U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Impact Statement DOI-BLM-NV-BOl 0-201 1-0200-EIS ting Agencies ounty Park Service Department of Wildlife Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastion Road Battle Mountain, NV 89820 Phone: 775-635-4000 Fax: 775-635-4034 2013 vv *'6U53j«}S| lD%p C?W” Uf\ I LJ 243 .H3> TM"? DRAFT '3’Ot'*. 3 BARS ECOSYSTEM AND LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (X) DRAFT ( ) FINAL LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office PROJECT LOCATION: Eureka County, Nevada COMMENTS ON THIS DRAFT EIS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: Mr. Chad Lewis EIS Project Manager Mount Lewis Field Office Battle Mountain District 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820 Fax: (775) 635-4034 Email: 3Bars Proiectfeblm.gov ABSTRACT This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposed land restoration treatments on the approximately 749,810- acre 3 Bars ecosystem. The BLM evaluated three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Alternative A is the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative, the BLM would treat about 127,000 acres during the life of the project using manual and mechanical methods, fire (both prescribed and wildland fire for resource benefit), and biological control (use of livestock and classic biological control [nematodes, fungi, mites, and insects] primarily to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation). Alternative B differs from Alternative A in that the BLM would not use prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit, and the BLM would treat only about 63,500 acres. Under Alternative C, the BLM would only treat vegetation within treatment areas using manual methods and classical biological control; use of livestock for biological control would not be allowed. The BLM would also not be able to use mechanical methods or fire, and would treat only about 3 1,750 acres. The focus of treatments under all thiee action alternatives would be to restore riparian, aspen, and sagebrush habitats; slow singleleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper encroachment into and infilling within these habitats; and thin historic pinyon-juniper communities to promote woodland health. Under Alternative D, the No Action Alternative, no new treatments would be authorized as a result of this project. However, the BLM would continue to conduct treatments approved under earlier NEPA authorizations. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL FOR EIS: Christopher J. Cook Field Manager Mount Lewis Field Office Bureau of Land Management EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The 3 Bars ecosystem is approximately 749,810 acres in central Eureka County, northwest of Eureka, Nevada. The ecosystem is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Mount Lewis Field Office. It is a shrub-steppe ecosystem with important resource values, ranging from habitat for a diversity of plants and animals, to providing traditional use areas for several Native American tribes. The 3 Bars ecosystem provides important habitat for greater sage-grouse, mule deer, Lahontan cutthroat trout, and numerous other fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds, and for wild horses. The 3 Bars ecosystem is also an important recreation resource for Nevada residents and visitors. Resource conditions on several areas within the ecosystem, however, have deteriorated due to past land use activities, causing the BLM to target this area for restoration. Although 3 Bars ecosystem health is in decline, the ecosystem has characteristics that suggest its health can be substantially improved through land restoration activities. Given the opportunity to improve 3 Bars ecosystem health, the 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project (3 Bars Project) is being proposed by the BLM to develop the 3 Bars ecosystem into a sustainable, healthy, and resilient landscape. The 3 Bars ecosystem provides critical habitat for greater sage-grouse,1 a bird species that is being considered for federal listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Through sagebrush and other habitat restoration on the 3 Bars ecosystem, the BLM would help to reduce the likelihood that the greater sage-grouse will be federally listed in the future. To ensure that treatments benefit greater sage-grouse, sagebrush restoration treatments would adhere to the most recent guidance available at the time of treatment implementation, currently the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department greater sage- grouse guidelines, and the BLM Nevada State Office and Washington Office Instructional Memoranda when restoring sagebrush habitats. These include using a mosaic design where treated areas have a width of no greater than 200 feet between untreated areas, avoiding treatments near greater sage-grouse leks that results in a decrease in canopy cover of greater than 1 5 percent, and avoiding treatments in breeding, brood-rearing, and wintering habitats during those times of the year when greater sage-grouse are using these habitats. The BLM, as mitigation for the 3 Bars Project, may also manage livestock when necessary to meet greater sage-grouse habitat goals. These goals include having suitable sagebrush cover in greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas and ensuring that allowable use levels for livestock for herbaceous species are appropriate within greater sage- grouse habitat. In order to ensure long-term success, restoration projects would not be conducted in areas with moderate to severe forage utilization until mitigation measures associated with grazing management, as discussed in Section 3.17.4, are implemented through agreements or decisions subsequent to the 3 Bars Project Record of Decision to ensure proper utilization levels during the appropriate season of use. The BLM would work with permittees on a permit by permit basis to address any changes in livestock management due to treatment implementation. In all instances. 1 Common and scientific names of plant and animals given in this Environmental Impact Statement arc provided in Appendix A. ES-1 3 Bars Project Draft HIS September 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY appropriate changes in livestock management through agreements or decisions would be finalized prior to project implementation. Project funding would come from funds allocated by Congress to the BLM for resource management. To reduce the cost of treatments to the taxpayer, the BLM would seek outside funding partnerships with other resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, or private industries that arc interested in resource management within the 3 Bars ecosystem. Additionally, it is anticipated that habitat enhancement activities authorized with the 3 Bars Project decision would provide opportunities to utilize off-site mitigation account funds associated with various development activities within or near the 3 Bars Project area. Proposed Action The BLM proposes to treat vegetation using manual, mechanical, and biological control methods, and fire (both prescribed and wildland fire for resource benefit). Treatments would address multiple resource issues and aid in restoring functionality to key elements of the 3 Bars ecosystem. The BLM has identified site-specific treatment projects that it proposes to implement over the life of the project to restore and manage the 3 Bars ecosystem. Treatment projects were identified through an iterative process involving the BLM and other federal and state cooperating agencies. Treatments would focus on four priority vegetation management concerns — riparian, quaking aspen, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush, with an emphasis on improving greater sage-grouse priority habitats. Purposes for the Project Using the information from the Assessment of Existing and Current Conditions for the Proposed 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project, and field studies, the BLM identified several purposes for the 3 Bars Project. Purposes are consistent with the 1986 Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan Record of Decision , as amended, which guides land management activities in the 3 Bars ecosystem. Purposes for the 3 Bars Project include: • Improve woodland, rangeland, and riparian health, productivity, and functionality. • Increase stream flows and restore channel morphology in degraded streams. • Improve stream habitat for fish and wildlife by implementing physical treatments that include installing large woody debris, rock clusters, and check dams, and using temporary fencing to exclude livestock and wild horses. • Improve the health of aspen, mountain mahogany, and other mountain tree and shrub stands to benefit wildlife, and Native Americans that use these plants for medicinal and other purposes. • Manage pinyon-juniper woodlands to promote healthy, diverse stands within persistent woodlands. • Slow the expansion of pinyon-juniper into sagebrush and riparian plant communities. • Slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, including chcatgrass. • Protect and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife, including species of concern such as raptors, greater sage-grouse, and Lahontan cutthroat trout. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS ES-2 September 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I'hc BLM lias also identified project purposes that arc specific to fire use and improving ecosystem management through the use of fire. These include: • Restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; reduce the risk of large-scale wildfire; reduce extreme, very high, and high wildfire risks to moderate risk or less; and develop fuel breaks within the treatment and adjacent areas. • Protect life, property, and community infrastructure, and protect fish and wildlife habitat from devastating wildfire effects. Treatment purposes would be met by implementing land restoration treatments in areas where resource management goals are not being met, and the likelihood of treatments improving resource conditions is great. The proposed treatments would range from several acres to several thousand acres, depending on specific treatment and management goals and desired outcomes for each resource area. Need for the Project The 3 Bars ecosystem has long been recognized as an area in resource conflict due to the many and often competing uses occurring within the ecosystem. Some of these uses include mineral exploration and development, livestock grazing, woodland product harvest, recreation, and wilderness activities. The ecosystem is an important use area for wild horses, fish, and wildlife, including sensitive and game fish and wildlife species such as Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope. In addition to competing land uses, other factors affecting land uses and health in the ecosystem result from the effects of past grazing practices, changes to the natural fire regime, establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and expansion and densification of pinyon-juniper woodlands. Collectively, these have caused substantial changes in the native vegetation community and loss of important ecosystem components. Based on these changes, the BLM has determined that there is a need to improve rangeland health and to provide a sustainable forage base for wildlife. Scope of Analysis and Decisions to be Made The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that every federal agency prepare a detailed statement of the effects, or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), of “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” (42 United States Code § 4321 et sequentia; USDOI BLM 2008a). An EIS is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with a complete and objective evaluation of significant environmental impacts, beneficial and adverse, resulting from the proposed action and several reasonable alternatives. Given the magnitude of treatments and the resulting potential for significant cumulative effects from the 3 Bars Project, the BLM has determined that an EIS is required to evaluate impacts from the 3 Bars Project. This EIS analyzes the effects of using a variety of treatments to improve ecosystem health on the 3 Bars ecosystem. Decisions expected to be made through this EIS process include: • Determine which areas within the 3 Bars ecosystem would be treated. • Determine which treatment methods would be used to accomplish management objectives. • Determine which management actions would be taken to lacilitatc restoration ot public lands. • Identify criteria to guide future restoration activities within the 3 Bars ecosystem. 3 liars Project Draft I . IS ES-3 September 20 1 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At least 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) publishes the Notice of Availability of the final EIS, the BLM decision-maker will prepare a ROD. The decision may be to select one of the alternatives in its entirety, or to combine features from several alternatives that fall within the range of alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The ROD will address significant impacts, alternatives, mitigation measures, and relevant economic and technical considerations. Alternative Proposals Four alternatives are evaluated in this EIS — the All Treatment Methods Alternative (Alternative A; Preferred Alternative); the No Fire Use Alternative (Alternative B); the Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative (Alternative C); and the No Action Alternative (Alternative D; Continue Current Management). Alternative actions arc those that could be taken to feasibly attain the BLM’s objectives for improving the health of, and reducing risks to, the 3 Bars ecosystem. The alternatives differ primarily in the types of treatment methods allowed and the amount of acreage that can reasonably be treated over the life of the project. Alternative A — All Treatment Methods Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Alternative A is the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. The BLM proposes to treat about 127,000 acres during the life of the project, using manual and mechanical methods, fire (both prescribed and wildland fire for resource benefit), and biological control (primarily to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation using livestock and classic biological control [use of nematodes, fungi, mites, and insects]). Treatments would focus on protecting landscapes and treatment projects would usually address multiple resource issues. Treatments would focus on four priority vegetation management concerns: • Riparian — treatments in riparian habitats would focus on restoring functionality in areas where stream structural integrity (incised channel, headcuts, knickpoints, developments, and diversions) and/or appropriate plant species composition are compromised. • Aspen — treatments in quaking aspen habitat would focus on improving the health of aspen stands by stimulating aspen stand suckering and sucker survival. • Pinyon-juniper — treatments in singlcleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper habitats would focus on thinning historic pinyon-juniper communities to promote woodland health and removing pinyon-juniper where it encroaches into riparian areas and upland habitats, including sagebrush habitat, or outside of proper ecological state. • Sagebrush — treatments in sagebrush habitats would focus on restoring the sagebrush community by removing encroaching pinyon-juniper, promoting the reestablishment of native forbs and grasses in sagebrush communities, and promoting the development of sagebrush in areas where it should occur based on ecological site description reference, desired state, or management objective. About 95 percent of acres treated would be to manage pinyon-juniper and improve sagebrush habitat. Human- related activities allowed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, such as livestock grazing and off- highway vehicle use would continue to be allowed on the 3 Bars ecosystem. The BLM would follow planning processes, apply Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), implement appropriate mitigation, and monitor treatments to ensure that vegetation treatments arc successful (see Appendix C). 3 liars Project Drall lilS ES-4 September 20 1 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alternative B — No Fire Use Alternative Alternative B is similar to Alternative A in that the BLM would focus treatments on the four priority management concerns — riparian, aspen, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush — and would focus on the treatment areas identified under Alternative A. Alternative B differs from Alternative A in that the BLM would not use prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit. Under Alternative B, the BLM would treat vegetation using manual, mechanical, and biological control (livestock and classical biological control) methods. This alternative was developed to address public concerns raised during scoping about the impacts to the landscape from fire, including the potential for erosion and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation from fire treatments. The BLM would conduct projects identified under Alternative A, but proposes to treat only about half as many acres (63,500 acres) as costs for manual and mechanical treatments are more expensive than costs for fire treatments. The planning process, treatment goals and objectives, funding mechanisms, and use of SOPs would be similar to those under Alternative A. Alternative C — Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative Alternative C is similar to Alternative A in that the BLM would focus treatments on the four priority management concerns — riparian, aspen, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush — and would focus on the treatment areas identified under Alternative A. Alternative C differs from Alternative A in that the BLM would only treat vegetation within treatment areas using manual methods and classical biological control (use of nematodes, fungi, and insects); use of livestock for biological control would not be allowed. The BLM also would not be able to use mechanical methods or fire. This alternative was developed in response to the proposed “passive restoration and use only treatments having minimal land disturbance alternative,” which was submitted during public scoping. Under this alternative, the BLM would only use manual methods to treat vegetation, as these methods would cause little land disturbance. The BLM would conduct projects identified under Alternative A, but proposes to treat only about one-fourth as many acres (31,750 acres) and treatments would generally be small in acreage. The planning process, treatment goals and objectives, funding mechanisms, and use of SOPs under this alternative would be similar to those under Alternative A. Alternative D — Continue Current Management (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action Alternative, no new treatments would be authorized as a result of this project. However, the BLM would continue to conduct treatments approved under earlier NEPA authorizations. The BLM would have to conduct the appropriate level of NEPA analysis for future projects before they could be approved for implementation. Should this alternative be chosen by the decision-maker, and it the BLM decides to conduct new treatments in the 3 Bars ecosystem in the future, decisions would have to be made at that time regarding the type of environmental analysis that must be conducted before treatments would be allowed within the ecosystem. There are approximately 15,000 acres of treatments that could occur within the ecosystem that have been authorized by the BLM, or may be authorized in the future, during the life of the project. Previously approved treatments arc discussed in Chapter 3 under Cumulative Effects (Section 3.2.2). 