the distribution of California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) habitat. Habitat for bighorn sheep includes steep rocky terrain for escape cover and bedding opportunities adjacent to open vegetation for foraging and water. Due to predation issues, higher quality bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., steep areas) generally contains drinking water within one mile. This species can be found in diverse habitats including big and low sagebrush, juniper woodland edges, perennial grasslands and bitterbrush. This species prefers low growing vegetation to better spot predators. Portions of the project area supports the suitable characteristics of California bighorn sheep habitat, most importantly, steep rocky terrain for escape cover. These types of habitats are generally associated with rock rims such as the Vya Rim and the Massacre Rim within the AGFO. NDOW has released approximately 200 bighorn sheep within the AGFO (Surprise Station) since 1989.
Long-eared myotis are a year round resident in the project area and consume primarily moths when available, but are opportunistic feeders of other invertebrates, including beetles. This species forages primarily over vegetation associated with water, as well as over open areas such as campgrounds and small forest clearings (Schmidt 2003).
Pygmy rabbits are found within the AGFO. Pygmy rabbit are dependent on sagebrush, primarily big sagebrush located in deeper soils. Soil types where burrows are found can be loamy to ashy and burrows are generally found greater than 72 cm deep. Pygmy rabbit burrows are almost always under big sagebrush and only rarely in the open. There are few areas within the project area that have the combination of soils and vegetation that are considered suitable habitat for pygmy rabbits. However, several historical and current sightings have been verified in the southeast portion of the AGFO. Surveys conducted in 2006 detected more than 40 active pygmy
3-66
rabbit burrows.
Townsend’s western big-eared bat is considered a year round resident in the project area. Townsend’s big-eared bat occupies a variety of habitats across its range. It is associated with desert scrub, pinon-juniper, and pine forest (Barbour and Davis 1969; Jones 1965). These bats are insectivorous and feed on small moths and either capture these moths from leaves or catch them directly in the air along forested edges (Kunz and Martin 1982).
Yuma myotis is considered a year round resident within the project area. This species is found in a variety of habitats, ranging from juniper and riparian woodlands to desert regions near open water (Nowak 1991). Roost sites are located in caves, mine tunnels and buildings (Burt et al., 1976). The Yuma myotis flies close to the ground, darting over watercourses searching for small insects. Moths and midges account for a large portion of their diet.
Northern sagebrush lizard inhabits sagebrush and other types of shrublands, mainly in the mountains. They live mostly on the ground near bushes, logs, rocks, or brush piles. They prefer open areas with scattered low bushes and lots of sun. Sagebrush lizards are active from spring through fall and hibernate during the winter. They eat a variety of small invertebrates, including ants, termites, grasshoppers, flies, spiders, and beetles.
Migratory Birds Migratory birds are protected and managed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and Executive Order 13186. Under the MBTA, nests (nests with eggs or young) of migratory birds may not be harmed, nor may migratory birds be killed. A 1972 agreement expanded the scope of the MBTA to cover bald eagles and other raptors. Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. A wide variety of migratory birds may be found within the project area at some point throughout the year. Most of the vegetation communities within the project area are characterized by sage steppe species. Migratory birds associated with these vegetative communities may include:
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), Brewers blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), Brewers sparrow (Spizella breweri), canyon wren (Catherpes mexicanus), dark-eyed junco’s (Junco hyemalis), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus), gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), mountain blue bird (Sialia currucoides), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), townsend’s solitaire (Myadestes townsendi), western king bird (Tyrannus verticalis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica) and vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus).
Most of these species require a diversity of plant structure and herbaceous understory. High levels of plant species diversity provides habitat for nesting, foraging and cover for a variety of species. Riparian areas with a woody riparian plant species component are important habitats for some migratory bird species as they provide important foraging and nesting habitats. Riparian
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
areas also serve as important transition habitats for a variety of species between seasons and are often heavily used during summer months. Habitat components for many of these species are available in small habitat patches throughout the project area.
Migratory birds also often use reservoirs within the project area. Reservoirs within BLM managed lands are occasionally used by stopover migrants and are utilized as resting areas during the migratory season. Species that are often observed include: Canada geese (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwall (Anas strepera), American widgeon (Anas americana), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and snipe (Gallinago gallinago).
Nesting Raptors Nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for raptors occurs throughout the project area. While sensitive raptor species are discussed above, all raptor species nesting habitats are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and thus are considered for this analysis. Suitable foraging habitat for raptors is present within areas of open grassland, low sagebrush, and big sagebrush habitat that is not overly dense with juniper. Nesting habitat can be limited in some areas within the project area.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) occur throughout the year within the project area. Areas where the vegetation consists primarily of low sagebrush and associated grasses and forbs are often avoided because of the lack of hiding cover (e.g., big sagebrush species) and thermal cover. Areas where a mixture of Wyoming, mountain, and big sagebrush exists are typically the areas where mule deer use is concentrated (although mule deer are observed in all sagebrush habitats). Deer are generally classified as browsers, with shrubs and forbs making up the bulk of their annual diet. The diet of mule deer is quite varied and the importance of various classes of forage plants varies by season; however, sagebrush and bitterbrush are important components throughout the year.
Pronghorn Antelope Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) can be found throughout the project area yearlong, and are known to kid in open expanses near playa lakes and in large low sagebrush flats. Low sagebrush habitats are the most frequented habitats throughout the year by pronghorn antelope. Most of the project area is occupied by pronghorn antelope seasonally. Pronghorn prefer open rangelands that support a variety of vegetative types. Areas with low shrubs typify summer habitat with a diversity of native grasses and forbs (Gregg et al., 2001). Pronghorn do not appear to be dependent on open water if there is sufficient moisture in the vegetation (Reynolds 1984; O'Gara 1978). Although forbs are an important component of pronghorn diet, browse is the dominant food ingested (Pyshora 1977). Meadows are especially important summer habitats for pronghorn populations. Meadows provide succulent, high quality forage and water during the hot summer months. Rocky Mountain Elk Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) are known to occur within the project area. Elk within the northern portion of the AGFO (Surprise Station) appear to utilize habitat seasonally
3-68
with elevation, precipitation and the associated vegetation affecting habitat use in the area. Elk use the higher elevations of the Warner Mountains in California for summer and fall habitat, and migrate to lower elevations around Surprise Valley, Lake Annie, Barrel Springs and Crooks Lake in the winter and spring. NDOW and BLM biologists have had reports of elk on multiple occasions in portions of the AGFO in the Barrel Springs and Cold Springs areas.
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Direct and Indirect Effects Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagles, Ferruginous Hawks and Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows and Greater Sandhill Cranes Under the proposed action, modifications and rehabilitation to non-functioning structures would improve habitat quality for prey species that these species commonly predate upon, as well as foraging habitat. Improvements in prey population densities and forage may indirectly result in increased survival and fledging of young in the short- and long-term. Under the proposed action, greater sandhill crane nesting habitat would increase as well as nest concealment from predators.
Short-term temporary disturbances to these species would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with the implementation of the modifications. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement and nest abandonment. This direct effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period to complete the modifications. Implementation of PDFs would reduce or eliminate impacts to these species.
Burrowing Owl, Pygmy Rabbit and Northern Sagebrush Lizard Short-term temporary disturbances to burrowing owls would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with the implementation of the modifications. This direct effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period to complete the modifications.
Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat and Yuma Myotis Under the proposed action, modifications to non-functioning structures would directly benefit bat species by increasing food availability and water sources in the short- and long-term (Chung- MacCoubrey 1996). Water structures established for livestock can double as a vital water source for bats and other wildlife (Taylor and Tuttle 2007).
