greater sage-grouse bi-state distinct population segment ...a123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 ›...

DRAFT

Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest

Plan Amendment

Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment and Wildlife Specialist Report

Prepared by: Doug Middlebrook Wildlife Biologist

for: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

02/05/2015

DRAFT DRAFT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

DRAFT DRAFT

Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 4

Summary of Determinations.................................................................................................................. 4 Additional Recommendations or Conservation Measures .................................................................... 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 6

Description of the Alternatives ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Alternative A (No-action) .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Alternative B ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Alternative C ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Description of the Amendment Area and Sage-grouse Habitat ............................................................ 9 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis ......... 16

Species Considered in the Analysis ........................................................................................................ 17 I. Federally Listed and Proposed Species ............................................................................................... 17

Federally Listed Species ..................................................................................................................... 18 Proposed Species ................................................................................................................................ 23 Species Analyzed in Further Detail .................................................................................................... 49

II. Sensitive Animal Species ................................................................................................................. 116 Species Information and Effects Analysis ........................................................................................ 125 Sagebrush Associated Species .......................................................................................................... 125 Species Utilizing Snags and Trees for Roosting ............................................................................... 130 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Species ......................................................................................... 133

III. Management Indicator Species ....................................................................................................... 135 Mule deer .......................................................................................................................................... 136 Greater Sage Grouse ......................................................................................................................... 139

IV. Neotropical Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................... 139 Species Viability Requirements ............................................................................................................ 141 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................................... 144 APPENDIX A1. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, HTNF ........... 149 APPENDIX A2. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, CCD .............. 155 APPENDIX A3. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, Tonopah RMP............................................................................................................................................................... 157 APPENDIX A4. BLM Instruction Memoranda ................................................................................... 166 APPENDIX B. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Action Consistency Checklist ................... 167

DRAFT DRAFT

Executive Summary The analysis area consists of National Forest system and BLM lands that have been identified as Bi-State sage grouse habitat (Figure 1). The management direction proposed in the action alternative would apply to designated BSSG habitats and linkage areas within the project area that have been identified as grouse habitat. However, there are no areas designed as linkage areas within the project area.

The analysis area consists of 650,746 total acres of identified BSSG habitat on USFS and BLM lands (Table 3). Of these, about 426,809 acres (66%) occur on Forest Service lands and 223,935 acres (44%) are on BLM lands. Both the Bridgeport and Carson Ranger Districts on the HTNF contain BSSG habitat, as do both the Carson City and Battle Mountain BLM Districts. Federal, state, and private ownerships occur within and outside the National Forest and BLM District boundaries, and include sage-grouse habitat.

Summary of Determinations

• It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or its critical habitat.

• It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project will not affect the following Federally-listed species or their designated critical habitat: o Carson wandering skipper, southwestern willow flycatcher, mountain yellow-legged frog

(Southern California DPS), Yosemite toad, least Bell’s vireo.

• It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species proposed for federal listing, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat: o Greater sage-grouse , Bi-State DPS; Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

• It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest

Plan Amendment project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the following sagebrush-associated sensitive species in the planning area: :

o Pygmy rabbit, dark kangaroo mouse, desert bighorn sheep, loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow.


Plan Amendment project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the following pinyon-juniper-associated sensitive species in the planning area:

o Pinyon jay, ferruginous hawk, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat silver-haired bat, hoary bat, California myotis, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis, western pipistrelle.


Plan Amendment project will not affect all other Regional Forester’s and Nevada BLM sensitive species considered in this Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment.

DRAFT DRAFT


Plan Amendment project will benefit habitat and will not cause populations to trend downward, for the following Management Indicator Species (MIS):

o Greater sage grouse

• It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment , the action alternatives may impact habitat, but will not cause populations to trend downward, for the following Management Indicator Species (MIS):

o Mule deer

• It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project will have no impact on all other MIS species considered in this assessment.

• It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project will not lead to a downward trend in migratory bird populations and may improve habitat in the long-term for some species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Additional Recommendations or Conservation Measures

1. The following additional conservation measures are recommended to reduce negative impacts to pinyon jays:

Recommended Conservation Measures:

• Avoid treatments in roost sites and areas used by nesting colonies (buffer distance according to Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO) recommendations).

• Retain high priority trees (most likely to consist of mature and old pinyon-juniper).

These conservation measures are also expected to benefit retention of nest trees for ferruginous hawks.

2. The following additional conservation measure is recommended to reduce negative impacts to migratory birds:

Recommended Conservation Measure

• Prioritize timing of treatments that would remove pinyon-juniper to occur outside the nesting season of common poorwill, gray flycatcher, Virginia’s warbler, gray vireo, juniper titmouse, and green-tailed towhee.

Introduction The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Specialist Report (SR) is to document the analysis of potential effects/impacts of the proposed action on federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species (TEP); US Forest Service (USFS) Region 4 sensitive species (SS); Nevada Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sensitive species; Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF) management indicator species (MIS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern; Nevada and California Partners-in-Flight priority and focal migratory bird species;; and other species of

DRAFT DRAFT

interest brought up by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) or the public during scoping/comment periods.

This document was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction 2672.42 and meets legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and implementing regulations [19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14 (c)].

This report provides a framework and preliminary analysis of the anticipated effects to these conservation priority species occurring on the HTNF. The information included in the section on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species will be utilized to develop the Biological Assessment (BA) and the section on ‘Sensitive’ species will be used to develop the BE for the FEIS.

The management indicator species section of this report describes the anticipated effects of the action alternatives to species identified as Management Indicator Species (MIS). The Forest Service Manual defines MIS as "…plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent" (USDA Forest Service 1991).

Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to conserve, enhance, and/or restore sagebrush and associated habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the Bi-State sage-grouse (BSSG). The need for action is to address the recent “warranted, but precluded” Endangered Species Act decision from the FWS by addressing needed changes in the management and conservation of Bi-State sage-grouse habitats within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and BLM Carson City District to support sage grouse population management objectives within the states of Nevada and California.

Alternatives Considered The Forest Service developed three alternatives in response to issues raised by the public—the no action, proposed action, and an alternative to the proposed action, summarized here and described below in the section “Alternatives Described in Detail.”

Alternative A – No Action Under the no-action alternative, current land use plans would continue to guide Forest Service and BLM management of the lands they administer in the amendment area, which includes sensitive species direction (USDA Forest Service 1986 [as amended] and BLM RMP 2007). No forest plan or RMP amendment would be approved for the purpose of conserving, enhancing, and/or restoring sagebrush and associated habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the bi-state DPS. The lands in the plan amendment area boundary that were transferred from the BLM to the Forest Service under the Nevada Enhancement Act would not be brought under management direction of the Toiyabe Forest Plan.

Alternative B – The Proposed Action The Forest Service is proposing to amend the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and the BLM is proposing to amend the Carson City District Consolidated Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Tonopah Field Office RMP by adding to or changing some of the regulatory mechanisms to reduce, eliminate, or minimize threats to bi-state DPS habitat on Federal lands administered under those plans. The regulatory mechanisms would apply to bi-state DPS habitat, described below, on Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within the plan amendment area boundary.

DRAFT DRAFT

The amendments of the Forest Plan and BLM RMPs would recognize valid existing rights. Lands to which the plan amendments would apply are only those NFS lands managed by the Forest Service under the Forest Plan and the BLM public lands (including surface-estate, split-estate lands) managed by the BLM under the BLM RMPs. The lands addressed in the plan amendments are only in habitat of the bi-state DPS, described below.

Alternative B also establishes the lands within the plan amendment area boundary that were transferred under the Nevada Enhancement Act as being under the management direction of the Forest Plan, with allocation to the Bridgeport Pinyon/Juniper Management Area #6 and as amended by this alternative.

Table 2-1 lists the desired habitat conditions, expressed as desired habitat conditions, goals and objectives, and standards and guidelines, proposed to amend the Forest Plan and the BLM RMPs.

Alternative C – The Conservation Alternative This alternative proposes desired future conditions, goals and objectives, and standards and guidelines that address the purpose and need of this plan amendment by focusing on a more conservation-conservative approach to land management than the proposed action by including more requirements for project design and establishing a more detailed schedule for accomplishments. The desired future conditions are the same as for alternative B. Alternative C includes additional goals and objectives. Some standards and guidelines for alternative C are the same as those for alternative B; some differ from those in alternative B, and some have no equivalent in alternative B. This alternative allows for the analysis and disclosure of a range of methods to achieve the purpose and need of providing regulatory mechanisms to reduce, eliminate, or minimize threats to bi-state DPS habitat on Federal lands. The regulatory mechanisms would apply to bi-state DPS habitat, described below, on NFS lands and BLM public lands as described above for alternative B.

Alternative C also establishes the lands within the plan amendment area boundary that were transferred under the Nevada Enhancement Act as being under the management direction of the Toiyabe Forest Plan, with allocation to the Bridgeport Pinyon/Juniper Management Area #6 and as amended by this alternative.

Alternatives Described in Detail

Common to Alternatives B and C: Nevada Enhancement Act Lands Alternatives B and C would establish management of the lands within the plan amendment area boundary that were transferred from BLM to the Forest Service under the Nevada Enhancement Act under the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. These alternatives would increase the size of the Bridgeport Pinyon/Juniper #6 Management Area from 605,400 acres to 863,736 acres. All general and management area #6-specific management plan direction as presented in the Forest Plan as amended, would apply to all portions of these lands, including the amendment by the alternative.

Common to Alternatives B and C: Valid Existing Rights The amendment under alternatives B and C would recognize valid existing rights.

Common to Alternatives B and C: Bi-state DPS Habitat For this amendment, bi-state DPS habitat (habitat) refers to the “Bi-state DPS Habitat Map” (Figure 1) of all seasonal and year-round bi-state DPS habitat plus all land within 7 kilometers (about 4 miles) of active leks. The habitat map was created with modeling and aerial imagery, and is therefore subject to field-verification and updates as new information becomes available. For the bi-state DPS, all habitat is

DRAFT DRAFT

considered high priority, so there is no delineation of “general” or “priority” habitat for this analysis. References to priority habitat in the revised draft EIS were in error and have been removed from the final EIS. Management direction proposed and then ultimately selected from this final EIS will apply to the entire designated habitat area.

While greater sage-grouse leks and core breeding habitat are fairly stable over time, they are not fixed geographic points and are subject to change. For example, the status of leks may fluctuate between inactive, pending, or active, and habitat areas may change over time (such as after wildland fire modifies habitat or the slow expansion of woodlands into habitat). Appropriate conservation measures will be considered and applied on a case-by-case basis through NEPA for proposed projects, based on ground surveys within proposed disturbance areas.

For the habitat map in this amendment proposal under both alternatives B and C, the Forest Service proposes to use the habitat map created and approved by the Bi-state Sage Grouse Technical Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from California and Nevada BLM, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest Service, USFWS, and the California and Nevada state wildlife agencies. The May 12, 2012, version of this map is available on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and BLM websites. Updates may become available on an annual basis as monitoring and mapping continues. The proposed amendment would allow adjustments to the map as new science provides, subsequent to a NEPA sufficiency review. If the review indicates that effects are other than what are disclosed in this final EIS, the appropriate NEPA and planning processes will be followed before updating the map.

Table 1. Bi-state DPS desired habitat conditions Category Desired Condition General Rangeland health assessments are meeting all standards

Sagebrush communities are large and intact with >65% of the landscape in sagebrush cover (Aldridge and Boyce 2007).

The extent and dominance of invasive species, including cheatgrass, is limited to <5% (Blomberg et al. 2012).

There is no conifer encroachment within line-of-sight of leks or nesting areas; there are less than 3 to 5 trees per acre in other areas (Connelly et al. 2000).

For security of nesting there is <3% phase I (>0% to <25% cover), no phase II (25–50% cover), and no phase III (>50% cover), within a 0.53-mile (850-meter) buffer from center of data collection plot (Casazza et al. 2011; USGS [in prep](a)). For winter cover and food there is <5% phase I (>0% to <25% cover), no phase II (25–50%

cover), no phase III (>50% cover) within a 0.53-mile (850-meter) buffer from center of data collection plot (USGS [in prep](a)). For winter cover and food the extent of the sagebrush is as follows: >85% sagebrush land cover

within 0.53-mile (850-meter) buffer from center of data collection plot (USGS [in prep](a)), Doherty et al. 2008).

Leks There is adjacent sagebrush cover (Connelly et al. 2000; Blomberg et al. 2012). No structures taller than the surrounding vegetation community are within line-of-sight of the lek or

within 4 miles (6.5 kilometers) (Coates et al. 2013; Nevada Governor’s Sage-grouse Conservation Team 2010). Trees >3.3 feet (1 meter) above shrub canopy should not be within line-of-sight of a lek and

should be <4% of landscape canopy cover within 1 kilometer of leks (Braun 2006; Connelly et al. 2000; Stiver et al. (in press); Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013).

Nesting (Breeding)

Sagebrush canopy cover is greater than 20 percent (Coates et al. 2010; Kolada et al. 2009a, 2009b; Connelly et al. 2000; Connelly et al. 2003; Hagen et al. 2007). Sagebrush species present include Artemesia tridentate subspecies (Coates et al. 2013; Kolada

et al. 2009a, 2009b).

DRAFT DRAFT

Category Desired Condition Total shrub canopy cover is greater than 40 percent (Coates and Delehanty 2010). Perennial grass cover (live and residual) is not less than 5 percent, but is greater than 10 percent

if total shrub cover is less than 25 percent (Coats et al. 2013; Coates and Delehanty 2010; Kolada et al 2009a, 2009b). Annual grass cover is less than 5 percent (Lokyer et al. [in press]). Perennial grass height provides overhead and lateral concealment from predators (Connelly et al.

2000; Stiver et al. [in press]; Connelly et al. 2003; Hagen et al. 2007). Proximity of tall structures (1 meter above shrub canopy) is not within 3 miles (Gibson et al. 2013).

Brood-Rearing/ Summer

Sagebrush canopy cover is 10 to 25 percent (Connelly et al. 2000). Perennial grass and forb cover is greater than 15 percent combined (Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen

et al. 2007). Perennial forb canopy cover is >5% arid, >15% mesic for cover and food (Casazza et al. 2011;

Lockyer et al. [in press]). Grass/forb height is greater than 7 inches (Hagen et al. 2007). Manage for proper functioning condition in riparian areas/meadows for food (Stiver et al. [in

press]). Understory species in the vicinity of riparian areas/meadows diversity is greater than five species

present (Casazza et al. 2011; Stiver et al. [in press]). For security meadow/ riparian edge (ratio of perimeter to area) is 0.2 within 522 foot (200 meter)

buffer from center of data collection plot (Casazza et al. 2011). Winter Winter habitat is composed of sagebrush plant communities with sagebrush canopy cover greater

than 10 percent and sagebrush height greater than 25 centimeters (9.8 inches) above snow level (Connelly et al. 2000; USGS [in prep]).

Source: (For nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat condition) USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). Braun, C.E. 2006. Blueprint for sage-grouse conservation and recovery. Grouse: Tucson, AZ. Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. 2010. Nest predation of greater sage grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators. Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (2): 240−248.

Common to Alternatives B and C: Seasonal Dates for the Bi-state DPS These dates listed in Table 2 are to be used to evaluate and consider for impacts during project design and analysis unless site-specific information is available.

Table 2. Dates used to evaluate impacts unless site-specific information is available Date Impacts March 1–May 15 Breeding (critical disturbance period; dates may shift 2 weeks back or forward in

atypically dry or wet years based on observations of lek activity) April 1–June 30 Nesting and early brood-rearing (critical disturbance period; dates may shift 2

weeks back or forward in atypically dry or wet years based on observations of lek activity)

July 1–September 15 Late brood-rearing September 1–October 31 Fall November 1–March 1 Winter

Common to Alternatives B and C: Goals and Objectives Table 2-3 provides the detailed goals and objectives for the two action alternatives.

Goals and objectives are developed to help the land management agency verbalize the long-term intent of the planning action and provide a means for measuring success moving toward the goals. These goals and

DRAFT DRAFT

objectives can apply to either the proposed action or the alternative to the proposed action. They are displayed in (Table 3) as a set to provide the reader with an idea of what the standards and guidelines in the following table are intended to achieve over time. Goals 1, 2, and 3 were included in the draft EIS published in August 2013. Goals 4 (a, b, and c), and 5 were developed and included in the revised draft and then this final EIS to address the habitat restoration needs of the project area as they specifically relate to the increasing threat of wildfires and the role of invasive annual grasses. These goals and objectives are the same for both alternatives B and C.

Some objectives are repeated. Objective 1a for instance can be used to measure success toward meeting goal 1 and goals 4a and 5.

Table 3. Goals and objectives for alternatives B and C Goal 1: bi-state DPS habitat and movement corridors are managed to bring vegetation communities to their ecological site potential and to maintain or increase the species.

Objective 1a: By 2024, 200,000 acres of degraded habitat (i.e., areas with conifer encroachment, invasive annual grasses, and/or altered fire regimes) have been improved through changes in management or restoration activities to meet habitat objectives. Objective 1b: By 2024, bi-state DPS populations will be at or above current levels.

Goal 2: bi-state DPS and habitats will benefit from standards and guidelines adopted to eliminate or reduce negative impacts and increase positive impacts from discretionary and nondiscretionary actions.

Objective 2a: By 2020, bi-state DPS productivity, survival, or use of seasonal habitats will be at least at the same level as they are in 2014. Objective 2b: By 2019, water developments (tanks and troughs) will be designed or retrofitted to decrease the risks of drowning or disease or as breeding sites for vectors such as mosquitos. Objective 2c: Saleable mineral pits determined to be no longer in use shall be reclaimed by the operator to meet sage grouse conservation objectives within 5 years of such determination.

Goal 3: In habitat, fuels treatments are used as a management tool when the benefits to bi-state DPS clearly outweigh the risks; otherwise fire is suppressed in bi-state DPS habitat after life and property.

Objective 3a: By 2024, proactive fire prevention treatments will have been implemented in or adjacent to 30% of the identified habitat. Objective 3b: By 2019, risk of unwanted fire in habitat shall be 20% lower compared to conditions in 2014.

Goal 4a: Areas at risk of conversion to a degraded, disturbed, or invaded state are declining in size and distribution.

Objective 1a: By 2024, 200,000 acres of degraded habitat (i.e., areas with conifer encroachment, invasive annual grasses, and/or altered fire regimes) have been improved through changes in management or restoration activities to meet habitat objectives.

Goal 4b: Reduction of fuel loads has reduced the risk of high severity fires in bi-state DPS habitat. Objective 4b: Over the next 10 years areas with annual invasive grass dominance are reduced across 20,000 acres of habitat.

Goal 4c: Bi-state DPS habitat has moderate to high resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses.

Objective 4b: Over the next 10 years areas with annual invasive grass dominance are reduced across 20,000 acres of habitat.

Goal 5: Over the next 25 years, areas with ≥25 to 65% and areas with >65% sagebrush cover are increasing through the implementation of integrated restoration strategies.

Objective 1a: By 2024, 200,000 acres of degraded habitat (i.e., areas with conifer encroachment, invasive annual grasses, and/or altered fire regimes) have been improved through changes in management or restoration activities to meet habitat objectives. Objective 4b: Over the next 10 years areas with annual invasive grass dominance are reduced across 20,000 acres of habitat.

DRAFT DRAFT

Objective 5a: Over the next 10 years manage or restore habitat so that land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage grouse needs to maintain or increase current populations.

Common to Alternatives B and C: Monitoring Alternatives B and C would include monitoring questions and indicators as described in Table 4. Implementation of the amendment would include development of a monitoring technical guide. The monitoring technical guide would include details about methods or protocols to monitor the indicator. Changes to the guide would be made as necessary to maintain effectiveness and efficiency of the monitoring for the monitoring questions and indicators. The monitoring technical guide would not be part of the land use plans, and therefore, could be changed without a plan amendment or administrative change.

Table 4. Monitoring indicators by management question Management Question Monitoring Indicator 1. Are the Humboldt-Toyiabe National Forest and BLM progressing toward the habitat goals for the bi-state DPS?

Miles, acres, and number of structures removed, installed, relocated, decommissioned, modified, or mitigated to benefit bi-state DPS habitat. Number of discretionary use authorizations issued that included beneficial protective measures to bi-state DPS and habitat.

Acres of bi-state DPS habitat altered by fire Acres of burned habitat reseeded or replanted Acres of vegetation treated to benefit bi-state DPS Acres of treated vegetation that meet bi-state DPS habitat objectives

2. Are the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and BLM management progressing toward habitat goals maintaining or increasing the species?

Number of bi-state DPS leks.

Alternative A – No Action Under the no-action alternative, current Forest Plan and BLM RMPs would continue to guide management of the plan amendment area and includes sensitive species direction (USDA Forest Service 1986 [as amended] and BLM RMP 2007]). No Forest Plan or RMP (resource management plan) amendment would be approved for the purpose of conserving, enhancing, and/or restoring sagebrush and associated habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the bi-state DPS. Although the Forest Plan and BLM RMPs would not be amended, the agencies would continue to manage for the sage grouse. The BMPs (best management practices) used by the Forest to protect habitat would still be implemented on a project-to-project basis (for details see appendix A). The interim management direction signed in December 2012 for the Nevada BLM (see appendix A) would also dictate how projects conducted in sage grouse habitat are analyzed and implemented. The bi-state DPS is a Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species, included as “sage grouse” in the Forest Plan. Current Forest Plan management direction most pertinent to the conservation of bi-state DPS includes Wildlife and Fish, goal 1:

…sensitive species will be recognized and protected through habitat management and coordination with state wildlife agencies. Habitat will be in good-to-excellent condition.

Current Forest Plan management direction also includes standards for sage grouse habitat management (Wildlife and Fish, standard 3). Additionally, resource- or activity-specific management direction addressing wildlife, sensitive species, and sagebrush would continue to apply to the bi-state DPS. The current applicable management direction is displayed in Table 2-5.

DRAFT DRAFT

The no-action alternative would not meet the purpose and need for this project. The catalyst for this project is the underlying need for the institution of regulatory mechanisms that sufficiently ensure that, as decision makers exercise their discretion, their decisions continue to conserve, enhance, and/or restore sagebrush and associated habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the bi-state DPS. While project-level decisions are being made that can move habitat toward this goal in the no-action alternative, no regulatory mechanisms (i.e., management direction) would be added to the plans. Since the insufficiency of existing regulatory mechanisms was identified as one of the threats to the species, the no-action alternative (current plans and direction) would not meet the need.

The no-action alternative represents the baseline for analysis. The current Forest Plan, BLM RMPs, and direction are the baseline—the direction we would continue to follow for every project proposed in the amendment area. The no-action alternative allows us to address all issues described in chapter 1, “Issues.” It represents the current level of access and the current state of the economy. Any changes from those current states can then be used to measure the amount of departure that would result from the proposed amendment and alternative.

Description of the Amendment Area and Sage-grouse Habitat

Amendment Area

The amendment area boundary (Figure 1) serves as the spatial baseline for comparison of amounts and types of vegetation types that compose species habitats to those in a larger geographical area. The amendment area boundary encompasses approximately 3,031,000 acres. Forest Service and BLM- administered lands total about 2,654,850 acres (88%) within the amendment area boundary.

Elevation ranges from a low of 4,100 feet near Walker Lake in the east to a high of 12,300 feet at Dunderberg Peak in the west. Vegetation types and amounts vary widely within the amendment area (Table 5) consisting primarily of pinyon-juniper woodland (22%), big sagebrush and low sagebrush (totaling about 30%), desert scrub (totaling about 19%), and greasewood shrubland (10%). Agriculture and developed lands as well as quarries, strip mines, and gravel pits comprise approximately 1.5% of the amendment area while introduced forb and grasslands occupy about 1.1% of the land base.

DRAFT DRAFT

Figure 1. Land Ownership and Habitat Locations

DRAFT DRAFT

Table 5. Vegetation Types, BSSG Amendment Area

Existing Vegetation Type

Project Area Project Area Mapped BSSG Habitat

All Ownerships All Ownerships FS and BLM

Administered Lands

Acres* % of total Acres % of total Acres % of total

Agriculture 26,552.0 < 1.0 10,018 1.3 26 < 0.1

Alpine 10,092.1 < 1.0 6,335 < 1.0 6,322 1.0

Aspen Forest 18,367.0 < 1.0 13,977 1.8 12,588 1.9

Barren 17,691.0 < 1.0 5,145 < 1.0 4,925 < 1.0

Big Sagebrush 533,655.4 17.6 232,760 29.8 198,032 30.4

Chaparral 21,795.6 < 1.0 14,826 1.9 12,034 1.8

Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 260.2 < 0.1 185 < 0.1 142 < 0.1

Creosotebush Desert Scrub 1,509.2 < 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Desert Scrub 287,410.5 9.5 18,806 2.4 17,862 2.7

Developed 17,330.0 < 1.0 3,744 < 1.0 1,685 < 1.0

Grassland 19,009.9 < 1.0 9,874 1.3 7,970 1.2

Greasewood Shrubland 308,326.3 10.2 4,784 < 1.0 3,546 < 1.0

Herbaceous Moist Meadow 1,227.0 < 0.1 216 < 0.1 156 < 0.1

Herbaceous Wetlands 3,496.9 < 1.0 1,921 < 1.0 488 < 1.0

Introduced Annual Forb and Grassland 33,163.0 1.1 13,445 1.7 10,980 1.7

Low Sagebrush 364,498.5 12.0 133,755 17.1 114,466 17.6

Mountain Mahogany 53,743.9 1.8 37,109 4.8 33,612 5.2

Oak Woodland and Savanna 260.6 < 0.1 43 < 0.1 40 < 0.1

Open Water 2,587.3 < 1.0 375 < 0.1 144 < 0.1

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 679,700.0 22.4 118,389 15.2 101,291 15.6

Quarries-Strip Mines-Gravel Pits 1,486.5 < 0.1 852 < 1.0 670 < 1.0

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 20,340.7 < 1.0 7,804 1.0 3,410 < 1.0

Salt Desert Scrub 291,013.0 9.6 6,500 < 1.0 5,686 < 1.0

Sparse Vegetation 151,249.0 5.0 51,793 6.6 43,506 6.7

Upland, Montane, Subalpine Conifer 165,822.0 5.5 88,585 11.3 71,094 10.9

Total 3,030,587.7 100.0 781,242 100.0 650,676 100.0

*totaling more than 100 acres

DRAFT DRAFT

Figure 2. Distribution of Sage-grouse Habitat and Vegetation Types

DRAFT DRAFT

Sage-grouse Habitat within the Amendment Area

The amendment area contains nearly 781,400 acres of mapped sage-grouse habitat under all land ownerships. Compared to the amendment area, sage-grouse habitats under all ownerships contain higher portions of big sagebrush and low sagebrush (totaling 37%) with lesser amounts of pinyon-juniper (15%), desert scrub (totaling 3%), and greasewood shrubland (< 1%)(Table 2). Federal, state, private, and Native American ownerships contain amounts of sage-grouse habitat as described in Table 6.

Table 6. BSSG Habitat by Land Management/Owner

Land Management/Owner Approximate Acres (%)

US Forest Service 424,761 (54%)

Bureau of Land Management 223,753 (29%)

Private Lands 99,683 (13%)

Department of Defense 20,298 (3%)

State Lands (CA) 12,480 (2%)

Native American 357 (< 0.1%)

Bi-state Sage-grouse Habitats on FS and BLM Lands

Approximately 649,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat occur on USFS and BLM lands. Distribution of sage-grouse habitats on Forest Service and BLM lands is about 66% and 34%, respectively. Both the Bridgeport and Carson Ranger Districts on the HTNF contain BSSG habitat, as do both the Carson City District (CCD) and Battle Mountain District (Tonopah RMP ) of the BLM.

Vegetation composition on HTNF and BLM lands varies within BSSG mapped habitat within the project area. Primary vegetation types are dominated by sagebrush types (48%; Table 5) that include basin, Wyoming, low, black, and mountain big sagebrush types. Pinyon-juniper is also prominent (16%), with lesser amounts of upland, montane, and subalpine conifer occurring primarily on HTNF lands.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Relevant actions are those expected to generate effects on a resource that will occur at the same time and in the same place as effects from the proposed action or alternatives.

Table 7 summarizes the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions relevant to cumulative effects analysis on Forest Service and BLM lands. The Inyo NF LRMP Revision, as well as the Carson City and Battle Mountain Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions, contain or are expected to contain management direction that contributes to supporting sage-grouse viability. The HTNF Geothermal Lease Decision identified parcels in BSSG habitat that would have no surface occupancy or controlled surface use. Past Travel Management Decisions on the HTNF have designated travel on roads and trails as well as prohibited motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails, thereby contributing to habitat maintenance and disturbance reduction.

DRAFT DRAFT

Other past actions that may have impacted sage-grouse habitats including road development, vegetation treatments, wildfire, fire suppression, livestock grazing, and spread of invasive plant species are incorporated into the existing vegetation condition. Other present and reasonably-foreseeable actions on lands outside of FS and BLM ownership such as activities on private lands are discussed where applicable. In addition, the implications of predicted trends in climate change are discussed where applicable.

Table 7. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Applicable Federal Lands Actions

USFS, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Inyo National Forest LRMP Revision

USFS, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest HTNF Geothermal Lease Decision

USFS, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Past Travel Management Decisions

BLM, Carson City District Carson City Resource Management Plan Revision

BLM, Battle Mountain District Battle Mountain Resource Management Plan Revision

Species Considered in the Analysis

I. Federally Listed and Proposed Species The USFWS IPac system (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a) was queried for a list of federally listed or proposed animal species as well as designated critical habitats. Species queries were conducted for California and Nevada by counties that occurred within the project area boundary. Only one federally listed animal species is listed for the associated counties in Nevada (Carson wandering skipper), but there are no designated critical habitats (Table 8). For counties in the California-portion of the project area, federally listed animal species include mountain yellow-legged frog (southern CA DPS), Yosemite toad, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Species proposed for federal listing include greater sage-grouse (Bi-State DPS) and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.

Table 8. Federally Listed Terrestrial Animal Species in the Planning Area, Summary of Status and Effects Species Federal

Designation Designated Critical Habitat in Analysis Area

Known occurrence in the Analysis Area

Biological Determination

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis sierrae)

Endangered Yes Yes May affect, but not likely to adversely affect

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep

Designated Critical Habitat

Yes Yes May affect, but not likely to adversely affect

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Bi-State DPS

Proposed Threatened

Proposed Critical Habitat

Yes Will not jeopardize

Not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat

DRAFT DRAFT

Southwestern willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii extimus)

Endangered No

No No Effect

Least bell’s vireo

(Vireo bellii pusillus)

Endangered No

No No Effect

Mountain yellow-legged frog

(Rana muscosa)

Endangered No No No Effect

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

(Rana sierrae)

Endangered Proposed Critical Habitat

No No Effect

Not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat

Yosemite toad

(Anaxyrus canorus)

Threatened Proposed Critical Habitat

No No Effect

Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus)

Endangered No No No Effect

Federally Listed Species

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae)

The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) occurs in the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges along the eastern boundary of California. Inhabiting the alpine and sub alpine zones during the summer, the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep use open slopes where the terrain is rough, rocky, sparsely vegetated and characterized by steep slopes and canyons. Most of these sheep live between the elevations of 10,000 and 14,000 feet in the summer. In winter, they migrate to lower elevations of 4,800 feet. Bighorn sheep graze and browse on various plant species, but prefer green, succulent grasses and forbs. Their primary diet in winter is perennial needlegrass. In spring their diet shifts to Mormon tea, bitterbrush and California buckwheat. This species forages in open habitats, such as meadows, sparse brush lands and rocky barrens.

Male and female bighorn sheep commonly live in separate groups during much of the year, and often occupy different habitats. In the Sierra Nevada, both sexes may share common winter ranges, but they show progressive segregation from winter to spring. During summer, the two sexes utilize different habitats, with females restricted largely to alpine environments along the crest and males often at somewhat lower elevations in subalpine habitats west of the crest. Males again join females during the breeding season in late fall.

Lambing occurs between late April and early July. Lambs are able to eat vegetation within 2 weeks of their birth and are weaned between 1 and 7 months of age. Female and male lambs both reach maturity during their second year.

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep designated critical habitat, in addition to individual species observations, occur both within the BSSG project area boundary and within mapped BSSG habitat (the analysis area). Therefore, this species will be considered for further analysis.

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

DRAFT DRAFT

The southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in different types of dense riparian habitats, across a large elevational and geographic area. Although other willow flycatcher subspecies in cooler, less arid regions may breed more commonly in shrubby habitats away from water, the southwestern willow flycatcher usually breeds in patchy to dense riparian habitats along streams or other wetlands, near or adjacent to surface water or underlain by saturated soil. Common tree and shrub species com prising nesting habitat include willows, seepwillow, boxelder, stinging nettle, blackberry, cottonwood, arrowweed, tamarisk (aka saltcedar), and Russian olive. Regardless of the plant species composition or height, occupied sites usually consist of dense vegetation in the patch interior, or an aggregate of dense patches interspersed with openings. In most cases this dense vegetation occurs within the first 10-13 ft above ground. These dense patches are often interspersed with small openings, open water, or shorter/sparser vegetation, creating a mosaic that is not uniformly dense. In almost all cases, slow-moving or still surface water and/or saturated soil is present at or near breeding sites during wet or non-drought years (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a).

The historical breeding range of the southwestern willow flycatcher included southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, southwestern Colorado, and extreme northwestern Mexico. The flycatcher’s current range is similar to the historical range, but the quantity of suitable habitat within that range is much reduced from historical levels. The flycatcher occurs from near sea level to over 8500 ft, but is primarily found in lower elevation riparian habitats. Throughout its range, the flycatcher’s distribution follows that of its riparian habitat; relatively small, isolated, widely dispersed locales in a vast arid region In Nevada, investigations since 1990 have verified breeding flycatchers on the Virgin River and Muddy River, the Amargosa River drainage at Ash Meadows NWR, Meadow Valley Wash, and the Pahranagat River drainage. In California, River systems where the flycatcher persists include the Colorado, Owens, Kern, Mojave, Santa Ana, Pilgrim Creek, Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, San Diego, San Mateo C reek, San Timoteo Creek, Santa Clara, Santa Ynez, Sweetwater, San Dieguito, and Temecula Creek (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a).

Mapping reported by Unitt (1987), Browning (1993) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002b) show the potential distribution of the E. t. extimus subspecies overlapping the extreme southern portion of the project area (Esmeralda County, Battle Mountain BLM District). However, the USFWS IPac system does not show the SWWF in the list of species potentially affected by the project category (i.e. Land Management Planning) for Esmeralda County. No SWWF observations are reported within the project area. The nearest observation is located 24 miles to the south in the vicinity of Beatty. No designated critical habitat occurs within the project area. Therefore, this species will not be considered for further analysis in this document. The BSSG Amendment Project will have no effect on the southwestern willow flycatcher.

Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)

The least Bell’s vireo is an obligate riparian species during the breeding season and is characterized as preferring early successional habitat. Nesting typically occurs along watercourses, including cottonwood-willow forest, oak woodlands, and mule fat scrub. Extensive breeding habitat loss and degradation as well as brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird resulted in a range-wide decline of the subspecies (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).

Glover et al. (2002) and Terrill et al. (2007) report only 3 sightings overall of this species in Mono County. Two described sighting were located at Long Valley and Fish Slough, well south of the project area. Glover et al. (2002) describe the species as ‘accidental’ in Mono County. Distribution in California by County described by NatureServe (2013) does not include Mono County. Both historic and current distribution of this species as mapped by Howell et al. (2010) exclude northern Mono County and the project area.

DRAFT DRAFT

No known least Bell’s vireo locations occur within the BSSG project area boundary. Based on available literature, the project area is outside the known distribution of this subspecies. Therefore, this subspecies will not be considered for further analysis in this document. The BSSG Amendment Project will have no effect on the least Bell’s vireo.

Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)

Southern Rana muscosa historically inhabited rocky and shaded streams on desert and coastal slopes from 1,200 to 7,500 ft in elevation, with cool waters originating from springs and snowmelt. Mountain yellow-legged frogs are diurnal and are rarely found more than 3 ft away from water. Individuals are most often found in creeks with permanent (perennial) water in at least some portion of the reach. Perennial flows are needed for reproduction, larval growth and survival, and hydration of juveniles and adults. Water depth, persistence, and configuration (i.e., gently sloping shorelines and margins) are important factors for overwintering (hibernation), thermoregulation (regulation of body temperature through behavior), reproduction and development, foraging, and protection from predation. Mountain yellow-legged frogs seem to be absent from the smallest creeks, probably because these have insufficient depth for adequate refuge and overwintering habitat.

Streams utilized by adults vary from those having steep gradients with numerous pools, rapids, and small waterfalls, to those with low gradients with slow flows, marshy edges, and sod banks. Aquatic substrates vary from bedrock to fine sand rubble, rocks, and boulders, any of which may serve as basking areas for thermoregulation. The high stream gradient and large boulders testify to the heavy rains of winter and early spring that are sent down the canyons in southern California. Although mountain yellow-legged frogs may use a variety of shoreline habitats, both tadpoles and adults are less common at shorelines which drop abruptly to a depth of 2 ft than at open shorelines that gently slope up to shallow waters of only 2 to 3 inches deep.

Southern Rana muscosa was known from an estimated 166 historical localities from creeks and drainages in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Palomar Mountains of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties. In 1994, it was estimated that southern R. muscosa had been extirpated from more than 99 percent of its previously documented range. Current distribution includes portions of the San Gabriel, San Bernadino, and San Jacinto mountains in southern California (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012).

No known sites occur within 50 miles of the BSSG project area. No individual sightings have been reported. The project area is located outside the current range of this species. Therefore, this species will not be considered for further analysis in this document. The BSSG Amendment Project will have no effect on the mountain yellow-legged frog.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae)

The mountain yellow-legged frog until just recently included the Sierra Nevada and the southern California populations; however; current research has shown that the northern population of the mountain yellow-legged frog (now known as the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) – Rana sierrae) is geographically, morphologically, and genetically distinct from the southern California mountain yellow-legged frog (now known as the Southern mountain yellow-legged frog – Rana muscosa). The mountain yellow-legged frog was recognized as two species in the 2008 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. The contact zone for these two newly recognized species is in the vicinity of Mather Pass and the Monarch Divide, Fresno County (Vredenburg et al. 2007).

The SNYLF historically inhabited ponds, tarns, lakes, and streams from 4,500 to over 12,000 feet (Stebbins 1985) and was once the most common amphibian in high elevation aquatic ecosystems of the

DRAFT DRAFT

Sierra (Bradford et al. 1993). Large groups of populations in the northern Sierra and local populations elsewhere have since become extinct and have disappeared from 70-90% of its historic range in the bioregion (Jennings 1996). The SNYLF historically was found in the Sierra from north of the Feather River in Butte county to Tulare county. This frog was once found outside of California in Nevada around the Lake Tahoe area, but this population is now extinct.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs are seldom far from water, although they have been observed moving overland to disperse to other pond habitats. Typically, SNYLF prefer well illuminated, sloping banks of meadow streams, riverbanks, isolated pools, and lake borders with vegetation that is continuous to the water’s edge (Zeiner et al. 1988). Introduction of exotic predatory fish in aquatic habitats used by this species is likely the primary reason for the species' decline (Knapp and Matthews 2000). A recently discovered chytrid fungus is also affecting a number of SNYLF populations. Current research has also linked pesticide drift to declining SNYLF populations.

Between 1999 and 2009 extensive SNYLF surveys have been conducted throughout the Bridgeport Ranger District by personnel from the CDFG and Forest Service. On the Bridgeport Ranger District most of the SNYLF populations occur within the Hoover Wilderness where motorized routes do not occur. Outside of the wilderness area, SNYLF populations historically occurred at Summit Meadows, Chango Lake, and at Wolf Creek Lake; however, most recent surveys conducted in 2009 did not detect SNYLF at Summit Meadows and Chango Lake. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs were however found at Wolf Creek Lake.

No known sites occur within the BSSG amendment area. The closest recorded occurrence was reported in 1995 at the Chango Lake site at which more recent surveys (2009) failed to find the species. The project will have no impact on suitable habitats. The amendment area contains about 915 acres of proposed critical habitat in the vicinity of Silver Creek. There are no elements within the action alternatives that would impact primary constituent elements consisting of aquatic habitat for breeding, aquatic non-breeding habitat, and existing habitat within upland areas adjacent to stream habitats. There are no proximate water bodies where proposed critical habitat overlaps mapped BSSG habitat. Therefore, this species will not be considered for further analysis in this document. The BSSG Amendment Project will have no effect on the mountain yellow-legged frog, north of the Tehachapi Mountains.

Yosemite Toad (Anaxyrus canorus)

The Yosemite toad is endemic to the Sierra occurring in wet montane meadows from the Blue Lakes region north of Ebbetts Pass in Alpine County south to the Kaiser Pass area in the Evolution Lake/Darwin Canyon region of Fresno County. Its known range of elevation extends from 6,435 feet to 11,385 feet. As of the mid-1990’s the Yosemite toad had declined substantially and had disappeared from over 50% of the sites where it was known historically (Jennings 1996). Across the Sierra, the Yosemite toad species has been steadily declining. Threats to the Yosemite toad include loss of habitat or degradation to habitat from drought, grazing, recreation, pesticide drift, disease, and fire. Research that has been done to track various Yosemite toad populations throughout the Sierra has shown that all of the various Yosemite toad populations studied have declined (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Yosemite toads have been petitioned to be listed under the ESA and they are currently considered a “candidate species”. Additionally, the Yosemite toad is a Region 4 and Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species, and a California State Species of Special Concern.

The Yosemite toad has been recorded in a broad range of high montane and subalpine lentic and lotic habitats, including wet meadows, slow-flowing streams, seeps and springheads (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Lodgepole (Pinus contorta) or whitebark (P. albicaula) pine stands often surround occupied meadow habitats, and Mullally (1953) found that Yosemite toads appeared to be more frequent in areas with denser meadow vegetation or patches of low willows (Salix spp.) Yosemite toads seem

DRAFT DRAFT

most common in shallow, warm-water areas in wet meadows, including both standing and flowing water, and including small permanent and ephemeral ponds, flooded, shallow, grassy areas and meadows adjacent to lakes.

Breeding, embryonic rearing, and larval rearing habitats are aquatic. Suitable breeding and embryonic rearing habitat generally occurs in very shallow water at the edges of meadows or in slow-flowing runoff streams sites frequently dominated by short emergent sedges or rushes (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Yosemite toads also require terrestrial habitat. Metamorphs appear to overwinter their first year in the terrestrial meadow habitat adjacent to their natal pond and move to more distant terrestrial habitat during mid-summer of their second year. Metamorphs appear to move away from natal breeding pools, and in several cases, appeared to move toward stream channels (C. Brown, pers. comm., 2006). In meadows, metamorphs and yearlings appear to be associated with willows and long sedges and grasses, which may be important for foraging and refuge.