3 Bars Project Draft I IS ES-5 September 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of Impacts The direct and indirect effects of the proposed treatment alternatives on natural and socioeconomic resources are evaluated in this EIS. The cumulative effects that result from the incremental impact of treatment actions when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions arc also evaluated for proposed treatments. Standard Operating Procedures would be used to reduce impacts, and mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to more reasonable levels. Direct and Indirect Impacts In general, potential direct and indirect adverse impacts and benefits would be greatest under Alternative A and least under Alternative D. Fewer acres would be treated, and fewer treatments methods used, under Alternatives B and C, so the adverse and beneficial effects would be less than under Alternative A. In general, fire and mechanical treatments would have the greatest adverse effects on resources, while manual and biological control methods would generally have negligible effects. Impacts from treatments on local and regional air quality and global climate change would be negligible for all alternatives. None of the treatments would result in emissions that exceed Prevention of Significant Deterioration thresholds or national or state ambient air quality standards. The effects of treatments on mineral and paleontological resources would be negligible. The BLM would ensure that treatment activities do not limit access to mining claims. Most treatments would occur at or above the soil surface, thus risks to paleontological resources would be negligible. Paleontological resources have been found in rock outcrops, but the BLM does not propose treatments near these areas. Treatments would result in short-term adverse effects to soil, primarily from loss of vegetative cover and soil disturbance that would lead to soil erosion and loss of soil productivity. Treatments would benefit soil long term by restoring the health and resiliency of native vegetation, restoring natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of wildfire, reducing runoff and increasing water infiltration, and slowing the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, which should reduce soil erosion and improve soil productivity. Treatments could lead to short-term increased runoff and erosion that could affect water flows and quality. It is possible that lubricants and fuel from equipment used in treatments could also affect water quality. Long term, treatments would improve watershed function and water quality, increase the amount of water infiltrating into the ground and reaching streams and the groundwater, and extending the period in which water flows in streams. Treatments that improve vegetation health and resiliency, and reduce wildfire risk, would also benefit water resources. Treatments pose short-term risks to terrestrial and aquatic vegetation. All treatments would remove or harm vegetation, and could cause vegetation communities to return to an early succcssional stage. Long term, treatments would improve the health and resiliency of native vegetation. Treatments would help to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, to the benefit of native vegetation. By thinning and removing pinyon-juniper, BLM treatments would benefit riparian, aspen, and sagebrush communities where pinyon-juniper is crowding out these vegetation types. Restoring natural fire regimes, using fire and other methods to thin and remove decadent and unhealthy pinyon-juniper and sagebrush, and using all methods to control large cheatgrass infestations would reduce the risk of future wildfire. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS ES-6 September 20 1 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Treatments pose short-term risks to fish and wildlife. Accidental spills of fuels and lubricants, and soil disturbance and erosion associated with treatments, especially mechanical and fire treatments, could harm aquatic organisms, including game fish and Lahontan cutthroat trout, a federally listed threatened species. Noise and other disturbances could cause wildlife to avoid treatment areas during implementation, and fish and wildlife could be directly harmed by treatments. Removal of vegetation would reduce the amount of forage available for wildlife in the short term. Removal of pinyon-juniper could have long term adverse effects to species that favor pinyon- juniper. The BLM would conduct pre-treatment surveys to ensure that risks to migratory birds and other sensitive wildlife are minimized or avoided. Long term, fish and wildlife would benefit from proposed treatments. Many treatments are focused on improving habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout through improvement to stream channel and riparian habitats. Aspen treatments would benefit species that use these trees, including northern goshawk. Thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper could aid in wildlife movements, enhance sagebrush habitat, and promote understory development of native forbs and grasses. Thinning of sagebrush would benefit greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and other sagebrush obligate species by promoting understory development. Treatments would improve the health and resiliency of vegetation and help to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation to the benefit of fish and wildlife. Treatments would also reduce the risk of wildfire and its catastrophic effects on fish and wildlife habitat. Livestock and wild horses could be affected by treatments through noise and disturbance, loss of forage and water, and from reduced water quality. However, the BLM would take actions, where possible, to minimize these risks by conducting several treatments within the same area at the same time or conducting treatments when livestock are not using the treatment area. Long term, treatments that restore the health and resiliency of native vegetation, remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, promote development of forbs and grasses, and reduce the risk of wildfire would benefit livestock and wild horse forage and water availability and abundance and better distribute livestock and wild horses across the rangeland. While treatments could affect cultural resources near or on the surface, they would be more likely to affect traditional cultural practices of gathering plants by Native peoples. Cultural resources could be impacted by equipment and fire, but the BLM would conduct pre-treatment cultural resource surveys to mitigate this risk. Treatments could result in the loss of vegetation used by Native peoples, including pinyon pine nuts and juniper berries, but the BLM would consult with local tribes to identify areas of concern and conduct treatments in a manner that minimizes or avoids the loss of vegetation resources used by Native peoples. Long term, treatments would improve the health and resiliency of native vegetation, and reduce the risk of wildfire, which should ensure the long-term health and availability of vegetation used by Native peoples. Treatments could affect visual, wilderness, and recreation resources. Treatments would remove and discolor vegetation, making it less visually appealing in the short term. Over the long term, landscapes should be more appealing as native vegetation is restored. Treatments in Wilderness Study Areas and near the Pony Express National Historic Trail may detract from the “naturalness” of the area. Although use of mechanical equipment would not occur in Wilderness Study Areas, its use nearby would create noise and reduce the wilderness experience. Recreationists could be exposed to treatments, experience less visually-appealing landscapes, or find fish and game less plentiful as a short term result of treatments. In addition, recreational areas could be closed for short periods of time during and/or immediately following implementation ot treatments to ensure treatment success and protect the health of visitors. Long term, treatments should improve the health and resiliency of native vegetation, reduce the occurrence of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reduce the risk of wildfire to the benefit of visual, wilderness, and recreational rcsourees. 3 liars Project Draft I IS ES-7 September 20 1 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Social effects would be negligible at the scale addressed in this EIS. There would be benefits to communities that supply workers, materials, or services in support of treatment activities. Some businesses, such as recreation-based businesses and ranching operations, could be adversely affected in the short term if treatments closed areas used for recreation or by domestic livestock. Long term, treatments should improve the health and functionality of the 3 Bars ecosystem to the benefit of the local community and other users of the 3 Bars ecosystem. Risk to humans from treatments would be negligible. Workers conducting the treatments could be at risk for adverse effects from walking on uneven ground, on broken terrain, and in dense vegetation. Other potential adverse effects associated with the proposed treatments would vary by treatment method, as there arc human health risks unique to each method. Treatments that remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation near public use sites and facilities would benefit public health and welfare. Treatments that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire on public lands would have similar benefits to human health and safety. Cumulative Impacts Numerous past and present actions on and near the 3 Bars Project area have contributed to current conditions on the 3 Bars Project area. These include actions by entities with an interest in vegetation management, including nearby federal land management agencies, the State of Nevada, Eureka County and other local governments, and private landowners including ranchers and farmers, and private development. Past and present actions of importance to the 3 Bars Project include noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation treatments; agriculture and the use and harvest of woodland products; utility infrastructure and distribution networks; wildland fires, fuels management, and reseeding; habitat stabilization and rehabilitation; livestock and wild horse management activities; recreation; land development; mineral development and exploration; and oil, gas, and geothermal leasing and development. Short term, treatments may adversely affect conditions within the 3 Bars Project area, but long term would provide benefits to natural and social resources that would help to offset the adverse effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area. As with direct and indirect effects, cumulative effects, both adverse and beneficial, would be greatest under Alternative A and least under Alternative D. Treatments would contribute only minor amounts of pollutants to the air. Fire use would increase particulate matter in the air, but the amount of pollutants generated by fire use, and their effects on human health, should be less than those from wildfire, resulting in fewer pollutants accumulating than would occur without treatments. Treatments would lead to short-term cumulative loss of soil from removal of vegetation and erosion, but improvement in vegetative abundance, diversity, health, and resiliency should slow soil loss on public lands. Erosion has led to poor water quality on portions of public lands. Treatments that slow erosion would also benefit water quality and slow the cumulative loss of water quality. Pinyon-junipcr removal and thinning has the potential to increase water infiltration and stream Bows within the 3 Bars Project area. Treatments would improve wetland and riparian area functions and values and slow erosion. With improvement in these areas, habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms would also improve. Fire exclusion, pinyon-junipcr expansion, and the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation have degraded vegetation function and quality on the project and nearby areas and have led to a cumulative loss of vegetative productivity, health, and resilience. Treatments would restore ecosystem processes and slow this loss. Improvement in vegetation characteristics would benefit wildlife. Some species that have adapted to degraded ecosystems could lose habitat as native vegetation is restored, but most species would benefit. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS ES-8 September 20 1 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Factors that have led to the loss of native vegetation and ecosystem health have adversely impacted rangelands used by domestic livestock and wild horses, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the Mount Hope Project, could further reduce the amount of rangeland available to livestock and wild horses. Treatments should improve rangelands for these animals, and ensure that project lands can support viable populations of wild horses and a healthy ranching industry. The BLM would continue ongoing management reviews to determine if livestock grazing management is resulting in forage utilization levels that arc moderate to severe and that could significantly impact forage and other rangeland resources. If so, as mitigation, the BLM would determine if changes in the current terms and conditions of the grazing permit would be required to maintain the long-term success of the proposed treatments. The BLM would also, as part of its ongoing management strategy, conduct wild horse gathers, conduct Appropriate Management Level reviews and adjustments, remove excess animals and use fertility control, and adjust Herd Management Area boundaries to keep herd numbers near sustainable levels and help to distribute wild horses more evenly across the rangeland. Treatments could add to the cumulative loss of paleontological and cultural resources, but risks would be negligible. The BLM has developed a Programmatic Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure protection of cultural resources, and consults regularly with local tribes to ensure that Native people’s resources are protected, and enhanced long term. Treatments would result in some short-term and temporary loss of visual, recreational, wilderness and other special area values due to the removal or discoloration of vegetation that could be additive to loss of these resources from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. In some cases, areas might be closed to visitors during and after treatments; however, these impacts would be short term and any values affected would be restored within 2 growing seasons in most cases. Treatments would benefit local communities by providing jobs and income, and by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire that could harm people and destroy property. These gains would be negligible in the context of the local economy, especially considering ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future mining actions, but would still be a cumulative benefit for many rural communities. Treatments could harm the health of workers and the public. Most treatments, however, would pose few risks to workers and even fewer risks to the public. If treatments restored natural fire regimes, reduced the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and slowed the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, human health would benefit. Significance of Effects of the Alternatives Based on criteria used in the E1S, none of the actions taken under the alternatives would have a significant long- term effect on the natural and social resources of the 3 Bars ecosystem. This assumes, however, that the BLM would follow SOPs outlined in Appendix C. Livestock grazing could have a significant cumulative effect on treatment success, thus the BLM would not implement treatments until grazing management is modified through subsequent grazing decisions to achieve proper utilization levels during the appropriate season of use. The steps that the BLM would take to ensure treatment success arc discussed in Section 3. 1 7.4 and in Appendix C. Although proposed actions would not have a significant long-term effect on 3 Bars ecosystem resources, reduced levels of treatment activity associated with Alternatives B and C, and in particular Alternative D, in comparison to Alternative A, could have long-term effects on 3 Bars ecosystem resources. By not using all available methods and 3 Bars Project Draft IvIS ES-9 September 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY treating the maximum number of acres, factors that contribute to loss of native and non-invasivc vegetation health and resiliency would remain, including spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, pinyon- juniper encroachment, and wildfire, would be greater under Alternatives B, C, and D than under Alternative A, and the BLM would do little to move plant communities toward their Potential Natural Community. No treatments would be authorized under Alternative D. Given that resource conditions on several areas within the ecosystem have deteriorated due to past land use activities, it is unlikely that conditions would improve under Alternative D. 3 liars Project Draft PIS ES-10 September 20 1 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS, LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES, AND ACRONYMS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Proposed Action and Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction * 1 .2 Background 1.2.1 Vegetation 1 .2.2 Wetland and Riparian Areas and Water Quality and Quantity 1 .2.3 Fish and Wildlife 1 .2.4 Native American Tradition and Cultural Values, Practices, and Resources 1.2.5 Wild Florses 1 .2.6 Livestock 1 .2.7 Fire Management 1 .3 Proposed Action 1 .4 Purposes for the Project 1 .5 Need for the Project 1.5.1 Healthy Lands Initiative 1 .5.2 Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan 1 .6 Restoration Objectives 1 .7 Scope of Analysis and Decisions to be Made 1 .8 Documents that Influence the Scope of the E1S 1 .9 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies 1 .9. 1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence Restoration Treatments 1 .9.2 NEPA Requirements of the Project 1.10 Interrelationship and Coordination with Agencies 1.10.1 Cooperating Agencies 1 . 1 0.2 Other Governmental Agencies 1.10.3 Non-governmental Organizations 1.11 Consultation and Coordination 1.12 Public Involvement and Analysis of Issues 1.12.1 Public Scoping Meetings 1 . 1 2.2 Scoping Issues and Concerns 1.12.3 Development of the Alternatives 1 . 1 2.4 Issues Not Addressed in the Draft EIS 1.13 Limitations of this EIS 1-1 ..1-3 ..1-4 ..1-4 ..1-4 ..1-5 ..1-5 ..1-5 ..1-5 ..1-5 ..1-6 ..1-7 ..1-7 ..1-8 1-10 1-15 1-15 1-16 1-16 1-17 1-17 1-19 1-19 1-19 1-20 1-21 1-21 1-21 1-25 1-25 1-25 Chapter 2. Alternatives 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Action Alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and C) 2-1 2.2. 1 Activities Common to All Action Alternatives 2-1 2.2.2 Activities Specific to Each Action Alternative 2-12 2.3 No Action Alternative (Alternative D) 2-40 2.4 Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in This EIS 2-40 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Not Further Analyzed 2-43 2.6 Mitigation 2-44 3 Bars Project Draft I IS I September 20 1 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.7 Summary of Impacts by Alternative 2-44 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Evaluated 3-1 3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-3 3.2.2 Cumulative Effects 3-4 3.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Commitments 3-19 3.2.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 3-20 3.2.5 Resource Protection Measures Considered in the Effects Analysis 3-20 3.2.6 Incomplete and Unavailable Information 3-20 3.3 General Setting 3-21 3.3.1 Project Area 3-21 3.3.2 Ecoregions 3-21 3.4 Meteorology and Climate Change 3-26 3.4. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-26 3.4.2 Affected Environment 3-26 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences 3-29 3.5 Air Quality 3-31 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework 3-31 3.5.2 Affected Environment 3-35 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3-36 3.5.4 Mitigation 3-46 3.6 Geology and Minerals 3-47 3.6.1 Regulatory Framework 3-47 3.6.2 Affected Environment 3-48 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 3-53 3.6.4 Mitigation 3-56 3.7 Paleontological Resources 3-56 3.7.1 Regulatory Framework 3-56 3.7.2 Affected Environment 3-58 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 3-58 3.7.4 Mitigation 3-63 3.8 Soil Resources 3-63 3.8. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-63 3.8.2 Affected Environment 3-64 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences 3-76 3.8.4 Mitigation 3-93 3.9 Water Resources 3-93 3.9. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-93 3.9.2 Affected Environment 3-93 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 3-111 3.9.4 Mitigation 3-128 3.10 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Zones 3-128 3. 1 0. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-128 3 Bars Project Draft EIS ii September 20 1 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. 1 0.2 Affected Environment 3- 1 30 3. 1 0.3 Environmental Consequences 3-132 3.10.4 Mitigation 3-146 3.1 1 Native and Non-invasivc Vegetation Resources 3-146 3.11.1 Regulatory Framework 3-146 3. 1 1 .2 Affected Environment 3-148 3. 1 1 .3 Environmental Consequences 3-205 3.11.4 Mitigation 3-225 3.12 Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Non-native Vegetation 3-225 3.12.1 Regulatory Framework 3-225 3. 1 2.2 Affected Environment 3-226 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences 3-228 3.12.4 Mitigation 3-240 3.13 Wildland Fire and Fire Management 3-240 3.13.1 Regulatory Framework 3-240 3. 13.2 Affected Environment 3-242 3. 1 3.3 Environmental Consequences 3-253 3.13.4 Mitigation 3-263 3.14 Fish and Other Aquatic Resources 3-263 3. 14. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-263 3. 14.2 Affected Environment 3-264 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 3-27 1 3.14.4 Mitigation 3-286 3.15 Wildlife Resources 3-287 3.15.1 Regulatory Framework 3-287 3.15.2 Affected Environment 3-288 3. 1 5.3 Environmental Consequences 3-309 3.15.4 Mitigation 3-331 3.16 Wild Horses 3-331 3. 1 6. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-331 3. 1 6.2 Affected Environment 3-33 1 3. 1 6.3 Environmental Consequences 3-338 3.16.4 Mitigation 3-349 3.17 Livestock Grazing 3-350 3. 1 7. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-350 3.1 7.2 Affected Environment 3-350 3. 1 7.3 Environmental Consequences 3-357 3.17.4 Mitigation 3-370 3.18 Visual Resources 3-373 3.18.1 Regulatory Framework 3-373 3. 1 8.2 Affected Environment 3-373 3. 1 8.6.3 Environmental Consequences 3-380 3.18.4 Mitigation 3-395 3.1 9 Land Use and Access 3-395 iii 3 Bars Project Draft I IS September 20 1 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.19.1 Regulatory Framework 3-395 3. 1 9.2 Affceted Environment 3-396 3.19.3 Environmental Consequences 3-410 3.19.4 Mitigation 3-415 3.20 Recreation 3-415 3.20.1 Regulatory Framework 3-415 3.20.2 Affected Environment 3-416 3.20.3 Environmental Consequences 3-418 3.20.4 Mitigation 3-430 3.21 Wilderness Study Areas and other Special Management Areas 3-430 3.2 1 . 1 Regulatory Framework 3-430 3.21.2 Affected Environment 3-432 3.21.3 Environmental Consequences 3-433 3.21.4 Mitigation 3-441 3.22 Cultural Resources 3-441 3.22. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-441 3.22.2 Affected Environment 3-442 3.22.3 Environmental Consequences 3-456 3.22.4 Mitigation 3-466 3.23 Native American Traditional/Cultural Values, Practices, and Resources 3-466 3.23.1 Regulatory Framework 3-466 3.23.2 Affected Environment 3-468 3.23.3 Environmental Consequences 3-474 3.23.4 Mitigation 3-487 3.24 Social and Economic Values and Environmental Justice 3-487 3 .24. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-487 3.24.2 Affected Environment 3-488 3.24.3 Environmental Consequences 3-501 3.24.4 Mitigation 3-5 1 1 3.25 Human Health and Safety 3-5 1 1 3.25. 1 Regulatory Framework 3-5 1 1 3.25.2 Affected Environment 3-512 3.25.3 Environmental Consequences 3-517 3.25.4 Mitigation 3-525 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 4-1 4. 1 Preview of this Section 4-1 4.2 Public Involvement 4-1 4.2. 1 Federal Register Notices and Newspaper Advertisements 4-1 4.2.2 Scoping Meetings 4-1 4.3 Agency Coordination and Consultation 4-2 4.3.1 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 4-2 4.3.2 Cultural and Historic Resource Consultation 4-2 4.4 Govcmmcnt-to-Govcrnment Consultation 4-2 3 Bars Project Draft BIS iv September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.5 List of Preparers of the 3 Bars E1S 4-3 Chapter 5. References 5-1 Chapter 6. Glossary * 6-1 Chapter 7. Index 7-1 Appendixes Appendix A. Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Given in this EIS A-l Appendix B. Programmatic Agreement between the Mount Lewis Field Office of the BLM and the State Historic Preservation Officer B-l Appendix C. Standard Operating Procedures C-l List of Tables 1-1 Primary Resource Management Plan Objectives for the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area 1-9 1 -2 Restoration Goals and Objectives for Each Resource for the 3 Bars Ecosystem 1-11 1- 3 Agencies/Organizations/Individuals Providing Written Comments during Public Scoping 1-22 1 -4 Comment Subject Breakdown 1-22 1 -5 Key Issues (and Number of Comments) Identified during Scoping 1-24 2- 1 Proposed 3 Bars Riparian Treatment Projects 2-14 2-2 Proposed 3 Bars Aspen Treatment Projects 2-20 2-3 Proposed 3 Bars Pinyon-juniper Treatment Projects 2-25 2-4 Proposed 3 Bars Sagebrush Treatment Projects 2-37 2-5 Responses of the Alternatives to the Project Purposes 2-40 2- 6 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative 2-45 3- 1 Elements Associated with Supplemental Authorities and Rationale for Detailed Analysis for the Proposed Action and other Alternatives 3-2 3-2 Resources or Uses other than the Elements Associated with Supplemental Authorities and Rationale for Detailed Analysis for the Proposed Action and other Alternatives 3-3 3-3 Monthly Climate Summary for Eureka, Nevada ( 1 888 through 20 1 2) 3-28 3-4 National and Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-32 3-5 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Manual Treatments 3-39 3-6 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Mechanical Treatments 3-40 3-7 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Prescribed Fire Treatments. 3-40 3-8 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Biological Treatments 3-42 3-9 Potential Fossil Yield Classification 3-57 3-10 Project Area Soil Limitations 3-67 3-1 1 Project Area Topsoil Organic Matter Content 3-70 3-12 Soil Textures in the Project Area 3-75 3-13 Soil Suitabilities for Vegetation Treatment 3-75 t Mars Project Draft I IS V September 20 1 .t TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-14 Nevada Hydrographic Areas Included in the Water Resources Assessment 3-94 3-15 Perennial and Intermittent/Ephemeral Streams in the Project Area 3-98 3-16 Flow Summary from U.S. Geological Survey Monitoring Stations 3-100 3-17 Site-specific Stream Investigations 3-100 3- 1 8 Flow Measurements at Springs 3- 1 04 3- 1 9 2009 Estimated Annual Groundwater Budget for Individual Basins 3- 1 08 3-20 Percent of Watershed Basin within Treatment Areas 3-116 3-2 1 Perennial Stream Miles within Treatment Areas 3-116 3-22 Current and Expected Vegetation Types within the 3 Bars Project Area 3-1 52 3-23 Ecological Sites for Grassland Community 3-154 3-24 Ecological Sites for Big Sagebrush Community 3-155 3-25 Ecological Sites for Low Sagebrush Community 3-161 3-26 Ecological Sites for Black Sagebrush Community 3-162 3-27 Ecological Sites for Greasewood Community 3-164 3-28 Ecological Sites for Salt Desert Scrub Community 3-165 3-29 Ecological Sites for Mountain Mahogany Community 3-167 3-30 Ecological Sites for Pinyon-juniper Community 3-168 3-3 1 Pinyon-juniper Classification Schemes 3-179 3-32 Flynn/Parman Allotment Key Management Areas 3-184 3-33 Roberts Mountain Allotment Key Management Areas 3-186 3-34 J D Allotment Key Management Areas 3-190 3-35 Three Bars Allotment Key Management Areas 3-194 3-36 Romano Allotment Key Management Areas 3-198 3-37 Lucky C Allotment Key Management Areas 3-20 1 3-38 Special Status Plant Species that may Occur on the 3 Bars Project Area 3-203 3-39 Noxious Weeds in the 3 Bars Project Area 3-230 3-40 Fire History on the 3 Bars Project Area 3-243 3-41 Fire Regime Descriptions (Historical Fire Regimes) 3-248 3-42 Fire Regime Condition Class Descriptions 3-249 3-43 Habitat Characteristics of Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks 3-266 3-44 Summary of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Surveys in Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks 3-271 3-45 Special Status Species Known or with Potential to Occur on the 3 Bars Project Area 3-299 3-46 Herd Management Areas 3-335 3-47 Allotments within Herd Management Areas 3-337 3-48 Surface Disturbance by Herd Management Area for Treatment Types 3-340 3-49 Grazing Allotments within the 3 Bars Ecosystem 3-352 3-50 Allotment Grazing Management System and Category 3-353 3-5 1 Rangeland Improvements by Allotment 3-354 3-52 Acreage Affected by Treatment Types for each Allotment under Alternative A 3-360 3-53 Visual Resource Project Area Inventory and Visual Resource Management Classes Summary 3-379 3-54 Landscape Scenery Impacts 3-383 3-55 Distance Zones and Project Visibility 3-383 3-56 Impacts to Viewers 3-383 3 Bars Project Draft EIS vi September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-57 Visual Resource Project Area Inventory and Visual Resource Management Classes Summary for Cumulative Effects Analysis Study Area 3-391 3-58 Land Ownership within the 3 Bars Project Area and Eureka County 3-398 3-59 Land Use Authorizations in the Project Area 3-398 3-60 20 1 1 Harvest by Hunt Unit and Group 3-417 3-61 Annual Average Fishing Use in the Study Area (1980-2010) 3-417 3-62 Summary of Documented Resources 3-45 1 3-63 Summary of Documented Prehistoric Cultural Sites 3-452 3-64 Summary of Documented Historic-era Cultural Sites 3-454 3-65 Minority Population and the Incidence of Poverty in Eureka County, 2010 3-489 3-66 Eureka County Population, Selected Years, 2000-201 1 3-491 3-67 Eureka County Labor Force, Unemployed, and Unemployment Rate Selected Years 3-491 3-68 Eureka County Personal Income by Place of Residence, Selected Years 3-492 3-69 Per Capita Personal Income, Eureka County, Nevada, and the United States 3-492 3-70 Farm Income and Expenses, Eureka County, 2007-20 1 0 3-496 3-71 Eureka County Budget Summary, Fiscal Years 2007-201 1 3-499 3-72 Eureka County Assessed Value, Fiscal Years 2005/2006 through 2010/201 1 3-499 3-73 Estimated Treatment Costs per Acre 3-505 3- 74 Leading Causes of Death in Nevada and Eureka County, 2000 to 2008 3-5 1 3 4- 1 List of Preparers of the 3 Bars EIS 4-3 List of Figures 1-1 General Vicinity Map 1-2 1- 2 Public Lands Administered by the Mount Lewis Field Office 1-18 2- 1 Riparian Treatment Areas 2-13 2-2 Aspen Treatment Areas 2-19 2-3 Pinyon-juniper Treatment Areas 2-24 2- 4 Sagebrush Treatment Areas 2-36 3- 1 Cumulative Effects Study Areas 3-6 3-2 Cumulative Impacts from Grazing, Agriculture, and Forest Product Activities 3-9 3-3 Cumulative Impacts from Wildland Fires, Fuels Management, and Reseeding 3-13 3-4 Cumulative Impacts from Recreation and Wilderness 3-14 3-5 Cumulative Impacts from Utilities and Infrastructure 3-16 3-6 Cumulative Impacts from Mining Operations and Oil and Gas Production 3-18 3-7 Study Area 3-22 3-8 Ecoregions of the 3 Bars Project Area 3-23 3-9 Geologic Formations 3-49 3-10 Mineral Resources 3-5 1 3-1 1 Oil and Gas Resources (through 2006) 3-52 3-12 Soil Order 3-65 3- 1 3 Compaction Prone Soils 3-66 3-14 Soil Erosion Potential from Water 3-68 3-15 Soil Erosion Potential from Wind 3-69 3-16 Organic Matter within Surface Soils 3-71 3 Bars Project Draft EIS vii September 20 1 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-17 Soil Surface Texture 3-72 3- 1 8 Revegetation Potential 3-73 3-19 Fire Damage Susceptibility 3-74 3-20 Mechanical Treatment Suitability (Shredder) 3-77 3-2 1 Mechanical Treatment Suitability (Chaining) 3-78 3-22 Site Degradation Susceptibility 3-79 3-23 Streams, Lakes, Ponds, and Wetlands 3-97 3-24 Water Developments and Water Uses 3-105 3-25 Proper Functioning Condition Rating 3-133 3-26 Current Vegetation Communities 3-150 3-27 Major Vegetation Communities in the 3 Bars Project Area based on Ecological Site Data 3-151 3-28 Pinyon-juniper Phase Classes 3-178 3-29 Current Rangeland Conditions 3-180 3-30 Range Allotments and Key Management Areas 3-182 3-3 1 Forest Products (Private Fuel wood. Pine Nuts, Christmas Trees, and Seed Harvest) 3-204 3-32 Farmland Classification 3-208 3-33 Cheatgrass and other Weeds 3-229 3-34 Fire History and Occurrence 3-244 3-35 Natural Fire Regimes 3-245 3-36 Current Fire Regime Condition Classes 3-246 3-37 Current Risk of Catastrophic Fire and Threat to Resource Values 3-247 3-38 Snail Observations 3-268 3-39 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT) Habitat 3-270 3-40 Mule Deer Habitat 3-294 3-4 1 Areas with Degraded Habitat Conditions 3-295 3-42 Pronghorn Habitat 3-297 3-43 Greater Sage-grouse Leks and Habitat 3-302 3-44 Wild Horse Management Areas and Habitat Improvement Areas 3-333 3-45 Rangeland Treatment Areas 3-35 1 3-46 Visual Resource Inventory Scenic Quality Rating 3-375 3-47 Visual Resource Inventory Sensitivity Level Rating 3-376 3-48 Visual Resource Inventory Visual Distance Zones 3-377 3-49 Visual Resource Inventory Classes 3-378 3-50 Visual Resource Management Classes 3-381 3-5 1 Land Ownership and Land-use Authorizations 3-397 3-52 Cultural Resource Inventory 3-4 1 9 3-53 Eureka County Alfalfa Production 1995-201 1 3-495 3-54 Eureka County Livestock Product 1 995-20 1 1 3-495 3 liars Project Draft HIS viii September 2013 ACRONYMS Acronyms 3 Bars Project 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project 17-States PEIS Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau jof Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 17-States PER Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 1 7 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report A. A. Associate of Arts AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard AECC Assessment of Existing and Current Conditions for the Proposed 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement AML Appropriate Management Level amsl above mean sea level AQMA Air Quality Management Area AQRV Air Quality Related Values AU Animal Unit AUM Animal Unit Month B.A. Bachelor of Arts BAPC Bureau of Air Pollution Control BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice BP Before Present B.S. Bachelor of Science ca. About CD Compact disk CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CESA Cumulative effects study area CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CO Carbon monoxide co2 Carbon dioxide COC&PP Central Overland California and Pikes Peak Cont. Continued e-g. for example EIS Environmental Impact Statement E&PRR Eureka & Palisade Railroad ESA Endangered Species Act et. al. and others et. seq. et sequentia °F Degrees Fahrenheit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FMU Fire Management Unit FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class gpm gallons per minute HMA Herd Management Area h2so4 Sulfuric acid i.e. in otherwords km kilometer KMA Key Management Areas LLC Limited Liability Corporation M.A. Master of Arts M. Ed. Master of Education 3 Bars Project Draft BIS IX September 20 1 3 ACRONYMS mg/L milligrams per liter M.P.A. Master of Public Administration M.S. Master of Science n Sample size, number NA Not applicable NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program NRHP National Register of Historic Places no2 Nitrogen dioxide NOx Nitrous oxide NV Nevada 03 Ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement PER Programmatic Environmental Report PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM.o Particulate matter less than 1 0 microns in size PNC Potential Natural Community Ppm parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PZP Porcine Zona Pellucida Q/D Annual emissions divided by distance to nearest PSD Class I area Ph.D. Doctorate of Philosophy RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision Scoping Report Scoping Comment Summary Report for the 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project EIS SHPO State Historic Preservation Office so2 Sulfur dioxide SOP Standard Operating Procedure tpy tons per year URL Uniform Resource Locator u.s. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers use United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VFS Volunteer Fire Service VOC Volatile organic compounds VRI Visual Resource Inventory VRM Visual Resource Management WSA Wilderness Study Area § Section Fg/nr micrograms per cubic meter 3 Mars Project Draft HIS X September 2013 CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction The 3 Bars ecosystem is approximately 749,810 acres in central Eureka County, northwest of Eureka, Nevada (Figure 1-1). The ecosystem is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Mount Lewis Field Office. It is a shrub steppe ecosystem with important resource values, ranging from habitat for a diversity of plants and animals, to providing traditional use areas for several Native American tribes; the 3 Bars ecosystem is also an important recreation resource for Nevada residents. Resource conditions on several areas within the ecosystem, however, have deteriorated due to past land use activities, causing the BLM to target this area for restoration. Although 3 Bars ecosystem health is in decline in some areas, the ecosystem has characteristics that suggest its health can be substantially improved through land restoration activities. Given the opportunity to improve 3 Bars ecosystem health, the 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project (3 Bars Project) is being proposed by the BLM to develop the 3 Bars ecosystem into a sustainable, healthy, and resilient landscape. The 3 Bars ecosystem provides critical habitat for greater sage-grouse, 1 a bird species that is being considered for federal listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Through sagebrush and other habitat restoration on the 3 Bars ecosystem, the BLM would help to reduce the likelihood that the greater sage-grouse will be federally listed in the future. To ensure that treatments benefit greater sage-grouse, sagebrush restoration treatments would adhere to the most recent guidance available at the time of treatment implementation, currently the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department greater sage-grouse guidelines, and the BLM Nevada State Office and Washington Office Instructional Memoranda when restoring sagebrush habitats. These include using a mosaic design where treated areas have a width of no greater than 200 feet between untreated areas, avoiding treatments near greater sage-grouse leks that results in a decrease in canopy cover of greater than 1 5 percent, and avoiding treatments in breeding, brood-rearing, and wintering habitats during those times of the year when greater sage-grouse are using these habitats. The BLM, as mitigation for the 3 Bars Project, may also manage livestock where necessary to meet greater sage-grouse habitat goals. These goals include having suitable sagebrush cover in greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas and ensuring that allowable use levels for livestock for herbaceous species are appropriate within greater sage-grouse habitat. In order to ensure long-term success, restoration projects would not be conducted in areas with moderate to severe forage utilization until mitigation measures associated with grazing management, as discussed in Section 3.17.4, are implemented through agreements or decisions subsequent to the 3 Bars Project Record of Decision to ensure proper utilization levels during the appropriate season of use. The BLM would work with permittees on a permit by permit 1 Common and scientific names of plants and animals given in this Environmental Impact Statement are given in Appendix A. 3 Bars Project Draft FJS September 20 1 3 Humboldt County Elko District Elko County Winnemucc Golconda Valmy Carlini Battle 