California Bighorn Sheep Water is considered a key habitat requirement of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (McCarty and Bailey 1994). Use of water developments by bighorn sheep is well documented (Graves 1961; Campbell and Remington 1979). Long-term indirect impacts from the proposed action may include an increase in bighorn populations. Bighorn populations have been documented to increase after development of new waters (Leslie and Douglas 1979).
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Short-term temporary disturbances to bighorn sheep would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with implementation of the modifications. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement. This impact is expected to be minor due to the short time period it takes to complete the modifications.
Greater Sage-Grouse Under the proposed action, modifications to non-functioning structures would improve habitat quality for GRSG. Modifications to protect and enhance riparian areas would increase thermal cover, predator protection, and food availability. Mesic habitats are important for GRSG survival, providing an abundance of forbs and insects as food resources from pre-laying in early spring (Crawford et al., 2004) through brood-rearing and into fall (Klebenow and Gray 1968; Drut et al., 1994b; Sveum et al., 1998a). Residual vegetation cover, especially grass and litter, has often been noted as essential for concealment during nesting and brood-rearing (Sveum et al., 1998a; Sveum et al., 1998b; Kirol et al., 2012), suggesting improvements to herbaceous cover may increase reproductive rates.
Riparian, wet meadows, streams and springs receive disproportionately heavy use by livestock and WH&B (Crane et al., 1997; Beever and Brussard 2000). Livestock distribution patterns are directly linked with water availability, and this bias has also had relevant, measureable impacts to riparian habitats, which are of primary importance for GRSG as late brood-rearing and sum- mer habitats. Modifications under the proposed action to exclude WH&B and livestock from these areas would improve riparian habitats in the short- and long-term. Short- and long-term impacts include increased vegetation, insects and hiding cover for concealment.
Short-term temporary disturbances to GRSG would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with implementation of the modifications. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement, nest abandonment and an increase in predation. This effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period it takes to complete the modifications. Implementation of PDFs would reduce or eliminate impacts to GRSG.
Migratory Birds Under the proposed action, migratory birds would benefit from increased grasses, forbs and shrubs once modifications are made to non-functioning structures in the short- and long-term. This would result in increased hiding and nesting cover, and forage for migratory bird species. Modifications in riparian sites would benefit migratory birds by increasing riparian vegetation, increasing the amount of water available within the riparian area and increasing the extent of riparian habitats.
Short-term temporary disturbances to migratory birds would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with implementation of the modifications. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement and nest abandonment. If project activities occur during the breeding season, short-term impacts may include interference with the males’ ability to attract mates and defend territory, the ability to recognize calls from conspecifics during the breeding season (BLM 2003) and avoidance near project activities. This effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period to complete the
3-70
modifications.
Nesting Raptors Under the proposed action, modifications to non-functioning structures would improve habitat quality for prey species that raptors commonly predate upon, benefiting raptors within the project area. Improvements in prey population densities may result in increased survival and fledging of young in the short- and long-term.
Short-term temporary disturbances to nesting raptors would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with the implementation of the modifications. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement and nest abandonment. This effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period it takes to complete the modifications. Implementation of PDFs would reduce or eliminate impacts to nesting raptors.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Under the proposed action, long-term impacts to big game species and ungulates may include additional water sources and forage within the project area. Well distributed water sources likely distribute big game species and ungulates more evenly through their habitat, thereby allowing them to occupy previously unused areas. This distribution may increase overall carrying capacity of the habitat and reduce frequency of long-range movements out of normal home ranges that could increase susceptibility to predation, energy expenditures, and mortality. As habitat quality increases, body condition and fecundity of populations would be expected to increase.
Short-term direct impacts to big game species and ungulates include a temporary increase in noise from vehicles, machinery, equipment and human presence associated with the implementation of the modifications. Big game species and ungulates may be temporarily displaced during project activities. This effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period it takes to complete the modifications and implementation of PDFs would reduce or eliminate impacts to these species.
Installation of New Water Developments:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species
Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk and Swainson’s Hawk, Bank swallows, Greater Sandhill Crane, Burrowing Owl and Pygmy Rabbit Short-term temporary disturbances to these species would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with the installation of new water developments. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement and nest abandonment. This effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period to complete the modifications. Implementation of PDFs would reduce or eliminate impacts to some of these species.
Direct disturbance to prey, foraging and burrowing habitat would also occur for some of these
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
species. The extent of the disturbance to these habitats would depend on the number, size and placement of the water developments.
Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat and Yuma Myotis Food availability determines bat species distribution and habitat use. Some bat species also select habitats with a greater emphasis on water availability. Water structures established for livestock can double as vital water sources for bats and other wildlife (Taylor and Tuttle 2007). The construction of additional water sources may benefit bat species by increasing food availability and direct water sources in the short- and long-term (Chung-MacCoubrey 1996).
Northern Sagebrush Lizard Impacts to the northern sagebrush lizard include direct loss of habitat and a potential increase in hiding cover due to improved cattle distribution in the long-term. The amount of habitat loss would depend on the number, size and placement of the water developments. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement and mortality from constructions activities.
California Bighorn Sheep Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Migratory Birds Short-term temporary disturbances to migratory birds would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with installation of new water developments. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement and nest abandonment. This effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period it takes to complete the modifications.
Direct loss of habitat used by some migratory birds for foraging and nesting may also occur in the short- and long-term. The extent of habitat disturbance would depend on the number, size and location of the new water developments.
Nesting Raptors Short-term temporary disturbances to raptors would occur under the proposed action as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence associated with the installation of new water developments. Short-term impacts may include temporary displacement and nest abandonment. This effect is expected to be minor due to the short time period to complete the modifications. Implementation of PDFs would reduce or eliminate impacts to raptors.
Direct disturbance to prey habitat would also occur. The extent of habitat loss would depend on the number, size and location of the new water developments.
Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. In addition, the proposed water developments would likely improve cattle distribution throughout the allotment; increasing shrubs, forbs and grasses and reduce grazing pressure occurring near existing water sources. Additional water sources may
3-72
benefit riparian conditions (GRSG summer habitats); however, it may increase the effect of livestock across the landscape, expanding impacts to upland areas that are also important for GRSG during nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter seasons. Water developments would improve seasonal GRSG habitats throughout the project area in the long-term. Long-term, direct impacts may also include direct habitat loss and may serve as predator sinks for GRSG, as they tend to attract other prey species (Connelly and Doughty 1989).
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Riparian Vegetation Projects:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows, Greater Sandhill Crane, Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Yuma Myotis and Northern Sagebrush Lizard Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. However, active restoration projects such as vegetation projects would likely recover quicker versus passive restoration projects (i.e., fencing a site and allowing it to re-establish on its own). In turn, an increase in prey, foraging, nesting and/or hiding habitats would also be achieved sooner for these species.
Burrowing Owl, Pygmy Rabbit and California Bighorn Sheep Same as the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. However, active restoration projects such as vegetation projects would likely recover quicker versus passive restoration projects (i.e., fencing a site and allowing it to re-establish on its own). In turn, an increase to foraging and nesting habitats would be achieved sooner under this alternative.
Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. However, GRSG habitats would have greater direct short- and long-term impacts when sites receive active restoration such as vegetation projects. Vegetation projects would re-establish sagebrush with an understory of forbs and grasses; increasing food and hiding cover adjacent to riparian areas. Sites receiving vegetation treatments would likely recover quicker versus passive restoration projects (i.e., fencing a site and allowing it to re- establish on its own).
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
of Non-Functioning Structures. However, active restoration projects such as vegetation projects would likely recover quicker versus passive restoration projects (i.e., fencing a site and allowing it to re-establish on its own). In turn, an increase to big game and ungulate habitat would be achieved sooner under this alternative.