During the non-breeding active season, adults seem associated with water, but utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats for foraging and cover. Adults can be found in drier meadow areas near rodent burrows, which seem to be used as diel or temporary refuge sites during the active season . They may also use the spaces under surface objects, notably logs and rocks, for refuge. Research has shown that Yosemite toads can migrate close to 610 meters (2000 feet) in distance; topography dependent (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).

Adult and juvenile Yosemite toads are recorded as overwintering in the root tangles at the bases of willows; in crevices beneath rocks and stumps; and in the burrows of mountain voles (Microtus montanus), pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), Belding’s ground squirrels (Spermophilus beldingi), and yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris. First-year juveniles spend the winter in similar habitats near the pools from which they emerged.

No known sites occur within the BSSG project area. No individual sightings have been reported. The BSSG Amendment Project will have no effect on the Yosemite toad. Approximately 0.70 acre of proposed critical habitat occurs within the Bi-State amendment area. However, no proposed critical habitat overlaps with Bi-State sage-grouse habitat. Therefore, the project will have no effect on Yosemite toad proposed critical habitat. This species will not be considered for further analysis in this document.

Carson Wandering Skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus)

The Carson wandering skipper is a small butterfly in the subfamily Hesperiinae (grass skippers). The subspecies was federally listed as endangered on November 29, 2001. At the time of listing, only two extant populations were known, one in Washoe County, Nevada, and one in Lassen County, California (adjacent to CCDPA). A third known population of the subspecies, from Carson City, Nevada, is considered extirpated as of 1998. In 2004, one additional population was located south of Carson City in Douglas County, Nevada, along the Carson River. In 2005, a second population in Washoe County, Nevada, was confirmed. Currently, there are four extant populations of the Carson wandering skipper (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006).

Carson wandering skipper habitat is characterized as lowland grassland habitats on alkaline substrates. Occupied areas are located in a small region east of the Sierra Nevada in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, and are characterized by an elevation of less than 1,524 meters (5,000 feet), the presence of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and nectar sources in open areas near springs or water, and possible association with geothermal activity (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006).

No known Carson wandering skipper locations occur within the BSSG project area boundary. Therefore, this species will not be considered for further analysis in this document. The BSSG Amendment Project will have no effect on the Carson wandering skipper.

DRAFT DRAFT

Alternatives B and C: Standards and Guidelines Table 9 lists standards and guidelines for each action alternative as well as current standards and guidelines for comparison with alternative A (no action). Standards and guidelines are used during the development and, as appropriate, administration of projects or activities to ensure that their implementation would result in progress toward or not hindering achievement of desired future conditions, goals, and objectives. Decision makers for projects and activities must ensure that standards are followed. They must also ensure that guidelines are followed unless analysis demonstrates that the purpose for the guideline can be met without it being applied.

Greater Sage-grouse Bi-state DPS Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement

Note for Table 9: The term “habitat” in the standards and guidelines refers to bi-state DPS habitat. The unique identifier of each standard and guideline for the action alternatives follows the following protocol: Alternative-resource-standard or guideline-unique number. For example, B-AR-G-01 means: alternative B-access/recreation-guideline-01.

Table 9. Standards and guidelines for alternatives B and C, compared to alternative A (no action)

Resource Alternative A Alternative B (Modified) Alternative C BLM Proposed

All Resources

No existing direction. *B-S-01: Project proposals shall include best management practices for each resource as appropriate to restore, conserve, and enhance bi-state DPS and its habitat.

C-S-01: Project proposals shall include best management practices for each resource as appropriate to restore, conserve, and enhance bi-state DPS and its habitat.

Same as B-S-01.

Access/ Recreation

Access is managed through travel management plans and interim direction for minimizing impacts to bi-state DPS.

*B-AR-G-01: Use existing roads and co-locate powerlines, pipelines, and other linear features whenever possible to reduce disturbance and habitat fragmentation and to minimize disturbance footprint of rights-of-way (ROWs) in bi-state habitat.

C-AR-G-01: Use existing developed routes to provide access and minimize the disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

BLM BMP: Same as B-AR-G-01.

No existing direction. B-AR-G-02: Authorize new roads only when necessary for public safety, administrative, or public need to accommodate valid existing rights and to minimize disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

C-AR-S-01: Authorize new roads only when necessary for public safety, administrative, or public need to accommodate valid existing rights up to 3% total anthropogenic disturbance limit.

Same as B-AR-S-02.

Motor vehicle use is managed under travel management plans. The BLM allows cross-country travel in a portion of the planning area.

*B-AR-S-01: Motor vehicle use off designated national forest system (NFS) roads and trails is prohibited.

C-AR-S-02: Motor vehicle use off designated NFS roads and trails or existing roads and trails is prohibited.

No proposed additions (covered by B-AR-S-02).

No existing direction. *B-AR-S-02: Manage as limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails for motorized travel until subsequent route designation occurs.

Same as alternative B. Same as B-AR-S-02.



Off-highway vehicle events are permitted using existing direction designed to reduce impacts to resources. Permits are granted on a case-by-case basis after environmental analysis.

*B-AR-S-03: Between March 1 and May 15, off-highway vehicle events that pass within a 3 miles an active lek shall only take place during daylight hours after 10 a.m.

C-AR-S-03: Do not authorize off-highway vehicle events.

BLM-01: Implement time-of-year and time-of-day travel restrictions from March 1 and May 15, for special recreation permits and project-related activities that pass within 3 miles of an active lek. Time of year restrictions and distance may be expanded to include wintering, nesting, or brood-rearing habitat.

No existing direction. *B-AR-S-04: Do not authorize off-highway vehicle events within winter habitats November 1 to March 1.

Same as C-AR-S-03. BLM-02: Special recreation permits will not be authorized within occupied winter bi-state habitat between November 1 and March 1.

No existing direction. B-AR-S-05: Prohibit new recreation facilities unless they will have a neutral or beneficial effect to bi-state DPS up to 3% total anthropogenic disturbance limit.

*C-AR-S-04: Prohibit new recreation facilities in bi-state DPS habitat (e.g., campgrounds, day use areas, scenic pullouts, trailheads, trails, etc.).

Same as C-AR-S-04.

Land Use/Special Use

New rights-of-way are permitted after environmental analysis. Co-location could be required depending on site-specific issues and potential impacts.

*B-LUSU-G-01: Co‐locate new ROWs within and/or adjacent to existing ROWs and to minimize disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

Same as alternative B. BLM BMP: Same as B-LUSU-G-01.

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-LUSU-S-01: Do not grant new ROWs. If valid existing rights apply, co-locate new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it minimizes impacts to bi-state DPS habitat.

No proposed additions (covered by B-LUSU-G-01).



No existing direction. *B-LUSU-G-02 Industrial wind facilities associated (on site) with existing industrial infrastructure (e.g., a mine site) may be authorized to provide onsite power generation and to minimize disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

*C-LUSU-S-02: Do not authorize utility-scale commercial wind energy facilities.

BLM -03: Manage bi-state DPS habitat as a ROW exclusion area for utility-scale wind development.

Lands special use proposals are analyzed through site-specific environmental analysis. Stipulations are included to minimize impacts to resources.

*B-LUSU-G-03: Industrial solar energy facilities (on site) associated with existing industrial infrastructure (e.g., a mine site) may be authorized to provide on-site power generation and minimize the disturbance footprint related to powerlines in habitat.

*C-LUSU-S-03: Do not authorize utility-scale solar energy facilities.

BLM-04: Manage bi-state DPS habitat as a ROW exclusion area for utility-scale solar development.

No existing direction. B-LUSU-S-01: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 2 miles of a lek.

*C-LUSU-S-04: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 4 miles of an active or pending lek.

Same as B-LUSU-S-01.

No existing direction. *B-LUSU-S-02: No structures taller than the surrounding vegetation that could serve as predator perches shall be installed unless they are equipped with anti-perching devices.

Same as alternative B. No proposed addition (covered by C-LUSU-S-04).

No existing direction. *B-LUSU-S-03: Federal lands shall be retained unless a public interest determination identifies a net benefit to bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as alternative B. Same as B-LUSU-S-03.

Outfitter-guide activities are permitted on a case-by-case basis through environmental analysis. Stipulations may be included which are designed to minimize impacts to resources.

*B-LUSU-S-04: Do not authorize outfitter-guide activities that occur within 0.25 mile of active leks from March 1 to May 15.

C-LUSU-S-05: Do not authorize outfitter-guide activities that occur within 4 miles of active leks from March 1 to May 15.

No proposed additions (covered by BLM-01 and BLM-02).



No existing direction. *B-LUSU-S-05: Land acquisition plan shall include all inholdings that include bi-state DPS habitat within NFS boundaries.

Same as alternative B. BLM-05: Acquire lands or interests in lands when there is an opportunity to protect and/or enhance bi-state habitat.

Most permits have language that authorizes the use, maintenance, and removal of improvements. Where the ROW itself is a historic feature, or the reclamation work may have additional unwanted adverse effects that outweigh the benefits, reclamation is not required.

*B-LUSU-S-06: When informed that a ROW is no longer in use, relinquish the ROW and reclaim the site by removing powerlines, reclaiming roads, and removing other infrastructure, where such reclamation work does not have unwanted adverse effects.

Same as alternative B. BLM-06: ROWs no longer in use will be relinquished and reclaimed, where such reclamation work does not have unwanted adverse effects.

Special use permits are issued on a case-by-case basis after environmental analysis, and may include stipulations to mitigate impacts to resources.

*B-LUSU-S-07: Require proper containment and prompt removal of refuse to avoid attracting predators.

C-LUSU-S-6: Require proper containment and prompt removal of refuse to avoid attracting predators.

BLM BMP: Same as B-LUSU-S-07.

The authorized officer has the ability to change stipulations of existing permits.

*B-LUSU-G-04: Require permit holders to retro-fit existing powerlines and other utility structures with perch-deterring devices during ROW renewal process. The intent is to reduce perch opportunities for avian predators.

Same as alternative B. BLM BMP: Existing powerlines and other utility structures will be retro-fitted with perch-deterring devices during the ROW renewal process.

Permits for lands special uses are completed using site-specific environmental analysis.

B-LUSU-S-08: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 2 miles of a lek.

C-LUSU-S-8: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 4 miles of an active or pending lek.

No proposed additions (covered by C-LUSU-S-04).

No existing direction. *B-LUSU-S-09: Do not install structures greater than 8-feet tall that could serve as predator perches unless they are equipped with anti-perching devices.

Same as alternative B. No proposed additions (covered by C-LUSU-S-04).



No existing direction. B-LUSU-G-05: Authorize new communication sites as long as development incorporates appropriate required design features and buffers in design and construction (e.g., noise, tall structure, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net unmitigated loss of habitat and to minimize disturbance foot print in habitat.

*C-LUSU-S-09: Do not authorize new communication sites in bi-state DPS habitat.

BLM-07: New communication sites will not be authorized within bi-state DPS habitat.

Permits involving powerlines are issued on a case-by-case basis after environmental analysis. Burial of powerlines may be required on a site-specific basis.

*B-LUSU-G-06: Where feasible, bury powerlines to reduce overhead perches for avian predators.

C-LUSU-S-10: Where feasible, bury powerlines to reduce overhead perches for predators.

BLM BMP: Where feasible, bury new powerlines to reduce overhead perches.

Wildlife Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest: The following standards apply to sage grouse habitats (Forest S&G Range PG IV-49 S&G 27).

*B-Wild-S-01: Any vegetation treatment shall maintain, improve, or restore bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as alternative B. Same as B-Wild-S-01.

Use dropping casts, sage grouse sightings, and historical records to reveal location and importance of bi-state DPS habitat.

No proposed direction. No proposed additions. No proposed additions.

Maintain 20 to 55% canopy cover on bi-state DPS range.


Use irregularly designed patterns when manipulating brush in bi-state DPS habitat.


Maintain meadows in bi-state DPS range in high ecological status. Where meadows have lost their natural characteristics because of lowered water table, trampling, overgrazing, road building, or for other reasons, take measures to restore the meadows.




Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within 2 miles of leks.


Retain irregular, lean strips of untreated sagebrush approximately 100-yards wide adjacent to stream bottoms and meadows.


Include the use of a combination of forbs and grasses desirable to bi-state DPS when rehabilitating sage grouse habitat.

*B-Wild-G-01: Use seed for perennial grasses and forbs adapted to local conditions to increase cover of these species. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat and or mitigating disturbance.

Blank BLM BMP: B-Wild-G-01.

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest: Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (Forest S&G Range PG IV-49 S&G 4).

Blank *C-Wild-S-02: Vegetation treatments and post-disturbance restoration shall seed and/or transplant sagebrush to restore large patches of sagebrush cover and connect existing patches.

Same as C-Wild-S-02.

Same as above. B-Wild-S-02: When long-term negative impacts from nondiscretionary actions are unavoidable, require mitigations to result in no net loss of habitat.

*C-Wild-S-03: Require site-specific project mitigation if needed to insure no net loss of habitat due to project disturbance.




Same as above *B-Wild-S-03: Habitat restoration projects shall meet one or more of the following habitat needs: Promote the maintenance of large, intact sagebrush communities; limit the expansion or dominance of invasive species, including cheatgrass; maintain or improve soil site stability, hydrologic function, and biological integrity; and enhance the native plant community.

C-Wild S-04: Total anthropogenic disturbances shall affect no more than 3% of the total bi-state DPS habitat on Federal lands within the Bodie Mountain/Grant, Desert Creek/Fales, and White Mountains population management unit boundaries.

Same as B-Wild-S-03.

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest: Manage habitats of wolverine, Mount Lyell salamander, yellow warbler, and other wildlife species that may have declining populations or narrow habitat requirements, to assure viable populations and reasonable distributions. Encourage surveys and other data gathering activities for these species (Forest S&G Range PG IV-50 S&G 9).

*Same as B-Wild-S-03. C-Wild S-05 Total anthropogenic disturbances shall affect no more than 1.5% of the total bi-state DPS habitat on Federal lands within the Pine Nut Mountains Population Management Unit boundaries.

No proposed additions.


*B-Wild-S-04: Time implementation of habitat restoration projects so that impacts to bi-state DPS individuals and populations are limited by duration, scope, and scale.

Same as C-Wild-S-04. BLM BMP: Same as B-Wild-S-04.



When possible, native seed is used based on availability and probability of success and site potential.

*B-Wild-G-02: When re-seeding use genetically and climatically appropriate and certified weed-free plant and seed material. Use native seed when available. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

C-Wild S-06: When re-seeding use genetically and climatically appropriate and certified weed-free plant and seed materials. Use native seed when available.


Carson City District: BLM will adhere to current habitat modification guidelines prepared by the Western Sage Grouse Committee of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

*B-Wild-S-05: Mitigate long-term negative impacts from discretionary or nondiscretionary activities to the extent practicable.

Same as C-Wild-S-03. Same as B-Wild-S-05.

Battle Mountain District: Activities in key fish and wildlife areas will, when necessary, be restricted during periods of breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing, or calving activity, and during major migrations of fish and wildlife.

*B-Wild-S-06: Require buffers, timing limitations, or offsite habitat restoration for new or renewed discretionary actions to mitigate potential long-term negative impacts.

Same as C-Wild-S-03. Same as B-Wild-S-06.



Battle Mountain District: Fish and wildlife habitat will continue to be evaluated as part of project-level planning. Such evaluation will consider the significance of the proposed project and the sensitivity of fish and wildlife habitat in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects with management objectives for fish and wildlife habitat. Habitat improvement projects will be implemented where necessary to stabilize or improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat condition. Such projects will be identified through habitat management plans or other activity plans.

*B-Wild-S-07: After soil disturbances or seeding, do not authorize soil-disturbing uses for a minimum of two annual growing cycles or until desired habitat conditions and project objectives have been met, whichever is longer.

Same as C-Wild-S-04 and C-Wild S-05.

Same as B-Wild-S-07.

Battle Mountain District: Sufficient forage and cover will be provided for wildlife. Forage and cover requirements will be incorporated into allotment management plans or their functional equivalent and will apply to specific areas of primary wildlife use.

Same as C-Wild-G-01. *C-Wild-G-01: Restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit the bi-state DPS. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

BLM BMP: C-Wild-G-01.

No existing direction. Same as C-Wild-G-02. *C-Wild-G-02: Consider seed collection from the warmer component of the species current range when selecting native species for restoration (Kramer and Havens 2009). The intent is to use hardy climate tolerant native species to help move habitat toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat and or mitigating disturbance.

BLM BMP: Same as C-Wild-G-02.



No existing direction. Same as C-Wild-G-03. *C-Wild-G-03: Remove phase 1 and 2 pinyon-juniper located in habitat during habitat restoration projects, with the intent to maintain sage brush habitat prior to establishment of forest species.

BLM BMP: Same as C-Wild-G-03.

*B-Wild-G-03: Restoration work limited to the use of hand tools (chainsaws, axes, handsaws, post pullers, wire cutters, and loppers) and foot travel off designated routes in pre-phase I and phase I pinyon may occur during nesting, brood-rearing, and fall seasons (April 1 to October 31) The intent of the guideline is to allow restoration work to occur during a flexible time frame.

Same as B-Wild-G-03.

Range: Permitting

Forest Service and BLM grazing management is focused on achieving healthy rangelands, but no specific standards for bi-state DPS habitat objectives are used.

*B-RP-S-01: Grazing permits, annual operating instructions, or other appropriate mechanism for livestock management shall include terms, conditions, and direction to move toward or maintain bi-state DPS habitat desired conditions.

C-RP-S-01: Grazing allotments containing bi-state DPS habitat shall be closed to livestock grazing.

Same as B-RP-S-01.

Range: Utilization Standards

Utilization standards have been established for Forest Service grazing allotments. The standards vary widely across the districts.

*B-RU-S-01: Manage livestock grazing to maintain residual cover of herbaceous vegetation so as to reduce predation during breeding/nesting season (March 1 to June 30) within 3 miles of active lek sites.

Same as C-RP-S-01. Same as B-RU-S-01.

No existing direction. *B-RU-S-02: Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the utilization standards in Table 10.

Same as C-RP-S-01. Same as B-RU-S-02.



Range: Improve-ments (All)

No range improvement standards specific to bi-state DPS habitat exist.

*B-RI-S-01: Remove fences and other infrastructure associated with livestock grazing negatively impacting bi-state DPS and its habitats.

Same as alternative B. Same as B-RI-S-01.

No existing direction. *B-RI-S-02: Any new structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) shall not retard the conservation, enhancement, or restoration of bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as C-RP-S-01. Same as B-RI-S-02.

Range: Improve-ments (Fences)


*B-RI-S-03: No new structures taller than the dominant surrounding vegetation that could serve as predator perches shall be installed within 2 miles of a lek.

Same as C-RP-S-01. No proposed additions (covered by C-LUSU-S-04).

No existing direction. *B-RI-G-01: To the extent possible, do not install fences unless to protect habitat or for human health and safety. If fences must be installed, they should be at least 1.2 miles from active and pending leks, and if possible, should be let-down fences when not needed for the purpose of their installation with the intent to reduce perch opportunities for avian predators and to reduce risk of collision.

Same as alternative B. BLM BMP: Same as B-RI-G-01.

No existing direction. *B-RI-S-04: To reduce bi-state DPS mortality, remove, modify, or mark fences in sage grouse habitat based on nearest proximity to lek, lek size, and topography where fence densities exceed 1.6 miles of fence per section (640 acres).




Range: Improve-ments (Water)


*B-RI-S-05: Water developments (tanks/troughs) shall be drained when not in use, unless they are needed by other species, so they do not create a breeding ground for mosquitos that carry West Nile Virus.


No existing direction. *B-RI-S-06: Wildlife escape ramps shall be installed and maintained in water troughs or open water facilities with vertical embankments that pose a drowning risk to birds.


No existing direction. *B-RI-S-07: Water developments at springs and seeps shall be maintained to preserve the continuity of predevelopment riparian areas. Modifications to the developments shall be neutral or beneficial to the bi-state DPS.


No existing direction. *B-RI-G-02: Authorize new water development for diversion from spring or seep source only when habitat would benefit from the development. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

Same as alternative B. BLM BMP: Same as B-RI-G-02.

Range: Improve-ments (Water/ Handling)


*B-RI-S-08: Livestock watering and handling facilities (corrals, chutes, dipping vats, etc.) or sheep bedding grounds shall not be located within 2 miles of an active lek and 0.6 miles from riparian areas.




No existing direction. *B-RI-S-09: Salting or supplemental feeding stations shall not be located within 2 miles of an active lek and 0.6 miles from riparian areas.


Range: Improve-ments (Handling)


*B-LUSU-S-10: No structures greater than 8-feet tall that could serve as predator perches shall be installed within bi-state DPS habitat unless they are equipped with anti-perching devices.

C-RI-S-01: Remove all range improvements greater than 8-feet tall that could serve as predator perches within bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as C-LUSU-S-04.

Weeds Current BLM- and Forest Service-integrated pest management plans allow for the use of biological pest controls that could include the use of domestic livestock.

*B-Weed G-01: Grazing may be used to target removal of cheatgrass or other vegetation hindering bi-state DPS objectives to move habitat toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat and or mitigating disturbance. Sheep, goats, or cattle may be used as long as the animals are intensely managed and removed when the utilization of desirable species reaches 35%.

Same as alternative B. BLM BMP: Same as B-Weed-G-01.

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Weed-S-01: Fires in moderate to low resilience and resistance sagebrush and wooded shrublands shall be suppressed to prevent an invasive annual grass-fire cycle.

Same as C-Weed-S-01.

Allow no livestock grazing for two grazing seasons after prescribed or natural fires and plantings or seedings.

*B-Weed-S-01: After soil disturbances or seeding, the land shall not be returned to soil-disturbing authorized uses for a minimum of two annual growing cycles or until desired habitat conditions or project objectives have been met, whichever is longer.

Same as C-RPS-01. No proposed addition (covered by B-WILD-S-07).



No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Weed-S02: Treatment methodologies are based on the treatment area’s resistance to annual invasive grasses and the resilience of native vegetation to respond after disturbance: (1) use mechanical treatments (i.e., do not use fire) in areas with relatively low resistance to annuals, and (2) treat areas in early- to mid-phase pinyon-juniper expansion.


No timing restrictions or chemical restrictions are currently in place within bi-state DPS habitats.

*B-Weed-S-02: Use pesticides/herbicides only outside of the critical disturbance periods and only if other integrated pest management approaches are inadequate or infeasible. Only use chemicals with the lowest toxicity to birds that still provide control in coordination with USDA or APHIS, depending of the targeted pest.

Same as alternative B. Same as B-Weed-S-02.

No existing direction. *B-Weed-S-03: Agency personnel, contractors, and permit holders working in areas with known weed infestations shall clean vehicles of dirt, mud, and visible plant debris before entering a different area to reduce the spread of noxious weeds.

Same as alternative B. Same as B-Weed-S-03.

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Weed-S03: Annual invasive grasses shall be controlled or suppressed using an integrated strategy.




No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Weed-G-01: Require aggressive treatment of new weed or annual grass infestation for any surface-disturbing or other activity that is likely to cause or promote the introduction or infestation and to control the potential spread of noxious and invasive annual grass species.

BLM BMP: Same as C-Weed-G-01.

Wild Horse/ Burro

Forest Service and BLM wild horse and burro management is focused on achieving healthy rangelands, but no specific standards for bi-state DPS habitat objectives are used.

*B-WHB-S-01: Appropriate management levels in territories and herd management areas with habitat shall be based on the structure, condition, and composition of vegetation needed to achieve bi-state DPS habitat objectives.

Same as B-WHB-S-01. Same as B-WHB-S-01.

Minerals General

Application of standards and guidelines to mineral resource management is subject to valid existing rights and in some cases technical feasibility. For instance, not all pipelines can be buried for technical reasons; and not all drilling operations can be conducted using a closed-loop system.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-01: For new and existing leases in habitat, limit offsite noise to less than 10 decibels (dbA) above ambient measures from 2 hours before until 2 hours after at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season.

Same as B-Min-S-01. Same as B-Min-S-01.



No existing direction. *B-Min-S-02: In habitat, limit offsite noise to less than 10 decibels (dbA) above ambient measures from 2 hours before until 2 hours after at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season.

Same as B-Min-S-02. No proposed additions (covered by B-Min-S-01).

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-03: Apply timing restrictions in all bi-state DPS habitat areas to avoid construction, drilling, completion, and reclamation activities, including those of exploratory wildcat wells within seasonal habitat periods.

Same as B-Min-S-03. Not applicable.

No existing direction. *B-Min-G-01: Concentrate disturbance/facilities to reduce spatial impact to habitat. The intent of the guideline is to minimize disturbance footprint wherever possible.

Same as B-Min-G-01. BLM BMP: Same as B-Min-G-01.

No existing direction. B-Min-G-02: In connective area, maintain vegetation characteristics suitable to bi-state DPS to the extent technically feasible. The intent of the guideline is to minimize disturbance footprint wherever possible.

*C-Min-S-01: In connective area, maintain vegetation characteristics suitable to bi-state DPS to the extent technically feasible.

Not applicable.

No existing direction. B-Min-G-03: Control fugitive dust on roads and pads. The intent of this guideline is to reduce dust where it can adversely impact habitat.

*C-Min-S-02: Control fugitive dust on roads and pads.

Same as C-Min-S-02.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-04: Require a full reclamation bond specific to the site. Insure bonds are sufficient for costs relative to reclamation that would result in full restoration in habitat.




No existing direction. B-Min-G-04: Use areas with prior disturbance to site infrastructure. The intent of the guideline is to minimize disturbance foot print wherever possible.

*C-Min-S-03: Use areas with prior disturbance to site infrastructure.

BLM BMP: Same as B-Min-S-04.

No existing direction. B-Min-S-06: Camps for workers shall be located outside habitat.

Same as B-Min-S-06. BLM BMP: Same as B-Min-S-06.

Fluid Minerals

No leasing decision has been analyzed for Forest Service lands. BLM has made a leasing decision.

B-Min-G-05: Limit disturbances to an average of one site per 640 acres on average, with no more than 3% total anthropogenic surface disturbances. The intent of the guideline is to minimize disturbance foot print wherever possible.

*C-Min-S-04: For fluid minerals do not consent to leasing unless only under no-surface-occupancy stipulations without exceptions, modifications or stipulations.

BLM-08: Apply a no-surface-occupancy stipulation for fluid mineral leasing in bi-state DPS habitat with no exceptions, modifications, and waivers.

For geothermal BLM has a 2008 EIS making leasing decisions on most lands. This lease contains lands which have been identified as bi-state DPS brood rearing areas subject to seasonal protection from disturbance. Seasonal restrictions from disturbance in bi-state DPS brood rearing areas apply within 0.5 miles or other appropriate distance based on site-specific conditions from May 15 to August 15, inclusive. This restriction does not apply to operating facilities. Also, the interim IMs that address sage grouse prior to the planning decision are also applicable.

*B-Min-S-07: Require seasonal restriction November 1 to March 1 on geophysical exploration within winter habitats.




No existing direction. *B-Min-G-06: Allow geophysical exploration to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to habitat to provide continued opportunities outside that would not disturb bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as B-Min-G-06. BLM BMP: Same as B-Min-G-06.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-08: Require reclamation for geophysical exploration operations to meet bi-state DPS desired conditions.


No existing direction. B-Min-S-09: Apply the least invasive seismic exploratory method in habitat.

*Same as C-MIN-S-04. Same as B-Min-S-09.

The BLM has completed a leasing decision for oil and gas for the BLM lands in the study area; however, there are no authorized oil and gas leases in the study area and there is no oil and gas leasing decision on the Forest Service lands.

*B-Min-G-07: Incorporate mitigation to offset all proposed surface disturbance that would result in loss of habitat. Mitigate first within the same population area where the disturbance is realized, and if not possible, within an adjacent habitat. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

Same as C-MIN-S-04. Not applicable.

No existing direction. *B-Min-G-08: If the lease is entirely within the habitat, any development should be placed in an area that would be the least harmful to bi-state DPS, primarily through limiting ground disturbance, to minimize the disturbance footprint in habitat.

Same as B-Min-G-08. Not applicable.



No existing direction. B-Min-G-09: All commercial pipelines should be buried where possible, to reduce perch opportunities for avian predators and to reduce need for linear maintenance corridors. Surface vegetation standards and guidelines would apply.

*C-Min-S-5: All commercial pipelines shall be buried where possible.

Not applicable.

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Min-S-06: Upon expiration or termination of existing leases, do not consent to leasing if inquired by the BLM.

BLM-09: Upon expiration or termination of existing leases, apply a no-surface-occupancy stipulation for fluid mineral leasing in bi-state DPS habitat with no exceptions, modifications, and waivers.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-10: Require reclamation of disturbed areas to meet desired conditions for habitat when facilities are no longer needed or leases are relinquished.

Same as alternative B. Not applicable.

No existing direction. B-Min-G-10: Use closed‐loop systems for drilling operations, with no reserve pits when technically feasible. The intent is to reduce disturbance footprint in habitat and avoid creation of poisonous water source.

*C-Min-S-07: Use closed‐loop systems for drilling operations, with no reserve pits when technically feasible.

Not applicable.

No existing direction. B-Min-G-11: Use noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering seasons. With the intent to reduce disturbance from noise in proximity to leks, nesting, and broad-rearing habitats.

*C-Min-S-08: Use noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering seasons.

Not applicable.



No existing direction. B-Min-S-11: Do not authorize construction of new high-power (120 kV) transmission towers unless there are no other corridor options.

*C-Min-S-09: Do not authorize new high-power (120 kV) transmission line corridors, transmission line ROWs, transmission line construction, or transmission line facility construction in habitat outside existing corridors.


No existing direction. B-Min-S-12: Transmission towers (120 kV) must be constructed with anti-perching devices to discourage use by raptors.

Not applicable as a result of C-Min-S-09.


No existing direction. B-Min-S-13: Do not authorize new fences unless necessary for safety or environmental protection reasons. If fences are necessary, require a safe design for bi-state DPS (e.g., marking).

Same as B-Min-S-13. BLM-10: New fences will not be authorized unless necessary for safety or environmental protection reasons.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-14: Require removal of transmission lines and roads that are no longer needed.

Same as B-Min-S-14. No proposed additions (covered by BLM-06).

Solid Leasable Minerals:

No existing direction. B-Min-G-12: Incorporate noise reduction design elements for new compressor stations. With the intent to reduce disturbance from noise in proximity to leks, nesting and broad rearing habitats.

*C-Min-S-10: Do not authorize new compressor stations inside habitats.

Not applicable.

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Min-S-011: Do not consent to solid mineral lease in habitat.

BLM-11: Close bi-state DPS habitat to non-energy leasable minerals.

Mineral materials can be disposed and must follow the BLM IM interim management direction.

B-Min-G-13: Request that the BLM not authorize new mine facilities on the surface unless there is no technically feasible alternative, and it has demonstrated no net loss of habitat, to minimize the disturbance footprint in habitat.

*C-Min-S-12: Request that the BLM not issue permits for solid leasable mineral prospecting or mining in habitat.

Not applicable.



*B-Min-G-14: If new mine facilities must be placed in habitat, then co-locate facilities in existing disturbed areas and authorize them to the minimum size necessary to reduce the disturbance footprint in habitat.

Same as B-Min-G-14. Not applicable.

Minerals: Mineral Materials

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-15: Do not authorize new pits or prospecting permits in bi-state DPS habitat.

C-Min-S-13: Do not allow new sale of mineral materials in habitat.

BLM-12: Close bi-state DPS habitat to mineral material disposal.

*B-Min-S-16: Authorize mineral material use and expansion of existing pits only with no unmitigated net loss of habitat.

C-Min-S-14: Prohibit expansion of existing mineral material sites.

BLM-13: Authorize existing mineral material use and expansion of existing pits only with no unmitigated net loss of habitat.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-17: Permits for existing mineral material sites shall require an approved pit development operating plan that minimizes impacts to bi-state DPS and other resources.

C-Min-S-15: Do not allow new sale of mineral materials in bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as B-Min-S-17.

Mineral Materials

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-18 Any contract or permit for mineral material operations, except for disposals from community sites and common-use areas, shall include requirements for reclamation of the site to meet bi-state DPS habitat objectives.

Same as C-MIN-S-15. BLM-14: Any contract or permit for mineral material operations, except for disposals from existing community sites and common-use areas, shall include requirements for reclamation of the site to meet bi-state DPS habitat objectives.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-19 Ensure no net unmitigated loss at existing mineral material sites in habitat.


Same as B-Min-S-19.



No existing direction. B-Min-S-20: Where the Federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is in non‐Federal ownership, require an approved pit development plan.


Locatable Minerals

Outside of wilderness, wilderness study areas, and withdrawn areas, the mineral estate is locatable. On BLM lands with unpatented mining claims, projects can be proposed. On Forest Service land no unpatented claims are necessary as long as the land is open to entry. BLM minerals are handled under 43 CFR 3809 and Forest Service minerals under 36 CFR 228 subpart A.

*B-Min-S-21: Mitigate long-term negative impacts in habitat from discretionary or nondiscretionary activities to the extent practicable.

C-Min-S-18: Petition the BLM to withdraw locatable minerals.

Same as B-Min-S-21.

Fire Suppres-sion

Use planned and unplanned ignitions to restore natural ecosystems in wilderness and other areas where appropriate.

*B-Fire-G-01: Do not use fire as a management tool in areas where the risk of escaped fire could cause negative long-term impacts during wildfire situations.

*C-Fire-S-01: Fires in moderate to low resilience and resistance sagebrush and wooded shrublands shall be suppressed to prevent an invasive annual grass-fire cycle.

No proposed addition (covered by C-Weed-S-01). BLM BMP: Same as B-Fire-G-01.

All wildfires will receive an appropriate suppression response.

*B-Fire-G-02: In bi-state DPS habitat areas, prioritize suppression, immediately after life and property, to conserve the habitat during wildfire situations.

Same as alternative B. BLM BMP: Same as B-Fire-G-02.

Appropriate responses are confinement, containment, or control.

*B-Fire-G-03: Suppress wildfire threatening unburned habitat contained within a broader burn perimeter.

*C-Fire-G-01: Vegetation treatments should include fuel breaks to provide anchor points for wildland fire suppression to protect areas meeting or moving toward desired conditions to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward or meeting desired condition.

BLM BMPs: Same as B-Fire-G-03 and C-Fire-G-01.



Suppres-sion in Wildland-Urban Interface

All wildfires will receive an appropriate suppression response. Appropriate responses are confinement, containment, or control.

*B-Fire-G-04: Prioritize suppression in the wildland-urban interface to protect life and property over habitat to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward or meeting desired condition.


Fuels Treatments in Sagebrush

Natural fuel treatment projects will meet multi-resource objectives.

B-Fire-G-05: Fuels treatments should emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward or meeting desired condition.

*C-Fire-G-02: Use fuel breaks and green strips to protect areas with >25% landscape sagebrush cover to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward or meeting desired condition.

BLM BMP: Same as C-Fire–G-02.

No existing direction. B-Fire-S-01: Fuels treatment projects shall not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% of the treatment unit unless needed to meet fire management/protection objectives.

*C-Fire-S-02: Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% (Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007) unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of bi-state DPS habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species.

Same as C-Fire-S-02.

No existing direction. *B-Fire-G-06: Do not use fire, including brush control, as a management tool in areas where there is threat of cheatgrass invasion, sagebrush areas with less than 12 inches of annual precipitation or 12 inches of soil, or areas where the sagebrush cover would be reduced to less than 15%. The intent is to limit the potential spread of cheatgrass into areas with low resistance and low resilience.




No existing direction. *B-Fire-G-07: Focus fuels management projects in habitat to reduce wildfire threats. The intent is to use fire only where it can do the most good and least harm to meet the purpose of the amendment and be consistent with B-Wild-S-01.


No existing direction. B-Fire-S-02: Enhance and restore habitat while reducing the potential for severe wildfires in habitat The intent is to use fire only where it can do the most good and least harm to meet the purpose of the amendment and be consistent with B-Wild-S-01.

Same as alternative B. Same as B-Fire-S-02.

Prescribed Fire

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Fire-G-03: Treatment methodologies are based on the treatments area’s resistance to annual invasive grasses and the resilience of native vegetation to respond after disturbance: (1) use mechanical treatments (i.e., do not use fire) in areas with relatively low resistance to annuals, and (2) treat areas in early- to mid-phase pinyon-juniper expansion The intent is to use fire only where it can do the most good and least harm to meet the purpose of the amendment and be consistent with B-Wild-S-01.

No proposed addition (covered by C-Weed-S-02).



Use planned, prescribed fire to improve or enhance resource outputs where appropriate.

B-Fire-G-08: Post-fuels management projects should ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants and to maintain the desired condition of fuels management projects. The intent is to use fire only where it can do the most good and least harm to meet the purpose of the amendment and be consistent with B-Wild-S-01.

*C-Fire-G-04: Manage post-treatment areas to increase perennial herbaceous species and minimize secondary weed invasion. The intent is to use fire only where it can do the most good and least harm to meet the purpose of the amendment and be consistent with B-Wild-S-01.

BLM BMP: Same as C-Fire-G-04.

No existing direction. *B-Fire-S-09: To reduce the risk of habitat loss related to management actions do not use fire as a management tool in areas where the risk of escaped fire could cause negative long-term impacts.

*C-Fire-G-05: Vegetation treatments and post-disturbance restoration should seed and/or transplant sagebrush to restore large patches of sagebrush cover and connect existing patches. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

No proposed addition (covered by C-Wild-S-02 and BLM BMP: B-Fire-G-01).

No existing direction. B-Fire-G-10: Where cheatgrass is a minor component in the understory (example; mountain shrub) use prescribed fire to disrupt fuel continuity (fuel breaks) The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

*C-Fire-S-06: Use seed for perennial grasses and forbs adapted to local conditions to increase cover of these species.

No proposed addition (covered by C-Wild-S-02).

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Fire-S-03: Annual invasive grasses shall be controlled or suppressed using an integrated strategy.

No proposed addition (covered by C-Weed-S-03).

Note: An * by a standard or guideline indicates that it has been selected as part of the preferred alternative for this project. .

Greater Sage-grouse Bi-state DPS Forest Plan Amendment Final Enviro

Table 10. Forage utilization standards for bi-state DPS habitat for alternative B, standard B-RU-S-02

Community Type Percent Utilization of Key Species Terms and Conditions

Mountain Big Sagebrush <45% herbaceous species; <35% shrub species

Livestock removed in 3−5 days of reaching utilization level

Wyoming and Basin Big Sagebrush

<35% herbaceous species; <35% shrub species


Black Sagebrush <35% herbaceous species; <35% shrub species


Riparian and Wet Meadows <50% herbaceous species; <35% woody species; or average stubble height of at least 4−6 inches (depending on site capability and potential) for herbaceous riparian vegetation

Average stubble height 4−6 inches: Livestock removed in 3−5 days of reaching utilization level based on site; or (sequential action) no grazing from May 15−August 30 in brood-rearing habitat

Note: Monitoring would be conducted using accepted protocols (including but not limited to: Burton et al. 2011; USDI BLM 1996; Platts 1990). Sources: Holechek (1988); Holechek et al. (1998); Burton et al. (2011); USDI BLM (1996); Platts (1990).

Proposed Species

Greater sage-grouse, Bi-State DPS (Centrocercus urophasianus)

The Bi-State DPS comprises a genetically unique meta-population of greater sage-grouse that defines the far southwestern limit of the species’ range. This genetic distinction may be the result of natural geologic events and subsequent long-term geographic isolation based on prevailing physiographic and habitat conditions.

The range of the Bi-State DPS occurs over an area approximately 170-miles long and up to 60 miles wide. It includes portions of five counties in western Nevada: Douglas, Lyon, Carson City, Mineral, and Esmeralda; and three counties in eastern California: Alpine, Mono, and Inyo.

The Bi-State DPS is characterized by available genetic, population, and habitat data as a genetically diverse, locally adapted meta-population consisting of several relatively small, localized breeding populations distributed among suitable sagebrush habitats throughout the Bi-State area.

The amendment area encompasses the known distribution of Bi-State sage-grouse. Therefore, the species is addressed in further detail in this analysis.

Species Analyzed in Further Detail

The federally listed animal species or animal species proposed for federal listing, with a potential for effects due to the action alternative Consist of the greater sage-grouse (Bi-State DPS) and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Bi-State Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, Bi-State DPS)

49


Overview

The Bi-State DPS comprises a genetically unique meta-population of greater sage-grouse that defines the far southwestern limit of the species’ range. This genetic distinction may be the result of natural geologic events and subsequent long-term geographic isolation based on prevailing physiographic and habitat conditions.

The range of the Bi-State DPS occurs over an area approximately 170-miles long and up to 60 miles wide. It includes portions of five counties in western Nevada: Douglas, Lyon, Carson City, Mineral, and Esmeralda; and three counties in eastern California: Alpine, Mono, and Inyo.

The Bi-State DPS is characterized by available genetic, population, and habitat data as a genetically diverse, locally adapted meta-population consisting of several relatively small, localized breeding populations distributed among suitable sagebrush habitats throughout the Bi-State area.

Two core sage-grouse populations, Bodie Hills and Long Valley, occur in the Mono County portion of the Bi-State area. These core areas annually comprise approximately 94 percent of all strutting males counted during annual lek surveys in California. Public lands administered by the BLM and USFS and private lands in the Bi-State DPS area provide important habitat for populations of greater sage-grouse (Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee 2012).

Six Population Management Units (PMUs) were established in 2001 as management tools for defining and monitoring sage-grouse distribution in the Bi-State area (Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning Team 2001. The PMU boundaries are based on aggregations of leks, known seasonal habitats, and telemetry data, which represent generalized subpopulations or local breeding complexes. The six PMUs include: Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. These six PMUs represent a total of four to eight demographically independent populations with a combined total of approximately 43 active leks (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). The Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs which are divided along the California-Nevada state border are combined here for analysis purposes.

The amendment area encompasses nearly all portions of the Pine Nut and Desert Creek/Fales PMUs, a majority of the Bodie/Mount Grant PMU, a small portion of the White Mountains PMU, and only 5 acres of the South Mono PMU (Table 11, Figure 3). Sage-grouse habitat percentage within the amendment area ranges from a low of zero in the South Mono to a high of 99% and 100% in the Desert Creek/Fales and Pine Nut PMUs, respectively.