'Mountain Winnemucca ^ District Pershing County Eureka County Lander County 3 Bars Project Area Mount Lewis Field Office Carson City =T District Ely District White Pine County Battle Mountain District. Churchill County Austin Eureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management _ Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd xS-SE' Battle Mountain. NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Land Status Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation Department of Defense Native American Reservation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service Nevada State Private Water City or Town 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Interstate Highway U.S. Highway State Highway Major Road BLM Field Office County Boundary 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2012a. Figure 1-1 General Vicinity Map 0 5 10 15 30 — iM^t Kilometers 0 10 20 40 l No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED basis to address any changes in livestock management due to treatment implementation. In all instances, appropriate through agreements or decisions would be finalized prior to project implementation. Project funding would come from funds allocated by Congress to the BLM for resource management. To reduce the cost of treatments to the taxpayer, the BLM would seek outside funding partnerships with other resource agencies, non- governmental organizations, or private industries that are interested in resource management within the 3 Bars ecosystem. Additionally, it is anticipated that habitat enhancement activities authorized with the 3 Bars Project decision would provide opportunities to utilize off-site mitigation account funds associated with various development activities within or adjacent to the 3 Bars Project area. 1.2 Background In order to better understand conditions on the 3 Bars ecosystem, in 2009 the BLM prepared an Assessment of Existing and Current Conditions for the Proposed 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement (AECC; USDOI BLM 2009a). This document summarized baseline data available to the BLM for the 3 Bars ecosystem, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service ecological site descriptions, studies of proper functioning condition and multiple indicator monitoring for wetland and riparian areas, rangeland health assessments, and ecological site inventories. In 2010 and 2011, the BLM and its contractors conducted several studies to obtain additional information on rangeland and woodland health on the 3 Bars ecosystem. Based on these studies, several reports were prepared: 1 ) a 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Pinyon-juniper Assessment that provided the results from an assessment of singlcleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper (pinyon-juniper) stands within the 3 Bars ecosystem (AECOM 201 la); 2) a 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Cheatgrass Assessment that summarized the results from an assessment of the occurrence and distribution of cheatgrass and other noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation within Terminology Desired Plant Community is the one of the several plant communities that may occupy a site that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan’s objectives for the site. Encroachment can be defined as natural succession resulting in densification or interspace in-filling by vegetation, causing an understory or previously dominant plant species to decline. It also includes expansion areas. Infilling can be defined as increase in the density and competition as a result of pinyon and juniper establishment within woodland communities at a rate that exceeds the natural stand replacement. Expansion occurs when vegetation, such as pinyon-juniper, expands into new areas where it was not found historically. Hazardous fuels in the context of wildfire include living and dead and decaying vegetation that form a special threat of ignition and resistance to control. Herbicide is a chemical pesticide used to injure or kill vegetation. Invasive plants arc plants that are not part of (if exotic), or are a minor component of (if native), the original plant community or communities and not designated as noxious under federal or state statute. Native species are species that historically occurred, or currently occur, in a particular ecosystem and were not introduced. Noxious weeds are plants designated by federal or state statute that interfere with management objectives for a given area at a given point in time. Potential Natural Community is the plant community that would become established if all successional sequences were completed without interference by man under current environmental conditions. Prescribed fires are any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Policy Act requirements (where applicable) must be met, prior to ignition. Restoration is the implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and structure that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over the long term. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adjust easily to change. Undesirable plants arc species classified as noxious, invasive, harmful, exotic, injurious, poisonous, or otherwise undesirable under state or federal law, but not including species listed as endangered by the Endangered Species Act, or species. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 1-3 September 2013 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED the 3 Bars ecosystem (AECOM 201 lb); and 3) a Landscape Restoration Project Rangeland Health Report that provided the results of an evaluation of rangeland health on approximately 532,000 acres within the 3 Bars ecosystem (Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and AECOM 2012). The AECC and resource studies identified specific elements for each resource component that arc in need of improvement or change, and served as the framework for developing potential treatment objectives for further consideration and analysis in this EIS. The following discusses in more detail why there is a need for change for key resource areas. 1.2.1 Vegetation The 3 Bars ecosystem includes diverse upland vegetation community types. Key concerns identified in the AECC for range resources are that one or more key perennial grass species are absent; the composition and/or production of key species are below the potential for the natural community; invasive or non-native species are dominant in certain areas; sagebrush monocultures are present; and some streams, springs, and meadows are functioning at less than their proper condition. Other key vegetation concerns identified in the AECC included the expansion of the pinyon-juniper plant community onto adjacent range sites and encroachment into the interspaces within woodland sites; deterioration in the condition of native plant communities in some areas; degradation of range conditions; decrease in pine nut production and tree vigor; decrease in the occurrence and health of traditional, edible, and medicinal plants used by Native Americans; decline in woodland species and health; and excessive buildup of hazardous fuels. Weeds categorized by the State of Nevada as “noxious” and invasive, and non-native annual grasses, occur sporadically throughout the 3 Bars ecosystem, particularly on wildfire burn scars, near roads and streams, and on disturbed areas. The key concerns from the AECC for noxious weeds and other undesirable invasive non-native species is the potential for the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and cheatgrass monocultures resulting from past wildfires and in areas of high soil disturbance. The focus of treatments would be to control the spread of noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses found within the 3 Bars ecosystem and to encourage the establishment of native and desirable non-native species. 1.2.2 Wetland and Riparian Areas and Water Quality and Quantity The key concern for wetland and riparian areas and water quality and quantity is the loss of wetland and stream functionality. Some streams and associated meadows arc being threatened by knickpoints and hcadcuts, channel incision, and streambank erosion. Key stream components, such as stream channel sinuosity, streambank stability, and occurrence of woody and rock debris in stream channels that help to dissipate flood energy, are lacking in many streams. Pinyon-juniper woodlands have encroached into wetland and riparian areas. Wetland and riparian habitat is declining and plant vigor and density arc deteriorating. In addition, upland perennial deep-rooted herbaceous species are being lost, resulting in decreased infiltration rates and increased run-off and surface erosion and thus contributing to reduced water quality. 1.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Surveys and monitoring have shown that some sagebrush-steppe, wetland, riparian, and mountain shrub habitats in the 3 Bars ecosystem are deteriorating, while pinyon-juniper woodlands arc expanding and encroaching into these 3 liars Project Draft EIS 1-4 September 2013 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED habitats. Key concerns from the AECC include less than optimal fish and wildlife habitat; expansion of pinyon- juniper into important habitats; reduction in key habitats due to degraded range conditions in some areas; invasion of undesirable species into habitats; decline in the health of native plant communities; and high, very high, or extreme risk of catastrophic wildfire in greater sage-grouse habitats. 1.2.4 Native American Tradition and Cultural Values, Practices, and Resources Various tribes and bands of the Western Shoshone have stated that federal projects and land actions can have widespread effects on their culture and traditional practices. Numerous traditional/cultural/spiritual use sites are found on the 3 Bars Project area. The BLM will provide affected tribes with an opportunity to comment and consult on proposed projects. The BLM will attempt to both identify locations that have traditional/cultural importance, and to reduce or eliminate any negative impacts to identified Native American traditional/cultural/spiritual values and practices from proposed treatment actions. Key concerns identified in the AECC for Native American traditional/cultural/spiritual values and practices included a decline in the distribution and abundance of traditional, edible, and medicinal plants, a decrease in pine nut production and tree vigor, and a decline in abundance of wild game species. 1.2.5 Wild Horses The key concern from the AECC for wild horses is rangeland degradation from multiple factors, as indicated by limited key plant species abundance and recruitment within the understory. 1.2.6 Livestock Key concerns identified in the AECC for range resources are that one or more key perennial grass species are scarce; the composition and/or production of key species are below the potential for the natural community; invasive non- native vegetation is dominant in certain areas; sagebrush monocultures are present; and some streams, springs, and meadows are functioning at less than their proper functioning condition. 1.2.7 Fire Management Key concerns from the AECC for fire include excessive hazardous fuel loads and fuel situations, and declining ecosystem health in some areas, which are contributing to high wildfire potential and threats to resource values. 1.3 Proposed Action The BLM proposes to treat vegetation using manual and mechanical methods, biological controls, and fire (both prescribed and wildland fire for resource benefit). Treatments would address multiple resource issues and aid in restoring functionality to key elements of the 3 Bars ecosystem. The BLM has identified site-specific treatment projects that it proposes to implement to restore and manage the 3 Bars ecosystem. Treatment projects were identified through an iterative process involving the BLM and other federal and state agencies. Treatments would focus on four priority vegetation management concerns; 3 liars Project Draft lilS 1-5 September 20 1 3 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED • Riparian — treatments in riparian habitats would focus on restoring functionality in areas where stream structural integrity (incised channel, hcadeuts, knickpoints, developments, and diversions) and/or appropriate plant species composition arc compromised. • Aspen — treatments in quaking aspen (aspen) habitats would focus on improving the health of aspen stands by stimulating aspen stand suckering and sucker survival. • Pinyon-juniper — treatments in pinyon-juniper habitats would focus on thinning historic pinyon-juniper communities to promote woodland health and removing pinyon-juniper where it encroaches into riparian zones and upland habitats, including sagebrush habitat, or outside of proper ecological state. • Sagebrush — treatments in sagebrush habitats would focus on restoring the sagebrush community by removing encroaching pinyon-juniper, promoting the reestablishment of native forbs and grasses in sagebrush communities, and promoting the development of sagebrush in areas where it should occur based on ecological site description reference, desired state, or management objective. 1.4 Purposes for the Project Using the information from the AECC and field studies, the BLM identified several purposes for the 3 Bars Project. Purposes are consistent with the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Shoshone-Eureka RMP), as amended, and the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area Record of Decision (Shoshone- Eureka ROD), which guide land management activities in the 3 Bars ecosystem (USDOl BLM 1986a, 1987). Purposes for the 3 Bars Project include: • Improve woodland, rangeland, and riparian health, productivity, and functionality. • Increase stream flows and restore channel morphology in degraded streams. • Improve stream habitat for fish and wildlife by implementing physical treatments that include installing large woody debris, rock clusters, and check dams, and other measures that support regrowth of riparian vegetation. • Improve the health of aspen, mountain mahogany, and other mountain tree and shrub stands to benefit wildlife, and Native Americans that use these plants for medicinal purposes. • Manage pinyon-juniper woodlands to promote healthy, diverse stands within persistent woodlands. • Slow the expansion of pinyon-juniper into sagebrush and riparian plant communities. • Slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, including chcatgrass. • Protect and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife, including species of eoneem such as raptors, greater sage- grouse, and Lahontan cutthroat trout. The BLM has also identified project purposes that arc specific to fire use and improving ecosystem management through the use of fire. These include: • Restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; reduce the risk of large-scale wildfire; reduce extreme, very high, and high wildfire risks to moderate risk or less; and develop fuel breaks within the treatment and adjacent areas. 3 Bars Project Draft I ilS 1-6 September 20 1 3 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED • Protect life, property, and community infrastructure, and protect fish and wildlife habitat from devastating wildfire effects. Treatment purposes would be met by implementing land restoration treatments in areas where resource management goals arc not being met, and the likelihood of treatments improving resource conditions is great. The proposed treatments would range from several acres to several thousand acres, depending on specific treatment and management goals and desired outcomes for each resource area. 1.5 Need for the Project The 3 Bars ecosystem has long been recognized as an area in resource conflict due to the many and often competing uses occurring within the ecosystem. Some of these uses include mineral exploration and development, livestock grazing, woodland product harvest, recreation, and wilderness activities. The ecosystem is an important use area for wild horses, fish, and wildlife, including sensitive fish and wildlife species (for example [e.g.], Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse). In addition to competing land uses, other factors affecting land uses and health in the ecosystem result from the effects of past grazing practices, changes to the natural fire regime, establishment and spread of invasive and noxious weed species, and expansion and dcnsification of pinyon-juniper woodlands. Collectively, these have caused substantial changes in the native vegetation community and loss of important ecosystem components. Based on these changes, the BLM has determined that there is a need to improve rangeland health in some areas and to provide a sustainable habitat for wildlife. The 3 Bars Project purposes identified by the BLM are also based on restoration needs identified in the Healthy Lands Initiative (USDOI 2007a, USDOI BLM 2010a) and the 1986 Shoshone-Eureka RMP, as amended (USDOI BLM 1986a, 1987). 1.5.1 Healthy Lands Initiative In recognition of the degradation of the diversity and integrity of plant communities in the western United States (U.S.), the USDOI launched the Healthy Lands Initiative in 2007 to accelerate land restoration, increase land productivity, and improve the health of public lands in the western U.S. (USDOI 2007a). The goal of the Healthy Lands Initiative is to preserve the diversity and productivity of public and private lands across the landscape. The Healthy Lands Initiative enables and encourages local land managers to set land restoration priorities across a broad scale, and to mitigate adverse impacts to an array of natural resources, in ways not previously available to them (USDOI BLM 2010a). The Healthy Lands Initiative identified seven regions in need of treatment, including the Oregon-Idaho-Nevada shrub-steppe restoration area. The goals for this area include accelerating implementation of habitat restoration projects identified in state and local greater sage-grouse conservation plans, and selecting and implementing land treatments to maintain and restore the upland and riparian components of these shrublands (USDOI BLM 2010b). Under the Healthy Lands Initiative, the BLM developed the Cooperative Shrub-Steppe Restoration Partnership for Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. The Partnership is a coordinated, landscape-level program involving multiple partners working together to maintain the health of existing shrub-steppe habitat and to strategically restore shrub- steppe habitat in areas critical to wildlife. The Partnership area encompasses 53.5 million acres, roughly 50 percent of the remaining sagebrush-steppe habitat in the Great Basin. The diversity and integrity of the plant communities in this area support crucial habitat for large populations of greater sage-grouse, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 1-7 September 20 1 3 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED numerous sagebrush-dependent species. The highest priority of the Partnership is to maintain sagebrush-steppe habitat, followed by strategically restoring fragmented habitat. Specific Partnership goals include: • Join local greater sage-grouse working groups, federal agencies, and the scientific community in efforts to accelerate implementation of habitat restoration projects identified in state and local greater sage-grouse conservation plans. • Engage tribes, conservation organizations, and state and federal agencies to strategically select and implement land treatments to maintain and restore the upland and riparian components of shrub-steppe habitat. • Build upon existing programs and initiatives, such as the BLM’s Great Basin Restoration Initiative (USDOI BLM 2000a, b), to implement a landscape-restoration strategy. • Leverage funds to build on current successes to maximize the positive benefits of restoration at the largest scale. The 3 Bars Project meets the Healthy Lands Initiative and Cooperative Shrub-Steppe Restoration Partnership goals and priorities. 