Riparian Fence Projects:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk and Swainson’s Hawk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. Riparian fence projects may also cause raptor collisions with fences. Wire fences occasionally are responsible for raptor deaths when birds collide with them, become entangled in the wires, or impale themselves on barbed wire (Anderson 1977). Making fences more visible, including the use of markers, can help reduce collisions (Harness et al., 2003). Fences may also provide additional perches and increase hunting opportunities. The application of PDFs would reduce impacts from fence collisions.
Bank Swallows Same as the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Greater Sandhill Crane Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. Riparian fence projects may also cause collisions or entanglements with barbed-wire fences resulting in death. Most known fence mortalities have occurred on breeding grounds; at least 6 victims have been found in southeastern Oregon (C. Littlefield and G. Ivey, unpubl. data). Of 135 deaths of color-marked greater sandhill cranes in the Rocky Mountain Population, Drewien et al. (in prep.) reported 8 (4.5%) died from fence collisions or entanglements. The application of fence markers and PDFs would eliminate or reduce impacts from fence collisions.
Burrowing Owl, Pygmy Rabbit, Northern Sagebrush Lizard and Nesting Raptors Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat and Yuma Myotis Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. In addition there are short- and long term direct impacts to bats from collisions with fences, but mortalities are considered sporadic and not well documented in the literature (USGS 2008). Implementation of PDFs for other species may eliminate or reduce impacts from fence collisions.
California Bighorn Sheep Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. Riparian fence projects may increase the risk of entanglement and impalement leading to mortality of sheep. Habitat fragmentation may also occur which may prevent access to resources or increase the energy required for sheep to take advantage of
3-74
resources. Immature rams are particularly vulnerable to barbed wire fencing (Helvie 1971). Immature rams sometimes poke their heads between two wires, and when they pull back get their horns tangled in the top wire. While struggling to escape, the barbs can also cause abrasions and fatal injuries. The application of PDFs would reduce or eliminate these impacts.
Migratory Birds Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. Riparian fence projects may increase the risk of collisions causing injuries or mortalities to migratory birds due to lack of visibility. The application of PDFs would reduce or eliminate these impacts.
Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. Riparian fence projects would also increase GRSG collisions with fences and increase mortality. However, by applying the collision risk tool, a proven fence- marking method, collisions can be reduced by up to 83 percent (Stevens et al., 2012). Fences may also increase predation on GRSG by raptors due to fences providing perch sites. The application of PDFs would reduce these impacts.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. Riparian fence projects may increase the risk of entanglement and impalement leading to mortality of deer. Habitat fragmentation may also occur, which may prevent access to resources, restrictions to seasonal movements or increase the energy required for big game species to take advantage of them. The application of PDFs would reduce or eliminate some of these impacts.
Stream Enhancement Projects:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows, Greater Sandhill Cranes, Burrowing Owl, Long-legged Myotis, Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Yuma Myotis, Pygmy Rabbit, Northern Sagebrush Lizard, California Bighorn Sheep, Migratory Birds, Nesting Raptors and Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Road Removal/Realignment:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows, Burrowing
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Owl, Long-legged Myotis, Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Yuma Myotis, Pygmy Rabbit, Northern Sagebrush Lizard, California Bighorn Sheep and Nesting Raptors Similar to the impacts under Installation of New Water Development.
Greater Sandhill Crane Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. In addition, the removal and/or realignment of roads may increase greater sandhill crane nesting and foraging habitats. Disturbances to foraging and nesting cranes may also be reduced or eliminated if roads are realigned outside of riparian areas.
Migratory Birds Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. In addition, road removal would increase GRSG seasonal habitats in the long-term, decrease disturbances from vehicle noise and human activity, and eliminate potential vehicular collisions in the short- and long-term. However, if roads are realigned there is a potential for direct habitat loss in the short- and long-term.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. In addition, short-term direct impacts would include a reduction in vehicular collisions if roads were removed. However, if roads are realigned there is a potential for direct habitat loss in the short- and long-term.
Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Assessment Area for Wildlife, T&E species, and migratory birds includes all lands within the BLM AGFO and ELFO (Figure 1.2). The AGFO and ELFO combined encompass approximately three million acres of public lands in northeastern California and northwestern Nevada.
Livestock grazing by cattle would continue throughout the project area and would cause direct competition for food and water, potential for increased erosion and sediment along drainages, and indirect loss of cover effects to wildlife. Similarly, continued use by WH&B would provide additional competition for food and water and loss of cover for wildlife species.
Fencing riparian and wetland sites, and marking fences would have positive effects on wildlife habitat in the project area. These practices would also decrease the potential for erosion and sediment input into aquatic habitats.
Continuing Integrated Weed Management will result in additional native habitat and improved wildlife habitat conditions. Wildlife in the project area would benefit from these practices and few adverse effects would occur as a result.
3-76
Continued recreation in the form of hunting, camping, and hiking, and to a lesser extent wildlife observation, nature study and archaeological sightseeing would result in potential impacts to wildlife populations, as human presence is usually a nuisance to wildlife, especially during the breeding and brood-rearing seasons. The proposed action is not expected to result in increased recreation over the long-term.
Cumulative impacts of the proposed action Alternatives on wildlife populations include disturbance from vehicles, machinery and human activity. There would be short-term impacts to individual species due to disturbance during the implementation of the project activities. However, there would be long-term benefits from an increase in diversity of vegetation composition and structure. This would provide additional forage, potentially increase prey species and cover for most species.
Alternative 2 (No Action): Under the No Action Alternative the proposed action items would not occur under a programmatic manner. Fewer projects outlined in the proposed action would be implemented since BLM would have to complete individual NEPA documents. Implemented projects would result in similar impacts to wildlife as described in the proposed action; however, those impacts would change due to the reduced number of projects and impacted areas.
Under the No action alternative the beneficial and adverse impacts outlined in the proposed action would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action. Some projects would be implemented in the future using individual site specific analysis; however, those impacts would be apparent at a slower rate. Below outlines the impacts from not completing each action item through the programmatic process.
Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts in common to all wildlife species Under this alternative, fewer short-term temporary disturbances impacts to wildlife species as a result of noise, equipment, vehicles and human presence are likely to occur since projects would not be implemented at the same rate as the proposed action.
Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows and Greater Sandhill Crane Under the No Action Alternative, there would be fewer improvements to habitat quality for prey species that these species commonly predate upon. An increase in prey population densities or improvements to nesting and foraging habitat quality and quantity would occur at a slower rate. In turn, the potential for an increase in survival and fledging of young in the short- and long-term would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action.
Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat and Yuma Myotis Under the No Action Alternative, modifications to non-functioning structures would not occur at
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
the same rate as the proposed action nor would an increase in food availability or water sources in the short- and long-term (Chung-MacCoubrey 1996).
California Bighorn Sheep Under the No Action Alternative, fewer additional water sources would be available to sheep and potential increases in populations would occur at a slower rate then the proposed action.
Greater Sage-Grouse Under the No Action Alternative, improvements to riparian habitats which increase thermal cover, predator protection, and food availability and chick survival would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action. There would not be an increase in reproductive rates for GRSG.
Migratory Birds Under the No Action Alternative, migratory birds would not benefit from increased grasses, forbs and shrubs which would provide an increase in hiding and nesting cover, and forage.
Interference with the males’ ability to attract mates and defend territory, the ability to recognize calls from conspecifics during the breeding season (BLM 2003) and avoidance near project activities would be eliminated.
Nesting Raptors Under the No Action Alternative, modifications to non-functioning structures would not occur at the same rate as the proposed action and there would be fewer improvements to habitat quality for prey species that raptors commonly predate upon. An increase in prey population densities and increase in survival and fledging of young in the short- and long-term would occur at a slower rate than the proposed action.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope, and Rocky Mountain Elk Under the No Action Alternative fewer additional water sources would be available to ungulates and potential increases in populations would occur at a slower rate than the proposed action.