Table 11. Portions of PMUs within the B-State Amendment Area

PMU Total Area (acres)

PMU Acres within Amendment Area

Proportion of PMU within Amendment Area

Proportion of PMU Habitat within Amendment Area

Bodie / Mount Grant 1,048,705 750,049 71.5% 48.4%

Desert Creek / Fales 567,992 562,337 99.0% 99.0%

Pine Nut 574,392 574,353 99.9% 100%

South Mono 583,022 5 < 0.001% 0%

White Mountains 1,753,885 709,772 15.0% 34.5%

50


Figure 3. Bi-State PMUs

51


Population and Telemetry Data Summaries

Greater sage-grouse have comparatively slower potential population growth rates than other species of grouse and display a high degree of site fidelity to seasonal habitats. While these natural history characteristics would not limit greater sage-grouse populations across large geographic scales under historical conditions of extensive habitat, they may contribute to local declines where humans alter habitats, or when natural mortality rates are high in small, isolated populations such as in the case of the Bi-State DPS. The best estimates for the Bi-State DPS of the greater sage-grouse place the spring breeding population between 1,833 and 7,416 individuals for the time period 2002 - 2012 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013bBased on radio-telemetry and genetic data, the local populations of greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State area appear to be isolated to varying degrees from one another. In addition to the potential negative effects to small populations due to genetic considerations, small populations such the Bi-State DPS are at greater risk than larger populations from stochastic events, such as environmental catastrophes or random fluctuations in birth and death rates, as well disease epidemics, predation, fluctuations in habitat available, and various other factors (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).

Population information contained in the Bi-State Action Plan is described by Population Management Unit (PMU). The BSSG Amendment Project Area contains all or portions of 5 of 6 PMUs described in the Bi-State Action Plan (Pine Nut, Desert Creek/Fales, Bodie Hills, Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs). In addition, more specific information concerning Bi-State sage-grouse seasonal locations, movements, home range size, and mortality factors is described by Casazza et al. (2007).

Risk Factors and Threats

Risk factors and threats to the Bi-State sage-grouse DPS were assessed and ranked by degree for individual PMUs by the Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee (Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee 2012). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also assessed risk factors and threats by degree in the proposed listing announcement (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a) and the Species Assessment Report (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). Summaries of each assessment are provided below.

Bi State Action Plan

The Bi-State Action Plan (Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee 2012) summarized identified, ranked, and summarized sage grouse risk factors for each of the Bi-State PMUs. Table 12 displays the risk factors, ranked low to high, for each of the PMUs. Among the risk factors, only pinyon-juniper encroachment is ranked ‘high’ for all PMUs, while wildfire is ranked ‘high’ for four of five PMUs and ranked ‘moderate’ in the White Mountains. Risk due to invasive species (cheatgrass) is ranked ‘high’ in the Pine Nut PMU, and ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ in the remaining PMUs within the assessment area. Other high ranking risk factors within the Pine Nut PMU include urbanization, disturbance due to OHV use, linear infrastructure, and wind energy development. Linear infrastructure was also ranked ‘high’ in the Mount Grant PMU, as were mineral energy exploration and development and geothermal leasing and development.

Table 12. BSSG PMU Risk Factors ((Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee, Nevada and California, 2012).

Risk Factor

PMU/ Risk Level

Pine Nut Desert Creek – Fales Bodie Hills Mount Grant

White Mountains

Wildfire High High High High Moderate

Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment High High High High High

52


Invasive Species(Cheatgrass) High Low Low Moderate Low

Urbanization High NI Moderate NI Moderate

Human Disturbance High (OHV) Moderate NI Low Low

Infrastructure (Linear) High High Moderate High Low

Predation Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Disease (West Nile Virus

Not yet determined Moderate Low Low Low

Wind Energy Development High NI NI NI NI

Wind Energy Testing Low NI NI NI NI

Mineral Exploration and Development NI NI Low High NI

Geothermal Leasing and Development NI NI NI High NI

Sagebrush habitat conditions NI Moderate NI NI NI

Grazing – Wild Horses) Moderate NI Low Moderate Moderate

Grazing – Permitted Livestock Low Low Low Low Low

Recreation NI NI NI Low NI

NI = Not identified as a ranked risk factor

Habitat Connectivity. Loss of habitat connectivity within and between the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie Hills, and Mount Grant population management units is identified as a concern for long-term conservation. The major factor contributing to loss of connectivity for all population management units is pinyon-juniper encroachment, with recent wildfires and urbanization also identified as contributing factors for the Pine Nut Population Management Unit (Bi-state Technical Advisory Committee 2012).

Risk Factors/Threats Identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

In the proposed listing announcement, the US Fish and Wildlife Service described threats associated with the Bi-State DPS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). They determined that threats posing the most significant impacts to the Bi-State DPS currently and in the future are nonnative and native, invasive species; wildfires and altered fire regime; infrastructure; grazing; and small population size and population structure. Other threats that are impacting the Bi-State DPS to a lesser degree are urbanization and habitat conversion; mining; renewable energy development and associated infrastructure; disease; predation; climate change, including drought; and recreation. Table 13 displays threats to BSSG identified by USFWS as well as USFWS degree of threat, and threat applicability to this project. A summary of each of these threats as described in the proposed listing are presented below. Literature citations omitted here can be found in the proposed listing document (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). Additional information is also available in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Status Assessment, Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-grouse (Species Assessment Report, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

53


Table 13. Summary of Threats to Bi-State DPS Identified by USFWS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a) and Applicability to this Analysis

Threat Degree of Threat to Bi-State DPS Identified by USFWS in Proposed Listing Rule

Risk Factor/ Threat Applicability to/Affected by FS and BLM land Management

Addressed in This Analysis

Non-native and Native Invasive Plants

Significant Impacts Applicable Yes

Wildfires and Altered Fire Regimes


Infrastructure Adversely Impacting Applicable Yes

Livestock Grazing Significant Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Applicable Yes

Small Population Size and Population Structure


Urbanization Localized Impacts Applicable Yes

Mining Concern for Existing and Future Impacts

Applicable Yes

Renewable Energy Concern for Existing and Future Impacts

Applicable Yes

Disease Concern for Future Impacts Applicable Yes

Predation Concern for Existing and Future Impacts

Applicable Yes

Climate Concern for Synergistic Impacts

Applicable Yes

Recreation Concern for Future Impacts Applicable Yes

Overutilization Negligible Impacts Not Applicable No

Scientific and Educational Uses

Negligible Impacts Not Applicable No

Pesticides and Herbicides Negligible Impacts Applicable No

Contaminants Negligible Impacts Applicable No

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Inadequate to Address Existing and Future Threats

Applicable Yes (As Purpose of this Project)

Synergistic Effects Summary of Threats Listed Above

Applicable Yes (In Summary of Threats Listed Above)

Affected Environment Threats addressed in the BSSG proposed listing rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a) are presented below and include information primarily summarized from both the BSSG proposed listing rule as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Status Assessment, Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-grouse (Species Assessment Report, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). Literature citations referenced in these summaries can be found in the corresponding documents (i.e. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Non-native and Native Invasive Species

54


Non-native Invasive Plants

Nonnative invasive plant species are abundant within sagebrush habitat, intermingling with and negatively impacting native brush and forb species that sage-grouse rely on. Sage-grouse depend on a variety of native forbs and the insects associated with them for chick survival (Connelly et al. 2000), as well as sagebrush species that are used exclusively by sage-grouse throughout the winter for food and cover. Nonnative plants typically replace vegetation essential to sage-grouse and fragment existing sage-grouse habitat (Miller et al. 2011). Because nonnative invasive plants are present in the Bi-State area, sage-grouse are potentially impacted both seasonally (loss of forbs and associated insects) and long-term (sagebrush displacement and habitat fragmentation) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

A variety of nonnative invasive plants are present in all PMUs within the Bi-State area, although cheatgrass is of greatest concern because it is widely dispersed across all the PMUs. Rowland et al. (2003) discovered that 48 percent of sage-grouse habitat on lands administered by the BLM Carson City District Office is at low risk of cheatgrass replacement, about 39 percent is at moderate risk, and about 13 percent is at high risk. Both assessments, however, included large portions of land outside the Bi-State area. Although cheatgrass is present throughout the Bi-State area, its relative abundance is variable. Averaged across the entire Bi-State, percent cover of cheatgrass is generally low (Peterson 2003), and conversion to an annual grass dominated community is currently limited to only a few locations. Anecdotal reports suggest Peterson’s (2003) assessment remains generally true although it is apparent that the abundance and distribution of cheatgrass has increased over the past decade. For example, 3 to 5 years ago in the Bodie PMU, cheatgrass appeared greatly restricted to disturbed areas and travel corridors. After several years of favorable growing conditions, it is now found throughout the Wyoming big sagebrush vegetation community in the Bodie Hills, representing approximately 5 percent of the understory (Abele 2013, pers. obs.). Areas of greatest immediate concern are in the Pine Nut PMU because cheatgrass abundance is greatest and post-fire restoration challenges are becoming apparent (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Occurrence of cheatgrass has generally been restricted to elevations below approximately 5,500 ft above sea level (Bradley 2010). However, in the Bi-State area cheatgrass occurs at elevations thought to be relatively immune based on the grass’s ecology. This suggests that in the near future few locations in the Bi-State area will be immune from cheatgrass invasion. Climate change may strongly influence the spread of this species; the available climate data suggest that future conditions will be most influenced by precipitation and winter temperatures (Bradley 2009). Predictions on the timing, type, and amount of precipitation contain the greatest uncertainty. In the Bi-State area, model scenarios that result in the greatest expansion of cheatgrass suggest much of the area remains suitable to cheatgrass presence with some additional high elevation sites in the Bodie Hills, White Mountains, and Long Valley becoming more suitable than they are today (Bradley 2009). On the opposite end of the spectrum, model scenarios that result in the greatest contraction in cheatgrass range suggest low elevation sites such as Desert Creek-Fales and Mount Grant PMUs become less suitable for this invasive species but high elevation sites (i.e., Bodie and White Mountains PMUs) where habitat conditions are generally marginal today become more suitable in the future (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Restoration and localized weed treatments have been applied within all the Bi-State PMUs. Currently, the Pine Nut PMU proves to be the greatest restoration challenge specifically because cheatgrass is widely distributed and relatively abundant, and fire events facilitating additional invasion and dominance are relatively frequent. However, cheatgrass is currently present at relatively low levels across all the PMUs and active treatments are logistically difficult. The greatest defense against cheatgrass and other nonnative invasive species is to maintain habitat in a competitive condition by ensuring native understory species remain healthy and viable, especially following disturbance events such as fire and drought (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Native Invasive Plants

55


In addition to nonnative plant invasions within sagebrush habitat, some native tree species are invading sagebrush habitat and impacting the suitability of the habitat for the various life processes of the sage-grouse. Pinyon-juniper woodlands are a native vegetation community dominated by pinyon pine and various juniper species that can encroach upon, infill, and eventually replace sagebrush habitat. The root cause of this conversion from shrubland to woodland is debatable but variously influenced by livestock grazing, fire suppression which has altered the natural fire disturbance regime, and changes in climate and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that influences sites suitability to tree establishment and tree competitiveness. Some portions of the Bi-State DPS’s range are also impacted by Jeffrey pine encroachment. Regardless of the type of woodland encroachment, sage-grouse response has been negative, as demonstrated by the following:

(1) Commons et al. (1999) found that the number of male Gunnison sage-grouse on leks doubled after pinyon-juniper removal and mechanical treatment of Wyoming big sagebrush and deciduous brush.

(2) Doherty et al. (2008) reported a strong avoidance of conifers by female sage- grouse in the winter.

(3) Freese (2009) found that sage-grouse used areas with less than 5 percent juniper cover more often in the breeding and summer seasons.

Therefore, forest or woodland encroachment into occupied sage-grouse habitat reduces, and likely eventually eliminates, sage-grouse occupancy (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Land managers in the Bi-State area consider pinyon-juniper encroachment a significant threat to sage-grouse because it impacts habitat quality, quantity, and connectivity, and increases the risk of avian predation to sage-grouse populations (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, Bi-State TAC 2012). Previously occupied sage-grouse locations throughout the Bi-State area are thought to have been abandoned due to woodland succession (Bi-State TAC 2012). Pinyon-juniper encroachment is occurring to some degree within all PMUs in the Bi-State area, with the greatest loss and fragmentation of occupied sagebrush habitat in the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, Bodie, and White Mountains PMUs (USFS 1966, Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004).

Across the Bi-State area approximately 40 percent of the historically available sagebrush habitat has been usurped by woodland succession over the past 150 years (USGS 2012b, unpublished data). The extent of this conversion varies by PMU, with the South Mono PMU being the least impacted (approximately 13 percent loss) and the Pine Nut PMU being the most influenced (approximately 50 percent loss). The remainder of the PMUs (White Mountains, Mount Grant, Desert Creek-Fales, and Bodie) is each estimated to have experienced approximately a 40 percent loss of historical sagebrush vegetation to woodland succession. In total, over the past 150 years an estimated 963,000 acres of sagebrush habitat has converted to woodland vegetation resulting in a loss of availability of sagebrush habitat from slightly over 2,580,000 acres in 1850 to approximately 1,600,000 acres today across the Bi-State DPS (USGS 2012b, unpublished data in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime

Wildfire is the principal disturbance mechanism affecting sagebrush communities, although the nature of historical fire patterns, particularly in big sagebrush, is not well understood and was historically infrequent (Miller and Eddleman 2000, Zouhar et al. 2008, Baker 2011). Most sagebrush species have not developed evolutionary adaptations such as re-sprouting and heat-stimulated seed germination found in other shrub-dominated systems, such as chaparral that are exposed to relatively frequent fire events. In general, fire extensively reduces sagebrush within burned areas and big sagebrush varieties, the most widespread species of sagebrush can take decades to re-establish and even longer to return to pre-burn

56


conditions (Braun 1998, Cooper et al. 2007, Lesica et al. 2007, Baker 2011 all in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

While multiple factors can influence sagebrush persistence, wildfire can cause large-scale habitat losses that lead to fragmentation and isolation of sage-grouse populations. In addition to loss of habitat and its influence on sage-grouse population persistence, fragmentation and isolation of populations presents a higher probability of extirpation in disjunct areas (Knick and Hanser2011, Wisdom et al. 2011). This is a concern within the Bi-State area, specifically throughout the Pine Nut and portions of the South Mono PMUs where burned habitat may be influencing already small and disjunct populations. Extinction is currently more probable than colonization for many sage-grouse populations such as those in the Bi-State area because of their low abundance and isolation coupled with fire and human influence (Knick and Hanser 2011). As areas become isolated through disturbances such as wildfire, populations are exposed to additional stressors and persistence may be hampered by the limited ability of individuals to disperse into areas that are otherwise not self-sustaining. Thus, while direct loss of habitat due to wildfire has been shown to be a significant factor associated with population persistence for sage-grouse (Beck et al. 2012), the indirect effect posed by loss of connectivity among populations may greatly expand the influence of this threat beyond the physical fire perimeter (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Potential Recovery of Sagebrush Habitat Following Wildfire

Sagebrush recovery rates following wildfire are highly variable, and precise estimates are often hampered by limited data from older burns. Factors contributing to the rate of shrub recovery include the amount of and distance from unburned habitat, abundance and viability of seed in soil seed bank (sagebrush seeds are typically viable for one to three seasons depending on species), rate of seed dispersal, and pre- and post-fire weather, which influences seedling germination and establishment (Young and Evans 1989, Maier et al. 2001, Ziegenhagen and Miller 2009). Baker (2011) reports that full recovery to pre-burn conditions in Artemesia tridentata ssp. vaseyana (mountain sagebrush) communities ranges between 25 and 100 years, and in A. t.. ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush) communities potentially ranges between 50 and 120 years. By 25 years post-fire, Wyoming big sagebrush typically has less than 5 percent pre-fire canopy cover (Baker 2011). The Bi- State area is largely comprised of these two sagebrush subspecies.

In addition to wildfires occurring in sagebrush habitat throughout the range of sage-grouse, land managers are using prescribed fire to obtain desired management objectives for a variety of wildlife species and domestic livestock. While the efficacy of such treatments in sagebrush habitats to enhance sage-grouse populations is questionable (Peterson 1970, Swensen et al. 1987, Connelly et al. 2000c, Nelle et al. 2000, WAFWA 2009, Connelly et al. 2011c), as with wildfire, an immediate and potentially long-term result is the loss of habitat (Beck et al. 2009). However, prescribed fire treatments reduce fire risk in the presence of housing developments or intact expanses of sagebrush habitat and in these instances benefits may be gained. In the Bi-State area, prescribed fire use has not been extensive and generally limited to woodland sites and to reduce fire risk near communities. In the past decade, prescribed fire has been used in the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs; the efficacy of these actions to restore a sagebrush community has not yet been determined. There remains the potential for future use of prescribed fire (or other methods of sagebrush treatment) across the Bi-State area, as all management agencies retain this tool. Future use will be dependent on NEPA analysis and likely limited to situations that minimize potential loss of residential developments (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Impact of Wildfires and an Altered Fire Regime within the Bi-State Area

Wildfire is considered a relatively high risk across all the PMUs in the Bi-State area due to its ability to affect large landscapes in a short period of time (Bi-State TAC 2012). Furthermore, the future potential of this risk is exacerbated by the presence of people, invasive species, and climate change. While dozens of wildfires have occurred in the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, and South Mono PMUs (fewer in the Mount Grant and White Mountains PMUs) over the past 20 years, to date there have been relatively few

57


large scale events (Table 14). In general, current data also do not indicate an increase of wildfires in the PMUs over time with the significant exception of the Pine Nut PMU where fire occurrence is more frequent (Service 2013, unpublished data). Furthermore, cheatgrass has a more substantial presence in the Pine Nut PMU, which appears to mirror (much more than the rest of the Bi-State area) the damaging fire and invasive species cycle impacting sagebrush habitat across much of the southern Great Basin (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Table 14. Twenty-year history of wildfires larger than 202 hectares (ha) (500 acres (ac)) across the Bi-State area, California and Nevada.

PMU Estimated PMU Area Burned (acres)

Estimated Number of Fire Events (1992-2012)

Pine Nut 83,409 23

Desert Creek-Fales 33,315 5

Mount Grant 1,173 1

Bodie 685 1

South Mono 31,281 8

White Mountains 575 1

TOTAL 150,438 39

Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b

Changes in fire ecology over time have resulted in an altered fire regime in the Bi-State area, presenting future wildfire risk in all PMUs (Bi-State TAC 2012). A reduction in fire occurrence has facilitated the expansion of woodlands into montane sagebrush communities in all PMUs (see “Nonnative and Native Invasive Plants” section above). Furthermore, a pattern of overabundance in wildfire occurrence in sagebrush communities is becoming apparent in the Pine Nut PMU. Each of these alterations to wildfire regimes has contributed to fragmentation of habitat and the isolation of the sage-grouse populations (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004).

In summary, fire is one of the primary factors linked to population declines of sage-grouse across the West because of long-term loss of sagebrush and frequent conversion to monocultures of nonnative invasive grasses (Connelly and Braun 1997, Johnson et al. 2011, Knick and Hanser 2011). Within the Bi-State area, the BLM and USFS currently manage the area to limit loss of sagebrush habitat. Based on the best available information, historical wildfire events have not removed a significant amount of sagebrush habitat across Bi-State area and conversion of sagebrush habitat to a nonnative invasive vegetation community has been restricted (Pine Nut PMU withstanding). It does appear that a lack of historical fire has facilitated the establishment of woodland vegetation communities and loss of sagebrush habitat. Both the too little and too much fire scenarios present challenges for the Bi-State DPS. The former influences the current degree of connectivity among sage-grouse populations in the Bi-State DPS and the extent of available sagebrush habitat, likely affecting sage-grouse population size and persistence. The latter, under current conditions, now has the potential to quickly alter significant percentages of remaining sagebrush habitat. Restoration of sagebrush communities is challenging, requires many years, and may be ineffective in the presence of nonnative invasive grass species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). Sage- grouse are slow to recolonize burned areas even if structural features of the shrub community have recovered (Knick et al. 2011, p. 233).

Infrastructure

Infrastructure includes features that assist or are required for the pursuit of human- initiated development or an associated action. Five infrastructure features are impacting the Bi-State DPS: three linear features

58


(roads, power lines, and fences) and two site-specific features (landfills and communication towers). While there may be other features that could be characterized as infrastructure (such as railroads or pipelines), these are not present in the Bi-State area, and USFWS is unaware of any information suggesting they would impact the Bi-State DPS in the future (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

In the Bi-State area, linear infrastructure impacts each PMU both directly and indirectly to varying degrees. Existing roads, power lines, and fences degrade and fragment sage- grouse habitat (such as Braun 1998), and contribute to direct mortality through collisions (Patterson 1952). In addition, roads, power lines, and fences deter the sage-grouse’s use of otherwise suitable habitats adjacent to current active areas, and increase predators and invasive plants (Forman and Alexander 1998, Connelly et al. 2000).

The impact to the Bi-State DPS caused by indirect effects extends beyond the immediate timeframe associated with the infrastructure installation (i.e., the existence of an extended road system, power lines, and fencing already likely limit the ability to recover the Bi-State DPS in various areas). USFWS does not have consistent and comparable information on miles of existing roads, power lines, or fences, or densities of these features within PMUs or for the Bi-State area as a whole. However, given current and future development (based on known energy resources), the Mount Grant, Desert Creek-Fales, Pine Nut, and South Mono PMUs are likely to be the most directly influenced by new power lines and associated infrastructure. Wisdom et al. (2011) reported that across the entire range of the greater sage- grouse, the mean distance to highways and transmission lines for extirpated populations was approximately 3.1 miles or less. In the Bi-State area, between 35 and 45 percent of annually occupied leks are within 3.1 miles of highways, and between 40 and 50 percent are within this distance to existing transmission lines. Therefore, the apparent similarity between existing Bi-State conditions and extirpated populations elsewhere suggests that persistence of substantial numbers of leks within the Bi-State DPS will likely be negatively influenced by these anthropogenic features (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

The geographic extent, density, type, and frequency of linear infrastructure disturbance in the Bi-State area have changed over time. While substantial new development of some of these features (e.g., highways) is unlikely, other infrastructure features are likely to increase (secondary roads, power lines, fencing, and communication towers). Furthermore, improvements to existing roads are possible, and traffic volume will likely increase, which may be a bigger impact than road development itself. For example, with the proliferation of OHV usage within the range of the Bi-State DPS, the potential impact to the sage-grouse and its habitat caused by continued use of secondary or unimproved roads may become of greater importance as traffic volume increases rates of disturbance and the spread of nonnative invasive species in areas that traditionally have been traveled relatively sporadically.

Other types of non-road infrastructure (e.g., cellular towers and landfills) also appear to be adversely impacting the Bi- State DPS. At least eight cellular tower locations are currently known to exist in occupied habitat (all PMUs) in the Bi- State area. Wisdom et al. (2011) determined that presence of cellular towers is likely to contribute to population extirpation, and additional tower installations will likely occur in the near future as development continues. The landfill facility in Long Valley (within the South Mono PMU) is likely influencing sage-grouse population demography in the area, as nest success is comparatively low and subsidized avian nest predator numbers are high (Kolada et al. 2009). While this large population of sage-grouse (i.e., one of two core populations in the Bi-State area) currently appears stable, recovery following any potential future perturbations affecting other vital rates (i.e., brood survival and adult survival) will be limited by nesting success (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

Grazing and Rangeland Management

Livestock Grazing

59


Livestock grazing continues to be the most widespread land use across the sagebrush biome (Connelly et al. 2004, Knick et al. 2003, Knick et al. 2011), including within the Bi-State area. Links between grazing practices and population levels of sage-grouse are not well studied (Braun 1987, Connelly and Braun 1997). Aldridge et al. (2008) did not find any relationship between sage-grouse persistence and livestock densities, but concluded that other aspects of livestock management (intensity, duration, and distribution) may be more influential on rangeland conditions than livestock density.

Suitability of sage-grouse nesting habitat and nesting success can be impacted by livestock grazing activities. Sage-grouse need significant grass and shrub cover for protection from predators during the nesting season, and females will preferentially choose nest sites based on these qualities (Hagen et al. 2007). Gregg et al. (1994) suggest that the reduction of grass heights from grazing in nesting and brood-rearing areas negatively affects nesting success when cover is reduced below the 7 inch height needed for predator avoidance. In the Bi-State area specifically, nest success of sage-grouse on average is comparable to the rest of the species’ range (Kolada et al. 2009), but varies among PMUs. Studies suggest that grazing or maintaining residual grass cover may not influence nest success in the Bi-State area as much as in other regions (Kolada et al. 2009). This is expected because the most influential nest predator in the Bi-State area, the common raven, is potentially less influenced by grass cover than mammalian predators (such as American badgers (Coates et al. 2008) that are more prevalent in other regions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

In general, livestock grazing reduces food availability for sage-grouse and may act in direct competition. Cattle feed mostly on grasses, but seasonally use forbs and shrubs like sagebrush (Vallentine 1990). Domestic sheep consume large volumes of grass, shrubs (including sagebrush (Vallentine 1990), and forbs in occupied sage-grouse habitat (Pederson et al. 2003). Because forbs provide essential calcium, phosphorus, and protein for pre- laying hens (Barnett and Crawford 1994), the absence of sufficient forbs can impact a hen’s nutritional condition, thus affecting nest initiation rate, clutch size, and subsequent reproductive success (Barnett and Crawford 1994, Coggins 1998). More specifically, livestock grazing can reduce the available food sources needed during breeding and brood-rearing periods (Braun 1987, Dobkin 1995, Connelly and Braun 1997, Beck and Mitchell 2000). Livestock grazing reduces water infiltration rates, reduces cover of herbaceous plants and litter, compacts soils, and increases soil erosion (Braun 1998, Dobkin et al. 1998). These impacts change the proportions of shrubs, grasses, and forbs in affected areas, and increase the propensity for invasion by nonnative invasive plant species (Mack and Thompson 1982, Miller and Eddleman 2000, Knick et al. 2011, Reisner et al. 2013). In addition to nonnative plant impacts, Aldridge and Brigham (2003, p. 30) suggest that poor livestock management in mesic sites can reduce forbs and grasses available to sage-grouse chicks, thereby affecting chick survival. However, Evans (1986) reported that sage-grouse used grazed meadows significantly more during late summer because grazing had stimulated the regrowth of forbs. Klebenow (1981) noted that sage-grouse used openings in meadows created by cattle. Limited grazing in the Bi-State area may be benign or even beneficial to some seasonal sage- grouse habitats, but when conducted improperly livestock grazing can have negative effects on sage-grouse habitat and individuals (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Livestock presence can cause hens to abandon nests, and trampling is known to destroy nests (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, Patterson 1952, Call and Maser 1985, Holloran and Anderson 2003, Coates 2007). For example, Coates (2007) documented nest abandonment following partial nest depredation by a cow in Nevada. In general, all recorded encounters between livestock and grouse nests resulted in hens flushing from nests (Coates 2008b), which could expose the eggs to predation. There is strong evidence that visual predators like ravens use hen movements to locate sage-grouse nests (Coates 2007); this is a concern for the Bi-State DPS given that ravens are the primary predators of sage-grouse.

In the Bi-State area, over 100 livestock grazing allotments are active across all PMUs and most grazed lands are managed by the BLM and USFS, although much of the meadow habitats are located on private lands (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004). USFWS estimate based on available data that 15 to 30 percent of locations surveyed exhibit vegetation conditions outside of those desired by land managers and

60


a portion of this deviation is attributable to livestock activity. In general, this deviation is influenced by condition of upland understory vegetation (lack of grass and forb) and meadow condition. The majority of allotments in the Bi-State area are in fair to good condition (Axtell 2008, pers. comm; Murphy 2008, pers. comm.; Nelson 2008, pers. comm.), and livestock grazing is generally thought to have a limited impact on sage-grouse habitat (Bi-State TAC 2012).

Wild Horse and Burro

In addition to domestic livestock, feral horses can negatively impact meadows and brood-rearing habitats used by sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004, Crawford et al. 2004). Feral horses have utilized sagebrush communities since they were brought to North America at the end of the 16th century (Wagner 1983, Beever 2003). Horses are generalists, but seasonally their diets can be almost entirely grasses (Wagner 1983). Areas without horse grazing can have 1.9 to 2.9 times more grass cover and higher grass density (Beever et al. 2008), whereas sites with horse grazing have less shrub cover and more fragmented shrub canopies, less plant diversity, altered soil characteristics, and 1.6 to

2.6 times greater abundance of cheatgrass (Beever et al. 2008). Therefore, horse presence may negatively affecting sagebrush vegetation communities and habitat suitability for sage-grouse by decreasing grass cover, fragmenting shrub canopies, altering soil characteristics, decreasing plant diversity, and increasing the abundance of invasive cheatgrass (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Sage-grouse habitat is impacted differently by horses as compared to cows as a result of a variety of biological and behavioral characteristics (Beever 2003). A horse forages longer and consumes 20 to 65 percent more forage than a cow of equivalent body mass (Wagner 1983, Menard et al. 2002). Horses can crop vegetation closer to the ground, potentially limiting or delaying recovery of plants (Menard et al. 2002). Horses also seasonally move to higher elevations, spend less time at water, and range farther from water sources than cattle (Beever and Aldridge 2011). In areas utilized by both horses and cattle, it is unknown whether grazing impacts are synergistic or additive (Beever and Aldridge 2011).

There are seven designated Wild Horse Territories (WHT) or Herd Management Areas (HMA) that overlap the Bi-State PMUs, plus a single Wild Horse Unit. The most significant impacts from feral horses in the Bi-State area occur in the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs (Axtell 2008, pers. comm.; Bi-State TAC 2012), although they are also known to occur within the Bodie and South Mono PMUs (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

• Pine Nut PMU: The Pine Nut HMA is the only HMA in the Pine Nut PMU. The targeted management level is 119–179 horses (BLM 2012a, in litt.), and the current estimate is 293 horses based on data from a 2010 horse gather (BLM 2012a, in litt.).

• Mount Grant PMU: The Wassuk HMA and Powell Mountain WHT occur in the Mount Grant PMU. Within the Wassuk HMA the targeted management level is 110–165 horses, and the current estimate is 597 horses (BLM 2012a, in litt.). The Powell Mountain WHT had an estimated 40 horses in 2012 (USFS 2012a, in litt.). The appropriate management level (AML) for the Powell Mountain WHT is 29 horses (USFS 2012a, in litt.).

• Bodie and South Mono PMUs: Both the Bodie and South Mono PMUs have no official HMAs or WHTs. Although horses frequent the Bodie PMU, these horses are likely from the Powell Mountain WHT (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, pp. 86–87). Horses from the adjacent Montgomery Pass WHT in the White Mountains PMU have begun to shift their distribution to the northern portion of the South Mono PMU.

• White Mountains PMU: One WHT and three HMAs occurs in the White Mountains PMU, although an additional wild horse management plan exists for the White Mountains Wild Horse Unit (not a formally designated WHT) (USFS 2012c, in litt.). The current number of horses in the Montgomery Pass WHT is not known, but use appears to have shifted to lands managed by

61


the BLM and private lands located in Adobe Valley (South Mono PMU). Herd size of the White Mountains Wild Horse Unit was established at 70 animals in 1976 (USFS 2012c, in litt.), and 79 animals were documented during 2010 (USFS 2012c, in litt.). Current estimates of wild horse numbers in the White Mountains PMU are not available, but horse use across this PMU was noted as potentially degrading the habitat, specifically in relation to meadow sites (USFS 2012c, in litt.). The remaining three HMAs (Fish Lake Valley, Piper Mountain, Marietta Burro Range) occur on the western and southern edges of the White Mountains PMU; current horse numbers are unknown, although numbers are anticipated to be low due to lack of water.

Small Population Size and Population Structure

Sage-grouse have comparatively low reproductive rates and high annual survival (Schroeder et al. 1999, Connelly et al. 2000), resulting in slower potential or intrinsic population growth rates than is typical of other game birds. Therefore, recovery of populations after a decline may require years. Studies suggest that ultimately population maintenance in sage-grouse, a generally long-lived and low reproductive species, depends on relatively stable adult survival rate, punctuated by periodic pulses of recruitment (Blomberg et al. 2012). While these natural history characteristics would not limit sage-grouse populations across large geographic scales under historical conditions of extensive habitat, they may contribute to local population declines or extirpations when populations are small or weather patterns, habitats or mortality rates are altered.

Based on radio-telemetry and genetic data, sage-grouse subpopulations in the Bi-State area appear to be isolated to varying degrees from one another (Casazza et al. 2009, Oyler– McCance and Casazza 2011, Tebenkamp 2012). Birds in the White Mountains PMU as well as those in the South Mono PMU are largely isolated from sage-grouse subpopulations in the remainder of the Bi-State DPS and apparently from one another (Casazza et al. 2009, Oyler–McCance and Casazza 2011, Tebbenkamp 2012). The isolation of populations occurring to the north of Mono Lake is less clear. Telemetry data demonstrate birds in the Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs share habitat during parts of the year, as do birds in both the Nevada and California portions of the Desert Creek-Fales PMU (Casazza et al. 2009). However, movement of birds between Mount Grant and Desert Creek- Fales or Bodie and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs appears more restricted (Tebbenkamp 2012). Traditionally the Pine Nut PMU was presumed isolated; however, recent GPS telemetry data show birds (n=2) are capable of moving south into the Sweetwater Mountains in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU and even further south into the Bodie PMU. The porosity of this corridor is not currently known nor is the degree to which dispersal events are successful (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Isolated populations are typically at greater risk of extinction due to genetic and demographic concerns such as inbreeding depression, loss of genetic diversity, and Allee effect (the difficulty of individuals finding one another), particularly where populations are small (Lande 1988, Stephens et al. 1999, Frankham et al. 2002). Over the past decade, estimates of the Bi-State DPS spring breeding population has ranged between approximately 1,860 and 7,160 individuals annually (CDFW 2012, in litt.; NDOW 2012, in litt.). The estimated annual effective population size (for the entire Bi-State area) is estimated to be about 200 to 700 sage-grouse (USFWS 2012, unpublished data). Genetic and radio-telemetry studies, however, suggest that some sage-grouse populations in the Bi-State area are isolated suggesting that the effective population size is actually less (Table 15).

The Bi-State DPS is relatively small and both geographically and genetically isolated from the remainder of the greater sage-grouse distribution. As with isolated populations of sage-grouse across their range, this scenario presents challenges to population persistence through increased risk caused by genetic, demographic, or stochastic environmental events. However, available data suggest genetic diversity in the Bi- State area is currently high (Oyler–McCance and Quinn 2011). Thus, there is currently no indication that genetic factors such as inbreeding depression, hybridization, or loss of genetic diversity place the Bi-State DPS at immediate risk. However, recent genetic analysis shows that subpopulations in the Bi-State

62


area have unique detectable qualities that allow differentiation from one another (Oyler–McCance and Casazza 2011, Tebbenkamp 2012). While concerns over genetic diversity may or may not be apparent today, the estimated effective population sizes for the Bi-State DPS are small and below theoretical thresholds suggested necessary for long-term persistence. Conservation and enhancement of the current genetic diversity levels is likely important for long-term viability of the Bi-State DPS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Table 15. Range in population size and effective population size estimates by Population Management Unit (PMU) between 2002 and 2012 for the Bi-State area, Nevada and California.

PMU Estimated population size range

2002–2012

Estimated effective population size range

2002–2012

Pine Nut 50–331 4–25

Desert Creek-Fales 317–1,268 29–95

Mount Grant and Bodie 635–3,812 59–259

South Mono 859–2,005 81–170

Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b

In addition to the potential negative effects to small populations due to genetic considerations, small populations such as those found in the Bi-State area are at greater risk from stochastic events such as disease epidemics, prey population crashes, or environmental catastrophes. Interactions between climate change, drought, wildfire, West Nile Virus, and the limited potential to recover from population downturns or extirpations place significant challenges to the persistence of the Bi-State DPS of sage-grouse.

The Bi-State DPS is comprised of approximately 43 active leks representing 4 to 8 relatively discrete populations (see “Species Information” section above and the “Current Range/Distribution and Population Estimates/Annual Lek Counts”. Research has shown fitness and population size within the Bi-State DPS are strongly correlated and smaller populations are more subject to environmental and demographic stochasticity (Keller and Waller 2002, Reed 2005). Each population is relatively small and below theoretical minimum for long-term persistence as is the entire DPS on average. USFWS estimates of effective population size suggest that genetic challenges will likely influence long-term viability if connectivity among populations does not improve. When coupled with mortality stressors related to human activity and significant fluctuations in annual population size, long-term persistence of small populations (in general) is unlikely (Traill et al. 2010). The Pine Nut PMU has the smallest number of sage-grouse of all Bi-State area PMUs (usually less than 100 individuals, and ranging from 50 to 331 individuals as observed from data collected between 2002 and 2012, representing approximately 5 percent of the DPS). However, each population in the Bi-State DPS is relatively small and below theoretical minimum threshold (as interpreted by species experts and not statistically proven) for long-term persistence, as is the entire DPS on average (estimated 1,833 to 7,416 individuals) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Urbanization and Habitat Conversion

Historical and recent conversion of sagebrush habitat on private lands for agriculture, housing, and associated infrastructure within the Bi-State area has likely negatively affected sage-grouse distribution and population extent in the Bi-State DPS, thus limiting current and future recovery opportunities in the

63


Bi-State area. These alterations to habitat have been most pronounced in the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs and to a lesser extent the Bodie, South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. Although only a subset of the 8 percent of suitable sage-grouse habitat that occurs on private lands could potentially be developed, conservation actions on adjacent public lands could be compromised due to the high percentage of late brood-rearing habitat that occurs on the private lands. Sage-grouse display strong site fidelity to traditional seasonal habitats and loss of specific sites (such as mesic meadow or spring habitats that are typically private lands in the Bi-State area) can have pronounced population impacts. The influence of land development and habitat conversion on the population dynamics of sage-grouse is greater than a simple measure of spatial extent because of the indirect effects from the associated increases in human activity. These threats are not universal across the Bi-State area, but localized areas of impacts have been realized and additional future impacts are anticipated (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Mining

Surface and subsurface mining for mineral resources (gold, silver, aggregate, and others) results in direct loss of habitat if occurring in sagebrush habitats. The direct impact from surface mining is usually greater than from subsurface activity. Habitat loss from both types of mining can be exacerbated by the storage of overburden (soil removed to reach subsurface resource) in otherwise undisturbed habitat. Construction of mining infrastructure can result in additional direct loss of habitat from establishment of structures, staging areas, roads, railroad tracks, and power lines. Sage-grouse and their nests could be directly affected by trampling or vehicle collision. Sage-grouse also can be impacted indirectly from an increase in human presence, land use practices, ground shock, noise, dust, reduced air quality, degradation of water quality and quantity, and changes in vegetation and topography (Moore and Mills 1977, Brown and Clayton 2004 all in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Mineral extraction has a long history throughout the Bi-State area, and mining continues today to a limited extent in four PMUs and is expected to continue into the future. Although mining represents a year-round risk to the Bi-State DPS, direct loss of key seasonal habitats or population disturbances during critical seasonal periods are of greatest impact. Currently, the PMUs with the greatest exposure are Bodie, Mount Grant, Pine Nut, and to a lesser degree South Mono (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004).

Additional mineral developments occurring in sagebrush habitats in any of these PMUs will likely negatively influence the distribution of sage-grouse and the connectivity among breeding complexes. There is potential for additional mineral developments to occur in the Bi-State area in the future based on mineral resources in the Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs and at least three recent preliminary inquiries for entry within the Pine Nut PMU (BLM 2012a, in litt.). While all PMUs have the potential for mineral development, based on current land designations and past activity, it appears the Pine Nut and Mount Grant PMUs are most likely to experience new and additional activity. Currently operational mines are not within the core population areas of the Bi-State DPS, although existing inactive mining sites and potential future developments could impact important lek complexes and connectivity between at minimum the Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Renewable Energy Development

Renewable energy development and associated infrastructure are identified risks for sage-grouse in the Bi-State area (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, Bi-State TAC 2012). Renewable energy facilities (including geothermal facilities, wind power facilities, and solar arrays) require power lines and roads for construction and operation, and avoidance of such features by sage-grouse and other prairie grouse is documented (Holloran 2005, Pruett et al. 2010; see discussions regarding power lines and roads in the “Infrastructure” section above). Indirect and direct impacts to the Bi-State DPS and its habitat are

64


expected as a result of habitat fragmentation through not only roads and power lines, but also noise and increased human presence (Connelly et al. 2004), all of which are expected to be similar to those impacts discussed in the “Infrastructure” section above (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Geothermal energy production requires surface exploration, exploratory drilling, field development, plant construction, and operation. Direct habitat loss occurs from development of well pads, structures, roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. Intensive human activity is required during field development, but relatively reduced levels of human activity occur during operation. Accessing a thermal source can take 3–8 weeks of continuous well drilling and can potentially cause toxic gas releases depending on the geological formation (Suter 1978). Water is necessary for drilling operations and later for condenser cooling at the generation plants, which are similar in size to coal- or gas-fired plants. Thus, local water depletions may be a concern for sage-grouse if they result in the loss of brood-rearing habitat. The BLM and USFS completed a programmatic EIS for geothermal leasing and operations across much of the western United States in 2008 (BLM and USFS 2008b, entire). Best management practices were included for minimizing the effects of geothermal development and operations on sage-grouse, but they are guidance only and general in nature (BLM and USFS 2008b).

Wind power facilities can both directly and indirectly impact sage-grouse and its habitat. Direct loss of habitat (primarily from construction of access roads) and indirect loss (due to avoidance) results from installation of individual wind turbine units despite their small footprints from a landscape perspective. Spacing turbines improves their efficiency, but expands the overall footprint of the field, thus resulting in larger blocks of habitat being impacted. Research conducted in Wyoming suggests that in the short-term, avoidance of habitat in proximity to wind facilities by sage-grouse is not apparent, although these results may be confounded by variation in habitat quality or site fidelity (LeBeau 2012). However, LeBeau (2012) determined that fitness parameters can be influenced by proximity to wind energy facilities (i.e., while adult female survival was not impacted by proximity to wind facilities, both nest success and brood survival were negatively impacted).

No gallinaceous bird (grouse) deaths were reported in a comprehensive review of avian collisions at wind farms in the United States (Johnson et al. 2000, Erickson et al. 2001); average tower heights, flight elevations of grouse, and diurnal migration habitats minimize the risk of collision. However, sage-grouse can be killed by flying into turbine rotors or towers (Erickson et al. 2001). One dead sage-grouse was found near a turbine over a 3-year monitoring period at a wind facility in Wyoming (Young et al. 2003). Preliminary data from research in Wyoming has indicated that direct mortality from collision occurs and may be greater than previously anticipated (Deibert 2012, pers. comm.). Sage-grouse could also be impacted by increased noise levels and behavioral modifications resulting from rotating wind turbine blades (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Solar array development requires similar infrastructure as other renewable and nonrenewable energy sources. Direct habitat loss can be significant because much of a solar project site would have vegetation removed. The topography in the Bi-State area is generally not conducive to solar development based on existing technology. Further, the BLM recently completed a programmatic EIS on solar development in six southwestern States including Nevada and California, and through this process identified exclusion areas or areas where solar development would not be allowed (BLM 2012b). The EIS only affects utility-scale developments (greater than 20 megawatts) occurring on BLM-managed lands, but recognized occupied sage- grouse habitat as a criterion for exclusion (BLM 2012b). While small developments or developments on other federally-managed or privately-owned lands have the potential to occur, future commercial development of solar energy in the Bi-State area appears unlikely (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Disease

65


The best available data indicate that parasites and disease in general are not significant concerns in the Bi-State area. However, sage-grouse are known to be hosts for a variety of parasites and diseases (as outlined in the following paragraphs) including macroparasitic arthropods, helminthes, and microparasites (protozoa, bacteria, viruses and fungi) (Thorne et al. 1982, Connelly et al. 2004, Christiansen and Tate, 2011).