1.5.2 Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan While numerous national BLM plans identify broad objectives for the management of vegetation on public land, treatment activities at the regional and local levels are guided by the goals, standards, and objectives of land use plans developed for each BLM district office. Policies established at the national level help direct local efforts. Land use plans, usually in the form of RMPs, ensure that public lands arc managed in accordance with the intent of Congress, as stated in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 United States Code [USC] § 1701 et sequentia [et. seq.]), under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Land use plans guide land use, vegetation, and other resource management decisions within the geographic area they cover, and provide specific goals, standards, objectives, and expected outcomes that apply to vegetation treatment projects and other restoration activities. These plans identify important local resources to be protected; identify historic, current, and future desired conditions for vegetation and other resources; and describe land use activities and levels that are appropriate to maintain a healthy ecosystem. The 1986 Shoshone-Eureka RMP and associated ROD and amendments form the land use plan that guides resource management on public lands within the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area of north-central Nevada, including the 3 Bars ecosystem. The RMP provides for multiple-use management through the protection of fragile and unique resources, such as riparian and stream habitat, while not overly restricting the potential for the production of commodities from other resources. The RMP offers solutions to eight resource management issues identified by the public and the BLM — wilderness designations, land tenure adjustments, utility corridors, woodland products, livestock grazing, wild horse use, wildlife habitat management, and riparian and aquatic habitat. The RMP outlines objectives, short-term and long-term management actions, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and implementation measures for each of these management issues. The primary RMP objectives that would apply to the 3 Bars Project arc shown in Table 1-1. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 1-8 September 2013 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED TABLE 1-1 Primary Resource Management Plan Objectives for the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management • Improve priority riparian and stream habitat to “good” or “better” condition and prevent the decline of remaining areas. • Improve and maintain habitat for state-listed sensitive species and federally listed threatened or endangered species. Woodland Products • Manage suitable woodlands for optimum production of woodland products on a sustained-yield basis, while protecting sensitive resources. • Maintain, where necessary for management, those access routes currently servicing pinyon-juniper harvest areas. • Set aside certain historical pinyon-juniper woodland areas for non-commercial pine nut gathering by Nevada Native Americans and all other members of the public. Wildlife Habitat Management • Maintain and improve wildlife habitat while providing for other appropriate resource uses. • Provide habitat sufficient to allow big game populations to achieve reasonable numbers in the long term. • Improve and maintain habitat for state-listed sensitive species and federally listed threatened or endangered species. Wild Horse Use • Manage viable herds of sound, healthy, wild horses in a wild and free-roaming state. • Initially manage wild horse populations at existing numbers based on 1 982 aerial counts and determine if this level of use can be maintained. • Manage wild horses within the areas that constituted their habitat when the Wild and Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act became law in 1971. Livestock Grazing • Initially manage livestock at existing levels and determine if such use can be maintained. • Establish a grazing management program designed to provide key forage plants with adequate rest from grazing during critical growth periods. • Achieve, through management of the livestock and wild horses, utilization levels consistent with those recommended by the 1981 Nevada Range Studies Task Group to allow more plants to complete growth cycles and to increase storage of reserves for future growth. • Increase vegetation production while protecting sensitive resources. Wilderness • Recommend Wilderness designation for those Wilderness Study Areas where such designation is considered along with other resource values and uses that would be forgone due to Wilderness designation. • Recommend Wilderness designation only for those Wilderness Study Areas that can be effectively managed as wilderness over the long term. Utility Corridors • Minimize adverse impacts to the environment by concentrating compatible rights-of-way in designated corridors that avoid sensitive resource values. 3 Pars Project Draft MS 1-9 September 2013 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 1.6 Restoration Objectives Based on the desired future conditions and key concerns for resources on the 3 Bars ecosystem, the BLM identified specific restoration objectives for key resources (Table 1-2). These objectives were used to identify potential treatments that could be used to achieve the desired conditions for each resource area. Treatments proposed by the BLM are discussed in Chapter 2. 1.7 Scope of Analysis and Decisions to be Made The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that every federal agency prepare a detailed statement of the effects, or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), of “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” (42 USC § 4321 et seq.; USDOI BLM 2008a). An EIS is intended to provide decision- makers and the public with a complete and objective evaluation of significant environmental impacts, beneficial and adverse, resulting from the proposed action and several reasonable alternatives. Given the magnitude of treatments and the resulting potential for significant cumulative effects from the 3 Bars Project, the BLM has determined that an EIS is warranted to evaluate impacts from the 3 Bars Project. This EIS analyzes the effects of using a variety of treatments to improve ecosystem health on the 3 Bars ecosystem. Decisions expected to be made through this EIS process include: • Determine which areas within the 3 Bars ecosystem would be treated. • Determine which treatment methods would be used to accomplish management objectives. • Determine which management actions would be taken to facilitate restoration of public lands. • Identify criteria to guide future restoration activities within the 3 Bars ecosystem. At least 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) publishes the Notice of Availability of the final EIS, the BLM decision-maker will prepare a ROD. The decision may be to select one of the alternatives in its entirety, or to combine features from several alternatives that fall within the range of alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The ROD will address significant impacts, alternatives, mitigation measures, and relevant economic and technical considerations. This EIS does not evaluate vegetation management that is primarily focused on commercial timber or other woodland product enhancement or use activities that are not related to improving woodland or rangeland health or work authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Commercial timber activities conducted with the primary purpose of providing a sustained yield of timber volume to commercial industries are not included in this EIS. Rather, they represent a manner of vegetation harvest (in otherwords [i.e.], the species [product] is removed and replanted for future harvest). As part of the 3 Bars Project, however, the BLM would designate some treatment areas for small-scale commercial harvest to help meet restoration goals. Commercial timber allocations and sustainable harvest were previously analyzed in the Shoshone-Eurcka RMP. Human-related activities and natural processes have inherent risks and threats to the health of the land, which can lead to the decline of plant communities and ecosystems. Although this EIS refers to activities consistent with the authorities under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other statutes that may contribute, in some cases, to short term land and resource degradation, its focus is on proactive treatments to maintain and restore ecosystem 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 1-10 September 2013 Restoration Goals and Objectives for Each Resource for the 3 Bars Ecosystem PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 3 Bars Project Draft I , IS September 20 1 3 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED w j CO < H © *-» 05 O 5 -P *0 C/2 03 -a c c3 _D C/2 S — / 03 03 •r“ t/S fc © c3 on E *3 "O 2 o3 do cs 'o. Oh 13 /-N o a/ ■*— > a "3 .2 c o x cs 03 c/T 0A O 0 "O X u 3 bO o3 'C O, C/2 •4—* cd N T3 CS 03 2 bO S— « ■4— > "O C .s 4> CS _c cd a c Cd) c *4-> a C/D 0 X 1 3 03 r- CX 3 1 bo _c >■> H— * ’ ^ C/D cd E bO bo bX) bO bX) bX) bX) c c cs c 0 0 3 •c •c •c •c Tl •c 'C Oh 0- Oh Oh 0. 0. 0, C/3 C/5 GO GO GO GO GO X X X X X X X 4) O O O 4> 4> 0 cd cd jd jd jd -2 -2 m QQ QQ QQ CQ CQ CQ 4> 4) 4> 4) 4) 4> 4) 41 41 4> 41 4) 4) 4) C/1 C/5 GO C/5 GO GO GO OO m X m r- OO 02 OO 50 X rf 292 OO 02 OO 50 X 292 OO 02 bt) bt) bX) bX) bX) ox) bfl cs CS c cs cs c C •c c i- •c G c c 0. Oh Oh O, 0. Oh 0. C/5 C/5 GO C/5 GO GO GO X X X X X X X 4) O 4) O 4) 4> 4> cd jd cd cd cd cd cd CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ 4) 4> 4) 4) a/ 4) 4> 41 41 4> 42 4) 4) 4) GO C/5 GO GO C/5 C/5 GO bO bO bXO bXJ bX) bJO OX) c CS CS CS cs c cs L c iJ c U U> -c Oh Oh Oh Oh 0. 0. Oh GO GO GO C/5 GO C/5 GO X X X X X X X 4> O 41 V 4) 41 4) cd cd cd cd cd cd cd od 0Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ 4) 4) 4) 4) a/ 4» 4) 41 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) C/5 GO C/5 GO GO C/5 GO bfl bX) bX) bX) bX) ox> OO cs c cs c cs cs c 'C c 'C 5- tJ V- £ 0. Oh Oh 0. 0. 0. 0- GO GO GO GO GO GO GO X X X X X X X 0 4> O 4) 4) 4> O cd cd cd cd cd -2 -2 CQ CQ QQ QQ CQ QQ QQ 4) 4) 0 4) 4) 4) 4> 4) 4> 4) 4) 4) 4/ 41 GO GO GO GO GO C/5 GO OO 50 X TT 292 OO 02 4) bO CS X c 0 4) o« a "O hhS 4) Y1 X 3 O X ^ 4) L/2 X 4) 4) S-H u bO 00 c 'C 0. GO •c 2 u 2 4> 2 «3 >> _c X Cl C/5 U 3 U 3 U 3 c Cl 0 *— • 4— » cs ^ c ^ cs j* 3 GO cd Oh 4) 03 "O c3 C3 T3 u 4> T3 cd a g a g a g 3 4) u a a: a x a qc 2 oi ■o 4, 4> > *- •- 4/ SS * S £ £ o •< ** !_ C/2 nj 0/ -S- u 12 W S < = IA) CQ i/o V) a j S- 3 -4-* C3 a> fa- 03 Xi 2 £ c3 N X o3 0) T3 03 S £P is .E C A Vh - 4) c/2 4> -< 54 'X 6 £ s o C 03 t-4 o 2 W C/D C/D 0) Cd) ^ ' E o3 O -I— I +■* aj T3 > " CS o a 03 4) 4> 4) N 3 03 3 & i-/ .... C/2 i- J> 4) Cu X si 41 > CJ 4» S’ o S-H 4) Oh o 00 •S cs’ S 2 .2 'P -= 3 ? X cs c 030 4) 3 O U o 4) "O o3 4) X C/2 C/2 a> 03 U C ■g <, 03 C o3 -a a* CS P X « .2“ 03 C CS 4) O v- •« Q t3 CS o • C/D ’o c C/D ^ a X) CL) S-H 0) 3 '£ 3 to o c/f "O o X to 0) bO .d ‘C x 00 d CD T3 i- 0 3 o CD CD OO bfl d 'C X oo d CD T3 to 03 a CD CD GO bfl d 'C a, oo d (D T3 1— 03 a •« D 03 1 £ D D X S O < 2 | CJ C < = ca o ro */-> ro oo r- CN ro os ... O bfi c .£ D X c/3 0O D X ■§ O X 03 O 03 -S d -g c g to O 3 2 N "S ■g S T3 B w q d o >s c c3 .2 JX D ■C o c/3 C 1/3 .3 e3 D CJ D J2 OO cb CX -to X ’> O > TD 3 oS >s to 5 =s oo d 'C cx oo c D -a c3 a D D 00 00 c ‘G X 00 3 D T3 c3 a D D OO 00 d ’G X 00 d D XJ c3 a D D 0O bO d ‘G x oo d D X3 to C3 a D D 00 00 d ‘C X oo d D XJ 2 a D o C/0 bO .d ‘C X 00 d D X3 o3 a D D OO 00 d 'C X oo d D X3 Bh c3 a D D OO bO _d ‘C X oo XJ o -2 03 D D C/0 00 _d ‘C X 00 X CJ 33 03 D D OO C/3 D *c D D bo d 'C X C/0 X o -2 03 D D OO 00 d 'C X oo X D 23 5 D D 00 bO d •c X oo X o c3 03 D D OO 00 d •G x oo X o h2 CQ D D OO bO d *G X oo X o -2 CQ D D OO 00 d 'C X oo X o 03 5 D D GO 00 d •C X oo X o -2 03 D D C/0 bO d 'G X oo X a 03 03 D U C/0 bO ‘C X C/0 X o ,2 03 D D 00 00 c •C X 00 X CD 23 03 CD D C/0 d o a bfl _d ‘G X oo X o -2 03 D D OO 00 d ‘G x GO X D 23 CQ D D OO bJO _d 'G X 00 X CD c3 03 D D 00 bJO _d 'G X OO X CD 03 03 D D OO 00 d 'C X oo X CD 03 CQ D D CO 00 _d ’G X CO X o -2 03 D D OO bO _d 'G X 00 X CD -2 CQ D D 00 00 d 'C X oo X CJ -2 03 D U 00 X o 03 o C/3 o3 bb o3 D D O c2 X C/3 CG D m C3 o3 D D CO CO D X 2 d H-H d 03 03 Is2 O O X o3 bb| 1-H o d o 2 .£ d d T3 -S d > D D D C i j] XX 2 E 03 d X o T3 d 03 > g: D O CD X r~C OO o3 O CD S .a i- ro c» (N ro c/~) ro Os OO rs D E d Z c X bO _d 'C x CO d D T3 to 03 a bo _d 'C X CO _ r~; C/3 C3 U3 bfl _d ‘G X GO T3 d O U D bfl d •G x oo ~o 03 o o3 & C/3 d d ■to d d o c/3 G D X o bfl d oo bfl _d 'C X oo bfl d x c '■to oo bfl d 'G X oo bfl d ‘G x oo 13 G o U x o3 to H d D D D CJ > d O D x d 03 qd d G o o 2 ^ -o 2 c 'S D .dl DC > d o C/3 to D T3 d D DC to D £ •« o d X P 3 Bars I’rojcct Draft I IS 2-15 September 20 1 3 Proposed 3 Bars Riparian Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES c a» E a. '3 cr W -a o j= +-< d ■a > d '-C d d s- c Z d a> .Q 2S o •< ^ - $ " SI "O 5 c < 3 CQ C/3 O ^ 3 33 S> eg O O 2 a/ o o c/o d O GO o •c Oh C/0 44 o d s O O C/0 Tt • s g > § 9 eg ° § -0 r9 d U GO o 'C o c/o 44 o 03 cq D > o D O d D 3 Oh O O d u GO g •2 Oh C/O 44 o 03 03 D D C/O NO Tf NO 3" NO GO _d *C Oh C/O 04 D 33 3 D D C/O GO o •g Oh C/O 44 o d 3 D D C/O d o C/3 g '2 D TO d > D D ^ i-c 33 £ D O d eg U £ ° C/O d O GO d •2 Oh c/o 04 a 33 3 D D C/O D O ^ ~ d o 2 D X> r°, C/O d U GO d •g Oh C/O d D TO H d a D D C/O in ON m Os >n 60 d •g Oh c/o d D -a d a D D C/O 60 d ■g Oh c/o 44 o d CQ D D C/O d d o.h3 c/3 d ^ jn -5 T3 -d d g > d 33 9 eg o ^ D D X) P, c/0 d U 60 _d •g Oh C/O d D S-H d a D D C/O OO d- m o ON m o On m oo _d •g Oh c/o d D -a d a D D C/O GO d •g Oh c/o 44 o d 03 D D C/O d d o p c/3 d h .5 D CD d D d d 33 ^ eg d o D X) - Ch/0 d O oo _d •g Oh on d D T3 S-H d a D D C/O § 33 ^ eg D O c/o d 33 GO d ■g Oh C/O d D TO S-H d o D D C/O NO d" d- NO d- d" NO GO •g Oh C/O d D -a d a D D c/o GO d •g Oh c/o 44 O 33 CQ o D C/O d o 03 S-H D TO • d 33 D O d d > D D ^ d 33 9 eg D O 2 d x) g C/O d U GO d ■g Oh C/O D TO Lh d a D D C/O (N OO oo (N m oo d d ^ d 33 £ g D O D X3 r , C/O c3 U D 4J M d CON r- d" ON in d" NO NO d- ON >n o ON m ON (d d- d- NO OO S-H D o d P 44 D D S-H U 'd o > S-H D Oh -d Oh d P P d P £ o D Oh Oh P d P 44 O D S-H o S-H _o "n d S-H (-4 d p 44 D D S-H u C/3 g D X) o eg d P d o C/3 S-H D TO d D 33 tH D Oh O, P d P 44 D D S-H U ’d "3 > d P 44 D D S-H u £ o 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 2-16 September 30 1 3 Proposed 3 Bars Riparian Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES c > ■*-< G •*-< a* a — e •*- £ 4» a> £ is o < S $; 2 1 04 S3 < = GO c3 T3 T3 C G *—> O 04 H— * o kl Oh 13 4-» CO C bfl c 'G c .0) 04 2 .a " ^ « 04 s 03 z c 4 03 04 Q co m co T3 G o Oh >4 03 S3 04 Q 04 04 CO bo bo bJj _G G *E ‘E ' Oh CL O. CO GO CO L*: 04 04 04 G G G s 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 CO CO CO T3 G O CL 03 4 03 G 04 Q 04 0) C/D TO G o CL G G 04 Q 04 04 GO 04 T3 0) 'E cd O E JD cx e c/) C3 £ C/> 3 o 'C G > 04 •G L-> o bO .c •5 c 03 04 T3 C 3 04 G 04 bt> 03 0) *0 G 04 >H 04 -G 4-» 04 "O '> o Oh o H— > T3 04 T3 C 04 04 hC G X> oT _> in _G 04 c G O c c 04 E Oh '3 cr 04 C/3 "O o .G 0-h o Ja H G O 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 2-17 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES horses, and wild ungulates. Existing or temporary fencing may be used to exclude animals until seeded and planted areas become established. Jack fencing using portable steel fencing and posts, let-down fencing using barbed wire and posts that can be let-down easily to allow animals to pass, and electric wire fencing could be used to protect smaller areas, while barbed wire and post fencing or 2-rail steel pipe fencing would likely be used to protect larger areas from animal intrusion. Maintenance for fencing would be determine on a project-by-project basis and would be reflected in the individual cooperative agreements for each project. The BLM would conduct treatments similar to those identified in the previous paragraph on about 78 acres at Hash Spring, Garden Spring, McCloud Spring, Railroad Spring, Roberts Mountains Spring, Stinking Spring, Tall Spring, and Trap Corral Spring (Garden Spring Group). Treatment methods include manual and mechanical methods and use of prescribed fire. Treatments would include the use of track-hoes, back-hoes, and dump trucks for dirt work and to haul rock, and grade stabilization structures, streambank bioengineering, and vegetation plantings. A pickup truck and trailer would be used to haul protective fencing. The BLM would also remove pinyon-juniper from riparian habitats using manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire. Treatment units range in size from about 3 to 18 acres. The BLM has also identified an additional 3,262 acres of riparian habitat enhancement treatments that would meet the objectives listed above, but would also enhance habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout and game fish in streams used currently and historically by Lahontan cutthroat trout and game fish. Manual and mechanical methods, and prescribed fire would be used to treat vegetation. These projects would enhance key wildlife and fish habitats, improve the functionality and structure of Lahontan cutthroat trout and game fish streams, and facilitate reintroduction of Lahontan cutthroat trout into streams used historically by these trout. These treatments would help meet the goals and objectives of the Recovety Plan for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Coffin and Cowan 1995). The BLM would use grade stabilization structures, streambank bioengineering, and vegetation plantings on Henderson above Vinini Confluence, Lower Henderson 1, Lower Henderson 2, Lower Henderson 3, Lower Vinini Creek, Upper Vinini Creek, and Upper Willow units (Henderson above Vinini Confluence Group). At the Frazier Creek, Roberts Creek, Upper Henderson, Vinini Creek, and Willow Creek units (Frazier Creek Group), the BLM would use grade stabilization structures, streambank bioengineering, and vegetation plantings, and would also remove pinyon-juniper from riparian habitats using manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire. Treatment units range in size from about 35 to 1,390 acres. At Denay Pond, Lone Spring, and Treasure Well, the BLM would use protective fencing, but no other treatments, to restore riparian habitats. These areas total about 97 acres and mechanical and manual methods would be used for treatments. Felled trees from pinyon-juniper removal would be disposed of by using trees for posts, using trees as mulch, placing logs and larger wood in streams to slow water flow, selling trees for public or commercial use, burning piled or slashed trees, or leaving downed trees on-site for wildlife habitat. 2.2.2. 1.2 Aspen Treatments The BLM has identified about 1 5 1 acres of aspen habitat that would be treated within the Roberts Mountains (RM- A2, A5, A7, A9 and A10 sites), JD (JD-A1 and A4 sites), 3 Bars (TB-A1 site), and Santa Fe/Ferguson (SFF-A1 site) allotments (Figure 2-2). Table 2-2 provides information on unit size, project goals, objectives, features, methods, and equipment used for aspen treatment projects. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-18 September 20 1 3 County Elko Eureka County / {rjjaiJ. kAJI M\ Simpson Park Northeast ! %£)*. . . \ ' RM-A9 _ - - ROBERTS RM-A10 mountain RM-A5 RM-A2 RM-A7 SIMRSpN PARK TB-AW^LXp '1A •“k"" mm-rJ* >Vl ^ iSimpson Park East SFF-A1 ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ jtf (Prepared by MLFO - 09/10/13) ^ r:\ -4 1 Legend Aspen Treatment Area Wilderness Study Area 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 2-2 Aspen Treatment Areas 0 1 2 3 4 5 T 1"IIIM1 I" '■■■!■ Source: BLM 2011c. 0 1 2 3 4 5 mi Kilometers 10 10 d Miles t No warranty is made by tha Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards Th« product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Proposed 3 Bars Aspen Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES 13 E a. '3 O" w ■o o X ■M o -o § .-3 X .> r» 3 ^ C/3 O £ «* 03 -O .s § .2 u | S Q- c « Cm O l.i-.J 60 03 C $ ‘o. E .&• o X X — C 03 03 03 O g O. O C/3 X ^ .N , 13 3 a 3i 60 .2 *-• a, £ g- c3 C y g o § e c IE 4-* 'E o C/3 Z C • 03 17 x X 03 03 03 I M c *- 0,13 60 .