Installation of New Water Developments:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows, Greater Sandhill Crane, Burrowing Owl and Pygmy Rabbit Under the No Action Alternative, direct disturbances to prey, foraging and/or burrowing habitats would also be reduced under this alternative in the short- and long-term.
Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat and Yuma Myotis Under the No Action Alternative, fewer additional water sources would be available to bat species and there would be no measurable increase in food availability.
Northern Sagebrush Lizard Under the No Action Alternative, potential increase in hiding cover would not occur at the same
3-78
rate as the proposed action in the long-term.
California Bighorn Sheep Same as the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Migratory Birds A potential loss of migratory bird foraging and nesting habitat would also be reduced under this alternative in the short- and long-term.
Nesting Raptors Under the No Action Alternative, a potential loss of nesting raptors foraging and nesting habitat would also be reduced under this alternative. Direct disturbance to prey habitat would occur at a slower rate under this alternative.
Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Same as the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Riparian Vegetation Projects:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows, Greater Sandhill Crane, Burrowing Owl, Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Yuma Myotis, Pygmy Rabbit, Northern Sagebrush Lizard, California Bighorn Sheep, Migratory Birds, Nesting Raptors and Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Riparian Fence Projects:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk and Bank Swallows Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. Under the No Action Alternative raptor collisions, deaths or entanglement in the fences as well as additional perches and an increase in hunting opportunities would occur at a slower rate when compared to the proposed action.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Greater Sandhill Crane, Burrowing Owl, Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Yuma Myotis, Pygmy Rabbit and Northern Sagebrush Lizard Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
California Bighorn Sheep Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. The risk of entanglement and impalement leading to mortality would be reduced under this alternative in the short- and long-term. Habitat fragmentation would also be reduced under this alternative in the short- and long-term.
Migratory Birds Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. The risk of collisions causing injuries or mortalities to migratory birds would also be reduced.
Nesting Raptors Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. The risk of collisions causing injuries or mortalities to GRSG would also be reduced in the short- and long-term.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures. The risk of entanglement and impalement leading to mortality of sheep would be reduced under this alternative and habitat fragmentation.
Stream Enhancement Projects:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows, Burrowing Owl, Greater Sandhill Crane, Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Yuma Myotis, Pygmy Rabbit, Northern Sagebrush Lizard, California Bighorn Sheep, Migratory Birds, Nesting Raptors and Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
3-80
Road Removal/Realignment:
BLM Sensitive and State Listed Species Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Bank Swallows, Burrowing Owl Greater Sandhill Crane, Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Yuma Myotis, Pygmy Rabbit, Juniper Titmouse, Northern Sagebrush Lizard, California Bighorn Sheep, Migratory Birds, Nesting Raptors and Greater Sage-Grouse Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Big Game Species and Ungulates Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Rocky Mountain Elk Similar to the impacts under Modification to Existing Structures and Removal and Rehabilitation of Non-Functioning Structures.
Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Assessment Area for Wildlife, T&E species, and migratory birds includes all lands within the BLM AGFO and ELFO (Figure 1.2). The AGFO and ELFO combined encompass approximately three million acres of public lands in northeastern California and northwestern Nevada.
Livestock grazing by cattle would continue throughout the project area and would cause direct competition for food and water, potential for increased erosion and sediment along drainages, etc., and indirect loss of cover effects to wildlife. Similarly, continued use by WH&B would provide additional competition for food and water and loss of cover for wildlife species.
Fencing riparian and wetland sites and marking fences would occur at a slower rate and continue to be degraded by livestock grazing and WH&B. GRSG brood-rearing habitat would continue to degrade throughout the project area. Fewer additional water sources would be created for ungulates and other wildlife when compared to the proposed action since individual site specific NEPA analysis would need to be prepared.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted Local tribes as well as the State Historic Preservation officers were consulted on this project.
All of the livestock permittees and interested parties for both offices were sent scoping and comment letters and given an adequate amount of time to submit comments and questions about the document.
California Fish and Wildlife and Nevada Department of Wildlife were involved in the scoping process as well as the public comment period.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service were involved in the scoping process as well as the public comment period.
4.2 List of Preparers Table 4.2.1: List of Interdisciplinary Members, and Preparers.
Name Title Project Role Stan Bales Outdoor Recreation Planner Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Levi Bateman Natural Resource Specialist Noxious Weeds Michael Dolan Botanist Vegetation/Special Status Plants/Soils Marilla Martin Archaeologist Cultural Resources Range//Land Health/ Wild horse and Patrick Farris Rangeland Management Specialist Burro Supervisory Natural Resource Elias Flores Soils/Hydrology/Riparian/Wetland/Air Specialist Amy King Rangeland Management Specialist Range/Land Health Joshua Lead Biological Technician Noxious Weeds Huffman Jim Hunt Recreation Maintenance Worker Facilities Management Valda Lockie Ecologist Vegetation/Special Status Plants/Riparian Clif Motheral Forester/Fuels Specialist Fuels/Fire/Forestry Melissa Nelson Wildlife Biologist Wildlife/ T&E Species Arlene Kosic Wildlife Biologist Wildlife/ T&E Species Marisa Outdoor Recreation Planner Recreation/Travel/OHV/Wilderness Williams
4-82
APPENDIX A- LITERATURE CITED
References
Aldridge, C.L., and R.M. Brigham. 2001. Nesting and reproductive activities of Greater Sage- Grouse in a declining northern fringe population. The Condor 103:537-543.
Anderson, H.L. 1977. Barbed wire impales another Great Horned Owl. Raptor Res. 11:71–72.
Armentrout, D. J., and F. Hall. 2005. Conservation strategy for sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and sagebrush ecosystems within the Buffalo-Skedaddle population management unit. Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, CA, USA.
ASPPN. 1990. Impacts of Domestic Livestock Grazing On Archaeological Resources Archaeological Sites Protection and Preservation Notebook, Technical Notes I-15. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.
Atamian, T.M., Sedinger, S.J., Heaton, S. J., Blomberg, J. E. 2010. Landscape-Level Assessment of Brood Rearing Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse in Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management: 74(7):1533–1543; 2010; DOI: 10.2193/2009-226.
Barbour, M.G., J. M. Evans, T.Keeler-Wolf, J.O. Sawyer. 2016. California’s Botanical Landscapes. California Native Plant Society.
Barbour, R.W, and W.H. Davis. 1969 Bats of America. The University Press of Kentucky.Lexinton, KY.
Bates, J. D., R.F. Miller, and T.J Svejcar. 1998. Understory patterns in cut western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis spp. occidentalis Hook.) woodlands. Great Basin Naturalist 58(4): 363- 374.
Bates, J.D., R.F. Miller, and T.J. Svejcar. 2007. Long-term vegetation dynamics in a cut Western juniper woodland. Great Basin Naturalist 67:549-561.
Burt, W.H. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals. Field marks of all North American species found north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston MA. Pp: 28-29. California Department of Fish and Game, Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/jsp/more_info.jsp?specy=mammals&idNum-8.
Campbell, B.H., and R. Remington. 1979. Bighorn use of artificial water sources in the Buckskin Mountains, Arizona. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 23:50–56.
Carnie, S.K. 1954. Food habits of nesting golden eagles in the coast ranges of California. Condor 56(1):3-12.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Chambers C., R. Miller, (eds) 2004. Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems; ecology, management and restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC. USA
Chung-MacCoubrey, Alice L. 1996. Grassland bats and land management in the Southwest. In: Finch, Deborah M., Editor. Ecosystem disturbance and wildlife conservation in western grasslands - A symposium proceedings. September 22-26, 1994; Albuquerque, NM. General Technical Report RM-GTR-285. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 54-63.
Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA.
Crawford, J. A., R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C. Mosely, M. A. Schroeder, T. D. Whitson, R. F. Miller, M. A. Gregg, and C. S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage- grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management 57:2–19. d’Azevedo,W. 1986 Washoe. In Great Basin. Warren L. d’Azevedo, ed. Pp. 466-498. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, William Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Deal, K. 2012. Fire Effects on Flaked Stone, Ground Stone, and other Stone Artifacts. In Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on cultural Resources and Archaeology. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 3. Edited by KC Ryan, AT Jones, CL Koerner and KM Lee. United States Department of Agriculture. pp 97-112.
DelGiudice, Glenn D., Rodiek, Jon E. 1984. Do elk need free water in Arizona? Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12(2): 142-146. [83215]
Drewien, R. C., W. M. Brown, K. R. Clegg, D. C. Lockman, W. L. Kendall, V. K. Graham, and S. S. Manes. in prep. Band recoveries, mortality factors, and survival of Rocky Mountain greater sandhill cranes, 1969-1999.
Drut, M.S., 1994, Status of sage grouse with emphasis on populations in Oregon and Washington, 42 p.
Eddleman, L.E., R.F. Miller, P.M. Miller, and P.L. Dysart. 1994. Western juniper woodlands of the Pacific Northwest: Science Assessment. Dept. of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.
Floyd, T., Elphick, C. S., Chisolm, G., Mack, K., Elston, R. G., Ammon, E. M., and Boone, J. D. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Nevada. Univ. of Nev. Press, Reno.
Garth, Thomas R. 1953. Atsugewi Ethnography. Anthropological Records Vol. 14:2. University of California Press, Berkeley.
4-84
Graves, B. D. 1961. Waterhole observations of bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 5:27-29.
Gregg, M. A. 2006. Greater sage-grouse reproductive ecology: linkages among habitat resources, maternal nutrition, and chick survival. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.
Haecker, C. 2012. Fire Effects on Materials of the Historic Period. In Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on cultural Resources and Archaeology. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 3. Edited by KC Ryan, AT Jones, CL Koerner and KM Lee. United States Department of Agriculture. pp 131-142.
Helvie , J.B. 1971. Bighorns and fences. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 15:53-62.
Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinkley, R.M. Webb, and B Hallet. 1981. Physical Effects of Vehicular Disturbances on Arid Landscapes. Science, New Series, Vol. 212:4497, pp. 915-917.
Jones, C. 1965. Ecological distribution and activity periods of bats of the Mogollon Mountains area of New Mexico and adjacent Arizona. Tulane Studies in Zoology 12:93-100.
Jones, J.K. Jr., D.M. Armstrong, R.S. Hoffmann and C. Jones. 1983. Mammals of the northern great plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 378 pp. Johnson, G.D., and Boyce, M.S. 1991, Survival, growth and reproduction of captive- reared sage grouse: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 19, p. 88–93.
Kelly, Isabel T. 1932. Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, No. 3. University of California Press, Berkeley. pp- 67-210.
Kelly, R.E. and D.F McCarthy. 2012. Fire Effects on Rock images and Similar Cultural Resources. In Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on cultural Resources and Archaeology. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 3. Edited by KC Ryan, AT Jones, CL Koerner and KM Lee. United States Department of Agriculture. pp 113-130.
King, J., K. McGuire, M. Maniery, C. Baker, H. McCarthy, and H. Scotten. 2004. Class I Cultural Resources Overview and Research Design for the Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise Resource Areas. Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Surprise, Eagle Lake, and Alturas Field Offices.
Kniffen, F.B. 1928. Achomawi Geography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Volume 23, No. 5, pp.297-332. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kowta, M. 1988. The Archaeology and Prehistory of Plumas and Butte Counties, California: An Introduction and Interpretive Model. California Archaeological Site Inventory.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Report on file at the Northeast Information Center, California State University, Chico. Kirol, C.P., Beck, J.L., Dinkins, J.B., and Conover, M.R., 2012, Microhabitat selection for nesting and brood-rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in xeric big sagebrush: Condor, v. 114, p. 75–89.
Klebenow, D.A., and Gray, G.M., 1968, Food habits of juvenile sage grouse: Journal of Range Management, 21, p. 80–83.
Kroeber, AL. 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Kunz, T.H., and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian Species 175:1–6.
Leslie, D., and C. Douglas. 1979. Desert Bighorn Sheep of the River Mountains, Nevada. Wildlife Monograph No. 66.
Line, D. E. "Changes in a stream’s physical and biological conditions following livestock exclusion." Transactions of the ASAE 46.2 (2003): 287.
Littlefield, C. D., and G. L. Ivey. 2001. Draft Washington State Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Crane. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 62 pages.
Logsdon, R. 1976. Flake Damage and Dispersion Produced by Cattle: A Report of a Field Experiment. Western Washington State College. Bellingham, Washington.
McCarty, C. W. and J.A. Bailey. 1994 Habitat requirements of desert bighorn sheep. Special Report 69. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.
Merriam, CH. 1926. The Classification and Distribution of the Pit River Indian Tribes of California. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 78, No. 3. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Miller, R.F. and P.E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene changes in semi-arid pinyon-juniper woodlands. Bio Science 44(7): 465-474.
Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology Ecology and Management of Western juniper. Oregon State University Agric. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 152.
Nagorsen, D.W., and R.M. Brigham. 1995. The Bats of British Columbia. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Nielsen, AE. 1991. Trampling the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity, Vol. 56:3, pp. 483-503.
Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World – Volume I. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 655pp. O'Gara, B. W. 1978. Antilocapra americana. Mammal. Species. No. 90. 7pp.
4-86
Osborn, A, S Vetter, R Hartley, L Walsh, and J Brown. 1987. Impacts of Domestic Livestock Grazing on the Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center, Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No 20. Lincoln, NE.
Prichard, Don. "User guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lentic areas." (2003).
Pyshora, Leo. 1977. The Pronhorn Antelope in Northeastern California. Wildlife Management Administrative Report Number 77-2. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.
Ray, V.F. 1963. Primitive Pragmatists: The Modoc Indians of Northern California. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Reynolds, T. 1984. Daily Summer Movements, Activity Patterns and Home Range of Pronghorn. Northwest Science 58:300-311.
Roybal, G. and Haller, J. 1982. Sites with Cultural Significance for the Upriver Bands of the Pit River Indian Tribe. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management. Prepared by Roybal-Evans & Associates. On File at BLM Applegate Field Office, Alturas, California.
Rucks, P. and Tiley, S. 2011. Ethnographic Syntheses, Volume 3. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office. Report No. SU2-2010-36. On File at the BLM Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, California.
Sada, Donald W., and Gary L. Vinyard. 2002. "Anthropogenic changes in biogeography of Great Basin aquatic biota." Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 33 (2002): 277-293.
Sherer, Brett M., J.R. Miller, J.A. Moore, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. "Indicator bacterial survival in stream sediments."Journal of Environmental Quality 21.4 (1992): 591-595.
Shipley, W.F. 1978. Native Languages of California. Handbook of North American Indians, 8, pp.80-90.
Stern, T. 1998. Klamath and Modoc. In Handbook of North American Indians Volume 12: Plateau. Edited by DE Walker. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. pp 446-466.
Stewart, O.C. 1939. The Northern Paiute Bands. Anthropological Records 2:3. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Schmidt, C. A. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Long-Eared Myotis in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, WY.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Shinneman, D.J, Baker, W.L.; Rogers, P.C.Kulakowski, D. 2013. Fire regimes of quaking aspen in the Mountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 299: 22-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.032
Sigua, Gilbert, C; Samuel W. Coleman. 2009. Long-term effect of cow congregation zone on soil penetrometer resistance: implications for soils and forage quality. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2009, 29 (4).