Viruses (such as coronavirus and West Nile virus can cause serious diseases in grouse species and death, potentially influencing population dynamics (Petersen 2004). Prior to 2002, only avian infectious bronchitis (caused by a coronavirus) had been identified in sage- grouse. West Nile Virus has spread across North America since 1999 (Marra et al. 2004), and currently is the disease most likely to impact the Bi-State area. This virus is thought to have caused millions of wild bird deaths since its introduction (Walker and Naugle 2011), but most West Nile Virus mortality goes unnoticed or unreported (Ward et al. 2006). The virus persists largely within a mosquito-bird-mosquito infection cycle (McLean 2006). However, direct bird-to-bird transmission has been documented in several species (McLean 2006), including sage-grouse (Cornish 2009a, pers. comm.; Walker and Naugle 2011). The frequency of direct transmission has not been determined (McLean 2006). Impacts of West Nile Virus on the bird host vary by species with some experiencing mortality rates of up to 68 percent (e.g., American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)) (Walker and Naugle 2011). Sage-grouse are considered to have a high susceptibility to West Nile Virus, with corresponding high levels of mortality (Clark et al. 2006, McLean 2006).

Efficacy and transmission of West Nile Virus in sagebrush habitats is primarily regulated by environmental factors including temperature, precipitation and anthropogenic water sources, such as stock ponds and coal-bed methane ponds that support mosquito vectors (Reisen et al. 2006, Walker and Naugle 2011). Cold ambient temperatures generally preclude mosquito activity and virus amplification, so transmission to and in sage-grouse is most prevalent in summer (mid-May to mid-September) (Naugle et al. 2005, Zou et al. 2007), with a peak in July and August (Walker and Naugle 2011). However, delayed West Nile Virus transmission in sage-grouse has occurred in years with lower summer temperatures (Naugle et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2007b). Furthermore, the primary vector of West Nile Virus in sagebrush ecosystems is a mosquito (Culex tarsalis) (Naugle et al. 2004, Naugle et al. 2005, Walker and Naugle 2011). Individual mosquitoes may disperse as much as 11.2 miles (Miller 2009, pers. comm.; Walker and Naugle 2011) and this species is capable of overwinter survival. Infected adult mosquitoes can emerge the following spring, thereby increasing the probability of early-season occurrence and potentially reducing survival of chicks either directly or indirectly by affecting survival of hens with dependant broods (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 130 and references therein). Overwintering may also increase the occurrence of West Nile Virus in higher elevation sage-grouse populations, where ambient temperatures would otherwise be insufficient to sustain the entire virus cycle. In non-sagebrush ecosystems, high temperatures associated with drought conditions increase West Nile Virus transmission by allowing more rapid larval mosquito development and shortening virus incubation periods (Shaman et al. 2005, p.134; Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 131). Sage-grouse congregate in mesic habitats in mid- to late-summer (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971), thereby increasing exposure to mosquitoes. If West Nile Virus outbreaks coincide with drought conditions that aggregate birds near water sources, the risk of exposure will be elevated (Walker and Naugle 2011) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

West Nile Virus appears to be the only identified disease that warrants concern for sage-grouse in the Bi-State area. Small populations, such as the subpopulations within the Bi- State area, may be at high risk of extirpation simply due to their low population numbers and the additive mortality West Nile Virus causes (Christiansen and Tate, 2011). The documented loss of four sage-grouse to West Nile Virus in the Bodie (n=3) and Desert Creek-Fales (n=1) PMUs (Casazza et al. 2009) has heightened concerns about the potential impact of this disease in the Bi-State area. These mortalities represented only 4 percent of the total sage-grouse mortalities observed in the Bi-State area, but additional mortality attributed to predation could have been due in part to disease-weakened individuals. Mortality caused by disease acts in a density independent or additive manner. The fact that it can act independently of habitat and suppress a

66


population below carrying capacity makes it a concern. Existing and developing models suggest that the occurrence of West Nile Virus is likely to increase throughout the range of the species and based on projected increases in temperature caused by changes in climate, occurrence in the Bi-State may also increase (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Predation

Major predators of adult sage-grouse include many species of diurnal raptors (especially the golden eagle), coyotes (Canis latrans), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and bobcats (Lynx rufus) (Hartzler 1974, Schroeder et al. 1999, Schroeder and Baydack 2001, Rowland and Wisdom 2002, Hagen 2011). Juvenile sage-grouse also are killed by many raptors as well as common ravens (Corvus corax), badgers, red foxes, coyotes and weasels (Mustela spp.) (Braun 1995, Schroeder et al. 1999). Nest predators include badgers, weasels, coyotes, common ravens, American crows, and magpies (Pica spp.); sage-grouse eggs have also been consumed by elk (Cervus canadensis) (Holloran and Anderson 2003) and domestic cows (Bovus spp.) (Coates et al. 2008). Several other small mammals and snakes (e.g., Great Basin gopher snakes (Pituophis catenifer deserticola)) have visited sage-grouse nests in Nevada, but none resulted in predation events (Coates et al. 2008).

Raven abundance has increased as much as 1,500 percent in some areas of western North America since the 1960’s (Coates and Delhanty 2010). Human- made structures in the environment increase the effect of raven predation, particularly in low canopy cover areas, by providing ravens with perches (Braun 1998, Coates 2007, Bui 2009). Reduction in patch size and diversity of sagebrush habitat, as well as the construction of fences, power lines, landfills, and other infrastructure also are likely to encourage the presence of the common raven (Coates et al. 2008, Bui 2009). Holloran (2005) attributed increased sage-grouse nest depredation to high corvid abundances, which resulted from anthropogenic food and perching subsidies in areas of natural gas development in Wyoming. Bui (2009) also found that ravens used road networks for foraging activities. Raven abundance was strongly associated with sage-grouse nest failure in northeastern Nevada, with resultant negative effects on sage-grouse reproduction (Coates and Delehanty 2010). The authors’ report that an increase of 1 raven per 6 mile survey transect was associated with a 7.4 percent increase in nest failure. Coates (2007) suggested that ravens may reduce the time spent off the nest by female sage-grouse, thereby potentially compromising their ability to secure sufficient nutrition to complete the incubation period (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Predator removal efforts have sometimes shown short-term gains that may benefit seasonal survival rates, but there is little support of these efforts influencing population growth (Cote and Sutherland 1997, Hagen 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011). Predator removal may have greater benefits in areas with low habitat quality, but predator numbers quickly rebound without continual control (Hagen 2011). Johnson and Hansen (1979) showed that sage-grouse and bird egg shells made up a very small percentage (0.4-2.4 percent) of analyzed scat samples. In addition, coyote removal can have unintended consequences resulting in the release of mesopredators, many of which, like the red fox, may have greater negative impacts on sage-grouse (Mezquida et al. 2006). Removal of ravens from an area in northeastern Nevada caused only short-term reductions in raven populations (less than 1 year) as apparently transient birds from neighboring sites repopulated the removal area (Coates 2007). Badger predation also appeared to partially compensate for decreases in ravens (Coates 2007, p. 152). Connelly et al. (2004) noted that only two of nine studies examining survival and nest success indicated that predation had limited a sage-grouse population by decreasing nest success, and both studies indicated low nest success due to predation was ultimately related to poor nesting habitat. Bui (2009) suggested removal of anthropogenic subsidies (e.g., landfills, tall structures) may be an important step to reducing the presence of sage-grouse predators (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

67


Climate

Climate change projections in the Great Basin suggest a hotter and stable- to-declining level of precipitation and a shift in precipitation events to the summer months; fire frequency is expected to accelerate, fires may become larger and more severe, and fire seasons will be longer (Brown et al. 2004, Neilson et al. 2005, Chambers and Pellant 2008, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 2009). With these projections, drought (which is a natural part of the sagebrush ecosystem) is likely to be exacerbated. Drought reduces vegetation cover (Milton et al. 1994, Connelly et al. 2004), potentially resulting in increased soil erosion and subsequent reduced soil depths, decreased water infiltration, and reduced water storage capacity. Drought can also exacerbate other natural events such as defoliation of sagebrush by insects (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

These habitat component losses can result in declining sage-grouse populations due to increased nest predation and early brood mortality (Factor E) associated with decreased nest cover and food availability (Braun 1998, Moynahan et al. 2007).

Climate change will potentially act synergistically with other impacts to the Bi-State DPS, further diminishing habitat and increasing isolation of populations, making them more susceptible to demographic and genetic challenges or disease. Predicting the impact of global climate change on sage-grouse populations is challenging due to the relatively small spatial extent of the Bi- State area. It is likely that vegetation communities will not remain static and the amount of sagebrush shrub habitat will decrease. Further, increased variation in drought cycles due to climate change will likely place additional stress on the populations. While sage-grouse evolved with drought, drought has been correlated with population declines and has shown to be a limiting factor to population growth in areas where habitats have been compromised.

In the Bi-State area, drought is a natural part of the sagebrush ecosystem, and USFWS is unaware of any information to suggest that drought has influenced population dynamics of sage-grouse under historical conditions. There are known occasions, however, where reduced brood-rearing habitat conditions due to drought have resulted in little to no recruitment within certain PMUs (Bodie and Pine Nut PMUs (Gardner 2009)). Given the relatively small and restricted extent of this population, if these conditions were to persist longer than the typical adult life span, drought could have significant ramifications on population persistence. Further, drought impacts on the sage- grouse may be exacerbated when combined with other habitat impacts that reduce cover and food (Braun 1998).

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the threat of climate change is not known to currently impact the Bi-State DPS to such a degree that the viability of the DPS is at stake. However, while it is reasonable to assume the Bi-State area will experience vegetation changes into the future (as presented above), USFWS does not know with precision the nature of these changes or ultimately the effect this will have on the Bi-State DPS. A recent analysis conducted by NatureServe, which incorporates much of the information presented above, suggests a substantial contraction of both sagebrush and sage-grouse range in the Bi-State area by 2060 (Comer et al. 2012). Specifically (for example), this analysis suggests the current extent of suitable shrub habitat will decrease because a less suitable climate condition for sagebrush may improve suitability for woodland and drier vegetation communities, which are not favorable to the Bi-State DPS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

In addition, it is reasonable to assume that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, temperature, precipitation, and timing of snowmelt will act synergistically with other threats (such as wildfire and invasive, nonnative species) to produce yet unknown but likely negative effects to sage-grouse populations in the Bi-State area. As a result of these predictions, it is reasonable to assume that the impacts of climate change (acting both alone and in concert with impacts such as disease and nonnative, invasive species) could be pervasive throughout the range of the Bi-State DPS, potentially degrading habitat to such a degree that all populations would be negatively affected. Therefore, given the scope and potential severity of climate change when interacting with other threats in the future, the overall impact of

68


climate change to the Bi-State DPS at this time is considered moderate (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

Recreation

Non-consumptive recreational activities occur throughout the range of the sage-grouse, including throughout the Bi-State DPS area. These activities can degrade wildlife resources, water, and land by distributing refuse, disturbing and displacing wildlife, increasing animal mortality, and simplifying plant communities (Boyle and Samson 1985). Sage-grouse response to disturbance may be influenced by the type of activity, recreationist behavior, predictability of activity, frequency and magnitude, activity timing, and activity location (Knight and Cole 1995). A variety of recreational activities are pursued across the Bi-State area, including traditional activities such as fishing, hiking, horseback riding, and camping as well as more recently popularized activities, such as OHV use and mountain biking.

Disruption of sage-grouse during vulnerable periods at leks, or during nesting or early brood rearing, could affect reproduction and survival (Baydack and Hein 1987). Baydack and Hein (1987) reported displacement of male sharp-tailed grouse at leks from human presence resulting in loss of reproductive opportunity during the disturbance period; female sharp-tailed grouse were only observed at undisturbed leks. Disturbance of incubating female sage-grouse could cause displacement from nests, increased predator risk, and loss of nests (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Indirect effects to sage-grouse from recreational activities include impacts to vegetation and soils, and facilitating the spread of invasive species. Payne et al. (1983) studied OHV impacts to rangelands and discovered long-term (2-year) reductions in sagebrush shrub canopy cover as the result of repeated trips. Increased sediment production and decreased soil infiltration rates were observed after disturbance by motorcycles and four-wheel drive trucks on two desert soils in southern Nevada (Eckert et al. 1979), and noise from these activities can also cause additional disturbance (Knick et al. 2011). Unpaved roads fragment sagebrush landscapes as well as subsidize predators adapted to humans and provide disturbed surfaces that facilitate the spread of invasive plant species (Knick et al. 2011).

Any high-frequency human activity along established corridors can affect wildlife through habitat loss and fragmentation (Knick et al. 2011). The effects of OHV use on sagebrush and sage-grouse have not been directly studied (Knick et al. 2011). The Bi-State Plan (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004) specifically discusses the risk associated with off-road vehicles in the Pine Nut and the Mount Grant PMUs and more generally discusses off-road vehicles in the context of all types of recreational activities (motorized and non-motorized) for the Bodie and South Mono PMUs (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004).

Off-road vehicle use has indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitat; it is known to reduce or eliminate sagebrush canopy cover through repeated trips in an area, degrade meadow habitat, increase sediment production, and decrease soil infiltration rates through compaction (USFWS 2005). In the Bi-State area there are areas of concern for off-road vehicle use, especially in brood rearing and wintering habitats. In winter, off-road vehicle or snowmobile use in occupied areas may increase stress on birds and displace sage-grouse to less optimal habitats (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004). No scientific information was found documenting instances where snow compaction as a result of snowmobile traffic precluded sage- grouse use or affected their survival in wintering areas. However, during heavy snow years, essentially the entire population of birds in the South Mono PMU (Long Valley) may congregate in a very small area (Gardner 2008, pers. comm.).

There are very likely impacts caused by recreation but currently there are little quantifiable data available to assess the degree of this impact. Anecdotally, recreational activity in the Long Valley portion of the South Mono PMU is consistently increasing. Typically, recreational activity in this location is more pedestrian in nature (fishing, biking, hot springs, camping), although these forms of activity have still

69


been demonstrated to have negative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Recreational activities throughout the remainder of the PMUs in the Bi-State are generally more vehicular (OHV, cars, trucks) in nature and there are known areas of habitat degradation caused by these activities. These sites are relatively limited in extent but may be influential, especially in locations where seasonal habitats are restricted. However, USFWS is unaware of any information to suggest this is impacting specific breeding populations. Furthermore, the level of activity associated with a specific road or occurring in a specific PMU is not known. Although, anecdotal information suggests that the level of activity (i.e., OHV numbers) is generally increasing. All the PMUs are relatively close to urban centers, thus USFWS anticipates recreational activity will continue and likely increase, however there are a number of sites within the Bi-State area that may become designated wilderness. If this occurs, vehicular traffic will presumably diminish in these locations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Sage-grouse are subject to a variety of non-consumptive recreational uses such as bird watching or tour groups visiting leks, general wildlife viewing, and photography. Daily human disturbances on sage-grouse leks could cause a reduction in mating and some reduction in total production (Call and Maser 1985). Across the range of sage-grouse, a relatively small number of leks in each State receive regular viewing use by humans during the strutting season and most States report no known impacts from this use (Apa 2008, pers. comm.; Christiansen 2008, pers. comm.; Gardner 2008, pers. comm.; Northrup 2008, pers. comm.). Only Colorado has collected data regarding the effects of non-consumptive use, and analyses suggest that controlled lek visitation has not impacted sage-grouse (Apa 2008). However, Oregon reported anecdotal evidence of negative impacts of unregulated viewing to individual leks near urban areas that are subject to frequent disturbance from visitors (Hagen 2008, pers. comm.).

Similarly, within the Bi-State area, anecdotal data suggests a relatively small number of leks receive regular viewing during the strutting season (CDFW 2012, unpublished data; NDOW2012, in litt.). State wildlife agencies and Federal land managers provide interested persons directions to the largest and most easily accessible leks and guidelines to minimize viewing disturbance on a case-by-case basis but do not attempt to track actual visitation. Requests for lek locations vary annually but to date appear not to have been excessive (CDFW 2012, unpublished data, NDOW 2012, in litt.). Although visitation is generally not well understood, leks contained within the South Mono, Bodie, and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs are most readily accessible and thought to receive the most attention. The leks in the other three PMUs are more remote and generally difficult to access; it is unlikely these leks receive frequent visitation. Across the Bi- State DPS, USFWS estimate that approximately 15 to 20 percent of lek sites are visited with any regularity (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Disturbance may be occurring, however, USFWS is unaware of any information that this type of recreational activity is having a negative impact on local populations or contributing to population trends of sage-grouse in the Bi-State area (Gardner 2008, pers. comm.; Espinosa 2008, pers. comm.). A single exception may apply, as anecdotal information from one frequently visited lek site within the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, suggests strutting activity may be shifting location and this site represents the largest of four active leks in the Nevada portion of this PMU (Espinosa 2012, pers. comm.). Still, aside from this potential behavioral disruption, the lek remains active and the local population appears generally stable (NDOW 2012, in litt.). Furthermore, in an attempt to limit disturbance to this lek, the Federal managing land agency restricted road access and limited travel to pedestrian traffic in 2012 (USFS 2012a, in litt.). Foot traffic may be more disturbing to strutting birds, as people walking appear more disruptive to birds than vehicles. Despite the potential disruption to birds from foot traffic, it is anticipated that restricting road access will limit the overall number of visitors to this lek (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Bi-State sage-grouse conservation has been addressed in some local, State, and Federal plans, laws, regulations, and policies. An examination of regulatory mechanisms for both the Bi- State DPS and

70


sagebrush habitats reveals that some mechanisms exist that either provide or have the potential to provide a conservation benefit to the Bi- State DPS, such as (but not limited to): Various County or City regulations outlined in General Plans; Nevada State Executive Order, dated September 26, 2008; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which requires development of resource management plans for BLM lands; National Forest Management Act, which requires land and resource management plans for U.S. Forest Service lands; and the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997, which requires integrated natural resources management plans for military installations. However, supporting documents for some of these are many years old and have not been updated, calling into question their consistency with USFWS current understanding of the DPS’s life- history requirements, reaction to disturbances, and the DPS’s conservation needs. In addition, the conservation actions that have been implemented to date according to the existing regulatory mechanisms vary across the Bi-State area, although managing agencies are beginning to work more collaboratively across jurisdictional boundaries. The degree to which these existing regulatory mechanisms conserve the DPS is largely dependent on current and future implementation, which can vary depending on factors such as the availability of staff and funding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

The Bi-State area is largely comprised of federally managed lands. Existing land use plans, as they pertain to sage- grouse, are typically general in nature and afford relatively broad latitude to land managers. This latitude influences whether measures available to affect conservation of greater sage-grouse are incorporated during decision making, and implementation is prone to change based on managerial discretion. While USFWS recognizes the benefits of management flexibility, and also recognizes that such flexibility with regard to implementation of land use plans can result in land use decisions that negatively affect the Bi-State DPS. Therefore, USFWS considers most existing Federal mechanisms offer limited certainty as to managerial direction pertaining to sage-grouse conservation, particularly as the Federal mechanisms relate to addressing the threats that are significantly impacting the Bi-State DPS (i.e., nonnative and native, invasive plants; wildfire and altered wildfire regime; infrastructure; and rangeland management), and other impacts (such as, but not limited to, renewable energy development). Regulations in some counties identify the need for natural resource conservation and attempt to minimize impacts of development through zoning restrictions, but to USFWS knowledge these regulations neither preclude development nor do they provide for monitoring of the loss of sage-grouse habitats. Similarly, State laws and regulations are general in nature and provide flexibility in implementation, and do not provide specific direction to State wildlife agencies, although they can occasionally afford regulatory authority over habitat preservation (e.g., creation of habitat easements and land acquisitions) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).

Synergistic Impacts

Many of the impacts described above may cumulatively or synergistically affect the Bi-State DPS beyond the scope of each individual stressor. For example, the future loss of additional significant sagebrush habitat due to wildfire in the Bi-State DPS is anticipated because of the intensifying synergistic interactions among fire, people and infrastructure, invasive species, and climate change. Predation may also increase as a result of the increase in human disturbance and development. These are just two scenarios of the numerous threats that are likely acting cumulatively to further contribute to the challenges faced by many Bi-State DPS populations now and into the future.

In summary, USFWS has determined that the threats causing the most significant impacts on the Bi-State DPS currently and in the future are urbanization and habitat conversion; infrastructure; mining; renewable energy development and associated infrastructure; grazing; nonnative and native, invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass, pinyon-juniper encroachment); wildfires and altered fire regime; and small population size and population structure. Other threats impacting the DPS across its range currently and in the future, but to a lesser degree than those listed above, include climate change, including drought; recreation; and

71


disease and predation. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the Bi-State DPS against these threats. Numerous threats are likely acting cumulatively to further contribute to the challenges faced by several Bi-State DPS populations now and into the future.

Environmental Consequences Risk factors and threats identified by both the Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee Bi-State TAC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) serve as a basis for analyzing potential effects of alternatives on Bi-State sage-grouse. Risk factors rated ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ by the Bi-State TAC well as those threats identified by USFWS as significantly or adversely affecting Bi-State sage-grouse range-wide or locally, are addressed below. Risk factors and threats for which management direction on applicable federal lands would have no influence or associated effect (i.e. overutilization, scientific and educational uses) are not addressed. Synergistic impacts (described by USFWS above) are addressed as a result of the summary comparison of alternatives in meeting the conservation needs of Bi-State sage-grouse.

Alternative comparison tables are provided in addressing alternative effects on risk factors and threats. Analysis of the action alternatives are often combined in the same sections below to better compare and contrast effects.

Non-Native and Native Invasive Plant Expansion

Alternative A (No-Action) Under current management (no-action alternative), the Forest Service and BLM utilize integrated weed management techniques to reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the extent of current infestations. This issue is intimately tied to the threat from fire, and fuels management actions which can also reduce weeds and create fire breaks. Under alternative A, both the Forest and BLM would continue to implement noxious weed and invasive species control using integrated weed management actions per funding and plans in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, affected counties, and adjoining private lands. Though there are no specific objectives in Forest Plans to focus these efforts on cheatgrass or sagebrush communities, these activities improve BSSG habitat along with other vegetation types, but do not specifically prioritize management in sage-grouse habitats.

The no-action alternative does not take any specific actions to prevent pinyon-juniper encroachment, but does contain goals and objectives for maintaining improving, or restoring sagebrush plant communities often for big game winter range and/or livestock grazing. Under alternative A, the Carson City District RMP prescribes removal of 600 acres of pinyon-juniper overstory on selected sites in the analysis area via fuelwood harvest. No prescriptions or direction was found in any LRMP or RMP related to reducing pinyon-juniper encroachment to benefit sagebrush restoration. As signatories to the Bi-State Action Plan (Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee 2012) the HTNF and BLM in Nevada have accomplished pinyon-juniper reduction projects as well as committed to future reductions in pinyon-juniper encroachment to benefit sage-grouse habitats under the no-action alternative.

Alternatives B and C Under the action alternatives, the HTNF and BLM would continue to implement noxious weed and invasive species control using integrated weed management actions per existing plans to control, suppress, and eradicate noxious and invasive species, similar to direction provided under alternative A. In addition, the action alternatives apply standards and guidelines designed to reduce occurrence and spread of invasives resulting from fuel treatments and wildfire suppression (Table 16). While alternative A provides for a “rest” from grazing of areas disturbed by wildfire for two years, both action alternatives provide additional direction that would extend the rest period if desired vegetation conditions are not yet met. Both action alternatives address reduction of pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush habitats

72


by prescribing removal of pinyon-juniper phases 1 and 2 (i.e. pinyon-juniper stand with less than 50% canopy closure) near meadows and in proximity to leks.

Compared to alternative C, alternative B would incur a slight increase in risk in occurrence and expansion of non-native invasives by allowing prescribed fire treatments to occur in areas where cheatgrass is a minor component. While this would be allowed only outside sagebrush areas with less than 12 inches of annual precipitation or 12 inches of soil, there are likely to be areas where local conditions (i.e., aspect, soil type) are susceptible to cheatgrass spread after disturbance. Outside of sagebrush areas with less than 12 inches of annual precipitation or 12 inches of soil, alternative C incorporates direction to utilize mechanical treatments in areas with relatively low resistance to annual invasive grasses, thereby decreasing overall risk.

Table 16. Non-Native and Native Invasive Plant Expansion, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified Proposed

Action) Alternative C Risk Factor

Current BLM- and Forest Service-integrated pest management plans allow for the use of biological pest controls that could include the use of domestic livestock.


Same as alternative B. Non-native invasives


Non-native Invasives

Allow no livestock grazing for two grazing seasons after prescribed or natural fires and plantings or seedings.

*B-Weed-S-01: After soil disturbances or seeding, the land shall not be returned to soil-disturbing authorized uses for a minimum of two annual growing cycles or until desired habitat conditions or project objectives have been met, whichever is longer.

Same as C-RPS-01. Non-native Invasives

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Weed-S02: Treatment methodologies are based on the treatment area’s resistance to annual invasive grasses and the resilience of native vegetation to respond after disturbance: (1) use mechanical treatments (i.e., do not use fire) in areas with relatively low resistance to annuals, and (2) treat areas in early- to mid-phase pinyon-juniper expansion.


73


No timing restrictions or chemical restrictions are currently in place within bi-state DPS habitats.

*B-Weed-S-02: Use pesticides/herbicides only outside of the critical disturbance periods and only if other integrated pest management approaches are inadequate or infeasible. Only use chemicals with the lowest toxicity to birds that still provide control in coordination with USDA or APHIS, depending of the targeted pest.

Same as alternative B. Non-native Invasives

No existing direction. *B-Weed-S-03: Agency personnel, contractors, and permit holders working in areas with known weed infestations shall clean vehicles of dirt, mud, and visible plant debris before entering a different area to reduce the spread of noxious weeds.


No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Weed-S03: Annual invasive grasses shall be controlled or suppressed using an integrated strategy.


No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Weed-G-01: Require aggressive treatment of new weed or annual grass infestation for any surface-disturbing or other activity that is likely to cause or promote the introduction or infestation and to control the potential spread of noxious and invasive annual grass species.


Current BLM- and Forest Service-integrated pest management plans allow for the use of biological pest controls that could include the use of domestic livestock.





No existing direction. Same as C-Wild-G-03. *C-Wild-G-03: Remove phase 1 and 2 pinyon-juniper located in habitat during habitat restoration projects, with the intent to maintain sage brush habitat prior to establishment of forest species.

Native invasives (Pinyon Juniper Encroachment)

74


Wildfires and Altered Fire Regimes

Alternative A (No-Action) Both prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatments are allowed in current LRMP and RMPs, and fire suppression is prioritized to protect human life and specific resource values at risk. Some emphasis is placed on protection of sage grouse habitats. For example, under the Tohopah RMP, direction states that wildfires that threaten resources such as sage grouse strutting grounds will be kept to minimum acres. These policies do not avoid the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush habitat nor prioritize protection of sagebrush; thus, loss of habitat to wildfire and prescribed fire would continue. The no-action alternative would have the fewest restrictions for fuels management actions and has a high potential for vegetation disturbance leading to habitat loss and fragmentation. As this alternative does not prioritize fire operations beyond what has already been determined in the Fire Management Plans for the area, potential impacts may include: removing or degrading habitat, disrupting reproduction, causing changes in species movement patterns due to areas devoid of vegetation, and ultimately impacting local populations.

Alternatives B and C Under the action alternatives, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented to emphasize protection of existing sagebrush ecosystems. Fuels management programs would consider sage-grouse habitat needs by reducing the acres of sagebrush potentially burned in wildfires, or potentially lost or degraded during fuels treatment programs. Therefore, these policies would provide additional protection to BSSG habitat in comparison to alternative A.

While both action alternatives reduce risk of habitat loss to wildfire and prescribed fire, two differences are notable. Whereas alternative B prescribes that fuels treatments should emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems, alternative C provides better focus of treatment priorities by prescribing application of preventative measures (i.e., fuel breaks and green strips) to protect more suitable habitat areas that contain greater than 25 percent landscape sagebrush cover. The remaining elements provided under both action alternatives are similar in addressing threats associated with wildfires and altered fire regimes.

Table 17. Wildfires and Altered Fire Regimes, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified

Proposed Action) Alternative C Risk Factor

Use planned and unplanned ignitions to restore natural ecosystems in wilderness and other areas where appropriate.

*B-Fire-G-01: Do not use fire as a management tool in areas where the risk of escaped fire could cause negative long-term impacts during wildfire situations.

*C-Fire-S-01: Fires in moderate to low resilience and resistance sagebrush and wooded shrublands shall be suppressed to prevent an invasive annual grass-fire cycle.

Wildfire

All wildfires will receive an appropriate suppression response.

*B-Fire-G-02: In bi-state DPS habitat areas, prioritize suppression, immediately after life and property, to conserve the habitat during wildfire situations.

Same as alternative B. Wildfire

Appropriate responses are confinement, containment, or control.

*B-Fire-G-03: Suppress wildfire threatening unburned habitat contained within a broader burn perimeter.

*C-Fire-G-01: Vegetation treatments should include fuel breaks to provide anchor points for wildland fire suppression to protect areas meeting or moving toward desired conditions to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward

Wildfire

75


or meeting desired condition.

All wildfires will receive an appropriate suppression response. Appropriate responses are confinement, containment, or control.

*B-Fire-G-04: Prioritize suppression in the wildland-urban interface to protect life and property over habitat to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward or meeting desired condition.

Same as alternative B. Wildfire

Natural fuel treatment projects will meet multi-resource objectives.

B-Fire-G-05: Fuels treatments should emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward or meeting desired condition.

*C-Fire-G-02: Use fuel breaks and green strips to protect areas with >25% landscape sagebrush cover to provide protection for habitat that is moving toward or meeting desired condition.

Fuels Treatment

No existing direction. B-Fire-S-01: Fuels treatment projects shall not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% of the treatment unit unless needed to meet fire management/protection objectives.

*C-Fire-S-02: Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% (Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007) unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of bi-state DPS habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species.

Fuels Treatment

No existing direction. *B-Fire-G-06: Do not use fire, including brush control, as a management tool in areas where there is threat of cheatgrass invasion, sagebrush areas with less than 12 inches of annual precipitation or 12 inches of soil, or areas where the sagebrush cover would be reduced to less than 15%. The intent is to limit the potential spread of cheatgrass into areas with low resistance and low resilience.

Same as alternative B. Fuels Treatment

No existing direction. *B-Fire-G-07: Focus fuels management projects in habitat to reduce wildfire threats. The intent is to use fire only where it can do the most good and least harm to meet the purpose of the amendment and be consistent with B-Wild-S-01.


No existing direction. B-Fire-S-02: Enhance and restore habitat while reducing the potential for severe wildfires in habitat The intent is to use fire only where it can do the most good and least harm to meet the purpose of the amendment and be consistent with B-Wild-S-01.


76


Infrastructure

Alternative A (No-Action) Under the no-action alternative, little management direction consisting of standards and guidelines exist pertaining to restriction or removal of infrastructure that poses risk to sage-grouse. However, several mechanisms do exist that allow managers some flexibility in addressing risk factors and threats. For example, the authorized officer has the ability to change stipulations of existing permits. Permits involving power lines are issued on a case by case basis after environmental analysis during which burial of power lines may be required on a site specific basis (Table 18). Concerning rights-of-way, most permits have language that authorizes the use, maintenance, and removal of improvements. Where the right-of-way itself is a historic feature, or the reclamation work may have additional unwanted adverse effects that outweigh the benefits, reclamation is not required.

Alternative B and C Under the action alternatives, a number of measures are incorporated to limit and/or remove infrastructure development to benefit sage grouse. These primarily address roads, structures, powerlines, and fences (Table 18). In addition, both alternatives prescribe removal of fences and other livestock-related infrastructure negatively impacting sage-grouse. Both action alternatives reduce risk associated with right-of-way infrastructure by prescribe that, when informed that a right-of-way is no longer in use, the right-of-way would be relinquished and the site reclaimed by removing powerlines, reclaiming roads, and removing other infrastructure, where such reclamation work does not have unwanted adverse effects. Both alternatives would require concentrating fluid mineral disturbance/facilities to reduce spatial impact to habitat, locating fluid mineral camps for workers outside of habitat, and burying powerlines where feasible to reduce overhead predator perches.

Although the above similarities exist, there are a number of elements provided under alternative C that more effectively minimize or remove risk factors and threats associated with infrastructure when compared to alternative B. For example, alternative C provides no allowances for utility-scale commercial wind or solar energy facilities energy facilities in BSSG habitats while alternative B provides allowance for industrial wind and solar facilities associated with existing industrial infrastructure (e.g. a mine site) to provide on-site power generation. In addition, alternative C would allow consent to fluid mineral leasing within habitat only under no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations whereas alternative B would require no surface occupancy stipulations in habitat for solid leasable minerals only. Also, alternative C would prohibit authorizing new mineral material compressor stations associated with fluid mineral uses inside habitats whereas new compressor stations with noise reduction design elements are allowed under alternative B. Alternative C would not authorize new high power transmission line corridors, transmission line right of ways, transmission line construction, or transmission line facility construction in habitat. Alternative B would not authorize construction of new high power transmission towers within habitat unless technically infeasible elsewhere.

Several management elements associated with risk and threats are addressed by Alternatives B by allowing uses and activities to occur with management restrictions, such as limiting total disturbance, prescribing no net unmitigated habitat loss, distance buffers, and structural modifications, in place designed to reduce, minimize, or remove negative impacts. Alternative B prohibits new recreation facilities in habitat unless they will have a neutral or beneficial effect to habitat up to 3% total anthropogenic disturbance limit. Livestock watering and handling facilities (corrals, chutes, dipping vats, etc.) or sheep bedding ground would not be located within 2 miles of an active lek and 0.6 miles from riparian areas. Alternative B would not authorize new fences in habitat unless necessary for safety or environmental protection reasons (applies to fluid minerals only). If fences are necessary, a sage-grouse safe design (e.g. marking) would be required. To the extent possible, fences would not be installed in

77


habitat unless to protect habitat or for human health and safety. If fences must be installed, they shall be at least 2 miles from active leks, and if possible, let-down when not needed for the purpose of their installation. New communication sites in habitat could be authorized as long as development incorporates appropriate Required Design Features (RDF) in design and construction (e.g. noise, tall structure, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net un-mitigated loss of habitat. Also, alternative B would not authorize construction of new high power transmission towers within habitat unless technically infeasible elsewhere.

In comparison, alternative C utilizes prohibitions and to some extent management restrictions to address similar elements. For example, new recreation facilities in sage-grouse habitats would be prohibited and livestock grazing and associated infrastructure would be removed (see Livestock Grazing and Range Management below), therefore, no infrastructure related to livestock would be constructed; to the extent possible, fences would not be installed in habitat unless to protect habitat or for human health and safety. If fences must be installed, they shall be at least 2 miles from active leks, and if possible, let-down when not needed for the purpose of their installation; and there would be no authorization for new high power transmission line corridors, transmission line right of ways, transmission line construction, or transmission line facility construction in habitat.

Overall, both alternatives B and C provide management direction that addresses risk factors and threats associated with infrastructure at a level that increases conservation of sage-grouse habitat in comparison to alternative A. The action alternatives are most effective in reducing risk where new infrastructure is prohibited and existing infrastructure is prescribed for removal. Alternative B retains a higher level of risk associated for several elements where infrastructure is allowed with no prescribed management restrictions, but substantially reduces risks and threats to sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitats when management restrictions such as distance buffers, structural modifications, no net loss of habitat and seasonal restrictions are applied. Alternative C provides the highest level of risk reduction associated with infrastructure.

Table 18. Infrastructure, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified



*B-RI-S-01: Remove fences and other infrastructure associated with livestock grazing negatively impacting bi-state DPS and its habitats.

Same as alternative B. Range facilities/ Fences


Same as C-RP-S-01. Range Facilities


*B-RI-S-03: No new structures taller than the dominant surrounding vegetation that could serve as predator perches shall be installed within 2 miles of a lek.

Same as C-RP-S-01. Fences

78


No existing direction. *B-RI-G-01: To the extent possible, do not install fences unless to protect habitat or for human health and safety. If fences must be installed, they should be at least 1.2 miles from active and pending leks, and if possible, should be let-down fences when not needed for the purpose of their installation with the intent to reduce perch opportunities for avian predators and to reduce risk of collision.

Same as alternative B. Fences

No existing direction. *B-RI-S-04: To reduce bi-state DPS mortality, remove, modify, or mark fences in sage grouse habitat based on nearest proximity to lek, lek size, and topography where fence densities exceed 1.6 miles of fence per section (640 acres).

Same as alternative B. Fences



Same as C-RP-S-01. Range facilities


*B-LUSU-S-10: No structures greater than 8-feet tall that could serve as predator perches shall be installed within bi-state DPS habitat unless they are equipped with anti-perching devices.


Tall structures

No existing direction. *B-Min-G-01: Concentrate disturbance/facilities to reduce spatial impact to habitat. The intent of the guideline is to minimize disturbance footprint wherever possible.

Same as B-Min-G-01. All Facilities



All facilities


Same as B-Min-S-06. Camp Facilities

79



*B-Min-G-07: Incorporate mitigation to offset all proposed surface disturbance that would result in loss of habitat. Mitigate first within the same population area where the disturbance is realized, and if not possible, within an adjacent habitat. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

Same as C-MIN-S-04. All Facilities


Same as B-Min-G-08. Mineral Facilities


*C-Min-S-5: All commercial pipelines shall be buried where possible.

Pipelines



Minerals Facilities

No existing direction. B-Min-S-11: Do not authorize construction of new high-power (120 kV) transmission towers unless there are no other corridor options.

*C-Min-S-09: Do not authorize new high-power (120 kV) transmission line corridors, transmission line ROWs, transmission line construction, or transmission line facility construction in habitat outside existing corridors.

Minerals Facilities



Transmission Lines

No existing direction. B-Min-S-13: Do not authorize new fences unless necessary for safety or environmental protection reasons. If fences are necessary, require a safe

Same as B-Min-S-13. Fences

80


design for bi-state DPS (e.g., marking).

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-14: Require removal of transmission lines and roads that are no longer needed.

Same as B-Min-S-14. Roads/ Transmission Lines

*B-Min-G-14: If new mine facilities must be placed in habitat, then co-locate facilities in existing disturbed areas and authorize them to the minimum size necessary to reduce the disturbance footprint in habitat.

Same as B-Min-G-14. *B-Min-G-14: If new mine facilities must be placed in habitat, then co-locate facilities in existing disturbed areas and authorize them to the minimum size necessary to reduce the disturbance footprint in habitat.

Mineral Facilities

Access is managed through travel management plans and interim direction for minimizing impacts to bi-state DPS.

*B-AR-G-01: Use existing roads and co-locate powerlines, pipelines, and other linear features whenever possible to reduce disturbance and habitat fragmentation and to minimize disturbance footprint of rights-of-way (ROWs) in bi-state habitat.

C-AR-G-01: Use existing developed routes to provide access and minimize the disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

Roads/ Transmission Lines/ Pipelines

No existing direction. B-AR-G-02: Authorize new roads only when necessary for public safety, administrative, or public need to accommodate valid existing rights and to minimize disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

C-AR-S-01: Authorize new roads only when necessary for public safety, administrative, or public need to accommodate valid existing rights up to 3% total anthropogenic disturbance limit.

Roads



Recreation Facilities

New rights-of-way are permitted after environmental analysis. Co-location could be required depending on site-specific issues and potential impacts.

*B-LUSU-G-01: Co‐locate new ROWs within and/or adjacent to existing ROWs and to minimize disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

Same as alternative B. Communication Site

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-LUSU-S-01: Do not grant new ROWs. If valid existing rights apply, co-locate new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it minimizes impacts to bi-state DPS habitat.

Roads/ Transmission Lines/ Pipelines

No existing direction. *B-LUSU-G-02 Industrial wind facilities associated (on site) with existing industrial

*C-LUSU-S-02: Do not authorize utility-scale commercial wind energy

Wind Energy Facilities

81


infrastructure (e.g., a mine site) may be authorized to provide onsite power generation and to minimize disturbance footprint of ROWs in bi-state habitat.

facilities.




Solar Energy Facilities

No existing direction. B-LUSU-S-01: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 2 miles of a lek.

*C-LUSU-S-04: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 4 miles of an active or pending lek.

Tall Structures


Same as alternative B. Tall Structures

Livestock Grazing and Range Management

Alternative A (No-Action) Under alternative A, Forest Service would continue to make sage-grouse habitat available for livestock grazing and wild horse management. Active AUMs for permitted livestock grazing remain at existing levels, though the number of AUMs on a permit may be adjusted during permit renewals, Allotment Management Plan (AMP) development, or other appropriate administrative activity. Wild horse and burro AUMs would also remain at current levels. These policies may contribute to sage-grouse habitat degradation if current grazing practices are not meeting Forest Plan proper use parameters or if horse and burro numbers exceed carrying capacity. Under this alternative, there would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the Forest. In addition, there would be no change to wild horse or burro management. Other potential effects to sage grouse habitat could include: reduction in cover, structure, and loss of diversity due to consumption, and degradation of meadow/wetland/spring/stream habitat crucial for reproduction.

Alternatives B and C Both action alternatives contain management direction that address risk factors associated with livestock grazing and wild horses. Both action alternatives address risk factors associated with wild horses by prescribing that appropriate management level in herd management areas with habitat shall be based on the structure, condition, and composition of vegetation needed to achieve Bi-State sage grouse habitat objectives.

Alternative B reduces or minimizes livestock grazing risk by applying management direction such as utilization standards, distance buffers, and timing restrictions to grazing and grazing-related factors (Table 19). Utilization standards in sage-grouse habitats presented in Table 20 are derived from Holechek 1988,

82


Holechek et al. 1998, Burton et al. 2011, BLM 1996, and Platts 1990 and are likely to retain adequate grass and forb amounts to sustain sage-grouse in the corresponding community types. In addition, management direction prescribes maintaining residual cover of herbaceous vegetation at no less than 7 inch stubble height during breeding/nesting season (March 1-June 30) within 3 miles of active lek sites. Grass/forb height of 7 inches is consistent with nesting habitat condition described by USFWS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013c); however, USFWS also identifies that these conditions apply to brood-rearing habitat as well. While brood-rearing habitat is most likely to occur within 3 miles of lek sites (Coates et al. 2013), and seasonal dates for early brood-rearing activity extend to June 30 (table 2), activities during the late brood-rearing period (i.e. July 1 – September 15) would not be addressed.

In comparison, alternative C addresses risk factors by proposing to close sage-grouse habitats to livestock grazing entirely. In addition, fences and other infrastructure associated with livestock grazing that are negatively impacting sage grouse and its habitats would be removed.