£ g Oh X Oh C3 x g O C 03 43 3 >, T3 ■M 00 52 o$ 8 .a £ -S 13 on T3 • • « « as X3 £ « - S c u at X £j o •< -M ^ o> jr jj 1/ u -a « e < = ca o IT3 o n o in o> it > ’X #4» S’ o C/3 £ a C/3 5 6 5 03 cd C/3 £ = ^ b B 1/3 c£ M C § £ £ eg ^ *n o3 l " o 13 js .£ M X o G O Oh in x £ c 3 h' s ui •| .1 .3 .1 .£ -2 'S — -o x -S O £ o m o ^13 .£ > M o 03 c X g 03 D 3 *- 03 03 "O .£ c ^ 2 oj . 03 -TO 03 « * 8 H 3 X 3 60 00 X G o a M Dh x ^2 -M C .o *-M 03 03 Dh "O c 03 -M 03 13 "O o p Oh m 60 O C c” *3 £ c V. X 03 o3 w X H 03 Oh C o 03 o. GO 03 0) GO o o X Cm 03 O X 03 X 13 G 'C co O O C O £ 03 .£ c h cd o 3 -a G o U c 13 Dh 03 a3 X c X cd ed -S 03 1/3 X C T-S V M Dh G 03 is g 03 03 M >■ G o X 13 M M £ 9- cd 3 £ u 03 X X 03 cd W X B cd Dh C o 03 .I GO 13 13 GO 13 8 s- ^ Cd in in o. oo" 13 E « Z M 'S 03 cd W cd Oh S3 o 03 D, GO ON <* oc cd Oh ^ c* W 5 3 S a Oh -£ E S GO Z 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 2-20 September 2013 Proposed 3 Bars Aspen Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES 4) E a, 's o“ w ■o o J2 +- o> s • • £ « 3 '■£ £ « - £ S JO £ O < co 5r flj O ■— T3 « s < 3 CO CO a* _> "■C w a> CO £ 9> CO 5 £ CP g 3 3 O n cp dd CO 03 U4 H 3 Cu 3 o co CP C/5 CD CU C/5 m (N m 3 co 3 co • S 3 • S "o £ o £ g 0) & y cd 03 , . u. O CD O Q. >n _ .3 3 4—* JO o £ - | 2 .3 m •S ^ £ § co p a, £ cd o co C/5 t-c 3 <3 o £ CD .£- to '£ 3 CD 3 O O >~> 3 3 CP -a 3 3 CD T3 CD cp & 3 £ m Qhc£ w-3to Ph a 3 rs o > “ o CP DO 3 & ’£ 3 3 (D ,(D CN < I 2 Cd CD CD C/5 3 O a T3 3 3 CO 3 CD CP CO 3 CD > . O -3 U. H-H ^ Id £ ►3 JZ 3" < CD CD C/5 3 < CD CD C/5 CD 8 .2 2- ^ 3 m C/5 o a. o !■* Cl. at £ .a. '£ O' UJ ■a o J3 s • • « « Cd - § « § XI £ o < -4-4 ^ vi ire nj 4/ s— -a at e < 3 u CO C/5 0/ V» at at 5s O 03 O a 0/ s .2 " * Ol E 03 Z ■4— "£ cu a. t~L ot < < < Q Q Q *■“> J 0> 0/ 0) 0/ 0/ O £ £ — I ° • P >X .£ ^ £ m p p c/j OP g & 3 CZ) C/3 J_ S'2 Ph g % U & p O n O bO 03 Id 4—* C/3 S 4— > o C/3 T3 4—* 0> cd 4—* C/3 4—* ^ C/3 5=3 cd w t3 4— » C/3 P -p O c • P at o g 2 | 2 £ ^ p. "3 *- § ® « & « 2 6ij rs o p > &'o g £ p £ 2 <£ < a> at 05 < CQ H cd C4 P O C/3 .£ iy5 a> a/ CO oo oo 00 oo ro o o cm >5 c3 C O T3 at x >4 a) £ P 0 ’■4—* 03 •4— * P CD 1 I C/D >4 03 £ o •C cd > CD X O W> #g ""3 a cd o 5- 4 Qh o D a D D 4— » cd X) D > 'cTd 73 o C/3 C D T3 £ D 4—* C/) cd O C C D £ & '£ cr D 4— > C/3 o -O cu o 5“ -S O (U o 4-* P o tin T3 X _D C/3 a rN cd CJ 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 2-22 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES The BLM has determined that an insufficient number of aspen suckers are surviving to maturity in these areas. Known treatment sites range in size from 3 to 39 acres. Treatments would be conducted using manual and mechanical methods (tractor-mounted ripping tool and chainsaw) and prescribed fire to selectively remove trees. Exclosures and/or changes in livestock permit conditions may be used to protect restoration areas from livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates, and would be similar to those described under riparian treatments. Treatments would improve the health of aspen stands by stimulating aspen stand suckering and sucker survival. In addition to the areas identified above, the BLM has also identified the Simpson Park East (8,055 acres) and Simpson Park Northeast (8,991 acres) units as areas where aspen treatments could occur in the future. Treatments would not occur until after site-specific aspen inventories are completed and funding for treatments becomes available. Projects would meet the needs of one resource, such as stimulating aspen suckering, or to benefit multiple resources, such as constructing fire breaks. Treatment methods and objectives for the Simpson Park East treatments would be similar to those for RM-A5 treatment unit — promote aspen suckering and install temporary jack fencing. Simpson Park Northeast treatments would be similar to those for JD-A4 and RM-A2 treatment units — remove pinyon-juniper, promote aspen suckering, and fence treatment sites. An estimated 150 acres of aspen would be treated within each unit. Slash from removal of pinyon-juniper would be left in place to promote aspen suckering and seedling establishment. Removal of pinyon-juniper may extend up to 200 feet from aspen stands, and some treatments may occur near roads to improve their effectiveness as fire breaks. Pinyon-juniper slash would be left in place to act as deadfall, to limit ungulate access to the treatment area, and to minimize other site disturbances. If there is the potential for wildland fire due to extensive slash material, trees having the potential for use as fence posts or for firewood would be gathered up and offered for sale to the public; any remaining material would be pile burned. The BLM would follow non- impairment standards for treatments in the Roberts Mountains and Simpson Park Wilderness Study Areas. 2.2.2.1.3 Pinyon-juniper Treatments An estimated 47,500 to 94,000 acres of treatments involving the thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper would be conducted on Lone Mountain, Roberts Mountains, and other areas within the 3 Bars ecosystem (Figure 2-3). Selection of treatment areas was based on: 1) the need to remove pinyon-juniper to develop and enhance movement corridors for greater sage-grouse between low elevation breeding habitats and upper elevation brood rearing habitats; 2) the need to remove pinyon-juniper to slow encroachment into greater sage-grouse lekking and nesting areas; 3) the need to remove pinyon-juniper near streams to enhance habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout; 4) the need to remove and thin pinyon-juniper to break up the continuity of fuels and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire; 5) the need to improve wildlife habitat on the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit using wildland fire for resource benefit; and 6) the need to improve woodland health. Table 2-3 provides information on unit size and amount of area to be treated, project goals and objectives, and equipment and methods used for pinyon-juniper treatments. The BLM would enhance habitats critical to greater sage-grouse on up to 1,387 acres in the Lone Mountain area of Kobeh Valley using manual and mechanical methods. The BLM would thin pinyon-juniper stands to remove these trees from historic sagebrush habitats. The BLM would create a series of fire breaks to moderate fire behavior in treated areas and reduce the risk of loss of habitat from wildfire. The BLM would treat pinyon-juniper to enhance habitats that are important to greater sage-grouse in several drainages on Roberts Mountains using manual, mechanical, and fire treatments. Treatment units include the Atlas, Frazier, Gable, Henderson, Upper Roberts Creek, and Vinini Corridor units (Atlas Unit Group). These drainages serve as important greater sage-grouse travel corridors between lower elevation wintering and lekking habitats and upper elevation nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Treatments would be completed in phases, with a minimum of 9,328 and 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 2-23 September 20 1 3 County Eureka County Sulphur ‘•'’Spring Wildfire Management Gable Corridor -< \ Tonkin / North -Tonkin South, ^Frazier,. ■dbrridor Lower Pete \ ‘ ^ Hanson . PJlte . ^Hanson w- .»V SK3?HBra Upper Roberts f -Greek Dry^ Canyon Vinini Corridor ‘■'SIMPSON Cottonyv^pdA park Meadow Canyons Atlas Henderson Corridor --Bar __ \ Ranch C <^one Mountain - Whistler ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. \ Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 09/10/13) f.\\’ V v. \j» S: * 1. ' , < 1 i Lri V ■ ^ V . , N’u *J, '"*■ "V .v , (N. *\ ^ . V^\>r / • 'V,‘\ i /; •At- Elko ‘mAj-v w, r jSSfcwtjo li r V ."Mk Legend I I Pinyon-juniper Treatment Area X/A Wilderness Study Area 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 2-3 Pinyon-juniper Treatment Areas Source: BLM 2011c. 0 12 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 t No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources, This Information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Proposed 3 Bars Pinyon-juniper Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES c QJ E .n. ‘5 cr W •o o x •w o "O c 03 X c/T £ 03 Cn .g 3 j: O o CU t. 4—* Xh H-* ’> ox ^ t X 4—* C/D o o o o C/D 1 — 1 ■*— * X cd cd bo "cn t-H o a c3 £ o X sx 'E cx • *— H i sx o o d) o sx 3 X 3_ c/T X > • • o ^ 2 *— < 0) 03 r-< C/D • o W n w 3 .X C w ^ ^ t> o S S 2 „ ‘3 CQ £ .. 3 0/ ,£3 - cx £ e3 O d) 43 43 CJ C/D CC5 4H O SX |QJ r«4— -o S O s2 ^ > . H-> Sh b0 QJ jQ C/D . J' p b£ c *c c5 3 d) l| 'E .Dh CJ C/5 0/ 1— i C o i~4 ' ' CJ cd CJ Cu x) 'a, O T3 C 3 • • O « 3 *C U « a e o £ x a o < C/D d> CJ < cx r- 3 — i ■£ ^ 03 ^ d> ^ H 2 cc o 1/0 O J> §■ £ tj X -2 25 t> 03 s-T ^ O X Dh c/d 1 2 d X) • ’ — > d> Vh _ o sx cx os C 3 3 cx u > o 03 xT o cx bX) 03 C/3 O 53 S E .5, X SX o3 SX £ O SC on 'Eh X c /- •S 2 Ohc2 13 o w (N o .£ £ -c -Cb > 3 O -2 -2 bO 2 2 o J2 cn ^ C 03 ° « Eh « 8 o C/3 0) S .3 (D CJ b ,cd 03 mX JX _o /r4 1 SX o c CL) ^3 CX o D cd d) 4^) .s d) U- i c o o X c o3 H— » .sx cn bs d) bD d) Uh c^5 d) •— CJ O +-• o cE d) C/D JD D 'E d cd 4C o > o 2 bO C "E GO O d) C/D cd 4P O 4—* C/D d> fO X-i 1 o m 4—* cd d) CJ d o H 1— 1 X C5 4—* C/D C/D (-1 CX £ D X o o T3 c d) CJ CU d) S-H 2 O 4— » — o o3 o o H— * C/3 03 _o d> > 4— » J— xt CD 4> a ■4— • 4—* O a TZ d) o <—■ d) £ #g O D o cn o .Dh d d> X 4— » o D o cn 4P t-H o S d> Pi *s • ' — > £ £ CJ cd CU C/D X o E oj X Cx '£ xs • ’ — J CJ Vh d) CU Id d) 4C X o E 03 X CX T3 SC o3 O O O u. CX £ on cn O 03 H-. "2 a> o ii o »-i 03 « ^3 X CX r- X cn — 03 > T3 •r a> > o X 3 2 x 03 qj X S- O o sc 3 si os S aj C/D 4^ flj " — "O SP 00.2 Six X •TO .52 « Q c o « o o o <2 .a £ 4/ c 03 z ir> oo o r-' on 2 H— • < 3 Hars Project Draft I IS 2-25 September 2013 TABLE 2-3 (Cont.) Proposed 3 Bars Pinyon-juniper Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES c D E a, "5 o“ u ■o o 4= ■<-* D •— C S • • ■W > cd •& « c o» d P 1/2 cd at at GO Cl jo S' -C T3 .7 >o> So Cd ^ ft r- 2 43 £ ^ ft • - « « H 2 £ £ £ £ d P CO cd D D CO do cd 2 ^ O ex, ^ d 2 ft ^_Td •£< d 2 2 _ ft -2 S 9> H 2 ft .4. TO a/ % * £ £ d P C/D c3 •*— * < D D GO 2-° -* P ~ cd q -tj oo tfl d 2 ft _r d rd d 2 £ ft -Id cd at H 2 £ £ £ £ co cd 'O $5 cd cd cd Cd 43 cd CD C/3 CD C/3 T3 O 43 -*— » CD Oh a ^3 cd td rt £ 'o r E— 1 d" cd d d cd £ 43 cd _o '£ cd 43 O D d d CO "d O 43 4— » D s n co d 2 d d CG u Ed d d p l-> ft d" 43 £ on -ft E £ ~0 cd CD •^3 co g "O 2 o 45 43 CD TS CD CD cd 55 C c/3 0/ 5- CD < o 173 O at §< £ ■£> OO ft O 43 £ <^ .d H - £ cd o ■d' S cd cd £ ^ d a cd d £ £ D Lh i d-i co $L> 33 T3 ft D O d •2 ‘C d § 8 £ C/3 CD Oh y ^ cd -*-» OO ft O 43 £ tot .t3 H ro £ cd =5 a cd £ cd CD *s cd 45 CD CD £ CD H . ® £ a, 2 £7:2 g CD Cd C/3 CO CD CD cd C4 53 cd Tj- H so cd 53 $5 cd s cd ^ CD *3 cd 45 CD CD £ 0) u- o CO CD cd CD i-H 1 td CO Oh 5-h CD CD i td CO D r-i CG "O -d D x> ’C "O o 43 •t— » d -4— » cd £ 3 a* •- H u a> .£* *S .3 "T = o c i n — 3 ca T3 s 3 • • 4> « 'W > Cd £ g « I X! «5 O < 1/3 O La W < ca 1/3 0/ _> L. u a» S5 o 3 D C/3 3 a> X .3 ^ 3 c/3 ,»T CU c/3 3 3 E X X o cd cu 2 o 2 X o 3 3 X i- 8 o 5 -5 •p § e S „ - — o X GO cd "3 »V H— * C/3 O ^ 3 3 X S 3 o 03 C/3 3 X _ o g ■3 | 3 . C C/3 3 ^ 5 3 c/3 c/3 O aj c/3 1 1 2 60 'c/3 E .3 g .2 ao x .2^ 1/ 7T > 3 ° g C/3 _T X O o _ Oh O "g c/i x 2 X 3 3 ” .N rX US 2 cE 3 -ffi Glj x .S CO C3 c3 C x ^ CX x 'E ^ 3 -- GJO O .2 S E La — f ■— CL. 3 X C/3 Oh C/3 X cd a X 0 X ^22 g fN c . ™ r- cd > E E 3 h* 0\ X - o 3 "EE 3 o C/3 Oh O td 3 3 a> ’— 1 H os X O 3 "cd 3 C 3 3 O o 3 X o cu ^ E £ CO *T3 O <— ; ■+—> 1 cd (U CO C X X 3 D CO jd ■4— * < c ’3 •4—4 c c 3 S o X 2 X cu cu l-H u x o G & g S s U G -*-* (D G -4—* ^ G C/5 CJ iS ■£ <2 CJ <33 > C/5 S "o c 2 g o £ £ QJ O > ^ C/5 Oh P C« CD J-H ^ O c 4-H C3 G dj rn < lS ^ H rN G G G G CJ 'G 1/5 £ 'p II 2 U dj £ £ £ . C/5 cd «— < 2 2 5 y n _ j- ^ G CU 2 S-h H *+H C/5 2 'g G 2 O, J5 ^ g o '£ o G G £ o ^ G C G c/l 1/1 S’ o C/3 o CU 4—i H dj £ <2 0/ I ^ Dh O (U 2 2 2 G £ G £ G D C/5 <33 4—* < cu dj CO G O . 1 £ b0 G .£ o c« 2 bo S G P 2 ° 73 +-* S C4 G CO c/i 2 bO G ^ £ o G Cft (U o ^ 4—* <33 ^ c/i (U Oh O ■- o G G aj G CJ O O X5 aj 2 4 c/i G G '£ P ^ o ^ <33 C/5 _* T3 ^ u-. o o o CJ ^ O T3 O G O O 3 4—* 3 o O — G2 o 2 (33 C/5 13 ^ 2 a> a) ■£ £ p g G O O O O s_ -o 2 o Z G o aj e P £ aj T3 aj 4—* o 2 2 C/l T3 G G QJ c/l G > ^G > > 'G G O G S G 2 G 0ft >- S Oh 2 G -S G GO •71 G G 1/5 p .2 >4 S-h c o • HH Oh .2 £5 -P c/i ’c« O 1/5 2 >4 Oh (U 1-H Oh 73 O O hG i2 x) 2 G S 1_ G G -G CG ♦— I . G (2 73 G G M 2 cu Oh O i- „ Oh G O > C/3 CJ (U -h t-H J3 73 G o a H -D C/5 <33 <33 S ts 73 CJ £ o <33 4—* <33 G £ G g J3 G 2 ^ ^ G C/3 G 1 2 2 04 G dJ d> 73 G > 2 C/3 G cu O •— Oh £ £ £ g l! <33 jH tj « £ 3 2 ° CLh bO 73 I ^ O Lh 0 0/ E « +- "E 4 cu e u G u 3 Bars Project Draft li IS 2-28 September 2013 Proposed 3 Bars Pinyon-juniper Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES a QJ S .S' ‘5 cr W ■o o J= ■M CD CD T3 c -a .. cd « C3 -js £ § CD £ 42 m O < < CD CD C/0 a. oo H 2 13 CD X5 C3^ r" 3 Os 13 CD CD G J-H td G G cd u rG 4—* CL) M SO S CN ^ r— ' (D -G vh td G G cd o -> E E H 2 o > n 1/3 CD CD Dh CD 03 -m m cd so V* CD CD S9 o U-» ■IT' oo 23 £ o 23 Cd o m C3 cd (D _> m o3 .O Cm bt) 23 .s >> *£■ OD 23 ID CD 23 S3 03 CD b0 P 03 M 23 S3 03 03 M 42 03 43 M

23 CD > c2 Id ID .2 23 b0 > o o o Ph id 03 •M CO cd > CD 23 CD c2 Cm CD c cd t2 o r> _ P O 4-1 •S 02 23 aD o CD cd p cd O 43 tn cd P4 43 CD 'p c/o P o 23 cd CD 2 23 O O £ S3 O 4—* 4—* O U CD CD OO p D 0D S .a " oo CO °2 CN O r- Os so" CN CD £ cd z 23 O O > £ o p P tu o o o cd >> p t3 ad p S O u ed O U & p o G cd u b-S Q P JD CD rr G ^ p 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 2-29 September 2013 Proposed 3 Bars Pinyon-juniper Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES 3 E .S- "S cr w -o o 4= C/5 cd 2 42 c/T > _> 4—* cd cd C/5 C/5 cd ‘a, GO o cd O QJ 4—* C/5 *4— » O E 2 X5 cd 22 £ 2 DO 2 < rC C/5 .s £ cd o CD CD s' o CD CD cd C/5 "bB jd "a? 4—* 2 42 u c/5' p a-) C/5 id o 3 42 43 > cd JD «= 23 "cd C/5 £3 P C/5 o 2 C/5 0 42 C/5 2 O CD "5 3 c 2 CD c/f CD C/3 22 .2 4—* cd N cd cd -O CD C/5 CD CZ) 22 id ‘5h cd < > cd jy a s cd C/5 Sd cE • T— ■ < 4—» 2 E 2 42 E 2 -2 0/ D. CU ^QJ cE 22 2 c3 CD CD CO i- CD 23 c 3 ^3 • • 4-* >• Si - £ .o -Si 2 < D2 04 s- CD < CD J2 ,~Zl ^ o So SO t« rn 3 42 2a ^ ^ § o h 2 a ^ £ £ CQ Oh 3 C/5 CD P cd cd O O cd sa o H 22 2 C3 "c3 3 i2 03 : £ S ca _ CD '3 c3 42 O CD S cn 22 O 42 -i— » OD E CD o 3 ON c3 CO 22 O g p S 42 §6 2a h -t2 c3 CD H 2 a £ £ S C/5 cd C/5 cd O (D cd O p CD • P CD 2 CD cd cd g *s cd C/5 T3 Oh CD cd cd £ 4— » cd 0 0 4d CD CD 42 4— > 4—* cd O 4d (D p 0^ 4— » Td r-« CD 0 CD P 4—* H r-T ‘1 P cd s £ H 22 2 o3 c3 CD 03 42 O CD CZ) 22 O 42 OD £ o 1/5 O g> & £ 23 ° S ro 42 2a ro .32 H oC £ 03 O 03 2S 52 03 £ CD P 24 1 ^ J2 5 (D -a ’O 42 CD^ J2 D "2 'C U £ § 8 £ C/3 'M o S4 o £ o 22 03 CD s 22 o o £ 52 o 4— » 4— » O <-> ~ GO P £ o 22 c3 CD 22 O O £ S2 O 4— » 4—* O U O P (D CD GO 2 P 0/ $ .a 2 * o ^3" m O o ON QJ E S3 Z *— *E P (D 4—* s- o ■a s • • Cl £ « - £ £ 2 O < 5/3 0/ o G D 5/3 o3 4— » < (L) -C 4— » £ co T3 "2 Q. U ° CD -2 g Cl cl 2 .c o-_s ^ c o _. 2: - Cl E rs co ° 2 §* £ +2 ON (N £ 4— * o U aj g p £ > • G O S rft •S I C£ fa 0) G3 CD c2 E -C 5/3 T3 p (D G c2 ‘a, 5/3 G O 4— » « o a £ o T3 cl CD ■2 o o £ c o 4—* 4—* O U CD CD GO G P £ o -a cl (D *0 o o £ G O G O U . G cl u E'c Q P c 5 11 o o H GO 3 liars Project Draft I IS 2-31 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES c a j co D CD H 3 O C/5 cd P4 S-H <2 £ i£ T3 r~] « £ ap P "2 c ►C p > CQ 3 0 U r*i 1 C4 u -J BQ < H p _a» •o9 P Oh h-i 3 p cs a> •- H u a> a, ’3 .3 3 O c « CQ f*5 ’O P V) o a o u CL u p "O 3 3 ^3 • • V « Si - £ 35 2 O < to p s_ p < Oh ea S2 aj at- H 2 ca CZ) -a CO _ P ,P 1-H ti o 5 ca > — t ' 3 'S ca p £ £ C/5 CD Ih CD < o CQ Ph o 3 ca -(-> NO £ r- H - 03 O O o3 £ 03 CD *3 % II p p g £ £ CO p S-H o < CO p CP p ca 3 T3 "O 2 ^ *-< o 3 XI P. £ j2 ca p "C p £ £ g g £ OJO . p, >>.s Z3 SS-S g>e s“SS2 g £ p p E— 1 (N co P +3 CD s* o aP C P ^ g P -P O Oh P ap • P p p, 3 I— I p p 'aj CO CO 03 _ ~P ^ CU ca ca £ - > Sh O P p .& 53 £ c£ .£, p j£ ap p ca p o 4-> 03 s— » is c3 45 _P P S-H P 1 o o o o c3 -4—* C/5 C/5 15 > 45 C/5 C^ O "o p ‘Sh p ca -P p > o bJ) 2 P5 •4—* C/5 S-H Oh G p j£ (D bD o T3 55 p CD o o3 C/5 p. o o3 o -4—* O 4— » 4—* C/5 C J CD Vh -4— • CD "0 o p p CD ^i P P ca p CO ca O o o CO co O p -t-* P O 1-h -!-> P in ca P GO ■I £ p p - £ co P3 co . — ' ca p co cS I P P >? ^ •P P > P P P P "P P p Ph P o o . OJ +-' CO co ' O ^ o p .S Oh ’T^ --rj .2 8 s Q p ° p p -p +-» p o CzO p o H p p C/5 co m bO ■ .£ 1—1 *3 ca o p c£ p p p "P P O 4-> Sh P .& ’£ p ■ -p CD tH p CD o 03 >> C/5 p O u O 4— > ea o O £ 0 T3 p p 1 •3 O O P o +-» 4— » o P r £ I GO P (L> H LO O ■*— » -h a> O ^ H-H D, ap CP ca P c£ C/5 O o T3 Vh cd N a 45 (D O o T3 Vh 4^ 13 a p 4-H ca p p £ .a ^ « ON oo ro af ci \D P £ e« £ P P ^ _ I £ | p p ^ v 45 t; o O H Z Uh p jp I'-c 2 3 cL > C/5 C/5 > 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-32 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES s E ■*-> cs 4J u H i* at a. c "P S o s*> s to pa X 01 CO O O. o Pm u o> X s 3 ■Q • • « x 2 « - £ o < co o> O < OP co o> o> .O* S9 o - 0) X x x 3 r3 bO > o J— o =3 * 1 O C/D 4— > C/3 D < D X C o 3 G 3 cd X > O bD 'Sh 4—* x >■ ■< C/D C/5 Oh c s X OJ c o X 3 * ' o 3 3 O 4—* o 4—* 4—* 175 3 t— « H— H X 4—* t— H (D CO O O o s- 3, E co CO CD l-< (D _3h 3 3 CD (-H cd 3 co -3 3 3b « 3 y CD to -3 C/5 cd £2 C/5 0> 2 X cH ^ X » X cd X X •r o X 3 2 "X in 3 o> >- Oh ”0 ^3 S C/3 3 33 CD X) i bo 3b 3 t3 £ ‘I •3 * cd CD --J X X *- Oh CD O 3 co X 3 CD 2 »- £ £ 3 4—* X 3 X .CD 3h CD CD 3 3 X 3 UJ 1-1 3 X Oh 3 jE e X 3 . 3 33 r£ ._. 