Sommer, M.L., R.L. Barboza, R.A. Botta, E.B. Kleinfelter, M.E. Schauss and J.R. Thompson. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Stevens, B.S., Reese, K.P., Connelly, J.W., and Musil, D.D., 2012, Greater Sage-Grouse and fences: does marking reduce collisions?: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 36, p. 297–303.
Sveum, C.M., Crawford, J.A., and Edge, W.D., 1998a, Use and selection of brood-rearing habitat by sage grouse in south-central Washington: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 58, p. 344–351.
Sveum, C.M., Edge, W.D., and Crawford, J.A., 1998b, Nesting habitat selection by sage grouse in south-central Washington: Journal of Range Management, v. 51, p. 265–269.
Taylor, A.R. and M. Tuttle. 2007. Water for Wildlife: A Handbook for Ranches and Range Managers.
Thurow, T.L. and J.W. Hester. 1997. How an increase or reduction in juniper cover alters rangeland hydrology. pp. 4:9-22. In: C.A. Taylor, Jr. (ed.), Juniper Symp. Texas Agriculture Experiment Station, Sonora, Tex., Technical Report 97-1
Thurow, T. L. and J.W. Hester. How an Increase or Reduction Juniper Cover Alters Rangeland Hydrology. http://texnat.tamu.edu/symp/juniper/TOM2.htm. Accessed 03/27/2003.
Turner, R.W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Miscellaneous Publications of the University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History, 60: 1-178.
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. FEIS. Modoc National Forest, Alturas Field Office BLM. RS-MB-161.
USDA. 2010. Soil Survey Staff. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
USFWS. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Riparian area management: A guide to managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the Western United States, Technical Reference 1737-17. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. BLM/ST/ST-01/001+1737. 70pp.
4-88
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003. Riparian area management: Riparian-wetland soils. Technical Refernce 1737-19. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Co. BLM/ST/ST- 03/001+1737. 109pp. USGS. 2008 Overview of issues related to bats and wind energy Web Version of Presentation 2008. Washington DC.
USGS. 2008 Overview of issues related to bats and wind energy Web Version of Presentation 2008. Washington DC.
Voegelin, EW. 1942. Culture Element Distributions. Northeast California. Anthropological Records 7:2. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Warner, R., and N. Czaplewski. 1984. Myotis volans. Mammalian Species No. 224. American Society of Mammalogists, 4pp.
Webb, RH, HC Ragland, WH Godwin, and J Jenkins. 1978. Environmental Effects of Soil Property Changes with Off-Road Vehicle Use. Environmental Management, Nol. 2:3, pp. 219- 233. Wikipedia. 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian area management: Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 105 pp.
Yoakum, J. D. 1978. Managing rangelands for the American pronghorn antelope. Biennial Pronghorn Antelope Workshop 8:321-336.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX B- GLOSSARY
Animal Unit Months (AUMs): amount of forage necessary to sustain one cow or its equivalent for one month.
Appropriate Management Level (AML): The number of wild horses and burros which can graze without causing damage to the range
Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a planning decision unless the plans specify that they are mandatory.
Biologically Significant Unit: Delineation of GRSG habitat based on GRSG interactions between Population Management Units (PMU) to represent local GRSG population habitat and use areas within the sub-region.
Breeding habitat: Leks and the sagebrush habitat surrounding leks that are collectively used for pre-laying, breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing, from approximately March through June (Connelly et al. 2004).
Early brood-rearing habitat: Sagebrush habitat within the vicinity of the nest used by GRSG hens with chicks up to 3 weeks following hatch (Connelly et al. 2000a).
Enhance: The improvement of habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory components and/or attributes of the plant community to meet habitat objectives.
General Habitat Management Area (GHMA): BLM-administered and Forest Service- managed lands requiring special management to sustain GRSG populations. GHMAs are derived from and generally follow the general habitat boundaries (see Chapter 3) but may be modified in extent based on the objectives of each alternative. Likewise, management strategies applied to the GHMAs may vary by alternative.
Late brood-rearing habitat: Habitats used by GRSG following desiccation of herbaceous vegetation in sagebrush uplands (Fischer et al. 1996). Late brood-rearing habitats include mesic sagebrush and mixed shrub communities, wet meadows, and riparian habitats as well as some agricultural lands (e.g., alfalfa fields).These habitats are generally used from July to early September but vary annually due to annual weather conditions (Connelly et al. 1988).
Lek: A traditional courtship display area attended by male sage‐grouse in or next to sagebrush dominated habitat. A lek is designated based on observations of two or more male sage‐grouse engaged in courtship displays. Sub‐dominant males may display on itinerant strutting areas during population peaks. Such areas usually fail to become established leks. Therefore, a site where fewer than five males are observed strutting should be confirmed active for two years before meeting the definition of a lek (Connelly et al. 2000; Connelly et al. 2003, 2004). Each state may have a slightly different definition of lek, active lek, inactive lek, occupied lek, and
4-90
unoccupied leks. Regional planning will use the appropriate definition provided by the state of interest.
Abandoned lek: A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active for 10 consecutive years. To be designated abandoned, a lek must be “inactive” (see above criteria) in at least four non‐consecutive strutting seasons spanning the 10 years. The site of an abandoned lek should be surveyed at least once every 10 years to determine whether it has been reoccupied. Active lek: Any lek that has been attended by two or more males at least twice in the last five years. Destroyed lek: A formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has been destroyed and is no longer suitable for GRSG breeding. Historic lek: Any lek that has been attended by 0 or 1 male during every visit (minimum five visits) in the last 30 years. Inactive lek: Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there has been 0 or 1 male during every visit (minimum two visits) in the last five years. Occupied lek: A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the prior 10 years. Pending active lek: Any lek that has been attended by two or more males only once in the last five years. Unoccupied lek: A lek that has either been destroyed or abandoned.
Lentic: Pertaining to standing water, such as lakes and ponds.
Lotic: Pertaining to moving water, such as streams or rivers.
Objective (BLM): A description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and measured and, where possible, have established timeframes for achievement.
Other Habitat Management Area (OHMA): Lands that contain seasonal or connectivity habitat areas that are not considered to be PHMA or GHMA, but where GRSG use has been observed or suspected.
Perennial stream: A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow.
Phase I Conifer Encroachment: Trees are present on the site, but the shrub and herb layer are the dominant influence on ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles). Tree canopy cover of less than 10 percent (Miller et. al. 2005).
Phase II Conifer Encroachment: Trees are co-dominant with shrub and herb layers. All three layers influence ecological processes. Tree canopy cover of 10 to 30 percent (Miller et. al. 2005).
Phase III Conifer Encroachment: Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary layer influencing ecological processes. Tree canopy cover of greater than 30 percent (Miller et. al. 2005).
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Population Management Unit (PMU): GRSG areas delineated based on aggregations of GRSG lek locations where the potential for genetic interchange (short-term) among populations is high.
Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA): BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. PHMAs are derived from and generally follow the priority habitat boundaries (see in Chapter 3) but may be modified in extent based on the objectives of each alternative. Likewise, management strategies applied to the PHMAs may vary by alternative.
Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): A term describing stream health that is based on the presence of adequate vegetation, landform, and debris to dissipate energy, reduce erosion and improve water quality.
Required Design Features (RDF): Means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. A suite of features that would establish the minimum specifications for certain activities (i.e., water developments, mineral development, and fire and fuels management) and mitigate adverse impacts. These design features would be required to provide a greater level of regulatory certainty than through implementation of Best Management Practices. In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to be effective when implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the project-specific level when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) and/or may require slight variations from what is described in the LUPA/EIS (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in design features would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual project development and environmental review.