Both action alternatives reduce risk factors substantially in comparison to alternative A. Alternative B would reduce or minimize most risk factors associated with livestock grazing, but factors such as sage-grouse abandonment of nests as well as destruction of nests due to livestock use and trampling (Patterson 1952, Call and Maser 1985, Holloran and Anderson 2003, Coates 2007) would remain. Management direction under alternative C provides the highest level of risk and threat reduction pertaining to livestock grazing and range management.

Table 19. Grazing and Range Management, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified


BLM Battle Mountain District - Range improvements generally will be designed to achieve both wildlife and range objectives. Existing fences will be modified and new fences built so as to allow wildlife passage. Water troughs will be constructed to not exclude wildlife and bird ladders will be installed.

*B-RI-S-06: Wildlife escape ramps shall be installed and maintained in water troughs or open water facilities with vertical embankments that pose a drowning risk to birds.

Same as alternative B. Drowning Mortality



Same as C-RP-S-01. Concentrated Livestock Use

Forest Service and BLM grazing management is focused on achieving healthy rangelands, but no specific standards for bi-state DPS habitat objectives are used.

*B-RP-S-01: Grazing permits, annual operating instructions, or other appropriate mechanism for livestock management shall include terms, conditions, and direction to move toward or maintain bi-state DPS habitat desired conditions.

C-RP-S-01: Grazing allotments containing bi-state DPS habitat shall be closed to livestock grazing.

Livestock Use

83


Utilization standards have been established for Forest Service grazing allotments. The standards vary widely across the districts.

*B-RU-S-01: Manage livestock grazing to maintain residual cover of herbaceous vegetation so as to reduce predation during breeding/nesting season (March 1 to June 30) within 3 miles of active lek sites.

Same as C-RP-S-01. Range Overutilization

No existing direction. *B-RU-S-02: Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the utilization standards in Table 20.

No existing direction. Range Overutilization


Same as C-RP-S-01. Range Overutilization



Same as alternative B. Water Availability

No existing direction. *B-RI-S-09: Salting or supplemental feeding stations shall not be located within 2 miles of an active lek and 0.6 miles from riparian areas.

Same as C-RP-S-01. Concentrated Livestock Use

Forest Service and BLM wild horse and burro management is focused on achieving healthy rangelands, but no specific standards for bi-state DPS habitat objectives are used.

*B-WHB-S-01: Appropriate management levels in territories and herd management areas with habitat shall be based on the structure, condition, and composition of vegetation needed to achieve bi-state DPS habitat objectives.

Same as B-WHB-S-01. Range Overutilization due to Wild Horses

Table 20. Forage utilization standards for bi-state DPS habitat for alternative B, standard B-RU-S-02

Community Type Percent Utilization of Key Species Terms and Conditions

Mountain Big Sagebrush <45% herbaceous species; <35% shrub species


Wyoming and Basin Big Sagebrush

<35% herbaceous species; <35% shrub species


Black Sagebrush <35% herbaceous species; <35% shrub species


84


Riparian and Wet Meadows <50% herbaceous species; <35% woody species; or average stubble height of at least 4−6 inches (depending on site capability and potential) for herbaceous riparian vegetation

Average stubble height 4−6 inches: Livestock removed in 3−5 days of reaching utilization level based on site; or (sequential action) no grazing from May 15−August 30 in brood-rearing habitat

Note: Monitoring would be conducted using accepted protocols (including but not limited to: Burton et al. 2011; USDI BLM 1996; Platts 1990). Sources: Holechek (1988); Holechek et al. (1998); Burton et al. (2011); USDI BLM (1996); Platts (1990).

Small Population Size and Population Structure (Isolation/Habitat Fragmentation) In order to assess each alternative’s contribution to reducing risks associated with small population size and population structure, this analysis will focus on effects to habitat quantity, quality, and connectivity.

Alternative A (No-Action) Existing direction in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Toiyabe Forest Plan) pertaining to the amount of available habitat as well as managing for habitat suitability is displayed in Table 15. Elements include identification of important habitats, maintaining adequate sagebrush canopy cover and suitable meadow condition, management of seasonal habitats, maintenance of sagebrush and restoration of grass-forb components, as well as managing to maintain or increase populations and to support species viability and distribution.

For the BLM, the Carson City Resource Management Plan (RMP) tiers to current habitat modification guidelines prepared by the Western Sage Grouse Committee of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The Battle Mountain RMP prescribes application of management restrictions in key wildlife habitats, states that wildlife habitats will be addressed at the project level with appropriate application of stipulations to meet wildlife objectives. The RMP also addresses cover, forage, water availability and prescribes implementation of habitat improvement projects where necessary to stabilize or improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat condition and states that such projects will be identified through habitat management plans or other activity plans.

The 2013 issuance of Instruction Memorandum No. NV-2013-009 (Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures) provides interim conservation policies and procedures to BLM field officials to be applied to ongoing and proposed authorizations and activities that affect the Bi-State DPS and its habitat. This direction ensures that interim conservation policies and procedures are implemented when the Carson District or Tonopah Field Office (Battle Mountain District) authorizes or carries out activities on public land during the current revision of the District’s Resource Management Plans (RMPs). Instruction Memorandum NV-2013-009 provides more specific management direction for 1) Protection of unfragmented habitats; 2) Minimization of habitat loss and fragmentation; and 3) Management of habitats to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions that meet Bi-State DPS life history needs on BLM lands.

Management direction found in the current HTNF Forest Plan as well as Carson City District (CCD) and Battle Mountain District ( Tonopah RMP ) Resource Management Plans address important elements for managing healthy sage-grouse habitats; however, all but a few lack specific management direction that would ensure consistent application of measures recommended for supporting a sage-grouse population that is low in numbers, isolated and poorly connected within its distribution (as described above), with decreased habitat availability, is easily disturbed, and for which a multitude of stressors exist locally and rangewide. For BLM lands, Instruction Memorandum NV-2013-009 provides more specific regulatory mechanisms for managing sage-grouse habitats and provides consistency in management direction based

85


on scientific recommendations. However, this direction was only intended to be in effect until BLM Resource Management Plans are revised.

Alternatives B and C Habitat Quantity and Quality

The action alternatives provide standards and guidelines specific to quantity and quality of sage-grouse habitats. Some of these were described in previous discussions (see Non-native and native invasives, Wildfires and altered fire regimes, Infrastructure, and Livestock grazing and management sections above) while others are applicable to Urbanization, Mining, Renewable Energy, Disease, Predation, and Recreation risk factors and threats (discussed below).

Primary mechanisms for providing adequate quantity of habitat consist of measures that curtail or preclude further habitat loss as well as those prescribing restoration of degraded or formerly suitable habitats. Both action alternatives prescribe removal of phase 1 and 2 pinyon juniper located near meadows and near proximity to leks during habitat restoration projects. Both action alternatives would mitigate long-term negative impacts to the extent practicable as well as apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) for each resource as appropriate to restore, conserve and enhance Bi-state sage grouse and its habitat as well as require buffers, timing limitations, or offsite habitat restoration for all new or renewed discretionary actions in Bi-state-sage grouse habitat to mitigate potential long-term negative impacts. Both action alternatives also address risk posed by further habitat loss due to management activities, but do so using different strategies and allowances.

Alternative B would require mitigation resulting in no net loss of habitat due to non-discretionary actions, surface disturbance (fluid minerals), and pit expansion (mineral material use). Short-term habitat loss due to discretionary and non-discretionary activities other than fluid minerals and mineral material pit expansion would not be mitigated under alternative B. Situations where this could arise include impacts to meadows or grass-forb component of other habitats where the site may be impacted for one to several years with the expectation that the site would be restored in a relatively short timeframe. In addition, for fluid minerals, allowable surface disturbance would be limited, where technically feasible and consistent with valid existing rights, to an average of one site per 640 acres on average, with no more than 3% total anthropogenic surface disturbances within habitat.

Alternative C requires that site specific project mitigation occurs if needed to insure no unmitigated net loss of habitat due to anthropogenic disturbance and provides direction to manage bi-state sage-grouse habitats so that total anthropogenic disturbances affect less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat on federal lands within the Bodie Mountain/Grant, Desert Creek/Fales, and White Mountains population management unit (PMU) boundaries and less than 1.5% in the Pine Nut PMU (due to higher presence of risk factors in this PMU). Alternative C also requires management to assess habitat availability at the landscape scale.

In comparison, alternative B mitigates potential habitat loss due to non-discretionary fluid mineral and mineral material sites, and for other activities that pose a long-term negative impact to sage-grouse, and limits fluid mineral uses to less than 3% disturbance. However, alternative C requires that all habitat-disturbing activities be mitigated ensuring no net loss of habitat and that habitat availability be assessed at a larger scale. In addition to no net loss, all activities would be limited to 3% or less disturbance of habitats within corresponding PMUs, thereby further reducing risk of habitat loss due to management activities compared to alternative B.

Habitat quality is addressed under both action alternatives. Alternatives B and C reduce disturbance to sage-grouse by directing to time implementation of habitat restoration projects so they cause the least disturbance to Bi-state sage grouse individuals, and populations as possible. Both also require buffers, timing limitations, or offsite habitat restoration for all new or renewed discretionary actions in Bi-state-sage grouse habitat to mitigate potential long-term negative impacts. Alternatives B and C also prescribe

86


restoration of native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit bi-state sage grouse. Both action alternatives are similar in providing for increased habitat quality in comparison to alternative A.

Connectivity

The Bi-State DPS landscape is fragmented by areas of agriculture and urbanization, as well as areas of naturally-occurring and encroaching pinyon-juniper. Sage-grouse habitats within and between PMUs are often separated by stretches of unsuitable areas that may inhibit sage-grouse movements across the landscape. Both alternatives B and C provide a limited amount of management direction to maintain or enhance suitability of connective areas. Management direction under both alternatives applies primarily to mineral uses. Alternative B prescribes for mineral uses that, in connective areas, maintain vegetation characteristics suitable to sage-grouse to the extent technically feasible. Alternative C states that where valid existing rights persist, in connective areas, maintain vegetation characteristics suitable to sage-grouse to the extent technically feasible. In addition, alternative C provides additional direction where vegetation treatments and post-disturbance restoration should seed and/or transplant sagebrush to restore large patches of sagebrush cover and connect existing patches.

Given the fragmented nature of the Bi-State landscape and the level of apparent isolation of subpopulations, additional management direction for connective areas may be necessary to facilitate sage-grouse movement, reduce isolation, and increase genetic interchange between subpopulations.

Connective areas within the amendment area have been mapped, though the mapping process and connective area polygons will continue to be updated as additional information is gathered (Figure 4). Mapping was conducted using 2010 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) satellite imagery, modeled terrain and topographic map information, Landfire vegetation data (LANDFIRE 2014), and sage-grouse telemetry locations provided by U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station. Telemetry locations were used to indicate concentration areas as well as movement patterns of sage-grouse between habitats. Mapped areas were located with consideration for movement within the amendment as well as movement to Bi-State habitats outside the amendment area.

87


Figure 4. Proposed Connective Areas, Alternatives B and C

88


Table 21. Small Population Size and Population Structure, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified


HTNF - The following standards apply to sage grouse habitats (Forest S&G Range PG IV-49 S&G 27): o Use dropping casts, sage grouse sightings, and historical records to reveal location and importance of sage grouse habitat. o Maintain 20 percent to 55 percent canopy cover on sage grouse range. o Use irregularly designed patterns when manipulated brush in sage grouse habitat. o Maintain meadows in sage grouse range in high ecological status. Where meadows have lost their natural characteristics because of lowered water table, trampling, overgrazing, road building, or for other reasons, take measures to restore the meadows. o Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within two miles of leks. o Retain irregular, lean strips of untreated sagebrush approximately 100 yards wide adjacent to stream bottoms and meadows. o Include the use of a combination of forbs and grasses desirable to sage grouse when rehabilitating sage grouse habitat. o Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat on known sage grouse wintering areas. o As appropriate, National Forest personnel will arrange a joint on-the-grounds review of proposed projects with the proper local or state wildlife biologist so details of wildlife coordination can be explained and dismissed. o Protect critical areas for sage grouse brood rearing.

HTNF - Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (Forest S&G Range PG IV-49 S&G 4).

HTNF - Manage habitats of wolverine, Mount Lyell salamander, yellow warbler, and other wildlife species that may

*B-Wild-S-03: Habitat restoration projects shall meet one or more of the following habitat needs: Promote the maintenance of large, intact sagebrush communities; limit the expansion or dominance of invasive species, including cheatgrass; maintain or improve soil site stability, hydrologic function, and biological integrity; and enhance the native plant community.

C-Wild S-04: Total anthropogenic disturbances shall affect no more than 3% of the total bi-state DPS habitat on Federal lands within the Bodie Mountain/Grant, Desert Creek/Fales, and White Mountains population management unit boundaries.

Habitat Availability

*B-Wild-S-01: Any vegetation treatment shall maintain, improve, or restore bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as alternative B. Habitat Availability

*B-Wild-S-04: Time implementation of habitat restoration projects so that impacts to bi-state DPS individuals and populations are limited by duration, scope, and scale.

Same as C-Wild-S-04. Disturbance

*B-S-01: Project proposals shall include best management practices for each resource as appropriate to restore, conserve, and enhance bi-state DPS and its habitat.

C-S-01: Project proposals shall include best management practices for each resource as appropriate to restore, conserve, and enhance bi-state DPS and its habitat.


Same as C-Wild-G-01. *C-Wild-G-01: Restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit the bi-state DPS. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.


Same as C-Wild-G-03. *C-Wild-G-03: Remove phase 1 and 2 pinyon-juniper located in habitat during habitat restoration projects, with the intent to maintain sage brush habitat prior to establishment of

Habitat Availability and Isolation

89


No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified Proposed Action)

Alternative C Risk Factor

have declining populations or narrow habitat requirements, to assure viable populations and reasonable distributions. Encourage surveys and other data gathering activities for these species (Forest S&G Range PG IV-50 S&G 9).

forest species.




TONOPAH RMP - Activities in key fish and wildlife areas will, when necessary, be restricted during periods of breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing, or calving activity, and during major migrations of fish and wildlife.



TONOPAH RMP - Fish and wildlife habitat will continue to be evaluated as part of project-level planning. Such evaluation will consider the significance of the proposed project and the sensitivity of fish and wildlife habitat in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects with management objectives for fish and wildlife habitat. Habitat improvement projects will be implemented where necessary to stabilize or improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat condition. Such projects will be identified through habitat management plans or other activity plans.

*B-Min-G-07: Incorporate mitigation to offset all proposed surface disturbance that would result in loss of habitat. Mitigate first within the same population area where the disturbance is realized, and if not possible, within an adjacent habitat. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 1) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

Same as C-MIN-S-04. Habitat Availability

Tonopah RMP - Sufficient forage and cover will be provided for wildlife. Forage and cover requirements will be incorporated into allotment management plans or their functional equivalent and will apply to specific areas of primary wildlife use.

*B-Min-S-16: Authorize mineral material use and expansion of existing pits only with no unmitigated net loss of habitat.


90






Habitat Isolation

No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Wild-S-02: Vegetation treatments and post-disturbance restoration shall seed and/or transplant sagebrush to restore large patches of sagebrush cover and connect existing patches.

Habitat Isolation

No leasing decision has been analyzed for Forest Service lands. BLM has made a leasing decision





C-Wild S-05 Total anthropogenic disturbances shall affect no more than 1.5% of the total bi-state DPS habitat on Federal lands within the Pine Nut Mountains Population Management Unit boundaries.


Tonopah RMP -Guzzlers constructed for wildlife will be designed for protection from domestic livestock and wild horses and burros.


Tonopah RMP - Habitats for chukar and other upland game will be maintained and expanded through development of wildlife waters. Generally, no land disposal will be allowed within two miles of sage grouse nesting areas.


91


Urbanization

Alternative A (No Action) Current direction pertaining to retention of existing sage-grouse habitats currently under Forest Service or BLM ownership is largely lacking, with the exception of the Tonopah RMP which direct retention of BLM ownership of lands within two miles of nesting habitat (Table 22).

Alternatives B and C The action alternative s address the threat of urbanization identically through management direction that prescribes 1) retention in federal ownership of sage-grouse habitats unless relinquishing these lands provides a net benefit to sage-grouse, and 2) identification of private parcels containing BSSG habitat for inclusion in the Land Acquisition Plan. The net effect would be no loss of federal lands with habitat (unless beneficial to BSSG) as well as potential acquisition of private lands that may otherwise be developed or converted to nonhabitat.

Table 22. Urbanization, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative

Alternative B (Modified Proposed Action)

Alternative C Risk Factor Addressed

Tonopah RMP - Habitats for chukar and other upland game will be maintained and expanded through development of wildlife waters. Generally, no land disposal will be allowed within two miles of sage grouse nesting areas.

*B-LUSU-S-03: Federal lands shall be retained unless a public interest determination identifies a net benefit to bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as alternative B. Loss of habitat to Development

No existing direction. *B-LUSU-S-05: Land acquisition plan shall include all inholdings that include bi-state DPS habitat within NFS boundaries.

Same as alternative B. Loss of Habitat to Development

Mining Minerals/Energy Development (Including Geothermal Leasing)

Alternative A (No-Action) Management direction under alternative A provides some measures of protection from mining activity-related disturbance.

Under the Toiyabe LRMP, sage-grouse protections are implemented on a project-by-project basis according to goals, desired future condition, and standards and guidelines described for sensitive species and their habitats (Appendix A1). No management direction pertaining to mineral and energy development and sage grouse disturbance was found in the Toiyabe LRMP.

92


Under the Tonopah RMP, seasonal restrictions are prescribed to avoid disturbance (see below). In the Carson City District RMP, restrictions are established in the spring and early summer for six sage grouse strutting grounds (leks) pertaining to oil and gas leasing as well as geothermal leasing.

Alternatives B and C Numerous elements have been incorporated into the action alternatives to reduce risk of mining-related activities to sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitats. These include mitigation of long-term effects, distance buffers and timing/seasonal restrictions, reclamation requirements, concentration of activities in previously disturbed areas, removal of unnecessary infrastructure, and incorporation of noise-reduction devices, all of which decrease risk in comparison to alternative A.

Distinction exists between alternatives B and C concerning expansion of existing activities, permit renewal and issuance of new permits for discretionary actions. Alternative C would not allow new sale of mineral materials in habitat and prohibits expansion of existing mineral material sites. This alternative Also prescribes: to petition the BLM to withdraw locatable minerals, subject to valid existing rights within habitat; and, upon expiration or termination of existing leases, do not consent to leasing if inquired by the BLM (applies to fluid minerals only). In addition, alternative C would not allow consent to fluid mineral leasing within habitat unless only under no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations. Each of these restrictions would reduce potential surface disturbance to sage-grouse habitat due to mining-related activities. Alternative B would restrict mineral material activities similarly, but allows mineral material use and expansion of existing pits only with no unmitigated net loss of habitat. Alternative B does not require petitioning for locatable mineral withdrawal, nor does it preclude permit renewal for expired or terminated fluid mineral leases. Whereas alternative C precludes surface occupancy for fluid minerals, alternative B allows fluid mineral surface occupancy subject to one site per square mile, with no more than 3% surface disturbance within habitat and requires incorporation of mitigation to ensure no net loss of habitat. Overall, both action alternatives reduce risk associated with mining, but alternative C provides a higher level of sage-grouse habitat conservation.

Table 23. Mining, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified


Outside of wilderness, wilderness study areas, and withdrawn areas, the mineral estate is locatable. On BLM lands with unpatented mining claims, projects can be proposed. On Forest Service land no unpatented claims are necessary as long as the land is open to entry. BLM minerals are handled under 43 CFR 3809 and Forest Service minerals under 36 CFR 228 subpart A.



Minerals General

93


Tonopah RMP - Seasonal restrictions on activities which are included in this RMP to prevent disturbing of wildlife will apply to the following authorizations: fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy mineral leasing, mineral material sales, geophysical prospecting, right-of-way construction, off-highway vehicle events, construction of range improvements, activities authorized under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act), and vegetation sales. In general, maintenance of rights-of-way, range improvement projects, and other facilities will not be restricted. Locatable mineral exploration and development activities will be encouraged to abide seasonal restrictions but cannot be required to do so.

•Activities in key fish and wildlife areas will, when necessary, be restricted during periods of breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing, or calving activity, and during major migrations of fish and wildlife.



Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest: Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (Forest S&G Range PG IV-49 S&G 4).

B-Wild-S-02: When long-term negative impacts from nondiscretionary actions are unavoidable, require mitigations to result in no net loss of habitat.

*C-Wild-S-03: Require site-specific project mitigation if needed to insure no net loss of habitat due to project disturbance.


94


Most permits have language that authorizes the use, maintenance, and removal of improvements. Where the ROW itself is a historic feature, or the reclamation work may have additional unwanted adverse effects that outweigh the benefits, reclamation is not required.

*B-LUSU-S-06: When informed that a ROW is no longer in use, relinquish the ROW and reclaim the site by removing powerlines, reclaiming roads, and removing other infrastructure, where such reclamation work does not have unwanted adverse effects.

Same as alternative B. Power lines and Roads

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-01: For new and existing leases in habitat, limit offsite noise to less than 10 decibels (dbA) above ambient measures from 2 hours before until 2 hours after at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season.

Same as B-Min-S-01. Disturbance

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-03: Apply timing restrictions in all bi-state DPS habitat areas to avoid construction, drilling, completion, and reclamation activities, including those of exploratory wildcat wells within seasonal habitat periods.


Outside of wilderness, WSA's and withdrawn areas the mineral estate is locatable. On BLM lands with unpatented mining claims projects can be proposed. On FS land no unpatented claims are necessary as long as the land is open to entry. BLM minerals are handled under 43 CFR 3809 and FS under 36 CFR 228 Subpart A.

*B-Min-S-04: Require a full reclamation bond specific to the site. Insure bonds are sufficient for costs relative to reclamation that would result in full restoration in habitat.

Same as B-Min-S-04. Habitat Availability


Same as B-Min-S-06. Minerals Disturbance and Infrastructure

95


For geothermal BLM has a 2008 EIS making leasing decisions on most lands. This lease contains lands which have been identified as sage grouse brood rearing areas that are subject to seasonal protection from disturbance. Seasonal restrictions from disturbance n sage grouse brood rearing areas apply within 0 .5 miles or other appropriate distance based on site-specific conditions from 5/15 to 8/15, inclusive. This restriction does not apply to operating facilities. Also the Interim IM's that address sage grouse prior to the planning decision are also applicable.

*B-Min-S-07: Require seasonal restriction November 1 to March 1 on geophysical exploration within winter habitats.


No existing direction. *B-Min-S-08: Require reclamation for geophysical exploration operations to meet bi-state DPS desired conditions.


No existing direction. B-Min-S-09: Apply the least invasive seismic exploratory method in habitat.

*Same as C-MIN-S-04.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-10: Require reclamation of disturbed areas to meet desired conditions for habitat when facilities are no longer needed or leases are relinquished.

Same as alternative B. Habitat Availability

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-15: Do not authorize new pits or prospecting permits in bi-state DPS habitat.

C-Min-S-13: Do not allow new sale of mineral materials in habitat.


No existing direction. *B-Min-S-18 Any contract or permit for mineral material operations, except for disposals from community sites and common-use areas, shall include requirements for reclamation of the site to meet bi-state DPS habitat objectives.

Same as C-MIN-S-15.

No existing direction. *B-Min-S-16: Authorize mineral material use and expansion of existing pits only with no unmitigated net loss of habitat.



96




No existing direction. B-Min-G-03: Control fugitive dust on roads and pads. The intent of this guideline is to reduce dust where it can adversely impact habitat.

*C-Min-S-02: Control fugitive dust on roads and pads.

Disturbance



Habitat Availability, Infrastructure, and Disturbance



Landscape Connectivity


Same as B-Min-S-20. Habitat Availability, Infrastructure, and Disturbance

No leasing decision has been analyzed for Forest Service lands. BLM has made a leasing decision.




No existing direction. *B-Min-G-06: Allow geophysical exploration to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to habitat to provide continued opportunities outside that would not disturb bi-state DPS habitat.

Same as B-Min-G-06.

97


No existing direction. No proposed direction. *C-Min-S-06: Upon expiration or termination of existing leases, do not consent to leasing if inquired by the BLM.



*B-Min-G-07: Incorporate mitigation to offset all proposed surface disturbance that would result in loss of habitat. Mitigate first within the same population area where the disturbance is realized, and if not possible, within an adjacent habitat. The intent of this guideline is to move toward desired habitat conditions (Table 11) when restoring habitat or mitigating disturbance.

Same as C-MIN-S-04. Habitat Availability, Infrastructure, and Disturbance


Same as B-Min-G-08.



Infrastructure


Infrastructure

No existing direction. B-Min-G-11: Use noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering seasons. With the intent to reduce disturbance from noise in proximity to leks, nesting, and broad-rearing habitats.

*C-Min-S-08: Use noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering seasons.

Disturbance

No existing direction. B-Min-G-12: Incorporate noise reduction design elements for new compressor stations. With the intent to reduce disturbance from noise in proximity to leks, nesting and broad rearing habitats.

*C-Min-S-10: Do not authorize new compressor stations inside habitats.


98


Mineral materials can be disposed and must follow the BLM IM interim management direction.

B-Min-G-13: Request that the BLM not authorize new mine facilities on the surface unless there is no technically feasible alternative, and it has demonstrated no net loss of habitat, to minimize the disturbance footprint in habitat.

*C-Min-S-12: Request that the BLM not issue permits for solid leasable mineral prospecting or mining in habitat.


No existing direction. *B-Min-G-14: If new mine facilities must be placed in habitat, then co-locate facilities in existing disturbed areas and authorize them to the minimum size necessary to reduce the disturbance footprint in habitat.

Same as B-Min-G-14. Habitat Availability, Infrastructure, and Disturbance


*C-LUSU-S-02: Do not authorize utility-scale commercial wind energy facilities.






Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar Energy)

Alternative A (No Action) No direction pertaining to management of wind and solar energy resources was found in any of the land management plans addressed by this analysis. Lands special use proposals are analyzed through site-specific environmental analysis. Stipulations are included to minimize impacts to resources (Table 24).

Alternatives B and C Subject to other restrictions stated in Table 9, alternative B does not address risks posed by wind and solar energy facilities. Wind and solar facilities may be authorized to provide on-site power generation, whereas no management guidance is provided for utility-scale facilities as is provided under alternative C, which precludes utility scale wind and solar facilities in habitat. Therefore, alternative B is similar to alternative A in addressing renewable energy risk while alternative C removes risk by precluding these facilities in sage-grouse habitats.

Table 24. Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar Energy), Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative

Alternative B (Modified Proposed Action)


99




Infrastructure, Habitat Availability



Infrastructure, Habitat Availability

Disease (West Nile Virus)

Alternative A (No-Action), No provisions pertaining to reduction of sage grouse disease potential are found in alternative A.

Alternative B and C The action alternatives each provide an identical measure to reduce risk of West Nile Virus. Requirement to drain tanks and troughs associated with range management is expected to decrease risk of West Nile Virus to sage-grouse in comparison to alternative A.

Table 19. Disease, Comparison of Alternatives





Same as alternative B. Mortality

Predation

Alternative A (No-Action), No direction pertaining to management of risk to predation was found in any of the land management plans addressed by this analysis. Special use permits are issued on a case by case basis after environmental analysis, and may include stipulations to mitigate impacts to resources.

Alternatives B and C The action alternatives address predation risk primarily through modifications and restrictions of infrastructure (i.e. perch sites) and proper treatment of refuse (i.e. predator attractants). Both alternatives preclude structures taller than surrounding vegetation in proximity to leks. Alternative B precludes such structures within 2 miles of lek centers whereas alternative C precludes tall structures within 4 miles of lek centers. Coates et al. (2013) reported that the average distance from sage-grouse nest sites to leks was

100


approximately 1.2 miles, while 95% of nest distribution occurred within about 3 miles of leks, 75% were within 1.4 miles, and 50% were within one mile. Therefore, the 2 mile restriction under alternative B could be expected to reduce predator risk for approximately 85% of nesting sage-grouse whereas the 4 mile restriction under alternative C would reduce risk for an estimated 100% of nests. In addition, alternative C would provide additional risk reduction by requiring removal of all range improvements greater than 8-feet tall that could serve as predator perches within BSSG habitat. While both action alternatives reduce predation risk in comparison to alternative A, alternative C provides increased risk reduction compared to alternative B.

Table 25. Predation, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified Proposed

Action) Alternative C Risk Factor


Same as alternative B. Predator Perches

No existing direction. *B-LUSU-S-09: Do not install structures greater than 8-feet tall that could serve as predator perches unless they are equipped with anti-perching devices.




Predator Perches

Permits for lands special uses are completed using site-specific environmental analysis.

B-LUSU-S-08: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 2 miles of a lek.

C-LUSU-S-8: Do not install tall structures that could serve as predator perches within 4 miles of an active or pending lek.

Predator Perches

No existing direction. *B-LUSU-S-10: No structures greater than 8-feet tall that could serve as predator perches shall be installed within bi-state DPS habitat unless they are equipped with anti-perching devices.


Predator Perches




Predator Attractants

Permits involving powerlines are issued on a case-by-case basis after environmental analysis. Burial of powerlines may be required on a site-specific basis.

*B-LUSU-G-06: Where feasible, bury powerlines to reduce overhead perches for avian predators.

C-LUSU-S-10: Where feasible, bury powerlines to reduce overhead perches for predators.

Predator Perches

101


The authorized officer has the ability to change stipulations of existing permits.

*B-LUSU-G-04: Require permit holders to retro-fit existing powerlines and other utility structures with perch-deterring devices during ROW renewal process. The intent is to reduce perch opportunities for avian predators.


Recreation

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A provides some limitations on vehicle access under all HTNF and BLM Land Management Plans pertinent to this analysis. The Toiyabe LRMP direction provides for seasonal or year-round restriction of ORV use in order to limit or avoid impacts to key wildlife habitats. It also prescribes that roads, trails, and “areas” will be designated in the Ranger District travel plans and maps for motorized vehicle use, thereby preventing general cross-country ORV use. Under the Carson City RMP, vehicles are restricted to designated roads and trails in the upper elevations of the Pine Nut Range. In addition, all existing roads and trails will be designated open to OHV use except where roads or trails impact sensitive meadows, seeps, springs and other waters as identified in the watershed decisions. Vehicles are excluded from any riparian area associated with meadows, marshes, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes, reservoirs or streams. Outside of these restrictions, there are portions of BLM lands currently open to cross-country vehicle travel.

Alternatives B and C Both action alternatives contain management direction designed to reduce risk associated with recreation activities and infrastructure by requiring buffers and timing/seasonal use restrictions, proper containment and disposal of refuse, and restriction off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Primary differences between these alternatives concern restrictions associated with OHV events, off-road travel on BLM lands, and authorization of outfitter/guide permits in proximity to leks.

Alternative B would restrict OHV events in habitat to occur outside of winter habitats and outside of 3 mile from leks and only after 10am during the breeding period. While this would reduce potential disturbance to breeding at lek sites, it would allow disturbance where birds may be residing during the day after departing the breeding site and may negatively impact lek attendance if the disturbance is pronounced. Alternative C would preclude authorizing OHV events in habitat thereby avoiding potential disturbance of birds during all seasons in all habitats.

Alternative B proposed to limit motor vehicle use to open and limited routes on BLM lands in habitat whereas alternative C prohibits motor vehicle use off existing roads and trails. Limiting motor vehicle use to open and limited areas allows some cross-country travel where open areas are designated by BLM while limited areas often restrict travel to existing or designated routes or may be subject to seasonal closure to protect resources. Therefore, some cross-country OHV would continue to exist under alternative B. Conversely, alternative C would prohibit cross-country travel on BLM lands in habitat, thereby reducing potential risk to sage-grouse associated with off-road travel.

Lastly, alternative C provides no allowances for outfitter/guide activities with 4 miles of leks whereas outfitter/guide activities are restricted within ¼ mile of lek sites under alternative B. This would reduce potential risk of disturbance due to horse and packing activities; however, the existing risk to sage-grouse posed by outfitter/guide horse and packing activities is expected to be minimal or low.

Table 26. Recreation, Comparison of Alternatives

102




Carson City District: BLM will adhere to current habitat modification guidelines prepared by the Western Sage Grouse Committee of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

*B-Wild-S-05: Mitigate long-term negative impacts from discretionary or nondiscretionary activities to the extent practicable.

Same as C-Wild-S-03. Habitat Availability

Battle Mountain District: Activities in key fish and wildlife areas will, when necessary, be restricted during periods of breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing, or calving activity, and during major migrations of fish and wildlife.



Motor vehicle use is managed under travel management plans. The BLM allows cross-country travel in a portion of the planning area.

*B-AR-S-01: Motor vehicle use off designated national forest system (NFS) roads and trails is prohibited.

C-AR-S-02: Motor vehicle use off designated NFS roads and trails or existing roads and trails is prohibited.

Disturbance

No existing direction. *B-AR-S-04: Do not authorize off-highway vehicle events within winter habitats November 1 to March 1.

Same as C-AR-S-03.

Off-highway vehicle events are permitted using existing direction designed to reduce impacts to resources. Permits are granted on a case-by-case basis after environmental analysis.

*B-AR-S-03: Between March 1 and May 15, off-highway vehicle events that pass within a 3 miles an active lek shall only take place during daylight hours after 10 a.m.

C-AR-S-03: Do not authorize off-highway vehicle events.



Habitat Availability and Disturbance




Predator Attractants

Outfitter-guide activities are permitted on a case-by-case basis through environmental analysis. Stipulations may be included which are designed to minimize impacts to resources.

*B-LUSU-S-04: Do not authorize outfitter-guide activities that occur within 0.25 mile of active leks from March 1 to May 15.

C-LUSU-S-05: Do not authorize outfitter-guide activities that occur within 4 miles of active leks from March 1 to May 15.

Disturbance

103


Climate

Alternative A (No Action) There are no elements contained in current land use plans pertinent to this project that are identified to reduce risk of climate factors.

Alternatives B and C Both action alternatives are identical in providing reduction of risk associated with climate factors. Management direction (Table 27) prescribes that managers consider seed collection from the warmer component of the species current range when selecting native species for restoration. This is in response to projections of warming climates and subsequent effects to sage-grouse habitats. Collection of seed from warmer portions of a plant species’ range is expected to provide improved resilience of vegetation that is seeded or planted for restoration, thereby providing reduced risk to climate factors in comparison to alternative A.

Table 27. Climate, Comparison of Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative B (Modified


No existing direction. Same as C-Wild-G-02. *C-Wild-G-02: Consider seed collection from the warmer component of the species current range when selecting native species for restoration (Kramer and Havens 2009). The intent is to use hardy climate tolerant native species to help move habitat toward desired habitat conditions (Table 2-1) when restoring habitat and or mitigating disturbance.


Summary of Cumulative Effects Mapped sage-grouse habitat within the Bi-state DPS area (i.e. the extent of the Bi-State PMUs) serves as the cumulative effects analysis area for Bi-state sage-grouse because it encompasses potential overlap of effects to sage-grouse within the Bi-State range. There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM land adjacent Forest Service and BLM lands. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat. Ongoing activities including Forest Service and BLM land management planning are likely to incorporate management direction that provides some level of protection and improvement of BSSG habitats. Past travel management plans on the HTNF have prescribed reductions in open road densities in addition to other travel restrictions that likely benefit sage grouse. Ongoing geothermal leasing on HTNF lands may have some measure of added effect, but cumulatively this is likely to be minor at the project area scale.

Summary of Alternative Comparison The primary difference between alternative A (no change in current direction) and alternatives B and C, is that the action alternatives would put into place regulatory authority and direction to protect and conserve BSSG habitats and reduce negative effects associated with land management actions in the resource areas

104


above. Under current circumstances, alternative A does not provide the regulatory mechanisms or assurances to protect, conserve, or enhance GRSG habitats to the extent desired.

By comparison, alternative C provides the highest level of risk and threat reduction by providing management direction in sage-grouse habitat through standards that a) remove discretionary surface occupancy of minerals-related infrastructure, b) remove livestock grazing, c) provide for invasive grass control, d) preclude construction of tall structures and transmission lines, e) reduce risk of habitat loss to wildfire and fuels treatment, f) preclude construction of new recreation, solar, and wind energy facilities, g) restrict OHV use to existing routes, h) reduces disturbance from existing discretionary and non-discretionary activities, and i) provide for management of select areas between blocks of habitat to provide for more effective sage-grouse movement on the landscape.

Alternative B provides management direction that would substantially increase conservation of sage-grouse habitats in a manner that reduces risk factors and threats while still providing opportunities for multiple uses of resources. Whereas alternative C precludes some activities and uses described above, alternative B provides allowance for these uses with measures that reduce or mitigate negative impacts. For example, whereas alternative C removes livestock grazing in sage-grouse habitats, alternative B allows continued grazing, but prescribes utilization standards consistent with science recommendations for continued grazing. The result is a substantial increase in conservation effectiveness for sage-grouse habitats over alternative A, but retention of relatively higher level of risk in comparison to alternative C for some risk factors and threats.

Given the current state of BSSG habitats and population overall, maintaining current management direction (Alternative A) may not provide the regulatory mechanisms or the assurances required to protect BSSG habitats and populations. In contrast, the action alternatives provide regulatory mechanisms expected to result in positive effects and assurances that improve conditions for BSSG within the amendment area.

Proposed Critical Habitat Primary constituent elements (PCEs) identified for BSSG proposed critical habitat consist of the following (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013c):

Landscape-scale Primary Constituent Element

Primary Constituent Element 1— Areas with vegetation composed primarily of sagebrush plant communities of sufficient size and configuration to encompass all seasonal habitats for a given population of greater sage-grouse, or facilitate movements within and among populations. This includes former sagebrush communities in specific locations that are currently primarily woodland encroached sites that potentially provide connectivity between populations.

Site-Scale Primary Constituent Elements

Primary Constituent Element 2— Breeding habitat composed of sagebrush plant communities with structural characteristics within the ranges described in Table 1, below. Habitat structure values are average values.

Table 28. Bi-State DPS Structural Guidelines for Breeding Habitat Vegetation Variable Amount of Occurrence in the Habitat

Sagebrush Canopy Cover >20%

Non-sagebrush Canopy Cover >20%

Total Shrub Canopy Cover >40%

Sagebrush Height >12 inches

105


Perennial Grass Cover No less than 5% but > 10% if total shrub cover < 25%

Annual Grass Cover < 5%

Forb Cover > 10%

Grass/forb Height >7 inches

Source; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013c

Primary Constituent Element 3— Brood-rearing habitat composed of sagebrush plant communities and mesic habitats used primarily in the summer to late fall season. These sites include, but are not limited to, riparian communities, springs, seeps, and mesic meadows with structural characteristics within the ranges described in Table 29, below.

Table 29. Bi-State DPS Structural Guidelines for Brood-Rearing Habitat Vegetation Variable Amount of Occurrence in the Habitat

Sagebrush Canopy Cover 10-25%

Total Shrub Canopy Cover 14-25%

Sagebrush Height >12 inches

Perennial Grass Cover >7%

Perennial Forb Diversity >5 species present

Forb Cover >7%

Grass/forb Height >7 inches

Meadow Edge (ration perimeter to area) >0.015

Species Richness >5 species

Source; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013c

Primary Constituent Element 4— Winter habitat composed of sagebrush plant communities with sagebrush canopy cover greater than 10 percent and sagebrush height of greater than 25 cm (9.8 in) above snow level.

Effects, Alternatives B and C A total of 1,867,357 of critical habitat are proposed by USFWS for the Bi-State DPS. Of this, a total of 981,818 acres (52.5%) are located within the amendment area and 839,456 acres (45% of total) are located on FS and BLM lands within the amendment area.

Desired conditions identified for BSSG habitat in this analysis (see Bi-state Sage-grouse Desired Habitat Conditions above) incorporated primary constituent element habitat characteristics described by USFWS for breeding (nesting), brood-rearing and winter habitats. While management direction applied to habitats within the amendment area would also apply to management within proposed critical habitat, the overall purpose of elements described in alternatives is to reduce risk to the DPS and promote species viability in the long-term. Each action alternative does this in varying degree of risk/treat reduction. Therefore, alternatives B and C are not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat.

Summary of Effects and Determination There would be no action associated with alternative A; therefore this alternative would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. Management direction provided under alternatives B and C increase protection of BSSG habitats and consequently decreases risk to BSSG individuals and population. Effects to sage-grouse and their habitats under alternatives B and C would generally be beneficial due to

106


reducing anthropogenic influences to sagebrush habitats known and identified as such. By comparison, alternative C provides the highest level of reduction in risk factors and threats as stated in discussions above. Under current circumstances, alternative A does not provide the regulatory mechanisms or assurances to protect, conserve, or enhance GRSG habitats to the extent desired. There would be beneficial effects to BSSG as a result of implementing either alternative B or C. Therefore, the Bi-State Sage-grouse Forest Plan Amendment project may affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for Federal listing or result in loss of viability for the greater sage-grouse (Bi-State DPS) in the planning area.

Alternatives B and C are not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat.

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae) Recovery Plan

Recovery units for bighorn sheep were delineated in the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a) and include management recommendations for protecting the sheep and their habitat. The Bridgeport Ranger District includes the Northern Recovery Unit for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep which is comprised of four herd units (Mount Gibbs, Mount Warren, Green Creek, and Twin Lakes). Currently bighorn sheep are known to occupy the Mount Warren and Mount Gibbs units.

Habitats

The Mount Warren herd unit totals about 36,514 acres, of which, approximately 4,237 acres (12%) extends into the project area. Within the project area, about 399 acres (1% of the herd unit) coincides with the analysis area (BSSG mapped habitat, Figure 5). Vegetation types within the 399 acres consist mostly of barren ground and sagebrush types (Table 30) on a variety of directional aspects.

Table 30. Vegetation types and amounts, Mount Warren herd unit within the analysis area.

Vegetation Types Acres (% of 399 acres)

Proportion of the Mount Warren Herd Unit

Alpine dwarf shrub 24 (6%) 0.1%

Barren ground 195 (48%) 0.5%

Sagebrush 132 (33%) 0.4%

Subalpine conifer 48 (12% 0.1%

Total 399 (100%) 1.1%

Observations indicate that some spring and summer use of the analysis area by SNBS males has been observed. No winter occurrences of individuals or female presence during any month within the analysis area are reported for 2011-2013. Habitats used by Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep within the analysis area are primarily characterized as steeper south-facing slopes with grasses and forbs. Less use occurs in one small area containing low sagebrush.

107


Figure 5. SNBS Herd Unit and BSSG Analysis Area Overlap

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No-Action) Alternative A would maintain current land management direction. Both prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatments are allowed in current LRMP and RMPs, and fire suppression is prioritized to protect human life and specific resource values at risk. Therefore, alternative A would have no direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

Alternative B and C

108


Direct Effects

Because this is a programmatic analysis, the resulting decision will provide guidance for FS and BLM land managers as they develop, review, and implement site specific projects on NFS lands and public lands managed by the BLM in the amendment area. Therefore, because LRMP direction and guidance does not analyze and implement site-specific projects, the proposed action will have no direct effects on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or designated critical habitat.