3 r3 ccS X 3 Oh> *2 P co on j> x 3 O CD 3 O X D 1 o (U X) >> cd a c o cd a > cd C/J O O *0 cd > *T3 O ^3 ’cd d> c 2 X o H— » X u X 3 (D D X 03 3 X D _> 'co _3 "o ccS o 3 3 D E _Oh '3 cr D co X O X D E X o 3 Bars Project Drall I IS 2-33 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES maximum of 21,544 acres treated to meet greater sage-grouse habitat enhancement objectives. Treatment units would range in size from about 818 acres to 6,544 acres. Treatments would involve removing pinyon-juniper from areas historically occupied by sagebrush and riparian plant species, and promoting development of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs through removal of pinyon-juniper. The BLM would also create a series of fire breaks to moderate fire behavior in the treated areas and reduce the risk of loss of habitat from wildland fire. Thinning and disposal of trees would be similar to the methods used at the Lone Mountain Unit, and would also include placing logs and larger diameter pieces of wood in streams to slow water flow. The BLM would enhance habitats critical to Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Birch Creek and Upper Pete Hanson Creek drainages on Roberts Mountains using manual and fire treatments. Treatments would encompass about 461 acres and would be developed in consultation with the USFWS and coordinated with the NDOW. The BLM would also create a series of fire breaks to moderate fire behavior in treated areas and reduce the risk of loss of habitat from wildfire. Treatments would involve removing pinyon-juniper from areas historically occupied by sagebrush and riparian plant species, promoting the development of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs through removal of pinyon- juniper, and creating fire breaks. Thinning and disposal of trees would be similar to the methods used at the Lone Mountain Unit, and would also include placing larger diameter pieces of wood in streams to slow water flow. Treatments would adhere to the BLM’s non-impairment standard for the Roberts Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA). The BLM would reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 20,202 to 55,674 acres on the Cottonwood/Meadow Canyon, Dry Canyon, 3 Bars Ranch, Tonkin North, Tonkin South, and Whistler units (Cottonwood/Meadow Canyon Unit Group). Fuels treatments would be done in phases with approximately 1 ,000 to 2,000 acres of treatments conducted annually. The BLM would 1) reduce the amount of hazardous fuels and wildfire risk by mowing and shredding sagebrush and thinning pinyon-juniper stands in 500- to 2,000-acre increments with chainsaws; 2) use mechanical methods to create fuel breaks; and 3) slow pinyon-juniper expansion into sagebrush and other plant communities on 30 to 70 percent of the units through the use of manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire. The BLM would remove pinyon-juniper trees infested with pathogens and/or pests by removing up to half the trees within a unit using manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire on the Tonkin North and Tonkin South units. Up to 1 ,729 acres could be treated in these units. On the Lower Pete Hanson Unit, the BLM would reduce both the amount of hazardous fuels and the wildland fire risk by mowing and shredding sagebrush and thinning pinyon-juniper stands on up to 1,000 acres by using chainsaws and mechanical methods to create fuel breaks. The BLM would treat 20 to 40 percent of the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit using wildland fire for resource benefit to benefit a variety of resources and to reduce hazardous fuels. An estimated 12,482 to 24,694 acres would be treated in the unit in increments up to 1 ,000 acres annually. The intent of these treatments would be to restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem and to improve plant species diversity. By reducing fuel accumulations and creating canopy openings in the pinyon-juniper, sagebrush and other shrub species cover should increase by at least 30 percent from current levels. I he BLM may allow wildland fire to bum in areas where fuel loads exceed 2 tons per acre in shrublands, and 10 tons per acre in pinyon-juniper woodlands. Alter fires, the BLM would promote the use of burned or downed trees for commercial or private uses. 1 he BLM would monitor the site to limit post-fire occurrence of chcatgrass and other noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation. In most instances, pinyon-juniper treatments would occur where stands are in the Phase I and II stage of development, and where soils arc characteristic of those found in sagebrush communities. Phases arc based on stand characteristics that dillcrentiatc between three transitional phases of woodland succession based on tree canopy, leader growth (of 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 2-34 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES dominant and understory trees), crown structure, potential berry production, tree recruitment, and the shrub layer. Pinyon-juniper stands on the 3 Bars Project area were characterized by phases and mapped in 2010 and 2011, and this information was used when developing pinyon-juniper treatments (AECOM 201 la). These phases, as described by Miller et al. (2008), are as follows: Phase I (early) - trees are present, but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes on the site. Phase II (mid) - trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs, and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site. Phase III (late) - trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing ecological processes on the site. This scheme is useful for identifying the successional stage in expansion communities that may potentially be targeted for treatment. Phase III woodlands have the greatest tree density, and the greatest amount of canopy fuels, which puts them at increased risk for loss from high intensity fires (Tausch 1999 in Miller et al. 2008). However, according to Miller et al., treatments in Phase I and II expansion woodlands to halt their succession to Phase III woodlands may be more successful and cost-effective than treatments in Phase III woodlands. Manual and mechanical treatments would be primarily utilized to disrupt the continuity of fuels and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire as well as to improve woodland health. Treatments would involve multiple tree removal options including use of chainsaws, chaining, hand thinning, ripping, feller-buncher, tree-shearer, and use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit. Most trees in Phase I habitats would be removed. The density of trees in woodlands in the Phase II and III states would be reduced by a minimum of 50 percent within areas targeted for treatment. 2.2.2. 1.4 Sagebrush Treatments The Mount Lewis Field Office proposes to enhance greater sage-grouse habitat within the 3 Bars ecosystem by treating approximately 31,300 acres of public lands on the 3 Bars, Flynn Parman, Grass Valley, JD, Lucky C, Roberts Mountain, and Santa Fe/Ferguson allotments (Figure 2-4). Table 2-4 provides information on unit size and amount of area to be treated, project goals and objectives, and equipment and methods used for sagebrush treatments. These areas were selected for treatments primarily to benefit greater sage-grouse habitat and improve rangeland health. In most areas, plant communities diverge from the expected reference state vegetation based on ecological site descriptions. Treatments would be completed in phases and implemented incrementally based on monitoring, funding, and BLM priorities. At the Alpha, Coils Creek, Kobeh East, Nichols, Roberts Mountain Pasture, and South Simpson units (Alpha Unit Group), up to 1 1,016 acres would be treated and treatments would focus on using mechanical methods to thin low- elevation Wyoming big sagebrush to open up the sagebrush canopy and to seed to promote the growth ot forbs and grasses. The BLM would use mechanical methods on about 20,297 acres at the Table Mountain, Rocky Hills, Three Comers, Whistler Sage and West Simpson Park units to thin sagebrush to open up the sagebrush canopy to promote the growth of forbs and grasses, and to remove or thin pinyon-juniper to enhance or restore sagebrush communities. At the Rocky 3 Mars Project Draft MIS 2-35 September 20 1 3 Rocky Hills Table Mountain West' Simpson Park Three Corners . SIMPSON- Nichols Whistler Sage Roberts Mountain Pasture Coils Greek South Simpson Kobeh East* 1 ureka No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice 1- \ T j*. . m ng ■ fc ^ ' "v hi < j. * Jv / 1 j n Ajs.- 1 Elko County Eureka County < -.7 ■Mt United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. x Battle Mountain. NV 89820 \ jm (Prepared by MLFO - 09/10/13) Elko Battle Mountain Project Area Mount 0 I evvis Meld orrke Battle Mountain District Vegas Legend Sagebrush Treatment Area \A-A Wilderness Study Area 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2011c. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 2-4 Sagebrush Treatment Areas Proposed 3 Bars Sagebrush Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES c 03 s a, ‘5 cr UJ ■o o X o co £ G co _G G x U S3 G G 03 60 o .S -= ■G co G w ^3 £ fX c - 2 S2 £ 0) 03 § ^ 2 S b. .5 03 >> CO CO G £ O c_> G ' o x c ^ g X CO co O M a X CO G US L- S3 <4h G-h /— v O (U I 1 +_» iDX) ’cd •£ £ cu o S- « g c z; .2 ^ c3 « Hr 27 vs x G co 'o o5 S3 « J *s 05 X O a* CL) £ o £ S3 G G 0) w 00 c 03 o3 >- X uT « 03 . - g- o cl •*-* o y •g 2 03 ■»— i S3 ^ G 03 03 co „ O h Dh CO O * ' l aj S3 03 — CO 03 to <3 s ^ S3 • — 03 O S3 G o3 C • O ^ Vp o CL £ U3 w O CD 03 o a 00 2 x CQ .g it g -4— * i- C s § 13 £ •f m « .£ jS £ »- 3 Ph X) S3 4—* CD «T £ G ° S3 - £ 03 G (L> « X C3 ° X C\J fcb c o ob x g 3 X £ CO Ch ? co o3 w X 03 X o 03 03 GO CO 03 w X 03 X o u 03 03 on CO 03 w X 03 X o 03 03 go CO c3 PJ X 03 X o u 03 03 GO co C3 w X 03 X o 03 03 oo !■■ 03 ■a a 3 TJ • • « « >• « ts £ § 03 X -M O < CD a> u o < CO o oo CO (30 V) oo IT) IT) X o X r~- x X oo <-<•) o cn X X oo co CD CO CO X o X CO UO X CO X X X CN o oo X CN X X O X OO X CN X X sf; CN co 03 > 03 _03 O S3 C 1 » C3 C ^ 03 03 2 ^ ^ 8 2 £S ST o O C C3 O V3 co X 03 2 > 2 < 03 'r- 03 O 2P cc C/) Lh c3 _ 03 o 03 >> ITl O' Cm o CD C ,Ai 2 o * -4—» 'CD ^ n ^ 2 C33 D< co C3 o 03 feb 2 '£ c 03 Ih 03 D, 03 o 2 ‘ob ,r‘ 2 G o X O *3 2^ G ^ 03 C 03 03 Lh -m 03 O b- bn c 03 s 03 00 G £ _o Cd aJ W x 03 X o 03 03 (X C/3 c3 w x 03 X o 03 03 (30 co 03 w X 03 X o 03 03 GO c n c3 PP X 03 X o 03 03 GO co 03 PP X 03 X o 03 03 GO 05 O a 03 s .2 2- 03 £ 05 z t-H 03 4^ 03 03 Vh 5b S3 03 03 03 O 03 03 b c3 X G PJ 03 03 X > -2 03 C3 ^ 03 03 bO cc 03 0 > C 03 b/j *-< 1 o Us g c2 c/o Ih co X 03 G > 03 Lh X X S3 G G £3 (3 03 b- t— 1 3 0 4—* o 33 > £ 03 4—* CD Q g o (2 CD 4— * 03 4— » £ o3 43 4—4 CJ 03 ■*— * «_ 03 « o 2 a. ^ ON in C30 cd U4 X 03 X o co G PJ X 03 X o u 03 03 g n oo G PJ X 03 X o 03 03 GO o On «n c/o G P-l X 03 X o 03 03 GO c/i G PJ X 03 X o 03 03 GO C" X CN CC o o CO o X 03 z O) t: 03 X a5 S 3 03 G b G 3 O £ G X 03 03 Lh u o U c/o G PJ X 03 X o y; 03 03 GO o CO CO^ CN C o «3 a G P o .£ GO GO G X bn 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 2-37 September 2013 Proposed 3 Bars Sagebrush Treatment Projects ALTERNATIVES c QJ E a, '5 c r W ■a o JZ ■*— qj T3 3 3 s ^ -3 CO ^ T3 O co r +2 3 —< 3 U-l "C O j-. "O O « 'g « £ o Co • r-4 V, (L) <-> OX) -2 3 o 2 X> 3 CO '§> o 3 3 Q3 CO 4, 3 co _ ax 32 -O P o c n C C3 •: C/D ctf w -3 aj X) o a> qj GO _3 3 4—* 3 =3 O 3 CO H 0) co 6 3 O s 3 s 32 f CO a3 3 O ‘C cd > (D X <+-. O bD *3 c 03 •4—* C/D J-H O c *3 J-h T3 03 O Oh O T3 (D T3 O 3 a" -a c 3 -o •• ^ <• 3 *rs fi i- a> QJ -X 5 < QJ j QJ 5s o c (U a (-< CL) cl o CO I »n 3 0) > QJ 33 QJ < ^4 ■g B CO .O >4 .B CL 55 O O 3 & 3 P QJ ~ -C co 1) •4— » in S3 ^ 3 O «n o qj '5b o 3 £ co QJ QJ X> QJ 44 00 o 3 3 co .3 O o QJ co 3 QJ — 3 feb 3 G-i O S 3 3 QJ QJ O Lh Lh QJ QJ Ch 34 O S2 g S G O 3 r— , (U iA o -S T3 33 02 •3 co £ 2 , -4—4 O C/D 'X ^3 3 OJ QJ 3 O 3 3-1 hH QJ 4_i co O a> 3 s -2 •S -s -p 3h C/D c« P £ -3 q M g a § 3 *H Lh 3 o 3h 4—* co 3 3 CO 4-4 L-, 3 3 QJ 3 QJ >4 QJ O CL, QJ (N ir> r- ■ o T3 3 3 co 3 > 3 3 O O CO 3 o p_J w 2- G -3 o QJ -3 -3 .3 CL 3 3 3 O GO Qj -O co 3 .3 3 cj co 3 3 CL G 1/1 QJ 3 CL > CO 3 3 3 QJ 3 <£ 3 I 3 O 3 QJ QJ 3 P Qj 3 QJ 3 co 3 w 3 QJ 3 O QJ QJ GO .3 'c0 4— ► 3 3 O -2 x> 3 H QJ QJ GO QJ 2 .a " ^ 3 O O rj >n °\ (N 'O, ra ft I IS 2-43 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES treatment methods that would result in minimal disturbance to the landscape arc being evaluated under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative). • Revcgctate solely with native vegetation. Under this alternative, only native vegetation would be used to restore fire-impacted and other degraded public lands. This alternative was eliminated because the use of only native vegetation to restore degraded lands would not meet some of the project purposes discussed in Chapter 1 . However, the use of native vegetation to restore degraded lands has been incorporated Alternatives A, B, and C to the extent practical, as discussed in Section 2.2. • Exclude logging, grazing, off-highway vehicle use, and energy and mineral development on public lands. This alternative was eliminated because the Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that the BLM manage public lands for multiple uses including those listed. 2.6 Mitigation As defined by CEQ regulation 1 508.20, mitigation includes: 1 ) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and 5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation measures have been identified for effects from treatments for several resource areas. These are discussed in Chapter 3 at the end of relevant resource sections under Mitigation. 2.7 Summary of Impacts by Alternative Table 2-6 summarizes the likely effects of restoration and resource management activities for each alternative. Information contained in this table is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-44 September 2013 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Bars Project Draft I , IS 2-45 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES s o U s© ■ W -J co < H 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 2-46 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES s 0 U so 1 rs W _ — < H 3 liars Project Draft I IS 2-47 September 2013 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 liars Project Draft PIS 2-48 September 20 1 3 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Bars Project Draft NS 2-49 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES = 0 U so 1 fS w -J ca < H 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 2-50 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES s o U so U -J oa < E- 3 liars Project I trail I IS 2-51 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES s 0 U so 1 fS u -J ca < H 3 Bars Project Draft IMS 2-52 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES £ 0 U SO 1 fN UJ -3 CO < H 3 liars Project Draft I IS 2-53 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES s 0 U 1 fS u -J 03 < H 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-54 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVE c 0 U so 1 u J Cfl < H 3 liars Project Draft I IS 2-55 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES e 0 U eo 1 H -J CO < H 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-56 September 201 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 liars Project Draft I IS 2-57 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES s 0 U SO 1 fS u -J oa < H 3 liars Project Draft PIS 2-58 September 30 1 3 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Mars Project Draft MS 2-59 September 2013 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-60 September Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 liars Project Draft I IS 2-61 September 20 1 3 ALTERNATIVES s 0 U so 1 w J 22 < H 3 liars Project Draft HIS 2-62 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES c 0 U s© 1 fS UJ J co < H 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-63 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES a 0 U ' — - so 1 rali HIS 2-83 September 20 1 3 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 2-84 September 2013 ALTERNATIVES c 0 U so 1 UJ — Cfl < H 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 2-85 September 20 1 3 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 2-86 September 20 1 3 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 liars Project Draft I IS 2-87 September 20 1 3 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-88 September 20 1 3 Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative ALTERNATIVES 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 2-89 September 20 1 3 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the natural, cultural, and social environment of public lands in the 3 Bars Project area that would be affected by the alternatives under consideration. These descriptions are followed by an examination of how vegetation treatment and other activities may affect these natural, cultural, and social resources. The focus of the analysis is on the alternative proposals for treating public lands within the 3 Bars ecosystem. The analysis is useful in understanding the consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. Supplemental authorities that are subject to requirements specified by statute or executive order must be considered in all BLM environmental documents. The 17 elements associated with the supplemental authorities listed in the BLM Instruction Memorandum NV-2009-030 (USDOI BLM 2009c) are listed in Tabic 3-1. The table lists the elements and their status in the project area as well as the rationale to determine whether an element present in the project area would be affected by the proposed action or any of the alternatives. Supplemental authorities that may be affected by the proposed action or any of the alternatives are discussed in this chapter under each element. Those elements listed under the supplemental authorities that do not occur in the project area and would not be affected are not discussed further in this EIS. The elimination of nonrelevant issues follows CEQ policy, as stated at 40 CFR § 1500.4. In addition to the elements listed under supplemental authorities, the BLM considers other resources and uses that occur on public lands and the issues that may result from the implementation of the proposed action or any of the alternatives. Other resources or uses of the human environment that have been considered for this EIS are listed in Table 3-2. 3.2 How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Evaluated Within each resource area, applicable direct and indirect effects are evaluated. Cumulative effects, unavoidable adverse commitments, and resource commitments that arc lost or cannot be reversed are also evaluated for all treatment activities in the EIS. These impacts are defined as follows: • Direct effects - Those effects that arc caused by the action and occur at the same time and in the same general location as the action. • Indirect effects — Those effects that occur at a different time or in a different location than the action to which the effects are related. • Cumulative effects - Those effects on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-fcdcral) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 3 Bars Project Draft MS 3-1 September 2013 HOW TUB EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WERE EVALUATED TABLE 3-1 Elements Associated with Supplemental Authorities and Rationale for Detailed Analysis for the Proposed Action and other Alternatives Supplemental Authority Element {Authority) Not Present Present/Not Affected Prcscnt/lYlay be Affected Reference Section Air Quality • 3.5 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern • 3.21 Cultural Resources • 3.22 Environmental Justice • 3.24 Farm Lands (Prime and Unique) • 3.11 Fish Habitat • 3.14 Floodplains • 3.10 Forests and Rangelands (Healthy Forest Restoration Act only) • 3.11 Human Health and Safety • 3.25 Migratory Birds • 3.15 Native American Religious Concerns • 3.23 Threatened or Endangered Species • 3.11,3.14,3.15 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) • Water Quality • 3.9 Wetlands and Riparian Zones • 3.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers • Wilderness • • Unavoidable adverse commitments - Those effects that could occur as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives. Some of these effects would be short term, while others would be long term. • Irreversible commitments - Those commitments that cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long term. This term applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrcncwablc resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to factors, such as soil productivity, that are renewable only over long periods of time. • Irretrievable commitments - Those commitments that arc lost for a period of time. For example, timber production is lost while an area is mined. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If the site is reclaimed, it is possible to resume timber production. This chapter should be read together with Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need), which explains why the BLM is proposing to conduct treatments, and Chapter 2 (Alternatives), which explains the alternative proposals the BLM is considering to restore the health and functionality of the 3 Bars ecosystem. The analyses of the affected environment and 3 Bars Project I trail PIS 3-2 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES cm ironmcntal consequences in this chapter build upon and relate to information presented in these earlier chapters to identity which resources may be impacted and how and where impacts might occur. 