Restore/restoration: Implementation of passive or active management actions designed to increase or maintain perennial herbaceous species and landscape cover of sagebrush so that plant communities are more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over the long term. The long‐ term goal is to create functional, high quality habitat that is occupied by sage‐grouse. Short‐term goal may be to restore the landform, soils and hydrology and increase the percentage of preferred vegetation, seeding of desired species, or treatment of undesired species.
Revegetate/revegetation: The process of putting vegetation back in an area where vegetation previously existed, which may or may not simulate natural conditions.
Riparian area: A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil.
Riparian zone: An area one-quarter mile wide encompassing riparian and adjacent vegetation.
4-92
Vegetation treatments: Management practices which change the vegetation structure to a different stage of development. Vegetation treatment methods include managed fire, prescribed fire, chemical, mechanical, and seeding. Vegetation type: A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based upon and named after the apparent dominant plant species.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX C- EXAMPLE DETERMINATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLOCY ACT ADEQUACY, PRE-PROJECT CLEARANCES AND DRAFT DECISION RECORD
Worksheet
Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
OFFICE: Example Office
TRACKING NUMBER: Example
CASEFILE/PROJECT NUMBER: Example
PROPOSED ACTION TITLE/TYPE: Examples
LOCATION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Example
APPLICANT (if any): Example
A. Description of the Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures
B. Conformance with the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Consistency with Related Subordinate
Implementation Plans
LUP Name* Example District ROD/RMP Date Approved June 2008
Other Document N/A Date Approved
Other Document N/A Date Approved
*List applicable LUPs (for example, resource management plans; activity, project, management, or program plans; or applicable amendments thereto)
The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUPs because it is specifically provided for in the following LUP decisions:
C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other
4-94
related documents that cover the proposed action.
List by name and date all applicable NEPA documents that cover the proposed action.
List by name and date other documentation relevant to the proposed action (e.g., biological assessment, biological opinion, watershed assessment, allotment evaluation, and monitoring report).
D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria
1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, can you explain why they are not substantial?
(Answer Above Question and Describe).
2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values?
(Answer Above Question and Describe).
3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as, rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated lists of BLM-sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action?
(Answer Above Question and Describe).
4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document?
(Answer Above Question and Describe).
7. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA document(s) adequate for the current proposed action?
(Answer Above Question and Describe).
E. Persons/Agencies/BLM Staff Consulted
Name Title Resource/Agency Represented
EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE
Jane Doe Soils Scientist BLM
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
John Smith Landscape Planner BLM
Jane Doe Wildlife Biologist BLM
John Smith Botanist BLM
Jane Doe Planning Forester BLM
John Smith Fisheries Biologist BLM
Jane Doe Fuels Specialist BLM
John Smith Hydrologist BLM
Jane Doe Logging Systems Forester BLM
Note: Refer to the EA/EIS for a complete list of the team members participating in the preparation of the original environmental analysis or planning documents.
Conclusion (If you found that one or more of these criteria is not met, you will not be able to check this box.)
Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan and that the NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitutes BLM’s compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.
______Signature of Project Lead Date
______Signature of NEPA Coordinator Date
______Signature of the Responsible Official Date
Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM’s internal decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision. However, the lease, permit, or other authorization based on this DNA is subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and the program-specific regulations.
4-96
PRE-PROJECT CLEARANCES
The following pre-project clearances are required for all projects. All projects would be developed in cooperation with appropriate resource specialists (minimally rangeland management, soils, hydrology, wildlife, botany, archaeology, fire and fuels) for habitat considerations and treatment options. • Projects would be designed in context with other projects in the watershed(s) in which it is planned.
• Interdisciplinary review (including at minimum, Rangeland Management Specialist, Fuels Specialist, Ecologist/Botanist, and Wildlife Biologist) would determine applicable PDFs on a project-specific basis. Site-specific PDFs would be incorporated for each project with regard to road location, design, construction, and decommissioning.
Botany Botanists will review proposed treatments and project areas to determine if there is a potential for Special Status Plant Species and what pre-project surveys are required for Special Status species – Threatened and Endangered (T&E) and BLM Sensitive. • All required botanical surveys would be completed prior to signing decision records (DR) for the projects
• Surveys would be conducted by personnel familiar with the Special Status species genera and would follow established protocols for each taxon.
• Site-specific assessment would document completion of pre-project surveys, Special Status plant and noxious weed populations encountered, specific protection measures applied to plant sites in that project, and project conformance with BLM manual 6840 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) if required.
Wildlife • All required surveys, including general wildlife and special status species surveys, would be completed prior to signing individual project DRs. • Wildlife biologists would check for locations of known nest sites and seasonal restriction dates.
• Wildlife biologists would check for habitat determination and assist with treatment options.
• Project-specific wildlife coordination would be completed with the applicable state wildlife agency to identify and assess species within a project and to provide input on project design features.
Cultural Resources • The AGFO/ELFO archaeologists would conduct pre-field examinations of existing site and survey information to determine what areas of the project will need to be surveyed according to the supplemental protocol for the SSERFEIS. • All interested Tribal group and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) consultation would be completed prior to the signing of Decision Records (DR) produced under this EA.
Cultural resource surveys based on the SSERFEIS supplemental protocol would be conducted to
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
locate any new sites that have not been recorded prior to the signing of any DRs produced under this EA. These surveys would also search for paleontological resources.
• All areas scheduled to be planted or re-seeded would be surveyed for cultural and paleontological resources prior to the signing of the DR
• All areas designated as Personal Use Firewood areas will be developed in cooperation with the AGFO/ELFO archaeologist. This would include avoiding areas in the vicinity of cultural resource sites.
All SRPM’s in the EA would be made available for implementation on the project as deemed necessary by the AFO/ELFO Archaeologist, AFO/ELFO Field Manager, SHPO, and Tribes.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
4-98
The following is a draft Decision Record that would be used for each project under this EA.
United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT - EAGLE LAKE FIELD OFFICE 2550 Riverside Dr, Susanville, CA 96130 Riparian Fencing PROJECT (Name of specific project) (Date)
DECISION RECORD
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Need: Project-specific assessments will be completed prior to project decisions to assure that the effects of the suite of activities proposed under this EA do not exceed the effects disclosed in this EA.
The EA details the steps that will be completed prior to signing Decision Records for individual project including Project proposals / draft Decision Records would be available for at least 30 days for public review. Following public review, Decision Records would published for each project and subject to Administrative Remedies in accordance with CFR Part 4 regulations.” This is one of those project proposals/Decision Records.
This Decision Record (DR) is for the (name of project here), which implements the in the (name of allotment and legal description here) in the Eagle Lake Field Office.
All projects under the EA were required to be developed in cooperation with appropriate resource specialists (minimally rangeland management, soils, hydrology, wildlife, archaeology, botany, fire and fuels) for habitat considerations and treatment options.
• This project was designed in context with other projects in the watershed(s) in which it is planned.
• Interdisciplinary review (Rangeland Management Specialist, Fuels Specialist, Hydrologist, and Wildlife Biologist) determined applicable BMPs for this project.
The following table outlines minimum pre-project documentation for each project (Table DR-1). Additional surveys or other actions may be required for individual projects and are detailed below.
Table DR-1. Pre-project Date completed Responsible person(s) Reference (if Clearances for the applicable) (name of project) Clearance / Survey
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Type Botany – S&M/Special Status Species Botany – T&E Botany Consultation (Cite consultation document) Wildlife – Surveys Wildlife – Habitat Assessment Wildlife Consultation (Cite consultation document) Slope Stability Assessment Stream Surveys Site-specific BMPs Identified Cultural Resources Surveys Cultural Resources (Cite consultation Consultation document)
II. DECISION It is my decision to implement Alternative 2, the proposed action, as described in Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment which consists of (describe treatment and treatment restrictions here).