Indirect Effects

Consistency with Recovery Strategy

Indirect impacts to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep are analyzed here based on relevance (i.e. potential management direction overlap in time and space) and consistency with the recovery strategy described in the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a). The Recovery Plan outlines and describes a total 30 recovery actions and tasks as necessary components of SNBS recovery, under which the U.S. Forest Service is a primary or secondary agency responsible for 17 of these tasks (see Appendix B of this document). Upon further review, elements described in the proposed action are unrelated to components described for 13 of these recovery actions. For example, there would be no potential overlap in management direction between elements of the proposed action and management of SNBS recovery strategies and actions described for predation, disease, translocations, genetics, monitoring, research, and information availability. Effects of potential overlap between management direction under the proposed action and SNBS recovery is described for the following recovery elements:

RA 1.1 Identify and acquire important habitat not in public ownership from willing landowners.

Description: While the vast majority of historic bighorn sheep range in the Sierra Nevada is in public ownership, a small number of inholdings exist. A list of all private land holdings that might affect bighorn sheep should be developed and prioritized relative to importance to bighorn sheep. Key parcels should be acquired or protected under conservation easements.

Overlap in Direction: Alternatives B and C address the need to maintain or enhance BSSG productivity, survival, and use of seasonal habitats through a series of standards and guidelines. Standards 2l and 2m, included in both action alternatives, state the following:

B-LUSU-S-03: Federal lands shall be retained unless a public interest determination identifies a net benefit to bi-state DPS habitat (Applicable to alternative C as well).

B-LUSU-S-05: Land acquisition plan shall include all inholdings that include bi-state DPS habitat within NFS boundaries (Applicable to alternative C as well).

Consistency Analysis: Both the Recovery Plan and proposed action provide guidance to acquire lands not in public ownership to benefit the respective species. However, no lands other than those in public ownership currently exist within areas where SNBS herd unit and BSSG habitats (the analysis area) coincide. Therefore, there is no spatial overlap. The project is consistent with the Recovery Action.

RA 1.2 Maintain and/or enhance integrity of bighorn sheep habitat

Description: Habitat integrity could be compromised by fire suppression that affects vegetation succession, or a variety of human uses. Human activities resulting in blockage or alteration of movement corridors (e.g., San Joaquin Ridge) would have ramifications for gene flow between or among populations. Further, the potential for natural recolonization of vacant habitats would be severely reduced. Although these issues are considered with respect to bighorn sheep behavior and population parameters, they also are important relative to structural attributes of the habitat. All proposed Federal actions in the vicinity of bighorn sheep habitat should be analyzed relative to influences on that habitat and, ultimately for negative impacts to the viability of bighorn sheep.

109


Overlap in Direction: Alternatives B and C addresses the need to maintain and enhance existing BSSG habitats via emphasis on maintaining and restoring sagebrush, preventing loss of sagebrush to wildfire and human-caused disturbance factors, and reduction of risk to nonnative and native invasive plants (see tables 1 and 2).

Consistency Analysis: Management direction under the proposed action would overlap Recovery Action 1.2 on 399 acres. Direction under both action alternatives would maintain habitat integrity for both bighorn sheep and sage-grouse by managing for ecological site potential. This is consistent with the Recovery Action because those habitats that are outside ecological site potential such as areas where conifers have encroached into grass, forb, or shrub areas would be managed to support grass, forb, or shrub habitats.

Fire management standards and guidelines under the action alternatives would avoid using fire in areas at risk to cheatgrass invasion, thereby supporting habitat integrity. Use of prescribed fire as well as use of fire as a management tool is more restrictive in sage-grouse habitats which may limit the opportunity to use prescribed and natural fire to reduce areas of conifer encroachment to benefit bighorn sheep. Although there may be limitations in certain areas due to disturbance restrictions, lack of access, or steep terrain, use of other tools such as manual and mechanical methods of treatment to reduce areas of conifer encroachment to benefit SNBS would continue to be available. Alternatives B and C would not result in blockage or alteration of SNBS movement corridors. Proposed federal actions in SNBS habitat would continue to be analyzed for effects to the species. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with Recovery Action 1.2

RA 2.2.3. Enhance bighorn sheep winter range habitat to increase visibility where appropriate

Description: Enhance bighorn sheep winter range habitat to increase visibility where appropriate. Favorable attributes of bighorn sheep habitat are steepness, rockiness, and visual openness. Although steepness and rockiness cannot be changed, openness can be modified via management of vegetation. In the past, fires may have burned in bighorn sheep habitat much more frequently than has occurred over the past century. Early ground and aerial photos indicate that habitats in the eastern Sierra Nevada had little vegetation tall enough to obstruct vision of bighorn sheep, and pinyon pine woodlands largely have developed since 1860 (Miller and Tausch 2001). In opening up habitats, fire can decrease the effectiveness of mountain lions as ambush predators and, perhaps, allow bighorn sheep greater access to low elevation winter ranges that provide nutritious forage. Policies to let fires burn in bighorn sheep habitat, coupled with prescribed fire or other methods of habitat manipulation, should be used to enhance winter ranges where visibility for bighorn sheep needs to be increased. Such habitat enhancements will likely produce greater connectivity among herd units and promote greater gene flow needed to conserve genetic diversity.

Overlap in Direction: Alternatives B and C address the use of fire as a management tool by providing direction stating that wildfires in sage-grouse habitat are prioritized for suppression after life and property and use of fire as a management tool where risk of escaped fire could cause long-term negative impacts would be avoided. Fuels treatment projects would emphasize reducing fire risk and protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems.

Consistency Analysis: Analysis of past SNBS locations show some limited spring and summer use within the analysis area (BSSG habitats), but no use during the winter months. Review of satellite imagery and vegetation data shows a limited amount of conifer (48 acres, Table 7) where bighorn sheep and sage-grouse habitats overlap, but there is no indication that conifers presence is the result of encroachment. In addition, the small amount of conifer is unlikely to measurably increase bighorn sheep vulnerability to predation or limit bighorn sheep seasonal movements. Therefore, there is no spatial overlap of RA 2.2.3 and effects generated by the action alternatives. Alternatives B and C are consistent with Recovery Action 2.2.3.

110


RA 2.4 Manage human use locally where it is found to cause bighorn sheep to avoid important habitat and, thereby, compromises survivorship or reproductive success.

Description: This action will take place only if research (see Task 6.4) results in a recommendation to limit human use in some areas; at present there appear to be few locations where recreational disturbance has the potential to significantly affect bighorn sheep. Focused research on effects of human activities on bighorn sheep will determine whether any limitations on human use are required. If it is concluded that limitations will be beneficial, appropriate actions should be taken to limit human use that is found to be detrimental. Disturbance by humans (or possibly by off-trail domestic dogs) will be significant to bighorn sheep if nutrient intake of a herd is compromised by avoiding key foraging areas because of human activity. Both quality and quantity of forage vary greatly across the landscape, and bighorn sheep visit key locations where more nutritious forage is available. If bighorn sheep are regularly displaced from such areas and cannot procure equivalent nutrient intake at an alternative site, population parameters of the herd will be negatively affected. If they frequently flee encounters with humans, there may also be an unnecessary waste of energy that can have population-level effects.

Overlap in Direction: Alternatives B and C address reduction or elimination of negative human-generated impacts to BSSG via goals, objectives, standards and guidelines described in Table 9. Among these are direction designed to reduce short-term and long-term disturbances through activity buffers, timing restrictions, and avoidance. :

Consistency Analysis: Management direction under the proposed action would overlap Recovery Action 1.2 on 399 acres (pending results of research as described above). Timing of disturbance buffers may or may not coincide with SNBS presence in the analysis area, thereby potentially reducing the temporal overlap of management direction. Seasonal restrictions related to road access that favor sage-grouse are unlikely to provide any measurable benefit to SNBS individuals or populations. Approximately 358 acres (90%) of the 399 acres within the analysis area occurs within the Virginia Lakes and Mt. Olsen Inventoried Roadless Areas, thereby minimizing the potential for existing or future road-related conflicts as well as projects that require roaded access. Outside of roadless areas, only 17 acres of SNBS habitat consists of a sagebrush vegetation type. Because the proposed action would reduce the level of human disturbances in BSSG habitat and does not conflict with this Recovery Action, the proposed action is consistent with RA 2.4.

Designated Critical Habitat Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep critical habitat Unit 1 (Mount Warren CHU) boundaries coincide with herd unit boundaries within the analysis area (Figure 2) and total 399 acres within the area. Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are described as the following (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008b):

1) Non-forested areas or forest openings within the Sierra Nevada from 4,000 feet to 14,500 feet elevation with steep (greater than or equal to 60 percent slope), rocky slopes that provide for foraging, mating, lambing, predator avoidance, and bedding and allow for seasonal movements between these areas;

2) Presence of a variety of forage plants as indicated by the presence of grasses and browse in winter, and grasses, browse, sedges, and forbs in summer;

3) Presence of granite outcroppings containing minerals such as sodium, calcium, iron, and phosphorus that could be used as mineral licks in order to meet nutritional needs.;

PCE Analysis

PCE 1

Where designated critical habitat overlaps the analysis area, elevations range from 9,400 to 10,250 feet. Areas are dominated by barren and shrub openings, but also contain about 48 acres of subalpine conifer. Slopes range from 0% to over 100% with approximately 73 acres on slopes of 60% or greater. On these steeper slopes, about 3 acres contain forested habitat or areas with scattered conifers where conifer

111


encroachment may have occurred. On more moderate slopes, an estimated 50 acres contains open areas with scattered conifers that may indicate encroachment over time.

Effects, Alternatives B and C

Management components proposed under alternatives B and C are compatible with PCE 1 by providing direction to maintain open shrub habitats and reduce conifer encroachments. Use of fire as a management tool to enhance bighorn sheep habitat is encouraged as one of several Special Management Considerations or Protection items described for the Mount Warren Critical Habitat Unit (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008b). Under alternatives B and C, using fire as a management tool is discouraged or precluded where the risk of escaped fire could cause long-term negative impacts to sage-grouse habitats (e.g. sagebrush). Therefore, in situations where prescribed fire may be considered as the tool to maintain or enhance bighorn sheep habitat, other management tools such as mechanical or manual treatments would likely be utilized where possible if there is risk to sage-grouse habitat. Limitations for these methods may exist in some areas (estimated up to 50 acres) due to factors such as steeper slopes and disturbance restrictions.

PCE 2

Areas where SNBS and BSSG habitats overlap consist of a variety of plant communities ranging from barren rocky areas to subalpine conifer (see Table 25).


The presence of a variety of forage plants as indicated by the presence of grasses and browse in winter, and grasses, browse, sedges, and forbs in summer is compatible with direction proposed under the action alternatives. Components provided under alternative 2 advocate retention or enhancement of sage-brush areas which also constitute a browse species for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Opportunities to manage for grass-forb habitat in existing areas dominated by sagebrush, however, maybe somewhat limited on up to 50 acres.

PCE 3


Availability and presence of granite outcroppings containing minerals such as sodium, calcium, iron, and phosphorus that could be used as mineral licks in order to meet nutritional needs would not be affected by components proposed under alternatives B and C.

Cumulative Effects (SNBS and Critical Habitat)

The area of overlap between SNBS and Bi-State sage-grouse habitats serve as the cumulative effects area. Where SNBS and the analysis area overlap, past actions such as livestock grazing, fire suppression, and road construction are incorporated into the existing condition. One existing road occurs within the area along the ridge west of Copper Mountain. Grazing allotments associated with overlapping habitats are currently inactive or vacant. Foreseeable actions include LMRP revision on the Inyo National Forest and RMP revisions on the Carson City and Battle Mountain BLM Districts. Each of these revision efforts contain or are expected to contain management direction that contributes to supporting sage-grouse viability. Some level of overlap of SNBS and BSSG habitats is likely to exist on the Inyo National Forest. No substantial cumulative impacts are expected for ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities.

Summary of Effects to Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Consistency between the proposed action and the recovery actions with the proposed action differs little from the no-action alternative concerning effects to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Management direction under the action alternatives is consistent with applicable Resource Actions prescribed in the Recovery Plan. Use of fire as a management tool may be more restricted in sage-grouse habitats. The use of other tools such as manual and mechanical methods of treatment to reduce areas of conifer encroachment to

112


benefit SNBS would continue to be available, but may be limited in certain areas due to disturbance restrictions, lack of access, or steep terrain. Therefore, alternatives B and C may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Summary of Effects to Critical Habitat Management direction proposed under alternative is consistent with PCEs for the Mount Warren Critical Habitat Unit. Availability of existing primary constituent elements would not be compromised. There may, however, be some instances where opportunities for enhancement of SBNS habitats using prescribed fire would be discouraged. This area is estimated at up to 50 acres. Other tools such as mechanical or manual treatment may be applied, but limitations may exist for those as well due to disturbance or geographical constraints. Therefore, due to some limitations in enhancement opportunities, alternatives B and C may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep designated critical habitat

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae) On April 29, 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the mountain yellow-legged frog (mountain yellow-legged frog populations that occur north of the Tehachapi Mountains; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014b). The rule becomes effective June 30, 2014. Critical habitat for the species is currently proposed (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013e).

The mountain yellow-legged frog until just recently included the Sierra Nevada and the southern California populations; however; current research has shown that the northern population of the mountain yellow-legged frog (now known as the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) – Rana sierrae) is geographically, morphologically, and genetically distinct from the southern California mountain yellow-legged frog (now known as the Southern mountain yellow-legged frog – Rana muscosa). The mountain yellow-legged frog was recognized as two species in the 2008 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. The contact zone for these two newly recognized species is in the vicinity of Mather Pass and the Monarch Divide, Fresno County (Vredenburg et al. 2007).

The SNYLF historically inhabited ponds, tarns, lakes, and streams from 4,500 to over 12,000 feet (Stebbins 1985) and was once the most common amphibian in high elevation aquatic ecosystems of the Sierra (Bradford et al. 1993). Large groups of populations in the northern Sierra and local populations elsewhere have since become extinct and have disappeared from 70-90% of its historic range in the bioregion (Jennings 1996). The SNYLF historically was found in the Sierra from north of the Feather River in Butte county to Tulare county. This frog was once found outside of California in Nevada around the Lake Tahoe area, but this population is now extinct.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs are seldom far from water, although they have been observed moving overland to disperse to other pond habitats. Typically, SNYLF prefer well illuminated, sloping banks of meadow streams, riverbanks, isolated pools, and lake borders with vegetation that is continuous to the water’s edge (Zeiner et al. 1988). Introduction of exotic predatory fish in aquatic habitats used by this species is likely the primary reason for the species' decline (Knapp and Matthews 2000). A recently discovered chytrid fungus is also affecting a number of SNYLF populations. Current research has also linked pesticide drift to declining SNYLF populations.

Between 1999 and 2009 extensive SNYLF surveys have been conducted throughout the Bridgeport Ranger District by personnel from the CDFG and Forest Service. On the Bridgeport Ranger District most of the SNYLF populations occur within the Hoover Wilderness where motorized routes do not occur. Outside of the wilderness area, SNYLF populations historically occurred at Summit Meadows, Chango Lake, and at Wolf Creek Lake; however, most recent surveys conducted in 2009 did not detect SNYLF at

113


Summit Meadows and Chango Lake. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs were however found at Wolf Creek Lake.

No known sites occur within the BSSG amendment area. The closest recorded occurrence was reported in 1995 at the Chango Lake site at which more recent surveys (2009) failed to find the species.

Proposed Critical Habitat

Primary constituent elements (PCEs) identified for SNYLF proposed critical habitat consist of the following (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013e):

1. Aquatic habitat for breeding and rearing 2. Aquatic nonbreeding habitat (including overwintering areas) 3. Upland areas

a. Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding and nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide area for feeding and movement by SNYLF.

i. for stream habitats, within 82 feet from bank or shoreline ii. in riparian/montane areas, riparian canopy cover less than 85 percent for basking.

iii. for areas between proximate (within 984 feet) water bodies (typical of some high elevation lake habitats), the upland area extends from the bank or shoreline between such water bodies.

iv. within mesic habitats such as lake and meadow systems, the entire area of physically contiguous or proximate habitat is suitable for dispersal or foraging.

b. Upland areas (catchments) adjacent to and surrounding breeding and nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide for the natural hydrologic regime (water quantity) of aquatic habitats. These upland areas should also allow for the maintenance of sufficient water quality to provide for the various life stages of the frog and its prey base.

The Bi-State amendment area contains approximately 915 acres of proposed Wells Creek critical habitat subunit for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog located in the area north of Silver Creek and east of Silver Creek Meadows (Figure 3). About 820 acres of proposed habitat overlaps Bi-State sage-grouse habitat, however, there are no mapped aquatic sites such as perennial streams, ponds, springs, or lakes that would constitute aquatic breeding or nonbreeding habitat (elements 1 and 2) located within the portion of critical habitat where the overlap occurs.

At the closest point, the mapped perimeter of sage-grouse habitat does occur within 82 feet of Silver Creek (a perennial stream) for a distance of approximately 350 feet. This area of proximity would constitute an Upland Area by definition (see 3.a. above). All other portions of sage-grouse habitat are further than 82 feet (averaging about 290 feet) from Silver Creek. This area of proximity also meets the definition of providing less than 85 percent canopy cover to the riparian area for basking. There are no other areas between proximate water bodies, nor are there mesic habitats such as lakes and meadows within the portion of overlap.

The area of overlap occurs within the catchment of Silver Creek and constitutes about 6% of the Silver Creek subwatershed (i.e. 6th-level HUC). It is situated along the middle portion of the subwatershed downstream from upper portions of the subwatershed previously known to include sites occupied by SNYLF. Based on previous known occupancy the upper portions of the subwatershed contain the highest potential for current SNYLF occurrence or future restoration. Therefore, upland areas encompassing sage-grouse habitats would not influence water quantity for aquatic habitats likely to provide for the various life stages of the frog and its prey base (see 3.b. above).

There are no known occurrences of SNYLF in the portion of Silver Creek proximate to sage-grouse habitat. In addition, the presence of brook trout in the portion of Silver Creek bordering sage-grouse habitat decreases the potential for SNYLF occupancy adjacent to the analysis area.

114


Figure 6. SNYLF Proposed Critical Habitat Overlap with Bi-State Sage-grouse Habitat


Alternative A (No Action), Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Under alternative A current management of habitat and proposed critical habitat would continue under existing direction. No amendment to the Forest Plan would occur. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to SNYLF and no adverse modification to proposed critical habitat.

Alternatives B and C

Direct Effects

115


Because this is a programmatic analysis, the resulting decision will provide guidance for FS and BLM land managers as they develop, review, and implement site specific projects on NFS lands and public lands managed by the BLM in the amendment area. Therefore, because LRMP direction and guidance does not analyze and implement site-specific projects, the proposed action will have no direct effects on Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog or proposed critical habitat.

Indirect Effects

The Bi-State amendment area contains approximately 915 acres of proposed Wells Creek critical habitat subunit for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog located in the area north of Silver Creek and east of Silver Creek Meadows (Figure 3). About 820 acres of proposed habitat overlaps Bi-State sage-grouse habitat, however, there are no mapped aquatic sites such as perennial streams, ponds, springs, or lakes that would constitute aquatic breeding or nonbreeding habitat (elements 1 and 2) located within the portion of critical habitat where the overlap occurs.

At the closest point, the mapped perimeter of sage-grouse habitat does occur within 82 feet of Silver Creek (a perennial stream) for a distance of approximately 350 feet. This area of proximity would constitute an Upland Area by definition (see 3.a. above). All other portions of sage-grouse habitat are further than 82 feet (averaging about 290 feet) from Silver Creek. This area of proximity also meets the definition of providing less than 85 percent canopy cover to the riparian area for basking. There are no other areas between proximate water bodies, nor are there mesic habitats such as lakes and meadows within the portion of overlap.

The area of overlap occurs within the catchment of Silver Creek and constitutes about 6% of the Silver Creek subwatershed (i.e. 6th-level HUC). It is situated along the middle portion of the subwatershed downstream from upper portions of the subwatershed previously known to include sites occupied by SNYLF. Based on previous known occupancy the upper portions of the subwatershed contain the highest potential for current SNYLF occurrence or future restoration. Therefore, upland areas encompassing sage-grouse habitats would not influence water quantity for aquatic habitats likely to provide for the various life stages of the frog and its prey base (see 3.b. above). There are no known occurrences of SNYLF in the portion of Silver Creek proximate to or downstream from sage-grouse habitat. In addition, the presence of brook trout in the portion of Silver Creek bordering sage-grouse habitat substantially decreases the potential for SNYLF occupancy adjacent to the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects

None of the activities identified in Table 6 contribute cumulative impacts to SNYLF.

Determination

Changes to the Forest Plan proposed under alternatives B and C would focus on upland habitats are unlikely to negatively affect water quantity from upland areas in general. Where management direction addresses riparian sites, the direction promotes reduction of anthropomorphic disturbances such as those associated with livestock grazing. Therefore, given the lack of aquatic primary constituent elements as well as the lack of potential effects to upland areas that could influence water availability for aquatic sites, alternatives B and C are not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat.

II. Sensitive Animal Species The Region 4 sensitive species list is composed of plants, birds, mammals, amphibians and fish identified for that region. We conducted a review for Region 4 (HTNF) and Nevada BLM (Carson City and Battle Mountain Districts) sensitive species that may occur or be affected by activities associated with the Planning EIS and subsequent Land and Resource Management Plan Forest Amendment for the Bi-State sage grouse in Nevada and California. Existing occurrence information, as well as known or potential habitat, was reviewed by searching the Natural Resource Management (NRM) database, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Nevada Natural Heritage Database (NNHP), and Nevada

116


Department of Wildlife species distribution sources. Additional sources such as scientific literature are also referenced when there is a need to clarify species habitats or occurrences.

In 2011 the Nevada list of BLM Sensitive Species was revised (IM NV-2011-059). Table 26 lists the BLM Nevada sensitive animal species within the Carson City District. There are two federal candidate species on the Nevada sensitive species list; greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). These species are now addressed above as proposed for federal listing and federally listed as threatened, respectively. There are currently no known populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs in Nevada; all populations are in California on Forest Service land.

The Region 4 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list was revised in February 2013. There are 17 animal species known to occur or potentially occurring on the Toiyabe portion of the HTNF (Table 26).

All of the species in Table 26 were considered in this analysis and compared to the four criteria listed below. The four criteria were used to identify species that would experience “no impact” from the implementation of the action alternatives and could therefore be eliminated from detailed analysis. These numerical categories below are referred to in Table 8:

1. Suitable habitat and/or elevation range does not exist for these species in the analysis area.

2. The type or intensity of the activity in the proposed action is expected to have no impact/effect on these species or their habitat.

3. Individual animals may be accidental, dispersing, migrating, happenstance, vagrant, nomadic or opportunistic visitors to the habitat(s) impacted by the proposal, but no affiliation or dependence upon these habitat(s) has been shown.

Species in Table 31 that are likely to occur within or near the analysis area, or with potential habitat in or near the analysis area that may be affected (negatively or positively, directly, indirectly and/or cumulatively) by implementation of an action alternative were it carried forward into Table 32, and a more detailed analysis of the project effects was subsequently conducted.

117


Table 31– HTNF and BLM (Carson and Battle Mountain Districts) Sensitive Animal Species

Species Habitats BLM (CCD)

USFS (HTNF)

Known or suspected to be present in the analysis area?

Evaluation Criteria

Biological Determination

MAMMALS

Pallid bat

Antrozous pallidus

Multiple habitats used. Roosts include rock outcrops, mines, caves, buildings, bridges, and hollow trees.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Pygmy rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis

Sagebrush X X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii (townsendii)

Highly associated with caves and mines in a variety of habitats. May roost in trees and buildings with “cave-like” spaces in order to be suitable.

X X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Big brown bat

Eptesicus fuscus

Selects a variety of day roosts including caves, trees (e.g., Ponderosa pine, quaking aspen

and oaks), mines, buildings and bridges. Often night roosts in more open settings in buildings, mines

and bridges.

X X 2, 3 No Effect

Spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

Found in a wide variety of habitats from low elevation desert scrub to high elevation coniferous forest habitats. Day roosts primarily in crevices in cliff faces but some indication that mines and caves may occasionally be used.

X X 2, 3 No Effect

Silver-haired bat

Lasionycteris noctivagans

Lower Montane woodland, Aspen Woodland & Sierra Conifer Forests and Woodlands. Roosts almost exclusively in snags in summer.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

118


Western red bat

Lasiurus blossevillii

Uses cottonwood/willow riparian and mesquite bosque habitats for roosting

X X 2, 3 No Effect

Hoary bat

Lasiurus cinereus

Found primarily in forested upland habitats, gallery-forest riparian zones Also uses pure stands of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum)

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus

Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub & Sagebrush

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Pale kangaroo mouse Microdipodops pallidus

Cold Desert Scrub X X 2 No Effect

California myotis

Myotis californicus

Multiple habitats used. Crevice roosting. Selects a variety of day roosts including mines, caves, buildings, rock crevices, hollow trees, and under exfoliating bark.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Western small-footed myotis

Myotis ciliolabrum

Multiple habitats used. Roosts in caves, mines, and trees.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Long-eared myotis

Myotis evotis

Primarily a forest-associated species. Roosts include crevices, mines, caves, buildings, bridges, and hollow trees.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Little brown myotis

Myotis lucifugus

Found primarily at higher elevations and higher latitudes, often associated with coniferous forest. Roosts include mines, caves, buildings, and trees.

X X 2, 3 No Effect

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Multiple habitats used. Roosts include mines, caves, buildings, and trees.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Long-legged myotis

Myotis volans

Found in pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree woodland, and montane coniferous forest habitats. Primarily roosts in large diameter hollow trees or snags. Also uses crevices, mines, caves, and buildings.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

119


Yuma myotis

Myotis yumanensis

Multiple habitats used. Roosts include crevices, mines, caves, buildings, bridges, and hollow trees.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Pika

Ochotona princeps

Restricted to rocky talus slopes, or rimrocks with deep fssures and crevices, primarily the talus-meadow interface.

X X 2, 3 No Effect

Desert bighorn sheep

Ovis canadensis nelsoni

Grasslands or shrub-steppe in mountains, foothills, or river

Canyons.

X X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Western pipistrelle Pipistrellus heperus

Desert habitats and sage brush. Roosts primarily in rock crevices, but may use mines or caves.

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida braziliensis

Uses rocky, arid habitats. Roosts primarily in crevices in cliff faces, although occasionally in buildings and caves.

X X 2,3 No Effect

Sierra Nevada red fox Vulpes vulpes necator

Montane and subalpine conifer and associated habitats

X X 2 No Effect

BIRDS

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Mature conifer, aspen woodland X X X 2, 3 No Effect

Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

Cliffs and Canyons, Sagebrush, and Lower Montane Woodland

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia


X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

Intermountain Rivers and Streams, Sagebrush, Lower Montane Woodlands

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Swainson's hawk

Buteo swainsoni

Agricultural Lands and Intermountain Rivers and Streams

X X 2, 3 No Effect

Greater sage-grouse (P) Centrocercus urophasianus

Sagebrush, Springs and Springbrooks, & Wet Meadows

X X Addressed as Proposed

See detailed

Analysis above

120


Snowy plover

Charadrius alexandrinus

Desert Playa and Ephemeral Pools X 2 No Effect

Yellow-billed cuckoo (C) Coccyzus americanus

Riparian hardwoods X X 2 No Effect

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus

Cliffs and Canyons & Marshes X X X 2 No Effect

Pinyon jay

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Lower Montane Woodlands X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Intermountain Rivers and Streams, Lakes and Reservoirs, Sierra Conifer Forests and Woodlands

X X X 2, 3 No Effect

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Cold Desert Scrub & Sagebrush X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Aspen Woodland & Sierra Conifer Forests and Woodlands

X X 2 No Effect

Mountain quail

Oerortyx pictus

Montane chaparral X X 2, 3 No Effect

Sage thrasher

Oreoscoptes montanus

Sagebrush & Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub primarily where contiguous or interspersed with sagebrush

X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Flammulated owl

Otus flammeolus

Montane conifer X X 2 No Effect

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus

Montane conifer X X 2 No Effect

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus

Montane and subalpine conifer X X 2 No Effect

Brewer’s sparrow

Spizella breweri

Sagebrush and Cold Desert Scrub X X Not excluded

See detailed

Analysis below

Great gray owl

Strix nebulosa

Mature montane and subalpine conifer with grass/forb openings

X X 2, 3 No Effect

121


California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis

Mature montane conifer X X 2 No Effect

REPTILES

Shasta alligator lizard

Elgaria coerulea shastaensis

Ground-level Structure in Conifer Forests and Woodlands

X X 3 No Effect

AMPHIBIANS

Dixie Valley toad

Bufo boreas sp.

Playas and Ephemeral Pools X X 2, 3 No Effect

Columbia spotted frog (C)

Rana luteiventris

X 1 No Effect

Mountain yellow-legged frog

Rana muscosa (Rana sierra)

X X X Addressed as Proposed

See detailed analysis above

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Springs and Springbrooks, & Wet Meadows

X X 2, 3 No Effect

INSECTS

Hardy’s aegialian scarab Aegialia hardyi

Sand Dunes and Badlands X 1 No Effect

Bee

Anthophora sp. nov. 1


Sand Mountain aphodius scarab

Aphodius sp. 3

Sand Dunes X 2 No Effect

Click beetle

Cardiophorus sp. nov.


Sand Mountain pygmy scarab beetle

Coenonycha pygmaea


Early blue

Euphilotes enoptes primavera

Lower Mountain Canyons, Desert, Grassland/herbaceous, Shrubland/ chaparral

X 1 No Effect

122


Sand Mountain blue Euphilotes pallescens arenamontana

Sand Dunes and Badlands supporting Kearney buckwheat

X 1 No Effect

Bee

Hesperapis sp. nov. 2


Mono Basin skipper

Hesperia uncas giulianii

Single-leaf pinyon pine, Great Basin shrub in the Adobe Hills area

X 1 No Effect

Bee

Perdita haigi


Bee

Perdita sp. nov. 3


Great Basin small blue Philotiella speciosa septentrionalis

Deserts, sandy washes, desert flats X 2 No Effect

Carson Valley silverspot Speyeria nokomis carsonensis

Grasslands and Meadows X 2 No Effect

123


Table 32. Species analyzed in detail because they may be affected by one of the action alternatives.

Species

Habitats

MAMMALS

Pallid bat

Antrozous pallidus

Multiple habitats used. Roosts include rock outcrops, mines, caves, buildings, bridges, and hollow trees.

Pygmy rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis

Sagebrush

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii (townsendii)

Highly associated with caves and mines in a variety of habitats. May roost in trees and buildings with “cave-like” spaces in order to be suitable.

Silver-haired bat

Lasionycteris noctivagans

Lower Montane woodland, Aspen Woodland & Sierra Conifer Forests and Woodlands. Roosts almost exclusively in snags in summer.

Hoary bat

Lasiurus cinereus

Found primarily in forested upland habitats, gallery-forest riparian zones Also uses pure stands of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum)

Dark kangaroo mouse

Microdipodops megacephalus


California myotis

Myotis californicus

Multiple habitats used. Crevice roosting. Selects a variety of day roosts including mines, caves, buildings, rock crevices, hollow trees, and under exfoliating bark.

Western small-footed myotis

Myotis ciliolabrum

Multiple habitats used. Roosts in caves, mines, and trees.

Long-eared myotis

Myotis evotis

Primarily a forest-associated species. Roosts include crevices, mines, caves, buildings, bridges, and hollow trees.

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Multiple habitats used. Roosts include mines, caves, buildings, and trees.

Long-legged myotis

Myotis volans

Found in pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree woodland, and montane coniferous forest habitats. Primarily roosts in large diameter hollow trees or snags. Also uses crevices, mines, caves, and buildings.

Yuma myotis

Myotis yumanensis

Multiple habitats used. Roosts include crevices, mines, caves, buildings, bridges, and hollow trees.


Ovis canadensis nelsoni

Grasslands or shrub-steppe in mountains, foothills, or river

Canyons.

Western pipistrelle

Pipistrellus heperus

Desert habitats and sage brush. Roosts primarily in rock crevices, but may use mines or caves.

BIRDS

124


Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

Cliffs and Canyons, Sagebrush, and Lower Montane Woodland

Western burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia


Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

Intermountain Rivers and Streams, Sagebrush, Lower Montane Woodlands

Greater sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus

Addressed above separately as Proposed for Federal Listing

Sagebrush, Springs and Springbrooks, & Wet Meadows

Pinyon jay

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Lower Montane Woodlands

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Cold Desert Scrub & Sagebrush

Sage thrasher

Oreoscoptes montanus

Sagebrush & Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub primarily where contiguous or interspersed with sagebrush

Brewer’s sparrow

Spizella breweri

Sagebrush and Cold Desert Scrub

Species Information and Effects Analysis Bi-State sage-grouse (BSSG) and their habitat have been discussed above in the Proposed Species section. Sensitive species addressed below are grouped by habitat affinity for this analysis due to the similar nature of the habitats they occupy and similar potential effects to their habitat components.

Sagebrush Associated Species

Affected Environment Pygmy rabbit, dark kangaroo mouse, Desert bighorn sheep, ferruginous hawk, and loggerhead shrike are sagebrush-dependent or associated species that are grouped together for this analysis. Though each of the species may not be completely dependent upon sagebrush for every life history stage, for the sake of this analysis, and based on the potential effects, programmatic nature of the conservation measures and landscape scale which is being analyzed, we grouped them into this category and call them Sagebrush Associated Species. In addition, as the nature of the project is to amend Forest Plans to include regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures to protect sagebrush habitats for BSSG, the effects would generally be similar for these species where habitat overlaps.

Pygmy rabbit

The pygmy rabbit is the smallest of all North American rabbits. The pygmy rabbit is largely dependent upon sagebrush (primarily big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata), but is usually found in areas where big sagebrush grows in very dense stands. Within these stands of dense sagebrush, it selects sites that have the greatest cover densities. Burrows are usually under big sagebrush and only rarely located in an opening in the vegetation. Generally soft, deep soils are required for burrowing. They also use the

125


contours of the soil, most often digging into a slope. Sexual development in males begins in January, peaks in March and declines in June. Females are fertile from late February through March in Utah and from late March through late May in Idaho. The gestation period lasts from 26 to 28 days. Litter size ranges from five to eight and average six. Females are able to produce three letters per year. The pygmy rabbit will not cross even moderately large areas of open ground.

Pygmy rabbits are found primarily on plains dominated by big sagebrush and on alluvial fans where plants occur in tall, dense clumps (Green and Flinders 1980). The hiding/cover attribute of woody vegetation (height) and the herbaceous component is perhaps the most critical habitat element for this species (Green and Flinders 1980), because they would seldom venture even a short distance from suitable cover, dense stands of big sagebrush along streams, roads, fences and ditches may be the avenues of dispersal (Green and Flinders 1980a). Fragmentation and loss of sagebrush habitat is a major concern because pygmy rabbits are suspected of being reluctant or unable to cross open areas to disperse (Weiss and Verts 1984). Since the pygmy rabbit is a sagebrush obligate, the loss of habitat is probably the most significant factor contributing to pygmy rabbit population declines. Fragmentation of sagebrush communities also poses a threat to populations of pygmy rabbits (Weiss and Verts 1984), due to their poor dispersal potential. The protection of sagebrush, particularly on floodplains and where high water tables allow growth of tall, dense stands is a vital attribute to the survival of pygmy rabbits.

Pygmy rabbit occurrence within the project area is questionable. Mapping of known populations by Larrucea and Brussard (2008) as well as CNDDB wildlife observation records show a population in the Mono Lake area where the nearest observation is about 5.5 miles from the analysis area. They are still addressed here because the status of survey effort for pygmy rabbits within the analysis area is unknown.

Dark kangaroo mouse

This species is found in the Upper Sonoran Sagebrush Desert zone where it is associated with sagebrush and shadscale with substrates of gravelly or fine soils from 3,900 to 8,000 feet. Sand dunes are also occupied (Zeveloff 1988). Dark kangaroo mice are nocturnal and are mostly active during warm weather, remaining in underground burrows during the day and during cold winter months.

Litters consist of two to seven young born during late spring or early summer, with potential to produce more than one litter per year. The species feeds primarily on seeds, but insects are also consumed. Food is sometimes stored in burrows for later use.

Known distribution includes Upper Sonoran Desert portions of Oregon, Utah, California, and Nevada. Database records show several records in Mineral County within the analysis area. Actual species distribution within the project area is not known.


The Desert bighorn ranges through the dry, desert mountains of eastern California, much of Nevada, northwestern Arizona, and southern Utah. They prefer steep, rocky terrain for escape from predators, bedding, and lambing. This type of terrain minimizes predation risk through easy access to escape terrain adjacent to areas where more forage (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) may be available. They generally avoid dense vegetation that blocks visibility.

Low precipitation as a result of being located in the Sierra Nevada rain shadow has recently affected habitat conditions for the East Walker River herd (NDOW 2013).

The range of several desert bighorn herds overlaps the BSSG project area, but the East Walker River herd is the only group to overlap the analysis area. Sporadic presence of individual stray domestic sheep in the East Walker River has created a high risk of pathogen transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn (NDOW 2013).

The effects of fire on bighorn sheep habitat vary depending on the vegetative community impacted. In some of the lower elevation sagebrush habitats, cheatgrass readily establishes after a fire and prohibits the

126


reestablishment of native vegetation. In other areas, primarily dominated by pinyon and juniper trees, fires can be a major benefit to sheep habitat by increasing the productivity of the site through reduction in tree cover and increasing grasses and forbs (NDOW 2001). Review of satellite photos in the East Walker River herd area indicates little presence of pinyon-juniper, except on some north aspects. Because of the lack of pinyon-juniper, effects of the alternatives on pinyon-juniper would not apply to bighorn sheep habitats in the East Walker River.

Golden eagle

Golden eagles in Nevada are highly associated with sagebrush and sagebrush-steppe habitats primarily for foraging, but nest in rock crags, cliffs, canyons, and mountains. Nevada populations are thought to be stable, and distribution is widespread throughout the State (Floyd et al. 2007).

The species is a year-round resident in Nevada. Prey species consist mainly of smaller mammals, most of which are rabbits or rodents. Annual home ranges are extremely large. Key limiting factors for Golden Eagle populations are prey densities and availability of nest sites near suitable prey populations. Once Golden Eagles reach adulthood, their main source of premature mortality appears to be collisions with structures and electrocutions from power lines or other electrical equipment. Direct disturbance of nests appears to be infrequent, but localized disturbances can cause nest failure or abandonment (GBBO 2010).

A number of golden eagle observations are identified throughout the project area.

Western burrowing owl

Burrowing owls are associated most with sagebrush and salt desert scrub habitats containing low vegetation in areas where burrows dug by rodents or other small mammals exist. They are often present in areas where disturbance or grazing has shortened or removed the vegetation (GBBO 2010).

Nesting occurs colonially in areas containing burrows. Diet consists of a variety of arthropods, small mammals and reptiles.

Several burrowing owl observations are located within the BSSG project area, but none overlap with the analysis area. Suitable habitat may occur within the amendment area.

Ferruginous hawk

The ferruginous hawk primarily occupies open grasslands and shrublands, and avoids forests, steep terrain, and higher elevations. In general, they prefer sagebrush areas for foraging with scattered trees (pinyon-juniper) available for nesting (Floyd et al. 2007). Primary prey species include rabbits and ground squirrels.

Distribution in Nevada is mostly concentrated in the east-central portion of the State, with breeding confirmed as far south as Nye County. Nevada lies along the southwestern edge of the species’ range, and there are scarcely any nesting records from California (Floyd et al. 2007) although numerous winter sightings are reported for the Central Valley and inland coast areas.

Several observations are reported for the northern portion of the project area, with one observation located in the southern portion. No observations coincide with the assessment area. Floyd et al. (2007) show no breeding sites in the vicinity of the California-Nevada border.

Sage thrasher

As implied by the name, the sage thrasher is highly associated with sagebrush habitats, and also will utilize salt desert (greasewood) and montane shrub areas. Preferences in sagebrush include moderate to high canopy closures (11-44%) at heights of about 1-3 feet with sparse to moderate ground cover. Sage thrashers are consistently more numerous in areas with greater cover of high quality sagebrush, and they are often positively associated with greater shrub height and vertical complexity. They avoid areas with junipers, even if they are present in low densities. On a landscape scale, Sage Thrashers are more likely

127


to occur where uninterrupted sagebrush cover is present over large spatial expanses. Any treatment that decreases or fragments sagebrush cover is likely to be detrimental (GBBO 2010).

Nests are usually placed on the ground or on a low branch of dense shrub. It is a ground forager with diet components consisting of medium-sized terrestrial insects such as crickets. It will also feed on berries and seeds outside the breeding season (GBBO 2010).

Distribution in Nevada is state-wide where suitable habitats occur. Floyd et al. (2007) show one confirmed location likely to be within the project area.

Brewers’ sparrow

This species is highly associated with sagebrush habitats, but utilizes a wide elevational range of habitats including sagebrush in valley floors to montane sagebrush where breeding densities can be higher. Nevada Bird Count analyses and other sources indicate that Brewer’s Sparrows are most abundant when the landscape mosaic provides varying shrub densities, and furthermore, that they are most likely to occur within 3,300 ft of surface water (GBBO 2010).

Nesting normally occurs in the dense crown of a tall shrub from mid-April to early August. They forage by gleaning for insects within the shrub layer.

Distribution in Nevada is state-wide outside of Mojave Desert habitats. Floyd et al. (2007) show several confirmed locations likely to be within the project area.

Loggerhead shrike

Loggerhead shrike breeding habitat consists of arid open country with scattered perches in desert shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, mountain mahogany stands, sagebrush, and sagebrush-steppe. Scattered small trees or tall shrubs are often used for nesting. Diets consist of a wide range of invertebrates and smaller vertebrates (Floyd et al. 2007).

The species breeds across most of the United States. In Nevada they are present throughout most of the state in open shrub habitat. Recent declines have been noted, with conversion of shrub-steppe to grass for grazing or agriculture, altered fire regimes, and invasion of annual grasses identified as potential contributing factors (Floyd et al. 2007).

Although suitable habitats are available, wildlife databases show only one record for the project area and analysis area, occurring along the border of Mineral and Esmeralda counties.


Alternative A (No-Action) Effects of alternative A on sagebrush-associated species are similar to those described for the Bi-State sage grouse. Alternative A would maintain current land management direction, with some direction provided to manage habitat for sagebrush associated species. This alternative has the highest potential to impact sagebrush-associated species due to the lower level of restrictions on activities that cause negative impacts.

Alternatives B and C Effects of the action alternatives on sagebrush-associated species are similar to those described for the Bi-State sage grouse (BSSG) (see Proposed Species section above).

Alternatives B and C would encourage consolidation of sagebrush habitat via desired habitat conditions, habitat objectives, and standards and guidelines described above for BSSG. These conservation measures would be more protective than measures in alternative A, by providing additional protection and prescribed restoration measures in varying degree within sagebrush habitats.

128


Under the action alternatives, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented to emphasize protection of existing sagebrush ecosystems. Fuels management programs would consider sagebrush-associated species habitat needs. These policies would be likely to reduce the acres of sagebrush burned in wildfires, or lost during fuels treatment programs. Therefore, these policies would provide additional protection to BSSG habitat in comparison to alternative A, although as described for BSSG, alternative C provides a higher level of risk reduction and conservation of sagebrush habitats in comparison to alternative B.

Under the action alternatives, the HTNF and BLM would continue to implement noxious weed and invasive species control using integrated weed management actions per existing plans to control, suppress, and eradicate noxious and invasive species, similar to direction provided under alternative A. However, fire-related measures specified in alternative B and C would provide decreased risk of establishment of invasive plants, especially cheatgrass in comparison to alternative A. The action alternatives also provide additional direction that would increase emphasis on reductions in pinyon-juniper encroachment to benefit sagebrush distribution in comparison to alternative A.

Alternative C would remove livestock grazing and infrastructure thereby removing associated risk factors. Alternative B places emphasis on grass/forb utilization standards designed to retain adequate resources for BSSG that would also retain grass/forb resources for other associated species including sensitive species considered here.

Management direction provided under alternative B and C that address risk factors associated with infrastructure, small population size and structure, urbanization, mining, renewable energy, predation, recreation, and climate would also reduce risk to sagebrush-associated sensitive species generally to the degree described for BSSG.

For the ferruginous hawk which utilizes sagebrush habitat for foraging and larger, older pinyon-juniper trees in a savannah-like setting for nesting, reductions in pinyon-juniper prescribed under the action alternatives have the potential to impact availability of nest trees locally. Therefore, management recommendations provided below for pinyon jays that prioritize retention of mature and old pinyon-juniper would also retain nest trees most likely to support ferruginous hawks.

Cumulative Effects Sagebrush habitat within the project area serves as the cumulative effects analysis area for sagebrush-associated species because it encompasses potential overlap of effects. There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM land adjacent Forest Service and BLM lands. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat. Ongoing activities including Forest Service and BLM land management planning are likely to incorporate management direction that provides some level of protection and improvement of BSSG habitats. Past travel management plans on the HTNF have prescribed reductions in open road densities in addition to other travel restrictions that likely benefit sage grouse. Ongoing geothermal leasing on HTNF lands may have some measure of added effect, but cumulatively this is likely to be minor at the project area scale.

Summary of Effects Management direction provided under the action alternatives would increase retention and emphasize restoration of sagebrush habitats and consequently decreases risk to sagebrush-associated species. Effects to these species and their habitats due to alternatives B and C would be generally beneficial due to reducing anthropogenic influences to sagebrush habitats known and identified as such where these habitats overlap with BSSG habitat. Conversely, some negative effects to these other species may result from shifting anthropogenic disturbances into other sagebrush communities not associated with BSSG.

129


For example, by avoiding sage grouse habitat according to any action alternative, pygmy rabbits or sage thrashers may be impacted in adjacent sagebrush environments by being outside of mapped BSSG habitats. Under the No Action, incremental small scale negative effects to sagebrush-associated species are more likely. Conversely, where species’ habitats and distribution overlap with BSSG habitats there would likely be beneficial impacts as a result of implementing the action alternatives, with alternative C providing further risk reduction in comparison to alternative B.

Species Utilizing Snags and Trees for Roosting A number of bat species listed in Table 9 utilize snags and trees specifically for nesting or roosting, or in addition to other roosting structures that occur in habitats within the analysis area. Habitat associations of the pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, silver-haired bat, hoary bat, California myotis, western small-footed myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis, and western pipistrelle overlap with those within the analysis area. Each of these exhibits a range of habitat preferences, but all are associated to some degree with roosting in tree and snag structures. Therefore, these species are grouped for analysis of effects on potential impacts to roosting structures, specifically in pinyon-juniper woodlands, under the alternatives.


Alternative A (No-Action) Both the Forest Service and BLM implement pinyon-juniper treatments using a variety of methods to reduce conifer encroachment of sagebrush communities. The HTNF LRMP does not specify actions to reduce pinyon-juniper woodlands, but do contain goals and objectives for maintaining improving, or restoring wildlife habitats often for big game winter range and/or livestock grazing. The HTNF LRMP contains standards and guidelines in relation to timber treatments in pinyon-juniper and riparian:

• The following pinyon/juniper management guidelines are suggested for use. These are based on the assumption that an environmental analysis has been done and that the resource manager and line officer have made a decision concerning the best use for the specific site. o All snag, riparian area, old growth, and other Forest standards will be followed while treating

any area. o Caution will be taken by the resource manager while treating pinyon/juniper areas so that

whatever treatment is used, invasion by cheatgrass and other “weed" species will not occur. o Clearings generally will be limited to fewer than 40 acres.

• Pinyon/Juniper: Retain 60 percent of all naturally occurring snags. Retain live trees showing wildlife use, such as cavities, unless the prescription calls for complete removal of trees.

• Riparian areas. These are defined as "Geographically delineated areas, with distinctive resource values and characteristics, that are comprised of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems, floodplains, and wetlands. They include all areas within a horizontal distance of 100 feet from the edge of perennial streams or other water bodies."

o Average two snag/acre, 16 inch DBH, 30 feet high, dead five years or more. o Average two snag/acre, 16 inch DBH, 16 feet high, dead five years or more.

• Future snags (green trees): o Average two /acre, 16 inch DBH, 30 feet high.

• Aspen. Retain 10 percent of all naturally occurring snags. Retain live trees showing wildlife use such as cavities. Aspen snags should be (>) 10 inches DBH and (>) 20 feet high.

The Carson City District RMP management direction for snags includes the following:

• Dead-standing or live cottonwood or aspen trees will remain. Any dead or live trees in identified deer migration corridors will be left for wildlife use.

130


• The sale of dead standing and down fuelwoods, for personal use, with the exception of standing cottonwood or aspen, will continue in the Reno CCDPA outside of deer migration corridors and identified critical watersheds. Any sales within identified high erosion areas must not reduce ground cover more than 50 percent.

The Tonopah RMP (Battle Mountain District) management direction for Forestry and Vegetative Products includes the following:

• Pinyon and juniper deadwood may be harvested in all accessible woodland acreage outside wilderness study areas. The removal of dead mahogany, cottonwood or aspen will be prohibited in order to maintain suitable wildlife habitat.

Existing management direction under Forest Service and BLM units does prescribe retention of cottonwood (riparian) and aspen dead trees, and the HTNF prescribes a level (60%) of pinyon-juniper snag retention in treatment areas. Therefore, there is potential for snag removal in pinyon-juniper habitats under alternative A. If bat species were to be using snags at the time of removal, there could be direct impacts to individuals. Removal of snags outside the bat use period could impact individuals indirectly by reducing local availability of potential roost sites.

Alternatives B and C Under alternatives B and C, potential impacts to snag and tree roosting bat species would be similar to those described for alternative A, although at a greater magnitude due to emphasis on reductions in pinyon-juniper encroachment . These potential impacts are still expected to apply to individual bats as opposed to populations because the existing pinyon-juniper habitat amount is considerably vast (nearly 750,000 acres within the project area). In addition, these species are not reliant solely on snag availability in pinyon-juniper snags and trees for roosting. They roost more opportunistically by using other structures as well including caves, mines, rock and cliff crevices when available.

Cumulative Effects Forest and woodland areas within mapped sage-grouse habitat serves as the cumulative effects analysis area because the area encompasses potential overlap of effects. There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Pinyon-juniper habitat also occurs on private, state, and other ownerships adjacent to Forest Service and BLM lands. Although the extent is unknown, pinyon-juniper reduction treatments could be planned and implemented on these adjacent lands. However, given the existing scale of pinyon-juniper distribution, it is unlikely that cumulative impacts will be substantial at the project area scale. Past travel management plans on the HTNF have prescribed reductions in open road densities in addition to other travel restrictions that likely reduced access to pinyon-juniper as a fuelwood source. Ongoing geothermal leasing on HTNF lands may have some measure of added effect, but cumulatively this is likely to be minor at the project area scale.

Summary of Effects and Determination Both the no-action and proposed action alternatives would continue to provide levels of snag retention provided under current management direction. The action alternatives may impact individual bats, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of loss of viability for any bat species in the planning area. This is because the existing pinyon-juniper habitat amount is considerably vast (nearly 750,000 acres within the project area) and management direction under the action alternatives place emphasis on reduction in pinyon-juniper phases 1 and 2, thereby allowing retention of phase 3 areas that are more likely to contain larger, older trees suitable for roosting and nesting. In addition, these species are not reliant solely on snag availability in pinyon-juniper snags and trees for roosting. They roost more opportunistically by using other structures as well including caves, mines, and rock and cliff crevices when available.

131


Pinyon jay Pinyon jays are highly associated with pinyon-juniper woodlands, especially those in proximity to sagebrush. They use stands with a wide range of tree densities, but are less common in dense, closed-canopy settings. Preferred habitat consists of mixed-age mosaic of woodland transitioning into, or interspersed with, sagebrush shrubland. Nests are commonly placed in the interior of mature or old pinyon or juniper near the trunk, often on a south-facing slope (GBBO 2010).

While pinyon-juniper distribution has been expanding in recent history, pinyon jay numbers have decreased. This may be due to the development over the last century of large expanses of closed-canopy pinyon-juniper that lack the mixed-age woodland mosaics with shrubby openings and a complex sagebrush habitat edge (GBBO 2010).

Distribution of pinyon jays in Nevada is statewide where suitable habitats exist, except that it appears absent from most of the northwestern portion of the State. Floyd et al. (2007) show several confirmed locations within the BSSG project area.


Alternative A (No-Action) Effects under this alternative are similar to those described for species utilizing snags and trees for roosting. Both the Forest Service and BLM implement pinyon-juniper treatments using a variety of methods to reduce conifer encroachment of sagebrush communities. LRMPs and RMPs do not specify management direction specifically for pinyon jays, but the Plans do specify the following direction to manage habitats to maintain or benefit sensitive species:

HTNF Land and Resource Management Plan

• Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery.

Carson City District Resource Management Plan

• Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will be recognized and protected through habitat management and coordination with state wildlife agencies. Habitat will be in good-to-excellent condition.

Tonopah Resource Management Plan

Special Status Species:

• Objective o To protect, restore, enhance, and expand habitat of species identified as threatened,

endangered, or Nevada BLM Sensitive Species under the Endangered Species Act.

Alternatives B and C Under the action alternatives, potential impacts to pinyon jays would be similar to those described for alternative A. However, because alternatives B and C place increased emphasis on sagebrush habitat restoration and reduction of pinyon-juniper encroachment (see below), larger amounts of reductions in pinyon-juniper habitat extent would occur in comparison to alternative A. Pinyon-juniper phases 1 and 2 are emphasized for restoration management. These potential impacts may apply to individuals or local populations, depending upon the extent of treatment proposed and the amount of suitable pinyon habitat available.

Action Alternative Proposed Management Direction

132


Guideline: Alternatives B and C:C-Wild-G-03: Remove phase 1 and 2 pinyon-juniper located in habitat during habitat restoration projects, with the intent to maintain sage brush habitat prior to establishment of forest species.

Objective 1a: By 2024, 200,000 acres of degraded habitat (i.e., areas with conifer encroachment, invasive annual grasses, and/or altered fire regimes) have been improved through changes in management or restoration activities to meet habitat objectives.

While a relatively vast amount of pinyon-juniper exists within the project area, some extent of this may consist of dense stands not suitable for pinyon jays. Where pinyon-juniper treatments coincide with suitable habitat in limited availability, these treatments may have an effect on the local pinyon jay population. Therefore, the following additional conservation measures, as outlined in Ammon and Boone (2013) are recommended to be included in the BSSG Amend EIS to avoid negative impacts to local pinyon jay populations:

Recommended Conservation Measures:

• Prior to treatments in suitable pinyon jay nesting habitat, conduct clearance surveys for nesting pinyon jays.

• Avoid treatments in known roost sites and areas used by nesting colonies (buffer distance according to Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO) recommendations).

• Retain high priority pinyon-juniper trees in late and old age classes.

These conservation measures are also expected to benefit retention of nest trees for ferruginous hawks (see above).

Cumulative Effects Pinyon-juniper woodland areas within mapped sage-grouse habitat serve as the cumulative effects analysis area because the area encompasses potential overlap of effects. There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Pinyon-juniper habitat also occurs on private, state, and other ownerships adjacent to Forest Service and BLM lands. Although the extent is unknown, pinyon-juniper reduction treatments could be planned and implemented on these adjacent lands. However, given the existing scale of pinyon-juniper distribution, it is unlikely that cumulative impacts will be substantial at the project area scale. Past travel management plans on the HTNF have prescribed reductions in open road densities in addition to other travel restrictions that likely reduced access to pinyon-juniper as a fuelwood source. Ongoing geothermal leasing on HTNF lands may have some measure of added effect, but cumulatively this is likely to be minor at the project area scale.

Summary of Effects and Determination Both the no-action and action alternatives would continue to retain high amounts of pinyon-juniper habitat on the landscape. Under the action alternatives, inclusion of recommended conservation measures described above would reduce potential negative impacts to individuals and local populations. Therefore, alternatives B and C may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of loss of viability for the pinyon jay in the planning area.

Summary of Effects to Sensitive Species This analysis addresses the potential impacts of each alternative on sensitive species and their habitats that may be present in the analysis area in terms of the following resource areas: Isolation/Habitat Fragmentation, Fire, Invasive Weeds, Conifer Encroachment, Minerals/Energy Development, Infrastructure, and Livestock Grazing/Wild Horses management. Of the 4.24 million acres of Forest Service and BLM System lands within the project area, these action alternatives seek to modify management of sagebrush on roughly 15% of those lands.

133


The primary difference between alternative A (no change in current direction) and alternatives B and C, is that the action alternatives would put into place regulatory authority and direction to protect and conserve BSSG habitats and minimize negative effects associated with land management actions in the resource areas above. Likewise, other sagebrush-associated species considered in this report are likely experience similar positive effects related to protecting sage grouse habitat, where there is overlap in range. Conversely, some negative effects to these other species may result from shifting anthropogenic disturbances into other sagebrush communities not associated with BSSG. For example, by avoiding sage grouse habitat according to any action alternative, pygmy rabbits or sage thrashers may be impacted in adjacent sagebrush environments by being outside of mapped BSSG habitats. In addition, additional management under the action alternatives is recommended to avoid impacts to pinyon jay local populations within the analysis area.

Given the current state of BSSG habitats and population overall, maintaining current management direction (Alternative A) may not provide the regulatory mechanisms or the assurances required to protect BSSG habitats and populations. In contrast, the proposed action provides small but generally positive effects and assurances, which over time should provide improvements for BSSG and sagebrush-associated species within the analysis area.

Alternative A maintains existing decisions from the Land and Resource Management Plans for the HTNF, as well as Resource Management Plans for the Carson City and Battle Mountain BLM Districts, and all other current management direction pertaining to terrestrial species and habitats. The type and magnitude of impacts to sensitive species would remain unchanged under alternative A and each would be treated separately by individual NEPA actions at the project level.

With disturbance thresholds, space and timing restrictions, habitat restoration objectives, and other provisions incorporated into alternative B and C to promote sagebrush habitat conservation and reduce disturbance, fewer impacts to sagebrush-associated sensitive species would likely occur and/or the magnitude of the impacts would likely be lessened in BSSG habitat. While additional impacts to pinyon-juniper habitats and associated species are more likely under the action alternatives, adoption of recommended conservation measures described above is expected to mitigate negative impacts.

134


III. Management Indicator Species In this analysis, management direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects terrestrial wildlife includes:

Management Indicator Species(MIS)(1982 Planning Rule)(36 CFR 219): Management indicator species (MIS) are identified in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as representing a group of species having similar habitat requirements. MIS are not federally listed as threatened, endangered, or Forest Sensitive but have the potential to be affected by project activities. The Toiyabe National Forest Land Management Plan was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule)(36 CRF 219).

Management Indicator Species (MIS) were selected for analysis for this project using existing information and knowledge about the distribution of the terrestrial wildlife species and potential habitat on the Carson City and Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The following table provides a list of MIS species habitat association, and distribution on the HTNF within Carson City and Bridgeport Ranger Districts.

Table 33. Management Indicator Species (MIS), Toiyabe portion of the HTNF.

Species MIS Associated Habitat Species or

Habitats Present in the Analysis Area

Rationale for inclusion or dismissal regarding analysis of anticipated effects from implementation of an

action alternative to MIS

American Marten X

Late-seral closed canopy coniferous forests

Potential The alternatives generally propose changes to management of upland sagebrush shrubland environments and propose very minimal, if any, changes to the Late-seral closed canopy coniferous forests preferred by this species. Therefore, these species will NOT be evaluated in more detail.

Mule Deer X

Uses a variety of habitats including mid, early, and late seral forests; meadows; riparian areas; and shrublands

Yes The alternatives propose some changes to management of sagebrush shrubland habitats, so populations could respond to proposed changes according to each of the alternatives. Therefore, this species will be evaluated in more detail.

Yellow Warbler X

Riparian Yes The alternatives generally propose changes to management of sagebrush shrubland environments and propose very minimal, if any, changes to the wooded/structured riparian corridors preferred by this species. Therefore, these species will NOT be evaluated in more detail.

Yellow-Rumped Warbler

X

Conifer forests, particularly those adjacent to meadow or other openings

Yes The alternatives generally propose changes to management of sagebrush shrubland environments and propose very minimal, if any, changes to conifer forests, preferred by this species. Therefore, these species will NOT be evaluated in more detail.

Hairy Woodpecker X

Conifer forest with adequate number of large diameter snags and downed logs

Yes The alternatives generally propose changes to management of sagebrush shrubland and propose very minimal, if any, changes to conifer forests preferred

135


Species MIS Associated Habitat Species or

Habitats Present in the Analysis Area

Rationale for inclusion or dismissal regarding analysis of anticipated effects from implementation of an

action alternative to MIS by this species. Therefore, these species will NOT be evaluated in more detail.

Williamson’s Sapsucker X

Mixed conifer/aspen with an abundance of large diameter snags

Yes The alternatives generally propose changes to management of sagebrush shrubland environments and propose very minimal, if any, changes to mixed conifer/aspen forests preferred by this species. Therefore, these species will NOT be evaluated in more detail.

Greater Sage Grouse X

Sagebrush habitats Yes The alternatives propose some changes to management of sagebrush shrubland habitats, so populations could respond to proposed changes according to each of the alternatives. Therefore, this species will be evaluated in more detail.

The management indicator species section of this report describes the anticipated effects of the action alternatives to species identified as Management Indicator Species (MIS). The Forest Service Manual defines MIS as "…plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent" (USDA Forest Service 1991).

Mule deer The portion of the Carson Ranger District within the project area is associated with the Carson River Interstate Herd. The majority of this herd uses the eastern slopes of the Carson Range as critical winter range, migrating from the Tahoe basin and Hope Valley summer range. Survey and harvest data indicate this deer herd has probably maintained itself over the last few years, with adequate fawn recruitment rates and generally good age cohort distribution. The modeled pre-hunt population estimate for 2013 was comparable to the last several years indicating the population trend is stable (NDOW 2013).

Bridgeport Ranger District within Nevada is associated with two deer herds: the Walker and Mono Interstate herds. Habitats in these areas have been impacted by drought during which the winter of 2012-2013 received 50% of normal precipitation along the Sierra Front. The current drought has persisted for the past two years.

Herds occupy the West Walker and East Walker river corridors during the winter months. The West Walker area, consisting of the Pine Grove Hills, often experiences persistent drought which results in a reduction in the quality and quantity of the shrub component utilized by this deer herd. The East Walker herd’s winter range receives increased precipitation allowing the brush component to be more productive therefore providing a higher nutritional value to the mule deer herd.

These herds are presently experiencing a declining population trend, and are consistently plagued with drought conditions and low recruitment rates. This suggests the herd could be exhibiting a density-dependent response due to limited resources (NDOW 2013). Declines in populations may be attributed to land management practices that have precluded fire, resulting in changes toward more mature and less diverse habitats, and reduced quality and quantity of deer habitats.

136


The wide range of elevation zones and vegetation types found on the Bridgeport and Carson Ranger Districts provide critical wintering, summer and transition habitat for mule deer. Most deer on the Bridgeport Ranger District migrate seasonally between higher elevation summer range and low elevation winter range, where they concentrate on south and westerly slope aspects typically identified as “critical winter range.” Range for mule deer is generally considered “critical” when habitat components meet or exceed the biological requirements necessary to sustain a viable population of mule deer. The higher elevation sites in the Bridgeport area are characterized by montane forests, aspen, and mountain shrub plant communities. These habitat types are considered critical habitat components that provide protection of the doe and the fawn as she gives birth. Fawning areas must be interspersed with forage, hiding cover, and thermal cover for the doe. Critical winter range is found on the east side of the District, primarily at the lower elevations of the Sweetwater Mountains and along the East fork of the Walker River. These areas typically receive less snow and are dominated by dense sagebrush/bitterbrush and pinyon/juniper communities. Critical winter range is typically found at lower elevations where brush stands remain snow free and readily accessible for browsing and cover.

Approximately 3 million acres of mule deer habitat coincides with the amendment area (Table 34). Habitats on Forest Service lands within the amendment area and coinciding with sage-grouse habitat are used during summer, winter, year-round, and for migration. Most acres serve as crucial summer and crucial winter range, with crucial winter range occurring in the vicinity of East Walker River and Table Mountain. The primary limiting factor on most winter ranges is pinyon-juniper encroachment. Other limiting factors include shrub condition/maturation, excessive livestock use due to improper grazing or downturns in forage production, and urban impacts (NDOW 2010).

Table 34. Mule Deer Habitats in BSSG Amendment Area

Habitat Amendment Area

Acres

Mule Deer Habitat within BSSG

Habitat

Mule Deer Habitat within BSSG Habitat on FS

Lands

Proportion of Habitat on FS

Lands

Year-round 940,672 218,375 60,378 6.4%

Crucial Summer 21,410 9,820 9,820 45.9%

Winter 1,356,375 268,815 16,671 1.3%

Summer 516,595 343,402 296,398 57.4%

Crucial Winter 73,927 22,371 21,680 29.3%

Movement Corridor 106,938 25,305 15,306 14.3%

Total Acres 3,015,917 888,088 420,253 13.9%


Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No-Action) Alternative A would maintain current land management direction. Pinyon-juniper woodlands may encroach into sagebrush ecosystems, which reduce and eventually eliminate mule deer foraging habitat. Pinyon-juniper invasion reduces shrub cover and the season of available succulent forbs is shortened due to soil moisture depletion (Crawford et al. 2004). The Forest Service and BLM implement pinyon-juniper treatments using a variety of methods to reduce conifer encroachment of sagebrush communities. Pinyon-juniper encroachment is identified as a primary limiting factor on mule deer winter ranges. The

137


no-action alternative does not take any specific actions to prevent pinyon-juniper encroachment, but does contain goals and objectives for maintaining improving, or restoring sagebrush plant communities often for big game winter range and/or livestock grazing. These approaches do not specifically address the threat of encroachment to benefit mule deer and thus would likely have limited effectiveness in controlling the invasion. This alternative would have a lower emphasis on reduction of pinyon-juniper encroachment than alternatives B and C.

Alternatives B and D The action alternatives provide direction that would increase emphasis on reductions in pinyon-juniper encroachment to benefit sagebrush distribution in comparison to alternative A. The emphasis placed on reducing areas of pinyon-juniper encroachment is expected to benefit mule deer winter range habitats. In addition, conservation and restoration grass, forb, and sagebrush measures included under the actions alternatives would benefit mule deer forage availability on all ranges that coincide with BSSG habitat. Measures designed to reduce human-caused noise and surface disturbances under the action alternatives would promote suitable habitat conditions for mule deer in BSSG habitats. However, these activities may potentially be shifted to mule deer habitats outside of BSSG habitat with the effect that impacts would remain unchanged to mule deer overall.

Cumulative Effects The project area serves as the cumulative effects analysis area because the area encompasses potential overlap of effects. There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Mule deer habitats also occur on private, state, and BLM land adjacent Forest Service lands. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in suitable habitat. Ongoing activities including Forest Service and BLM land management planning are likely to incorporate management direction that provides some level of protection and improvement of sagebrush habitats. Past travel management plans on the HTNF have prescribed reductions in open road densities in addition to other travel restrictions that likely benefit mule deer. Ongoing geothermal leasing on HTNF lands may have some measure of added effect, but cumulatively this is likely to be minor at the project area scale.

Effects to Mule Deer at the Broader Scale Mule deer populations in Nevada have undergone dramatic highs and lows over the past 150 years. Today's numbers are estimated to be higher than historic populations (Wasley 2004).

Prior to European settlement in Nevada populations were low, but widely dispersed throughout the state. The gold rush, the railroad, and livestock industries all disturbed the landscape enough to create new mule deer habitat. The creation of land management legislation and agencies, in addition to aggressive predator removal further combined to increase mule deer numbers, which peaked in the middle of the 20th century. Around 1958 mule deer populations experienced a significant decline correlated with a major statewide drought. Mule deer continued to decline until the mid-1970s. High fawn ratios, ideal weather conditions, and increased control of predators likely combined to create the second mule deer population peak of the century in the 1980s (Wasley 2004).

However, the quality vegetation that was key in the first mule deer population increase had declined as it aged and lost its vigor. The century-long grazing practices, invasive weeds assisted by fire, pinyon and juniper encroachment, increased human population expansion in the form of roads, mines, houses, and the resulting traffic created an ever-increasing burden on mule deer populations. All these conditions combined with yet another drought and harsh winter conditions which lead to the winter die-off of mule deer of 1992 – 1993.

138


Statewide mule deer numbers have remained relatively stable over the past 10 years. Nevada’s mule deer populations have been stable to slightly increasing for the past several years. Following a modest (3%) increase in 2012, the 2013 population is estimated to have experienced a 3% decline (NDOW 2013)

Mule deer trends on HTNF lands within Nevada are likely experiencing trends similar to that at the State-level, with lows and highs throughout recent history, and relatively stable trends over the past decade. Mule deer habitats on the HTNF as a whole total approximately 6.26 million acres.

Mule deer habitats on BSSG habitat total about 420,000 acres, or 6.2% of habitat on the HTNF. With such a modest amount of Forest-wide habitat represented in the analysis area, it is unlikely that habitat changes under the proposed action would have a measurable effect on mule deer trends Forest-wide.

Because the proposed action is expected to have beneficial effects on sagebrush mule deer sagebrush habitats in where overlap with BSSG occurs, but effects could be transferred to mule deer habitat outside BSSG habitat, the action alternatives may impact mule deer habitat, but will not cause populations to trend downward.

Greater Sage Grouse The Bi-State sage grouse is classified as a distinct population segment of the greater sage grouse species. Existing condition, trends, risk factors, and effects of the alternatives are described under the Proposed Species section of the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment (see above).

Based on the assessment provided in the Sensitive Species analysis, the action alternatives will likely benefit sage grouse habitat and will not cause populations to trend downward.

IV. Neotropical Migratory Birds Executive Order (EO) 13186, signed January 10, 2001, lists several responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds, among them: (1) support the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions.

Additional direction comes from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, signed December 23, 2008.

The purpose of this MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration between the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, in coordination with state, tribal and local governments. The MOU identifies specific activities for bird conservation, pursuant to EO 13186 including: 2) Strive to protect, restore, enhance, and manage habitat of migratory birds, and prevent the further loss or degradation of remaining habitats on National Forest System lands. This includes: a) Identifying management practices that impact populations of high priority migratory bird species, including nesting, migration, or over-wintering habitats, on National Forest System lands, and developing will help inform future specific protocols called for in an MOU implementing the Executive Order.

In order to address impacts to NTMB, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) for Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 9 and 15 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008c), focal species from the Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan (GBBO 2010) and the California Landbird Conservation Plans (CalPIF 2005) were used within this analysis. The Nevada PIF plan lists focal species for the diverse habitat types found within the state of Nevada. These habitats include: Montane Shrub, Pinyon/juniper and Sagebrush. Table 35 lists the species identified for each of these habitats and which

139


are listed as Neo-tropical migratory birds. Those for which nesting and/or foraging habitat may be affected by the proposed action are carried forward for further analysis.

Table 35. Focal and Priority Neotropical Migratory Birds Focal and Priority Species

USFWS BCC CA PIF Focal Species for Sagebrush

NV PIF Priority Species for Sagebrush, Pinyon-juniper, or Mountain shrub

Nesting Habitat or Foraging Element Affected by the Proposed Action?

Greater Sage Grouse (Columbia Basin DPS)

X

Greater Sage Grouse X (Sagebrush) X (Sagebrush) X (N, F), S Sooty Grouse X Dusky Grouse X Sharp-tailed Grouse X Mountain quail X Eared Grebe (nb) X Bald Eagle (b) X Ferruginous Hawk X X (Sagebrush, PJ) X (F), S Swainson’s hawk X Golden Eagle X X (Sagebrush) X (F), S Peregrine Falcon (b) X Prairie Falcon X (Sagebrush) X (F) Yellow Rail X Common poorwill X (PJ) X (N) Snowy Plover (c) X Long-billed Curlew X Marbled Godwit (nb) X Yellow-billed Cuckoo (w. U.S. DPS) (a)

X

Flammulated Owl X Burrowing owl X (Sagebrush) X (N, F), S Spotted Owl (occidentalis ssp.) (c)

X

Black Swift X Calliope Hummingbird X X Lewis's Woodpecker X Williamson's Sapsucker X White-headed Woodpecker X Willow Flycatcher (c) X Gray Flycatcher X X (PJ) X (N, F) Olive-sided flycatcher X Juniper Titmouse X X (PJ) X (N, F) Loggerhead Shrike X X X (N, F), S Pinyon Jay X X (PJ) X (N, F), S Sage Thrasher X X X (N, F), S Virginia's Warbler X X (PJ) X (N, F) Gray Vireo X (PJ) Green-tailed Towhee X X (PJ) X (N, F) Brewer's Sparrow X X X (Sagebrush) X (N, F) Black-chinned Sparrow X X (N, F) Lark Sparrow X X (N, F)

140


Sage Sparrow X X X (Sagebrush) X (N, F) Vesper Sparrow X Black-chinned Sparrow X Tricolored Blackbird X Western Meadowlark X (Sagebrush) X (N, F) Cassin’s Finch X Black Rosy-Finch X

N – nesting, F – Foraging; S – species analyzed in the BE/BA as Sensitive Species.

Analysis of Effects Of the species listed in Table 35, a total of 18 species utilize habitats that may be affected by the proposed action in the analysis area. Of these, 7 species were analyzed as Forest Service or BLM sensitive species in the BA/BE and will not be addressed further here.

Sagebrush-associated Species

Effects for species associated with sagebrush include the prairie falcon, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow and western meadowlark are similar to those described for the Bi-State sage grouse and Sagebrush-associated species in the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment. These species are expected to benefit from sagebrush habitat conservation measures under both alternatives B and C.

Pinyon-juniper-associated Species

Effects to species associated with pinyon-juniper habitats, including common poorwill, gray flycatcher, Virginia’s warbler, gray vireo, and green-tailed towhee, are similar to those described for the pinyon jay in the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment. There is potential for negative direct and indirect impacts to individuals through disturbance, temporary displacement, and nest loss due to the emphasis placed on reductions of pinyon-juniper encroachment under both alternatives B and C. Conservation measures recommended for pinyon jay, particularly the measure emphasizing retention of priority trees, is likely to reduce potential impacts to pinyon-juniper-associated species. However, treatments may still affect these species directly and indirectly if pinyon-juniper removal treatments are conducted during the species’ nesting season. Therefore, the following conservation measure is recommended to further reduce potential negative effects to pinyon-juniper-associated species:

Recommended Conservation Measure

• Prioritize timing of treatments that would remove pinyon-juniper consisting of habitat suitable for the following species to occur outside the nesting season : common poorwill, gray flycatcher, Virginia’s warbler, gray vireo, juniper titmouse, and green-tailed towhee .

Determination Based on the above analysis, although some migratory birds may be temporarily disturbed or displaced, recommended conservation measures would minimize potential effects to pinyon-juniper associated species. Beneficial effects to sagebrush-associated species are expected. Therefore, the action alternatives will not lead to a downward trend in migratory bird populations and would improve habitat conditions in the long-term for sagebrush-associated species.

Species Viability Requirements

Regulatory Background

141


The 1982 Planning Regulations pertaining to viability are designed to ensure compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976). Among the charters in NFMA, Sect. 6, (g)(3)(B) requires that Forest Plans: “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan…”.

NFMA’s enabling regulations (36 CFR 219.19) provide further interpretation of the law pursuant to the Forest Service’s responsibility to ensure viability. These include:

“Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area”.

• The emphasis is on habitat that is managed in a manner that species’ requisites are met when those species utilize National Forest System (NFS) administered lands.

• Because most vertebrate species spend time (sometimes considerable) off of NFS administered lands, there are likely other threats to species’ viability over which the Forest Service does not have regulatory authority to control. The management of habitats to maintain viable populations is not the same as ensuring population viability.

• The scale of this requirement is the planning unit. Most National Forests do not have sufficient habitat to meet viability requisites for vertebrate species at a range-wide scale. The distribution of these species is generally much larger than an individual unit. However, individual Forests can manage habitats that contribute to this larger view of viability, and provide the persistence of species on NFS administered lands for relevant life history periods.

“For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area”.

• The emphasis here is that habitats should be managed on NFS units that allow for population and distribution of populations for persistence within the planning area, for life history periods when the species is dependent on those lands.

“In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area”.

• Emphasis on distribution within the planning area

The Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forest Plans being considered for amendment under this EIS were developed under the 1982 planning regulations. The 1982 regulations interpret this law by focusing on the agency’s responsibility to provide habitats that support viable populations of native and desired nonnative vertebrates by: 1) having those populations sufficiently well-distributed across the planning area, and 2) ensuring sufficient habitats are available to provide for population levels that are likely to persist on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

Summary of Findings for Species Viability

142


Elements contained in the action alternatives were reviewed in consideration for effects to species population distribution as well as habitat availability. There are no elements contained in either action alternative that would negatively impact existing population distribution or existing habitat availability across the planning area for federally listed or proposed species, Forest Service sensitive species, management indicator species, or migratory bird species applicable to the Planning Area.

Consistency between the proposed action and the recovery actions with the proposed action differs little from the no-action alternative concerning effects to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Management direction under the action alternatives is consistent with applicable Resource Actions prescribed in the Recovery Plan. Use of fire as a management tool may be more restricted in sage-grouse habitats. The use of other tools such as manual and mechanical methods of treatment to reduce areas of conifer encroachment to benefit SNBS would continue to be available, but may be limited in certain areas due to disturbance restrictions, lack of access, or steep terrain.

Overall, elements contained in the action alternatives are expected to increase to varying degrees, availability and distribution of sagebrush habitats, thereby maintaining or improving viability for sagebrush-dependent or sagebrush-associated wildlife species including the Bi-State sage-grouse distinct population segment. Analysis of viability specific to Bi-state sage-grouse is provided in Attachment A.

143


LITERATURE CITED

Ammon, E. and J. Boone. 2013. Bird species management guidelines. 19 p.

Balch, J.K., B.A. Bradley, C.M. D’Antonio and J.Gomez-Dans. 2013. Introduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980-2009). Global Change Biology 19: 173-183.

Beck, J.L. and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 993-1002.

Bi-State Advisory Committee (Nevada and California). 2012. Bi-State action plan – past, present, and future actions for the conservation of the greater sage-grouse Bi-State distinct population segment. 108 p. +appendices.

Bi-State Local Working Group. 2004. Greater sage-grouse conservation plan for the Bi-State area of Nevada and eastern California, first edition. Accessed online 06/02/2014 at: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Nevada_Wildlife/Sage_Grouse/Bi-State-Plan.pdf.

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. 2012. Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of greater sage-grouse at leks. Conservation Biology 26(3): 461-471.

Bradford, D. F., F. Tabatabai, and D. M. Graber. 1993. Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California. Conservation Biology 7: 882-888.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proceedings Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 17 p.

Brown, K.G. and K.M. Clayton. 2004. Ecology of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the coal mining landscape of Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. Final executive report. 17 p.

Browning, M.R. 1993. Comments on the taxonomy of Empidonax traillii (willow flycatcher). Western Birds 24: 241-257.

Casazza, M.L., C.T. Overton, M.A. Farinha, A. Torregrosa, J.P. Fleskes, M.R. Miller, J.S. Sedinger, and E. Kolada. 2007. Ecology of greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State planning area final report, September 2007. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2009-1113, 50 p.

Coates, P. S. 2007. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation behavior. Ph.D., Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID. 181 p.

Coates, P.S., J.W. Connelly, and D.J. Delehanty. 2008. Predators of greater sage-grouse nests identified through video monitoring. Journal of Field Ornithology 79(4): 412-428.

Coates, P.S., M.L. Casazza, E.J. Blomberg, S.C. Gardner, S.P. Espinosa, J.L. Lee, L. Wiechman, and B.J. Halstead. 2013. Evaluating greater sage-grouse seasonal space use relative to leks: implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems. Journal of Wildlife Management 77(8): 1598-1609.

Connelly, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term changes in sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology 3: 229-234.

144


Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 967-985.

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. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 611 p.

Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, 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 of Range Management 57: 2 ‐19.

Floyd, T., C.S. Elphick, G. Chisholm, K. Mack, R.G. Elston, E.A. Ammon, and J.D. Boone. 2007. Atlas of the breeding birds of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV. 581 p.

Forman, R T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207 ‐231.

GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory). 2010. Nevada comprehensive bird conservation plan, version 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. 622 p.

Glover, S.A., D. Roberson, S.B. Terrill, and T.P. Ryan. 2002. Middle Pacific Coast (birds). North American Birds 56(3): 352-355.

Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders 1980. Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammalian Species No. 125 pp. 1-4.

Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980a. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. Journal of Wildlife Management 33(2): 136-142.

Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage ‐grouse nests in rel contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742 ‐752.

Howell, C.A., J.K. Wood, M.D. Dettling, K. Griggs, C.C. Otte, L. Lina, and T. Gardali. 2010. Least Bell’s vireo breeding records in the Central Valley following decades of extirpation. Western North American Naturalist 79(1): 105-113.

Jennings, M. R. 1996. Status of amphibians. Pages 921-944 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Volume II, Chapter 31. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA. 255 p.

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 2000. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology 14(2); 428-438.

LANDFIRE. 2014. LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. [Online]. Available: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [05/15/2014].

LeBeau, C. 2012. Evaluation of greater sage-grouse reproductive habitat and the response to wind energy development in south-central, Wyoming. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA.

145


Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne,, S.J. Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013, Fort Collins, Colorado, 287 p.

Mullally, D.P. 1953. Observations on the ecology of the toad Bufo canorus. Copeia 1953(3): 182-183.

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer. Accessed online 07/2013 at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm.

Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, B.L. Walker, M.J. Holloran, and H.E. Copeland. 2011. Energy development and greater sage ‐grouse. Pages. 489‐ 503 in S.T. Knick and J editors. Greater sage ‐grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 2001. Bighorn sheep management plan. 44 p.

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 2010. Big game species distribution, Geographic Information Systems layer.

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 2013. Big game status 2012-2013. 213 p.

NTT 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Sage-grouse National Technical Team. December 21, 2011.

Terrill, S.B., M.M. Rogers, S.A. Glover, and E. Pandolfino. 2007. Northern California (birds). North American Birds 61(3): 504-509.

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: and endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18(3); 137-162.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land and resource management plan. Toiyabe National Forest. 316 p.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Tonopah resource management plan and record of decision. Battle Mountain District, Tonopah Field Station, Tonopah NV. 193 p.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Consolidated resource management plan. Carson City Field Office, Carson City, NV. 116 p.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2013. Analysis of the management situation, Carson City District resource management plan revision and environmental impact statement. Carson City District Office. 490 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Draft recovery plan for the least Bell’s vireo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 139 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for a petition to list the Yosemite toad. Federal Register 67(237):75834-75843.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Southwestern willow flycatcher recovery plan. Albuquerque, NM. 210 p. + appendices.

146


USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Recovery plan for the Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 94 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Recovery plan for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Sacramento, CA. 199 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra) and taxonomic revision; final rule. Federal Register 73(151):45534-45604.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008c. Birds of conservation concern 2008. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 87 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for a petitions to list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered; proposed rule. Federal Register 75(55): 13910-14014.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), Southern California distinct population segment. 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Carlsbad, CA. 78 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of greater sage-grouse with special rule. Federal Register 78 (208): 64358-64384.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Species assessment, Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of greater sage-grouse. Accessed online 06/01/2014 at: http://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/documents/sage_grouse/species-report-service2013a.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of greater sage-grouse; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 78(208): 64362-64355.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013d. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Northern Distinct Population Segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and threatened status for the Yosemite toad. Federal Register 78 (80): 24472-24514.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013e. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Serra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the Northern Distinct Population Segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad. Federal Register 78 (80): 24516-24574.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC). Endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species list. Queried for amendment area in California and Nevada, 05/15/2014. Accessed online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: endangered status for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Northern Distinct Population Segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and threatened species status for Yosemite toad. Federal Register 79(82): 24256-24310.

147


Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage ‐grouse populatio development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644 ‐2654.

Walker, B.L., and D.E. Naugle. 2011. West Nile Virus ecology in sagebrush habitat and impacts on greater sage-grouse populations. 127-146 In [S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly]. Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Wasley, T. 2004. Nevada’s mule deer population dynamics: issues and influences. Nevada Division of Wildlife, Biological Bulletin No. 14. 70 p.

Weiss, N. T. and B. J. Verts. 1984. Habitat and distribution of pygmy rabbits in Oregon. Great Basin Nat. 44:563-571.

Wisdom, M.J., C.W. Meinke, S.T. Knick, and M.A. Schroeder. 2011. Factors associated with extirpation of sage-grouse. Studies in Avian Biology 38: 451-472.

Zeiner, D., W.F. Laudenslayer, and K.E. Mayer. 1988. California’s wildlife: amphibians and reptiles, vol. 1. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 272 p.

Zeveloff, S.I. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain West. University of Utah Press. Pgs. 177-179.

148


APPENDIX A1. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, HTNF Toiyabe Land and Resource Management Plan

General

Goal:

• Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will be recognized and protected through habitat management and coordination with state wildlife agencies. Habitat will be in good-to-excellent condition. Lahontan cutthroat trout will be delisted. Paiute trait species will be firmly established. Bald eagle habitat will be maintained and peregrine falcons successfully reintroduced in the Stern.

• Fish and Game populations will be enhanced and managed at levels commensurate with habitat conditions with an emphasis on improving overall quality of wildlife habitat.