All of the Project Design Features described in EA including will be implemented as applicable. (List and Describe applicable PDF’s here). (Provide a synopsis of the Decision here. Details will be included below.)
III. DECISION/RATIONALE Explain what decision is accepted and provide a rationale. Plan Consistency
IV. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION (Include all information on current consultation on wildlife, fisheries, and botany) No adverse impacts to the sites of cultural or historical significance were identified during project planning. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was informed of the BLM’s finding in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5(b). (Add any additional information on Tribal or SHPO consultation completed for the project).
V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The BLM Eagle Lake Field Office conducted internal scoping with an interdisciplinary team of specialists, as well as sent out letters to interested parties. On XX, BLM personnel conducted a field visit to two of the projects with one interested public. In addition, the Draft Decision Record was made available for a 30 day public comment period. The public was notified of this via letters to individuals, Tribes, organizations and government entities who expressed a wish to continue to be
4-100
informed about the project. Public comment from the Draft Decision Record was incorporated into the Decision Record. (Add project-specific information about public notification)
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
1.8. Appeal or Protest Opportunities:
This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations at Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 4, and the information provided in BLM Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal must be filed in the Eagle Lake Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2550 Riverside Dr, Susanville, CA 96130, within 30 days from receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of showing that the decision appealed from is in error. If you wish to file a petition for a stay of the effectiveness of this decision during the time that your appeal is being reviewed by the board, pursuant to Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 4, Subpart E, the petition for a stay must accompany your notice of appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below. Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to the Interior Board of Land Appeals and to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted. Standards to Obtaining a Stay: Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulations, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:
(1) the relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied, (2) the likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits, (3) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and (4) whether the public interest favors granting the stay.
1.9. Authorizing Official:
Eagle Lake Field Manager:______Date:______
1.10. Contact Person For additional information concerning this Finding, contact XXXXXX Eagle Lake Field Office 2550 Riverside Dr, Susanville, CA 96130 530–252–XXXX.
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX- HABITAT OBJECTIVES (TABLE 2-2 FROM THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT [ARMPA])
Table 2-2 - Habitat Objectives for GRSG
Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference
(Habitat Objectives) GENERAL/LANDSCAPE-LEVEL1 All life stages Rangeland health Meeting all standards2
assessments Cover (nesting) Seasonal habitat needed >65% of the landscape in Aldridge and Boyce 2007
sagebrush cover Annual grasses <%5 Blomberg et al. 2012 Security (nesting) Conifer encroachment <3% phase I (>0 to <25% Casazza et al. 2011
cover) USGS (in prep A)
No phase II (25 to 50% cover) No phase III (>50% cover) Cover and food Conifer encroachment <5% phase I (>0 to <25% USGS (in prep A)
(winter) cover) USGS (in prep B)
No phase II (25 to 50% cover) No phase III (>50%) Sagebrush extent >85% sagebrush land cover USGS (in prep A)
Doherty et al. 2008 LEK (Seasonal Use Period: March 1 to May 15)1 Cover Availability of sagebrush Has adjacent sagebrush cover Blomberg et al. 2012
cover Connelly et al. 2000
Stiver et al. 2015 (in press) HAF Security3 Pinyon or juniper cover <3% landscape cover within Connelly et al. 2000
.6 mile of leks (modified)
4-102
Proximity of tall structures4 Use Manier et al. 2014- Stiver et al. 2015 (in press) HAF Conservation Baruch-Mordo et Buffer Distance Estimates al. 2013 Coates et al. for GRSG-A Review; 2013 Manieret al. 2014 preference is 3 miles NESTING (Seasonal Use Period: April 1 to June 30)1 Cover Sagebrush cover >20% Kolada et al. 2009a, 2009b Residual and live perennial >10% if shrub cover is <25%5 Coates et al. 2013
grass cover (such Coates and as native bunchgrasses) Delehanty 2010 Kolada et al. 2009a, 2009b Annual grass cover <5% Lockyer et al. (in press) Total shrub cover >30% Coates and Delehanty 2010
Kolada et al. 2009a Lockyer et al. (in press) Perennial grass height Provide overhead and lateral Connelly et al. 2000, 2003
(includes residual grasses) concealment from predators Hagen et al. 2007; Stiver et. al. 2015 (in press) HAF Security2 Proximity of tall structures4 Use Manier et al. 2014, Coates et al. 2013
(3 feet [1 Conservation Gibson et meter] above shrub) Buffer Distance Estimates al. 2013 Manier for GRSG-A Review; et al. 2014 preference is 3 miles
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Table 2-2 - Habitat Objectives for GRSG (continued...)
Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference
(Habitat Objectives) BROOD-REARING/SUMMER (Seasonal Use Period: May 15 to September 15; Early: May 15 to June 15; Late:
June 15 to September 15)1 UPLAND HABITATS Cover Sagebrush cover 10 to 25% Connelly et al. 2000 Perennial grass cover and >15% combined perennial Connelly et al. 2000
forbs grass and forb cover Hagen et al. 2007 Deep rooted perennial 7 inches6, 7 Hagen et al. 2007
bunchgrass (within Casazza et al. 2011 522 feet [200 meters] of riparianareas and wet meadows) Cover and food Perennial forb cover >5% arid Casazza et al. 2011
>15% mesic Lockyer et al. (in press) RIPARIAN/MEADOW HABITATS Cover and food Riparian areas/meadows PFC Dickard et al. 2014
Prichard et al. 1998, 1999 Stiver et al. 2015 (in press) HAF Security Upland and riparian Preferred forbs are Stiver et al. 2015 (in press)
perennial common HAF forb availability and with several species understory species present6 richness High speciesrichness (all plants) Riparian area/meadow Has adjacent sagebrush cover Casazza et al. 2011
interspersion Stiver et al. 2015 with adjacent sagebrush (in press) HAF WINTER (Seasonal Use Period: November 1 to February 28)1 Cover and Food Sagebrush cover >10% above snow depth Connelly et al. 2000
USGS (in prep C) Sagebrush height >9.8 inches above snow Connelly et al. 2000
depth USGS (in prep C) 1Any one single habitat indicator does not define whether the habitat objective is or is not met. Instead, the preponderance of
4-104
evidence from all indicators within that seasonal habitat period must be considered when assessing sage-grouse habitat objectives.
2 Upland standards are based on indicators for cover, including litter, live vegetation, and rock, appropriate to the ecologi cal potential of the site. 3 Applicable to Phase I and Phase II pinyon and/or juniper. 4Does not include fences. 5In addition, if upland rangeland health standards are being met. 6 Relative to ecological site potential. 7In drought years, 4-inch perennial bunchgrass height with greater than 20 percent measurements exceeding 5 inches in dry years. The habitat objectives in Table 2-2 summarize the characteristics that research has found represent the seasonal habitat needs for GRSG. The specific seasonal components identified in the Table wereadjusted based on local science and monitoring data to define the range of characterist ics used in this subregion. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions we st riveto obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by GRSG. These habitat indicators are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by the BLM.
The habitat objectives will be part of the GRSG habitat assessment to be used during land health evaluations (see Appendix D in the ARMPA). These habitat objectives are not obtainable on every acrewithin the designated GRSG habit at management areas. Therefore, the determination on whether the objectives have been met will be based on the specific site's ecological ability to meetthe desired condition identified in the Table.
End of document
Bureau of Land Management, Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Office Water Sources and Riparian Enhancement Programmatic Environmental Assessment