• The Toiyabe will have continued to work with other agencies, particularly the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game, to determine what opportunities exist for habitat management.

Desired Future Condition:

• Management of habitat for MIS, sensitive species, fish, and big game species will have been emphasized. Riparian habitats will have been improved by emphasizing their protection and restoration. Use of the Forest snag management and old growth standards and guidelines will have maintained forested habitats for non-game and ecologically important species. Sensitive plant species will be protected.

Transportation

Standard and Guidelines:

• Roads, trails, and “areas” will be designated in the Ranger District travel plans and maps for motorized vehicle use (Recreation PG IV-14 S&G 3).

Standard and Guidelines (Objectives):

• The following areas will be closed either through the year or seasonally to ORV use: o Roads and trails which are closed by sign, gate, or barricade including earthen barricades

extending the width of the road. o Where it is necessary to remove obstacles such as racks, logs, or soil or where there would be

damage to vegetation. o Developed recreation sites (except for ingress and egress to parking facilities). o Key wildlife habitat such as winter range, fawning, and lambing areas. o Rights-of-way for electrical transmission lines, pipelines, or telephone lines. o Riparian zones unless specifically designated by a Forest Officer. o Timber regeneration arm where trees are less than ten feet high. o Wilderness

149


o Areas and trails managed for non-motorized recreation activities as shown on Ranger District travel plans and maps.

o Areas with easily erodible soils • Management of roads will be planned to minimize impacts to roadbeds and to minimize surface

erosion. Numbers of local roads are not for adequately designed for year-round us. Except short periods, these roads will be closed to public motorized use in order to minimize watershed impact. Rehabilitated temporary or old logging roads will normally be closed to motorized vehicular use. These rehabilitated roads will be signed “closed to vehicles.” (PG IV-2 DFC).

• Roads constructed for site-specific resource activities will be: (Toiyabe LRMP Forest S&G Transportation and Facilities PG IV-55 S&G 4) o Developed to a standard this minimizes resource impact. o Scheduled for reclamation unless specifically identified as long-term access needed for

management of the Toiyabe.

Lands, Special Uses and Realty


• Utility lines generally will be buried if necessary to meet visual quality objectives. Exceptions to underground utility lines will be allowed where technological, economic, or resource protection requirements indicate that such lines should be overheads (Special Uses PG IV-64 S&G 14).

• An environmental analysis will be required prior to adding new facilities to existing corridors. The integrity of visual quality for the corridor will be maintained to the highest standard to minimize adverse resource and environmental impacts. Any new utility corridor not identified in this Plan will be handled through the NEPA process. (Special Uses PG IV-62 S&G 13)

• Identify specific land ownership adjustment needs and priorities; and ten possible, within local jurisdictions, meet their land management objectives such as ownership patterns, tax base, public ownership of hazard areas, etc. All lands are in one of the following groups: (Toiyabe LRMP Forest S&G Lands PG IV-54 S&G 1) o Group I - These are lands Congress has directly or indirectly instructed the Forest Service to

retain ownership of or acquire through acquisition of nonfederal lands for a designated purpose. Creation of a wilderness is an example of the indirect approach. In most cases, the objective is to retain existing ownership and acquire remaining lands. Private lass within misting and proposed wildernesses should be acquired through laid exchange, or purchase if land exchange negotiations cannot be consummated.

o Group II - These are lands needed for a special type of management at which has been allocated for that purpose. Examples of this are: key wildlife habitats, recreation lands, and special interest

o Group III - The remaining lands are further divided into two subgroups. a) Consolidated National Forest lands - These are generally solid blocks of National Forest

System lands. Theme “blocks will not normally be available for adjustments. b) Areas of mixed private ad federal ownership. The objective is to rearrange ownership

patterns to benefit both public and private interests and to acquire high priority lands for National Forest use.

• Evaluate each land adjustment proposal using the following criteria to determine mutability and/or priority for adjustment (Toiyabe LRMP Forest S&G Lands PG IV-54 S&G 2). o Meets habitat needs for wildlife species with emphasis on deer winter range. o Meets the needs for developed recreation. o Meets the needs for dispersed recreation. o Protects or enhances wilderness values.

150


o K. Protects or enhances visual quality objectives. o Improves management efficiency and administration by reducing common property

boundaries and rights-of-way. o Facilitates planning objectives of other federal, state, or local agencies and Indian tribes. o Meets the needs for providing quality water.

• Recommendations will be made to the Secretary of Interior of interim concerning extension, removal, or modification of existing withdrawals (S&G Minerals PG IV-58 S&G 14).

Livestock Grazing


• Develop allotment management plans for all active range allotments and wild free—roaming horse and burro territories (Forest S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 4).

• Update allotment and territory management plans that are not consistent with the Forest Plan, following the schedule found in Chapter V (S&G Range PG IV-27 S&G 17).

• Develop allotment management plan in consultation with all parties Involved, including permittees(s), state, or other federal agencies, and any other organizations or individuals (S&G Range PG IV-27 S&G 19).

• Complete range analysis, including inventory and evaluation, following Regional standards and the schedule set by the Forest Supervisor (S&G Range PG IV-27 S&G 18).

• Describe ecological sites, develop SCORE cards to rate ecological status and resource values, and define management strategies for rangeland management (S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 10).

• Strive to achieve or maintain a minimum of 60 percent ground cower on upland rangelands with the exceptions of low sagebrush types, Wyoming big sagebrush types, crested wheatgrass seedings, pinyon/juniper types, and south facing sagebrush types on granitic slopes of the Sierra Nevada (S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 12).

• Achieve or maintain rangeland in satisfactory condition which is defined as: (1) having a resource value rating (RVR) of 50 or above for vegetation or other features; or (2) being in a mid-succession or higher class of ecological status; and (3) having a stable or upward trend in soil and vegetation (S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 15).

• Conduct monitoring and evaluation in accordance with FSH 2209.21, Rage Environmental Analysis Handbook, and the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook (S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 14)

• Achieve or maintain rangeland in satisfactory condition which is defined as: (1) having a resource value rating (RVR) of 50 or above for vegetation or other features; or (2) being in a mid-succession or higher class of ecological status; and (3) having a stable or upward trend in soil and vegetation (S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 15).

• Each allotment management plan shall preset administrative and management requirements of the specific range allotment or wild free-raining horse or burro territory, each plan will contain sections on objectives, actions, monitoring, and evaluation (Range PG IV-27 S&G 20).

• Ninety-five percent of all rangelands will have been brought to satisfactory condition. Management plans will have been approved for all grazing allotments and wild and free-roaming horse and burro territories. Livestock and wild hone/burro use will have been maintained at pre-existing levels. Noxious farm weeds will be under control (Range PG IV-4 DFC).

• Ensure that water developments and other range improvements meet wildlife needs (Range PG IV-26 S&G 6).

• Priority will be given to range improvement on allotments with a high percentage of land in unsatisfactory condition (Range PG IV-28 S&G 24).

151


Wild Horses and Burros

Goal: All grazing allotments and wild and free-roaming horse and burro territories will be under approved management plans (Range Mgt PG IV-4 Goal 2).

Objective: Ninety-five percent of all rangelands will have been brought to satisfactory condition. Management plans will have been approved for all grazing allotments and wild and free-roaming horse and burro territories. Livestock and wild horse/burro use will have been maintained at pre-existing levels. Noxious weeds will be under control (Range Mgt PG IV-4 DFC).


• Develop allotment management plans for all active range allotments and wild free—roaming horse and burro territories. (S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 4).

• Update allotment and territory management plans that are not consistent with the Forest Plan, following the schedule found in Chapter V. (Forest S&G Range PG IV-27 S&G 17).

• Manage wild free-roaming horses and burros to population levels compatible with resource capabilities and requirements (S&G Range PG IV-31).

• Manage wild free-roaming horses and burros to population levels compatible with resource capabilities and requirements (S&G Range PG IV-31).

• Develop allotment management plans for all active range allotments and wild free—roaming horse and burro territories (Forest S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 4).

• Update allotment and territory management plans that are not consistent with the Forest Plan, following the schedule found in Chapter V (S&G Range PG IV-26 S&G 6).

Fluid Minerals

Unleased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate


• Review and process all lease a plan submitted by the BLM in a timely fashion. Specific stipulations are described in Table IV-7 and Appendix B of the Plan (S&G Minerals PG IV-58 S&G 16).

Locatable Minerals


• Require operating plans which minimize impacts to surface and cultural resources at provide for reclamation of disturbed areas (S&GMinerals PG IV-57 S&G 3).

Saleable Minerals

Standard and Guideline

152


• Process requests for new common variety material sites through the NEPA process. Except for mine development where applicable, new sites will be developed on the Forest only when alternative sites off the Forest not reasonably available (S&G Minerals PG IV-58 S&G 19).

Fire Management

• Standard and Guidelines: • Natural fuel treatment projects will meet multi-resource objective (S&G Fuels and Fire PG IV-15

S&G 4). • All wildfire, will receive an appropriate suppression response. Appropriate responses are

confinement, containment, or control (S&G Fuels and Fire PG IV-15 S&G 2). • For all fires larger than 300 acres, an ID team, starting before the fires are controlled, will prepare

a fire rehabilitation plan or determine that one is not necessary. If the fire included land administered or owned by another party, every effort will, be made to include that part on the ID team and to see that the plan includes all lands burned. Smaller fires may also require tern surveys and a rehabilitation plan if on- and off-site values justify such an Investigation (Forest S&G Fuels and Fire PG IV-23 S&G 16).

• The team will specifically address: 1) fire suppression rehabilitation; 2) emergency rehabilitation; 3) resource adjustments; and 4) long-term resource restoration

• Sites at the lower elevations of the pinyon types and below are prone to cheatgrass invasion and its permanent establishment. Every effort should be made to reseed these areas with grasses and forbs as soon as possible after the burn. Sites at higher elevations will often recover even though cheatgrass may dominate for 10 to 15 years. But southern exposures on these higher sites will continue to be dominated by cheatgrass unless there is little or no grazing. If grazing is to be more than 10 to 15 percent on these south slopes, seeding will be necessary to prevent dominance by cheatgrass.

• Fire rehabilitation should also be directed toward presuppression. Crested wheatgrass can be used as a barrier to a fire. (With precipitation less than 15 inches, use crested wheatgrass; with precipitation greater than 15 inches, use smooth brome). o Fire suppression rehabilitation is that work necessary to restore the site after fire suppression

activities, e.g., rehabilitation of bulldozer lines. The work will be completed as soon as possible and to the extent possible by the suppression crews on the fire. All bulldozer lines will be waterbarred and seeded immediately. Erosion control and seeding on all other disturbed areas will be completed. Annual rye grass can be used as a nurse crop to help perennials become established.

o Emergency rehabilitation will be completed only when it is necessary to prevent loss of soil and onsite productivity, loss of water control and deterioration of water quality, or when onsite life or property are threatened.

o Resource adjustments are management constraints necessary to provide for rehabilitation. A burned area should not be grazed for two growing seasons following the burn.

o Long-term resource restoration should be directed towards the most cost effective methods of reestablishing productivity of the site. Artificial establishment of browse plants on deer winter range is extremely difficult. Natural establishment of browse has been successful in the past. A great deal of the existing deer winter range is a result of burns that are 40 to 150 years old. Consequently, on deer winter range, monitor the burn for several years to determine success of reestablishment of browse species. If it appears unlikely that browse will be established within 10 to 15 years (it takes 35+ years for bitterbrush to become established) then artificial establishment should be programed, if feasible. Generally speaking, there will be few areas on deer winter range where we will be able to economically establish browse. Look for micro

153


habitats with mesic conditions such as north-facing pockets to plant browse. These small areas will serve primarily as seed sources.

• Allow no livestock grazing for two grazing seasons after prescribed or natural fires and plantings or seedlings (Forest S&G Range PG IV-30 S&G 27).

Wildlife and Fish

Standard and Guideline:

• The following standards apply to sage grouse habitats (Forest S&G Range PG IV-49 S&G 27). o Use dropping casts, sage grouse sightings, and historical records to reveal location and

importance of sage grouse habitat. o Maintain 20 percent to 55 percent canopy cover on sage grouse range. o Use irregularly designed patterns when manipulated brush in sage grouse habitat. o Maintain meadows in sage grouse range in high ecological status. Where meadows have lost

their natural characteristics because of lowered water table, trampling, overgrazing, road building, or for other reasons, take measures to restore the meadows.

o Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within two miles of leks. o Retain irregular, lean strips of untreated sagebrush approximately 100 yards wide adjacent to

stream bottoms and meadows. o Include the use of a combination of forbs and grasses desirable to sage grouse when

rehabilitating sage grouse habitat. o Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat on known sage grouse wintering areas. o As appropriate, National Forest personnel will arrange a joint on-the-grams review of

proposed projects with the proper local or state wildlife biologist so details of wildlife coordination can be explained and dismissed.

o Protect critical areas for sage grouse brood rearing. • Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal

populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (Forest S&G Range PG IV-49 S&G 4).

• Improve habitat for threatened or endangered species, and sensitive species that have been adversely affected by man's activity in wilderness areas (Forest S&G Range PG IV-50 S&G 6).

• Manage habitats of wolverine, Mount Lyell salamander, yellow warbler, and other wildlife species that may have declining populations or narrow habitat requirements, to assure viable populations and reasonable distributions. Encourage surveys and other data gathering activities for these species (Forest S&G Range PG IV-50 S&G 9).

154


APPENDIX A2. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, CCD

BLM Management Direction, Carson City District

DESIRED OUTCOMES (RMP 2001)

WLD-2

• Protect and maintain existing and potential fisheries habitat and riparian habitats in a good or better condition.

• Maintain and improve wildlife habitat, including riparian/stream habitats, and reduce habitat conflicts while providing for other appropriate resource uses.

• Maintain or improve the habitat condition of meadow and aquatic areas. Habitat condition for any wildlife species can be defined as the ability of a specific area to supply the forage, cover, water, and space requirements of an animal. Habitat condition, therefore, is a measure of habitat quality, and is determined by assessments, surveys and studies.

• Maintain or improve the condition of the public rangelands so as to enhance productivity for all rangeland values (including wildlife).

WLD-3

• Limit vehicle traffic to designated roads and trails in the higher elevations of the Pine Nut Mountains. All existing roads and trails will be designated open to OHV use except where roads or trails impact sensitive meadows, seeps, springs and other waters as identified in the watershed decisions.

WLD-4

• All riparian areas will be given special management consideration through the consultation and coordination process

WLD-5

• Acquire private lands in the following areas for wildlife: o Lassen-Washoe deer winter range and migration corridor. About 7,400 acres. o Pine Nut Mountains for wildlife habitat management, about 35,000 acres. o Acquire legal access to Faye Canyon, Bagley Valley and the Hangman's Bridge area near

Markleeville. Legal access will be acquired in coordination with the USFS. o Acquire or provide legal access through or around Big Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon and

Hardscrabble Canyon to provide vehicular access into the Virginia Mountains. Legal access will be provided for administration of BLM lands.

WLD-5

• Implement range improvement projects to protect and improve (big game) mule deer, bighorn sheep, sage grouse, fisheries, and riparian habitat and to improve livestock and wild horse distribution and vegetation utilization. This includes :

o Protection of 10.7 miles of fishable rivers and creeks. o Rehabilitation of meadow habitats in the McBride Flat allotment. o Protection of 20 developed spring sources and 7 undeveloped riparian areas. o Removal of 600 acres of pinyon-juniper overstory on selected sites in the Pine Nut

Mountains, Excelsior Mountains, Wassuk Range, and the McBride Flat area through fuelwood harvest.

155


o Installation of 10 guzzlers. o Development of water for wildlife at six spring development and 5 undeveloped riparian

areas. o Removal of 250 acres of pinyon-juniper and potential chaining and seeding in the J-W

ranch area. o Protection of 95 small wildlife habitat areas. o This also includes protection of riparian/meadow habitat areas with the following priority

(see RMP for list). o The protection of 65 spring sources is also included with the following top 20 prioritized.

WLD-6

• Wildlife habitat improvement projects will be guided, in the most part, by provisions in activity level plans such as habitat management plans (see Table 3-10, Activity Plans), or interdisciplinary activity plans. These plans will be developed through consultation with interested parties and will be coordinated with livestock, wild horse, and wilderness plans. These plans will be focused on rehabilitation and improvement of wildlife habitat through protective fencing, water developments, grazing management, and vegetation treatments.

• Riparian protection measures would involve implementation and evaluation of grazing management systems and techniques which have been designed to enhance riparian habitat before initiating extensive fencing of specific areas to exclude wild horses and livestock. Riparian and fisheries habitat protection measures will involve fencing of some specific areas to prevent over-utilization and trampling. Some grazing uses by livestock and wild horses could occur on those riparian areas where monitoring studies indicate the area has recovered to a good or better condition class. The degree and season of grazing use will be determined through consultation and coordination with affected livestock permittees and other interested parties.

• Protection of 95 small wildlife habitat areas. This also includes protection of riparian/meadow habitat areas prioritized in Table 3-8, Priority Riparian/Wet Meadow Habitat Areas for Protection, and protection of 65 spring sources with the top 20 prioritized in Table 3-9, The Top 20 Prioritized Springs for Protection.

MIN-3

• Restrictions in the spring for six sage-grouse strutting grounds for oil and gas leasing. • Restrictions from March 1 to July 30 for sage-grouse habitat for oil and gas leasing. • Restrictions in the spring for all sage-grouse strutting grounds for geothermal leasing. • Restrictions for March 1 to July for Bedell Flat sage-grouse strutting ground.

FIR-5

• Prescribed burns will be reseeded, using native species to the extent practical, wherever residual vegetation is not adequately abundant to revegetate the sites naturally, prevent domination by invasive weed species, and meet ecosystem restoration objectives.

REC-2

• Eliminate OHV use in the following locations: • Through or in the immediate vicinity (near enough to the water source that its water

quality or water quantity may be affected) of any surface water source, such as a spring or seep.

• Any riparian area associated with meadows, marshes, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes, reservoirs or streams.

• Any channel bank, or streambed of a perennial stream. RIP-2

156


• Riparian protection measures would involve implementation and evaluation of grazing management systems and techniques which have been designed to enhance riparian habitats before initiating extensive fencing of specific areas to exclude wild horses and livestock. Riparian and fisheries habitat protection measures will involve fencing of some specific areas to prevent over-utilization and trampling. Some grazing uses by livestock and wild horses could occur on those riparian areas where monitoring studies indicate the area has recovered to a good or better condition class. The degree and season of grazing use will be determined through consultation and coordination with affected livestock permittees and other interested parties.

Standard Operating Procedures (RMP 2001)

WLD-7

• Vegetation control measures will be prohibited within 100 yards of a stream or meadow, on sage grouse breeding complexes, or wintering grounds, unless they are intended to improve sage grouse habitats.

• Where the need is identified for wildlife use, water improvements will include protected seep areas and fences around spring developments.

• Water for wildlife will be made available at all livestock watering developments where appropriate.

• All water improvements will include bird ramps in watering troughs, lateral water sites off pipelines, overflows at troughs, protected seep areas, and fences around spring developments.

• BLM will adhere to current habitat modification guidelines prepared by the Western Sage Grouse Committee of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

APPENDIX A3. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, Tonopah RMP

BLM Management Direction, Battle Mountain District, Tonopah RMP

VEGETATION

Objective:

• To provide for vegetative and ecological diversity RMP Determinations:

• Manage the vegetation resource for desired plant communities. A general listing of key plant species associated with desired plant communities is shown in Appendix 1 (these key plant species are identified by basic vegetation type and ecological site of occurrence). Descriptions of specific desired plant communities will be developed by allotment at key areas. This will be done in conjunction with grazing permitees and other publics. Descriptions will be based on information collected at the key area sites, including data on ecological potential. Management of the vegetative resource will provide for the physiological needs (such as critical growth periods, biomass production, root reserve increase, and seed production) of the key forage plant species. Key forage plant species are shown by allotment in Appendix 2.

157


WILDIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT

Objective:

• To maintain and enhance wildlife habitat and provide for species diversity. RMP Determinations:

• To maintain and enhance wildlife habitat and provide for species diversity • Continue the following management decisions from previous land use plans:

o Lockes Meadow, Blue Eagle Pond, Big Well, Chimney Springs, Reynolds Spring and North Spring riparian areas (total 2,317 acres) will be excluded from grazing to achieve riparian objectives in accordance with the Railroad Valley Wildlife Management Plan. Livestock grazing may be authorized on a temporary, nonrenewable basis to achieve objectives identified in the Railroad Valley Habitat-Management Plan.

o On 26,000 acres of sage grouse restrict activities which might be disturbing to sage grouse between February 15 and May 15 (see Map 34 and Appendix 14).

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Objective:

• To protect, restore, enhance, and expand habitat of species identified as threatened, endangered, or Nevada BLM Sensitive Species under the Endangered Species Act.

RMP Determinations:

• Habitat for all federally listed threatened or endangered species or Nevada BLM Sensitive Species (plant and animal) will be managed to maintain or increase current populations of these species. The introduction, reintroduction, or augmentation of Nevada BLM Sensitive Species, as well as Federally listed threatened or endangered species, may be allowed if, in coordination with Nevada Division of Wildlife and the U.S.

• Fish and Wildlife Service, it is deemed appropriate. Such actions will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to applicable procedures outlined in the section on Standard Operating Procedures, Environmental Review and Management.

(Note: The Nevada BLM Sensitive Species is designated by the BLM State Director in cooperation with the State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. This list consists of species that are not already included as BLM Special Status Species under 1) federally listed, proposed, or candidate species; or 2) species listed by the State of Nevada because of potential endangerment or extinction. BLM policy is to provide sensitive species with the same level of protection as is provided for candidate species under BLM Manual 6840.06 D).

RIPARIAN HABITAT

Objective:

To achieve or maintain the presence of adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows for all riparian-wetland areas (proper functioning condition).

RMP Determinations:

158


• Manage for properly functioning condition on all streamside riparian areas, and all springs, seeps, wet meadows, and other riparian areas in the Tonopah Planning areas, including the 32.8 miles of streams identified in Table 1 (see Maps 14 and 15).

• Where streams and riparian areas are functioning but are at risk of deteriorating, manage for an improving trend, as determined using techniques described in current BLM Technical References and/or other BLM guidelines. If needed, and in conjunction with the grazing permitees and other publics, design and implement management practices to achieve an upward trend. If the desired trend does not occur, the responsible class of animal (where it can be determined) will be reduced or excluded.

• Where streams and riparian are-as are nonfunctional,-work with permittees and other publics to modify management. If the desired trend does not occur, the responsible class of animal (where it can be determined) will be reduced or excluded.

FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS

Objective:

• To provide forest and other vegetation products for consumptive use on a sustained yield basis. RMP Determinations:

• Pinyon and juniper deadwood may be harvested in all accessible woodland acreage outside wilderness study areas. The removal of dead mahogany, cottonwood or •aspen will be prohibited in order to maintain suitable wildlife habitat.

WILD HORSES AND BURROS

Objective:

To manage wild horse and/or burro populations within Herd Management Areas at levels which will preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance consistent with other multiple-use objectives.

RMP Determinations:

• Continue the following management determinations: o Manage wild horses and/or burros at appropriate management level (AML) or interim herd

size (IHS) for each herd –management area as identified in Table 3 (These numbers may have been adjusted through court decisions or multiple-use decisions since the October 1994 Proposed AMP.) Appendices 8A and 8B (as modified by Table 3) show interim herd sizes and appropriate management levels by grazing allotment. Future herd size or appropriate management levels within each herd management area will be adjusted as determined through short-term and long-term monitoring data methods as outlined in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook and BLM technical references (see also Appendix 7).

• When the appropriate management level (or in some cases the interim herd size) is exceeded, remove excess wild horses and/or burros to a point which may allow up to three years of population increase before again reaching the appropriate management level or interim herd size listed in Table 3.

159


FIRE MANAGEMENT

Objective:

• To protect natural resources from unacceptable damage by fire in a cost-effective manner with a high regard for private property and safety. Promote resource management through prescribed fire to maintain the natural component of the ecosystem.

RMP Determinations:

• Wildfires that threaten resources such as critical watersheds, riparian areas, desirable range (salt desert shrub), sage grouse strutting grounds, sensitive plant species sites, cultural resource sites, and sensitive forage plant species (bitterbrush and mountain mahogany) will be kept to minimum acres utilizing suppression action which could suppress and/or divert the fire and be cost-effective and efficient.

• If an approved natural prescribed fire plan is written, some wildfires in Fire Management Zone 2 may be allowed to burn to promote a more natural fire regime. The sagebrush/pinyon-juniper vegetation type is considered a fire-dependent ecosystem, and adverse ecological changes may result by total fire exclusion (e.g., pinyon pine-juniper encroachment of grassy areas or declining grass productivity because of increased sagebrush cover).

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES The following standard operating procedures will be applied to this plan.

Common to All

• Permanent roads will not be constructed into temporary project sites. Existing access roads, off road travel, or temporary roads which will be rehabilitated after construction activity will be used.

• Application of herbicides on proposed treatment areas will be in accordance with procedures established in Bureau Manual 9011 and 9015 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (1991). Herbicide use on BLM lands in California is covered by California Vegetation.

• All areas of new surface disturbance will be rehabilitated, where such action is necessary and practical, to replace ground cover and prevent erosion.

• Construction of all fences (except in cases of public safety) will conform to the objectives and specifications in Bureau Manual 1737 to minimize impacts to wildlife, wild horses, recreation, and visual resources.

• The clearing of vegetation from all project sites will be restricted to the minimum amount necessary.

• Activities in key fish and wildlife areas will, when necessary, be restricted during periods of breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing, or calving activity, and during major migrations of fish and wildlife.

• All operations by authorized public land users will be conducted in such a manner as will avoid: permanent blockage of any drainage system; (b) changing the character, or causing thepollution or siltation, of rivers, streams, reservoirs, ponds, water holes, or springs; and (c) damaging fish and wildlife resources and habitats.

• The Bureau will, if necessary, suspend any construction maintenance activity if there is an immediate threat to life (including wildlife and aquatic life), property, or the environment.

• Revegetation of disturbed areas will be required as specified by the Bureau. The appropriate seed mixture and proper planting techniques will be specified by the Bureau.

160


• Authorized public land users will construct, maintain, operate, and/or modify structures or facilities as directed by the Bureau to protect and minimize adverse effects upon raptors and other wildlife.

• Authorized public land users will prevent or control damage to scenic, aesthetic, cultural and environmental values (including damage to fish and wildlife habitat), damage to federal property and hazards to public health and safety.

Environmental Review and Management

• In compliance with NEPA and CEQ regulations, BLM will prepare site-specific environmental reviews before actions proposed in this RMP!EIS are implemented, or prior to approval of any project authorized on the public lands. The environmental reviews provide site-specific assessments of the impacts from implementing these actions. As appropriate, these reviews are documented in Categorical Exclusion Reviews, Administrative Determinations, Environmental Assessments and Decision Records, or Environmental Impact Statements and Records of Decision. In addition, the environmental review identifies mitigating measures necessary to reduce adverse impacts of implementing a project or proposed action.

• All future authorizations will be in conformance with the RMP. Existing authorizations will be brought into conformance when they are renewed.

• Seasonal restrictions on activities which are included in this RMP to prevent disturbing of wildlife will apply to the following authorizations: fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy mineral leasing, mineral material sales, geophysical prospecting, right-of-way construction, off-highway vehicle events, construction of range improvements, activities authorized under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act), and vegetation sales. In general, maintenance of rights-of-way, range improvement projects, and other facilities will not be restricted. Locatable mineral exploration and development activities will be encouraged to abide seasonal restrictions but cannot be required to do so.

Fish and Wildlife

• Fish and wildlife habitat will continue to be evaluated as part of project-level planning. Such evaluation will consider the significance of the proposed project and the sensitivity of fish and wildlife habitat in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects with management objectives for fish and wildlife habitat. Habitat improvement projects will be implemented where necessary to stabilize or improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat condition. Such projects will be identified through habitat management plans or other activity plans.

• Sufficient forage and cover will be provided for wildlife. Forage and cover requirements will be incorporated into allotment management plans or their functional equivalent and will apply to specific areas of primary wildlife use.

• Range improvements generally will be designed to achieve both wildlife and range objectives. Existing fences will be modified and new fences built so as to allow wildlife passage. Water troughs will be constructed to not exclude wildlife and bird ladders will be installed. Proposed projects are listed in Appendix 4.

• Guzzlers constructed for wildlife will be designed for protection from domestic livestock and wild horses and burros.

• In accordance with BLM guidelines for domestic sheep management in bighorn sheep habitat, no domestic sheep grazing will be authorized within nine miles of bighorn sheep habitat (see Maps 10 and 13).

161


• Habitats for chukar and other upland game will be maintained and expanded through development of wildlife waters. Generally, no land disposal will be allowed within two miles of sage grouse nesting areas.

Livestock Grazing Management

• Resource improvement planning will be in accordance with the procedures outlined in BLM Handbook H-1741-1, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures.

• The grazing management program assigns priorities to management efforts using a selective management approach. Under this approach grazing allotments are categorized into "I," "M," and "C" management categories. The objectives for these categories are to: 1) maintain (M) the current satisfactory conditions; 2) improve (I) the current unsatisfactory conditions; or 3) manage custodially (C) while protecting existing resource values. Management priority will be given first to ''I" allotments, second to "M" allotments, and third to "C" allotments.

• Range improvement projects will be addressed in environmental documents and will be constructed in accordance with BLM Manual 9113. Existing access or temporary roads will be used as much as possible. Temporary roads will be rehabilitated after use is completed.

• The clearing of vegetation from project sites will be restricted to the minimum amount necessary to properly and safely complete the project.

• All disturbed areas will be rehabilitated, where such action is necessary and/or practical, to replace ground cover and prevent erosion. Fences used to control cattle movement in areas inhabited by resident and-migratory populations of deer, horses, and/or antelope will be 42 inches in height. Fences in these areas will consist of three barbed wires and a smooth bottom wire. The spacing of the wires starting from the ground will be 16 inches, 22 inches, 30 inches and 42 inches. Line posts shall be spaced at a distance of 16.5 feet between each post. Fences in bighorn sheep habitat will be a three- strand fence with spacing 20, 35, and 39 inches from the ground with a smooth bottom wire. Special design standards will be in accordance with the BLM Handbook H-1741-1. All fences will be designed to assure a minimum of impacts to wildlife, wild horses/burros, recreation, and visual resources.

• Developed spring sources may be fenced and water provided for livestock and/or wild horses/burros away from the source. Water will be left at the spring source for wildlife use as required by Nevada Revised Statute 533.367, which states in part that "Before a person may obtain a right to the use of water from a spring or water which has seeped to the surface of the ground, he must ensure that wildlife which customarily uses the water will have access to it".

• Alteration of sagebrush areas either through application of herbicides, prescribed burning, or by mechanical means will be in accordance with procedures specified in the Western States' Sage Grouse Guidelines and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the Nevada BLM. All vegetation treatment projects will be coordinated with the Nevada Division of Wildlife at least one year in advance of implementation of the project.

• Application of herbicides on proposed treatment areas to reduce sagebrush and other plant species will be in accordance with procedures established in BLM Manual 9222 to prevent impairment of nontarget species.

• Vegetative manipulation that will alter the potential natural plant composition will not be allowed in riparian areas. This includes the introduction of nonnative species.

Wild Horse and Burro Management

• It is the intent of the BLM to manage wild horses and/or burros and their habitat within areas occupied in 1971. Management is to be accomplished in a manner designed to achieve a thriving

162


natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship with other resource users. The suitability of some areas to support wild horses and/or burros will be reassessed as appropriate in light of new information from monitoring and emergency gathers.

• Management of the wild horses and/or burros will also be guided by Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs) or their functional equivalent, when appropriate. The plans will be developed through consultation and coordination with interested parties and will be coordinated with livestock, wildlife, and other resource plans. The management plans may include, but not be limited to, discussions of seral stages, range trends, habitat requirements, dietary needs, water requirements, and wild horse and/or burro reproductive capabilities.

Lands

• Site-specific decisions regarding land ownership adjustments within the Tonopah Planning Area are to be based on whether the lands are needed for BLM programs, or whether or not they are considered more valuable for other purposes. The following criteria are applied to site-specific determinations for lands that are within areas identified for disposal or acquisition: o Public resource values, including, but not limited to:

--threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat --sites or places listed or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places --mineral potential --wilderness areas and areas being studied for wilderness --riparian areas, including springs and seeps --nesting/breeding habitat for game birds/animals --big game seasonal habitat --recreation potential --visual resources --other designations authorized by law

• In addition, no disposals are allowed within two miles of sage grouse strutting grounds, and

no disposals for agricultural purposes are allowed on lands with agricultural soil ratings of Class IV or higher, or with soils having a high susceptibility to erosion. The disposal of land will not be allowed if it would fragment ownership patterns.

• Prior to issuance of a right-of-way authorization, a site-specific environmental analysis is performed which considers, among other things, habitats of threatened, endangered, or Nevada BLM Sensitive Species: sites or places listed or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places: wilderness areas and areas being studied for wilderness; riparian areas; nesting/breeding habitat for animals; big game seasonal habitat; visual resources; and other considerations mandated by law.

Recreation

• Decisions regarding the designation of areas open, limited (restricted), and closed to motorized vehicle access have been made in the AMP. An exception to designations in the AMP is emergency actions which may be necessary due to: o The need to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation or other resource values. o The need to minimize harassment of wildlife or the degradation of wildlife habitat, especially

habitat for threatened, endangered, or Nevada BLM sensitive species. o The need to promote user safety and protect the visiting public from hazardous situations.

Areas which are not designated as limited or closed will remain open for motorized vehicle use.

163


• Public land within areas closed to motorized vehicle use will be closed year-long to all forms of motorized vehicle use except for emergency or authorized vehicles.

Fluid Minerals

• Oil and gas leases and geothermal leases grant the right to the operator to explore for, and to produce oil and gas, and geothermal energy. Leases are subject to certain terms and conditions which provide for compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to fire, sanitation, conservation, water pollution, fish and wildlife, safety, protection of property, and reclamation.

• In addition to the terms and conditions of the leases, stipulations may be applied to site-specific applications to provide for stringent environmental protection of conflicting resources. These stipulations are developed by a multidisciplinary team as part of the environmental analysis process.

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas, and for geothermal resources may take place before or after the leasing of the lands. These actions will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team in the Tonopah Planning Area to identify and mitigate resource-related conflicts.

• BLM actively encourages and facilitates the private development of public land mineral resources in a manner that satisfies national and local needs, and provides for economically and environmentally sound exporation, extraction, and reclamation practices.

• Actions which would adversely impact a Nevada BLM sensitive plant or animal species will be modified in order to prevent possible future listing of these species as threatened or endangered.

Locatable Minerals

• BLM provides for mineral entry, exploration, location, and operations pursuant to the mining laws in a manner that 1) will not unduly hinder the mineral activities, and 2) assures that these activities are conducted in a manner which will prevent undue or unnecessary degradation of the public land.

• A Plan of Operations and a Reclamation Plan are required in situations in which there will be more than five acres of cumulative unreclaimed surface disturbance in a project area. These two plans are also required for any mining activity on special category lands, such as ACECs and areas closed to off- highway vehicles. Appropriate off-site mitigation may be negotiated during a plan of operations review for locatable mineral actions when an irretrievable loss of important habitat is unavoidable, or a significant long-term adverse impact will occur. The preferred alternatives to off-site mitigation are avoidance of critical and crucial habitat and reclamation of disturbed habitat to approximate pre- disturbance productivity.

• The Authorized Officer may require modifications of Plans of Operations to meet the requirements of the regulations and to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation of public land.

• All operations shall comply with Federal and State Jaws, including those relating to air quality, water quality, solid wastes, fisheries, wildlife and plant habitat, and archaeological and paleontological resources.

• Withdrawals from mineral entry will be enacted only in cases in which there are significant resource values that cannot be adequately protected under the regulations concerning surface management. Such withdrawn acreage may include areas recommended for wilderness designation, sensitive species habitat, riparian areas, areas possessing important historical and cultural resources, and areas set aside for recreational development.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

164


• An-environmental analysis will be conducted on1he exploration phase of each prospecting permit and on any production activities associated with a lease. The environmental analyses are prepared by a multidisciplinary team and are used to determine any special stipulations necessary for the protection of surface resources.

Fire Management

• Every wildfire within the Tonopah Planning Area will have an appropriate action taken. The action will be planned and executed in such a way as to minimize the loss of resources and the costs of suppression. Such actions must also be consistent with resource management objectives.

• There will be no use of fire retardant in riparian areas, WSAs, sensitive visual resource management areas, and structure archaeology sites, unless such use is authorized by the Authorized Officer.

• All wildfires, after they are declared out, will be evaluated by a rehabilitation team to determine the actual needs related to the rehabilitation. Corrective measures will be taken to prevent erosion and future resource degradation when it is feasible to rehabilitate areas damaged by actual suppression action. The rehabilitation team will also determine if any fire rehabilitation, including protection from grazing, is needed to revegetate the burned area, and to protect the site from erosion and invasion by undesirable plant species. Emergency fire rehabilitation will follow procedures outlined in BLM Handbook H-1742-1 and the Battle Mountain District approved Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan.

• When identified as the least costly and/or most effective method, prescribed fire techniques will be used as a resource tool to meet vegetative objectives as stated in this AMP. Prescribed fire can be used to improve wildlife habitat, watershed improvement and other types of vegetative manipulation to meet vegetative objectives. In addition it can be used solely, or in combination with other fuel/vegetative manipulation techniques. When fire is used as a management tool, an approved prescribed bum plan and wildfire prescription must be prepared in advance of planned or unplanned ignition in accordance with BLM Manual 9214.

165


APPENDIX A4. BLM Instruction Memoranda

• IM NV-2013-009 Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures

• IM 2012-039 Identification and Uniform Mapping of Wildlife Corridors and Crucial Habitat Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with the Western Governors’ Association

• IM 2011-138 Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels Management • IM 2010-071 Gunnison and Greater Sage-grouse Management Considerations for Energy

Development (Supplement to National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy) • IM 2010-022 Managing Structures for the Safety of Sage-grouse, Sharp-tailed grouse, and Lesser

Prairie-chicken. • IM 2005-024 National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy

166


APPENDIX B. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Action Consistency Checklist

Recovery Action # Task Description

Responsible Agencies

Consistency of BSSG Amendment Project (Alternative 2) with Recovery Tasks

1.1 Identify and acquire important habitat not in public ownership from willing landowners.

FS*, FWS, CT, CDFG

Consistent The following direction is provided under the proposed action: Standard 2m: The Forest Land Acquisition Plan shall include all private parcels that include Bi-state sage-grouse habitat within the NFS boundaries. No private lands exist where SNBS herd unit overlaps the analysis area.

1.2 Maintain and/or enhance integrity of bighorn sheep habitat

NPS*, FS*, FWS, CDFG

Consistent. Fire suppression objectives, standards and guidelines under alternative 2 would not compromise habitat integrity. This alternative would not result in blockage or alternative of movement corridors. Proposed federal actions in Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep habitat would continue be analyzed for effects to the species.

2.1 Prepare and implement a management plan to temporarily protect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep herds from predation losses, where needed, until viable herd sizes are reached.

CDFG* NA

167


2.2.1 Reduce potential predator influences on winter habitat selection where appropriate

CDFG* NA

2.2.2 Supplement small female groups where appropriate to attain threshold herd sizes that will encourage behavioral attributes favorable to winter range use

CDFG* NA

2.2.3 Enhance bighorn sheep winter range habitat to increase visibility where appropriate

FS*, NPS*, CDFG

Consistent Portions of the analysis area within Mount Warren herd unit are outside primary bighorn sheep wintering areas. Methods for maintaining or enhancing visual openness in SNBS winter habitats including managing wildfires for resource benefits, prescribed fire, and other forms of habitat manipulation are not precluded under the proposed action.

2.3.1 Prevent contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats

FS*, FWS, BLM*, LADWP, CDFG

Consistent

2.3.2 Develop an action plan in the event that a pneumonia outbreak occurs

CDFG* NA

2.4 Manage human use locally where it is found to cause bighorn sheep to avoid important habitat and, thereby, compromises survivorship or reproductive success.

FS*, NPS*, FWS, CDFG

Consistent Elements within the proposed action would not compromise the ability to manage conflicting use for benefits to SNBS.

3.1 Develop and implement a strategy for translocations

FS, NPS, FWS, CDFG*

Consistent

3.2.1 Manage wild herds as sources of stock

CDFG* NA

3.2.2 Develop criteria for and, if appropriate, implement a captive breeding program

FS, FWS, CDFG*

Consistent

168


4 Implement a genetic management plan to maintain genetic diversity of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. The plan must use data on genetic variation gathered in Task 6.1.

CDFG* NA

5.1 Develop and implement a monitoring plan for population abundance and distribution of bighorn sheep herds in the Sierra Nevada

CDFG*, UC*

NA

5.2 Monitor key predators in the vicinity of winter ranges

CDFG* NA

5.3 Monitor vegetation structure and composition changes likely to affect bighorn sheep population parameters

FS*, NPS*, CDFG

Consistent

5.4 Monitor exposure to disease organisms of concern

CDFG* NA

6.1 Investigate genetic population structure of existing herds

CDFG, UC* NA

6.2 Develop a population viability analysis (PVA) for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep

CDFG*, UC NA

6.3 Further investigate habitat use patterns of bighorn sheep herds

CDFG* NA

6.4 Investigate and analyze human use patterns relative to habitat use patterns of bighorn sheep

FS, NPS, CDFG*

Consistent

6.5 Investigate the potential for altering habitat use patterns of mountain lions on bighorn sheep winter ranges by aversive conditioning

CDFG* NA

6.6 Investigate future reintroduction sites relative to potential predator and domestic sheep problems and other

FS, NPS, CDFG*

Consistent

169


6.7 Investigate and, if appropriate, develop a plan for decreasing mortality of bighorn sheep remaining at high elevation in extreme winters

FS, CDFG* Consistent

6.8 Attempt to develop long term data that will help elucidate predator-prey dynamics of this ecosystem as they affect bighorn sheep

FS, NPS, UC, CDFG*

Consistent

6.9 Investigate effects of climate change on bighorn sheep habitat

FS, NPS, USGS*, CDFG

Consistent

7.1 Conduct a survey of public uses of bighorn sheep habitat and public attitudes regarding bighorn sheep

FS*, NPS*, FWS, CDFG

Consistent

7.2 Develop and distribute information related to recovery efforts

FS, NPS, FWS*, CDFG*

Consistent

7.3 Continue, update, and coordinate, existing informational and outreach programs and develop further programs as needed

FS, NPS, FWS*, CDFG*

Consistent

8. Establish an implementation advisory team for coordination and communication

CDFG*, FWS, FS, BLM, NPS

Consistent

NA- Not Applicable to HTNF or Nevada BLM

170


171

greater sage-grouse bi-state distinct population segment ...a123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 ›...

Documents