3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects To the extent practicable, existing environmental analyses were used in analyzing impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives. Within each resource area, applicable direct and indirect effects are evaluated. Key factors considered in the analysis included treatment methods and their risks, acreage treated, effectiveness of SOPs, and mitigation measures. This E1S focuses on treatments that the Mount Lewis Field Office proposes to conduct during the life of the project. For analysis purposes, however, it was assumed that projects would occur within a 10 to 15 year period. It is expected that similar types ot treatments would occur after this period that would still be covered by the analysis in this E1S. The analysis in this EIS builds upon analyses in earlier EISs, Environmental Assessments, and environmental reports, including the 1 7-States PEIS and PER, Mount Hope Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Mount Hope Project EIS), and AECC (USDOl BLM 2007b, c, 2009a, 2012c). TABLE 3-2 Resources or Uses other than the Elements Associated with Supplemental Authorities and Rationale for Detailed Analysis for the Proposed Action and Other Alternatives Resources or Uses Present/Not Affected Present/May be Affected Reference Section Forest/ Woodland Products • 3.11 Geology and Minerals • 3.6 Historic Trails • 3,20,3.21,3.22 Land Use and Access • 3.19 Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Non-native Vegetation • 3.12 Paleontology • 3.7 Recreation • 3.20 Socioeconomic Values • 3.24 Soil Resources • 3.8 Transportation • Vegetation • 3.1 1,3.12 Visual Resources • 3.18 Water Resources • 3.9 Wilderness Study Areas • 3.21 Wild Horses • 3.16 Wildlife • 3.15 3 Hars Project Draft I , IS 3-3 September 20 1 3 HOW THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WERE EVALUATED Information from the 1 7-States PER was used to assess the effects on the environment of using non-herhicide treatment methods, including fire use, and mechanical, manual, and biological control methods, to treat hazardous fuels, invasive species, and other unwanted or competing vegetation (USDOI BLM 2007c). Risk is defined as the likelihood that an effect (injury, disease, death, or environmental damage) may result from a specific set of circumstances (USDOI BLM 2007b). 3.2.2 Cumulative Effects The NEPA and its implementing guidelines require an assessment of the proposed project and other projects that have occurred in the past, arc occurring in the present, or arc likely to occur in the future, which together may have cumulative impacts that go beyond the impacts of the proposed project itself. According to 40 CFR §§1508.7 and 1508.25[a][2]): “Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. In addition, to determine the scope of Environmental Impact Statements, agencies shall consider cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.” The purpose of the cumulative effects analysis is to determine if the effects of BLM vegetation treatments have the potential to interact or accumulate over time and space, either through repetition or when combined with other effects, and under what circumstances and to what degree they might accumulate. 3.2.2.1 Structure of the Cumulative Effects Analysis For this EIS, the analysis of cumulative impacts is a four-step process that follows guidance provided in Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1 997): • Specify the class of actions for which effects are to be analyzed. • Designate the appropriate time and space domain in which the relevant actions occur. • Identify and characterize the set of receptors to be assessed. • Determine the magnitude of effects on the receptors and whether those effects arc accumulating. 3.2.2.2 Class of Actions to be Analyzed This analysis addresses site-specific and local-scale trends and issues that require integrated management across landscapes. It also addresses trends and changes in the social and economic needs of people. Restoration treatment methods used by the BLM arc considered in the analysis. These include manual, mechanical, and biological control methods, and the use of fire, as identified in Chapter 2 (Alternatives). For this EIS, potential cumulative effects include those that were assessed for all land ownerships, including lands administered by other federal agencies and non-federal lands, particularly effects to air quality, aquatic and terrestrial 3 liars Project Dralt HIS 3-4 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES public to the context within which effects are occurring, and to the environmental implications of the interactions of known and likely management activities. 3.2.2.3 Appropriate Temporal and Spatial Domain 3.2.2.3.1 Temporal Domain The analysis period covered by the cumulative effects analysis begins in 2014 and continues through 2039. The timeline outlined in this EIS (about 10 to 15 years) is based on when treatments would occur and to realize the results of the treatments over time in terms of meeting management objectives and desired vegetative conditions (about 1 0 years). The timeline is also based on the difficulty of predicting advances in technology, approved treatment practices, and the types and amounts of vegetation treatments needed, very far into the future. Thus, a reasonable analysis period, and one on which most of the cumulative effects analysis is focused, is 25 years into the future. In accordance with CEQ guidance on June 24, 2005 (CEQ 2005), past actions associated with the 3 Bars ecosystem are addressed through their current aggregate effects and have not been provided as a list of individual projects. A brief discussion of past and present actions in the vicinity of the 3 Bars Project area is provided in Section 3.2.2. 3. 3; a more detailed discussion can be found in Section 4.3 of the Mount Hope Project EIS (USDOI BLM 2012c). 3.2.2.3.2 Spatial Domain For some resources and uses, the project area may be where the effect can be felt (known as the “footprint”), but for others, the footprint may extend well beyond that space. For example, air quality effects to humans can extend miles beyond the footprint of the proposed action. The spatial domain, or cumulative effects study area (CESA), for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities for each resource is identified under the discussion of the analysis area for each resource, and is shown in Figure 3-1. The rationale used to develop the spatial domain is also provided under the descriptions of the resources that follow. For the purposes of this analysis, non-federal lands include lands owned and/or managed by individuals, corporations, Native American tribes, states, counties, or other agencies. The BLM does not have the authority to regulate any activities or their timing on lands other than those the BLM administers. However, when an action takes place on public land, it may cause direct or indirect effects on non-federal lands. For example, a wildfire that begins on public land may bum to adjacent private land, or noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation infestations that begin on public land may infest adjacent private land. This EIS also considers the likely effects on public lands from reasonably foreseeable actions occurring on non- federal land. For example, agricultural use of non-federal land may potentially have direct impacts on terrestrial wildlife species that move between federal and non-federal lands during the year or during their life cycle. The role of the management of non-federal lands was considered in the analysis on these species and their associated ecosystems. Localized actions on non-federal lands often affect local environmental conditions on nearby federal land and may also affect federal management decisions. 3.2.2.3.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Numerous past and present actions on and near the 3 Bars Project area have contributed to existing conditions on the 3 Bars Project area. These include actions by entities with an interest in vegetation management, including nearby federal land management agencies, the State of Nevada, Eureka County and other local governments, and private landowners including ranchers and farmers, and private development. Past and present actions considered in the 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-5 September 2013 Humboldt County County Battle / Mountain Pershing * / Cou nty / Lander County County White Pine County Austih Eurek United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office OSSRH3S9T 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ Nye County (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) m J 1 V / - I / -v-'f* TT J’ © 1 J 1 s . v. ' i Ir > II K \ v-~V Jt \ - '\.rv - 1 W i X \ ' x L T 1 I i / r 1 i / / / 1 i / 1 \ \ VI X J . J{ ’ : * V6 / • • 1 ' / / ■ ■ xwfr > / \ ' ® J Legend Air Quality CESA Cultural CESA (5 mi. buffer) |T"[| Grazing Allotment CESA I 1 Herd Management Area CESA I I Native American CESA Socioeconomic CESA 3 Bars Ecosystem and Water Resources, Wildfire, Landscape Restoration Project Soils, and Vegetation CESA Visual Resources and Recreation CESA (15 mi. buffer) Wildlife CESA Figure 3-1 Cumulative Effects Study Areas (10 mi. buffer) 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 201 2d, 2013b. 20 a Miles No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for Individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This Information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES cumulative effects analysis include noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation treatments and the use of herbicides; grazing, agriculture, and the use and harvest of woodland products; utility infrastructure and distribution networks; wildfires, fuels management, and reseeding; habitat stabilization and rehabilitation; livestock and wild horse management activities; recreation; land development; mineral development and exploration; and oil, gas, and geothermal leasing and development. In addition, the BLM identified reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect conditions on the 3 Bars Project area and that should be addressed in the cumulative effects analysis. These projects and activities have the potential to impact the environmental resources of concern within all or portions of the various CESAs. The following summarizes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or will occur in one or more of the 3 Bars Project CESAs. Grazing and Grazing Management, Range Improvement, and Allotment Management Past land uses on lands in the CESA and throughout the western U.S. have resulted in changes in the vegetation community from its historic ecological site characteristics. Much of the land degradation that has occurred within the 3 Bars ecosystem has been attributed to historic livestock grazing, including land disturbance that has led to the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and expansion of pinyon-juniper woodland beyond its historical ranges (USDOI BLM 2009a). Livestock often congregate near streams, springs, and wetlands and have contributed to the loss of riparian habitat and forage, and degradation of stream channels and their ability to function properly and provide abundant and high quality water for livestock. Humans have also been a major factor in influencing vegetation distribution, including human actions that have altered fire regimes and caused the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation. Livestock grazing has been, and continues to be, a dominant land use in Eureka County and the adjoining portions of Elko, Lander, White Pine, and Nye Counties. Multiple grazing allotments have been permitted and administered by the BLM during the past half century. The carrying capacity of these allotments has been adjusted over the years in response to mineral development, drought, wildfires, availability of stock water, and rangeland condition. Surface water sources that support livestock grazing and agriculture within the CESAs include reservoirs, perennial creeks, springs, and seeps. Improved water sources include developed springs, stock wells, stock ponds, water pipelines, and troughs. Livestock will generally congregate near these features. Cow-calf pairs, heifers, steers, bulls, and sheep graze on residual forage in alfalfa fields, irrigated pastures, and rangeland within Eureka County and the adjoining portions of Elko, Lander, White Pine, and Nye Counties. In addition, a substantial amount of four-strand (three barbed and one smooth wire on the bottom) wire fencing has been constructed within the CESAs. Past and present range and habitat improvement projects have resulted in changes to vegetation communities. The actual acreage for this has not been quantified, however, some of these projects arc range improvements that include fences, cattleguards, noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation control, water troughs, spring improvements, wells, reservoirs, windmills and tanks, and pipelines. Open range livestock operations are expected to continue on public lands within the CESA at management levels that have been established through allotment-specific grazing decisions. Fenced feeding operations occur on fenced private lands within the CESAs and are expected to continue as well (Figure 3-2). Short-term (typically 2 to 4 years) temporary suspensions to Animal Unit Months (AUMs) would be expected in response to prescribed fires and the resultant temporary loss of forage, to allow for vegetation establishment and stabilization. The pcnnittce(s) can choose whether to run fewer animals or run animals for less time in response to temporary suspensions of AUMs. The 3 liars Project Draft I , IS 3-7 September 2013 HOW THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WERE EVALUATED BFM will continue to monitor resource conditions and utilization levels to determine if changes in the current terms and conditions of the grazing permit will be required to ensure the long-term success of rangeland treatments. Any changes to the permitted use would be completed through the issuance of subsequent grazing decisions in accordance with 43 CFR §§41 10.3, 4130.3-3, and 4160. Range improvement projects arc also proposed as part of ongoing livestock management programs at the BLM Mount Lewis Field Office and could include: • allotment/pasture fences, exclosurc fences, and drift fence construction • seeding and seeding maintenance • vegetation manipulation • noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation population control • fence relocation • water hauls • maintenance of wells and troughs • spring developments In order to ensure long-term success, restoration projects would not be conducted in areas with moderate to severe forage utilization until mitigation measures associated with grazing management, as discussed in Section 3.17.4, are implemented. This would occur through agreements or decisions subsequent to the 3 Bars Project Record of Decision to ensure proper utilization levels during the appropriate season of use. The BLM would work with permittees on a permit-by-permit basis to address any changes in livestock management due to treatment implementation. In all instances, appropriate changes in livestock management through agreements or decisions would be finalized prior to project implementation. The BLM would also manage livestock to meet greater sage-grouse habitat objectives. These objectives include having a sagebrush cover of greater than 20 percent, and total shrub cover of greater than 40 percent for nesting cover; ensuring that at least five plant species used by greater sage-grouse broods are present in brood-rearing areas; ensuring that sagebrush canopy cover equals or exceeds 1 0 percent, and sagebrush height equals or exceeds 25 centimeters in the winter use area; and ensuring that allowable use levels for livestock for herbaceous species are less than or equal to 45 percent in mountain big sagebrush, and 35 percent in Wyoming big and black sagebrush stands, and less than or equal to 35 percent for all sagebrush types for utilization of shrub species (USDOI BLM 2013g). Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Non-native Vegetation Noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation arc found within the 3 Bars Project area and adjacent lands (Figure 3-2). The BLM uses an integrated vegetation management approach to prevent, control, or contain noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, using, but not limited to, manual, mechanical, biological, fire, and chemical methods. In an integrated vegetation management program, each management option is considered and/or used in combination with another, recognizing that no one management option is a stand-alone option and that each has its strengths and weaknesses. No individual method will eradicate undesirable vegetation in a single treatment; multiple treatments may be required. The effects of these treatment methods were analyzed for 1 7 western states, including Nevada, in the 17-States PEIS and PER (USDOI BLM 2007b, c). 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-8 September 20 1 3 Project Area ~H Mount Lewis J Field J Office Battle Mountain District County ' ^-Trail . ^Canyon-Seea HarvestlArea’ Lander United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office H-HH®SSCTT 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) County s A | IKS! VltL I \ u fir, t . “ . h |j - It ' TtEiV 3r '♦EW1' v ' * U M o | ' ’> V . r. • . J 2 1 tfi wtH-apet siv.ivi ■ Legend Range Improvements Noxious Weed Treatments ♦ Cattle Guard Hi Canada thistle 0 Corral Musk thistle ▼ Gate Hi Perennial pepperweed m Reservoir Russian knapweed Spring Scotch thistle 0 Stock Tank/Trough/Waterhaul Tamarisk * Windmill/Well ■■ Whitetop/Hoary cress ■ Other Water Development □ Allotment Boundaries Fence ■1 Irrigated Cropland I 1 Range Improvement Treatment C2 Commercial Pine Nut Sale Area Hi Private Fuelwood and Christmas Tree Harvest Area Seed Harvest Area f Z2 Grazing Allotment CESA T Z? Herd Management Area CESA 3 3 Bars Project Area Source: USGS 2004; AECOM 2011a; BUM 2012d,e, 2013b, c.d.e. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-2 Cumulative Impacts from Grazing, Agriculture, and Forest Product Activities 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Milas Kilometers 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 t No warranty it made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This Information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice HOW THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WERE EVALUATED The BLM treated about 250 acres of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation on the 3 Bars Project area during 201 1 using herbicides. Key species targeted for treatments included cheatgrass, hoary cress, musk and Scotch thistles, and Russian knapweed. Treatments within the CESAs are also conducted by the Diamond Valley Weed Control District and private landowners. The BLM and other landowners within the CESA would continue noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation inventory, treatment, and monitoring within the vegetation CESAs. Historically, the BLM has used ground-based methods, including hand-held sprayers, truck mounted sprayers, and all- terrain vehicles to control local occurrences of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation as authorized by the Environmental Assessment Integrated Weed Management Plan Battle Mountain District Nevada Mt. Lewis Field Office and Tonopah Field Office (USDOI BLM 2009b). The BLM can also use herbicides on areas burned by wildfires under Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation authorizations. Most treatments in the future would also be conducted using ground-based methods. The BLM is authorized to use the 18 herbicide active ingredients authorized in the 17-States PEIS. Pesticide Use Proposals have been developed by the Battle Mountain District BLM for 1 1 herbicides — 2,4-D, clopyralid, chlorsulfuron, dicamba, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfiiron methyl, picloram, tebuthiuron, and triclopyr. In 201 1, only five herbicide active ingredients were used on the 3 Bars Project area — 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, metsulfiiron methyl, and picloram. Imazapyr was used as a stand-alone herbicide, while 2,4-D was tank mixed with metsulfiiron methyl and with picloram, and glyphosate and metsulfiiron methyl were tank mixed together. About 80 percent of treatments involved the use of 2,4-D in a tank mix with metsulfiiron methyl. Specific herbicide characteristics and approved use areas are discussed in the 17-State PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007b:2-9 to 2-16). The BLM has applied herbicides aerially in the past to treat noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and may use helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft to apply herbicides in the future. Should aerial spraying occur in the future, the BLM anticipates only using 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, and metsulfiiron methyl, all of which are labeled for this specific application method. Operation of helicopters is more expensive than operation of fixed- wing aircraft, but helicopters are more maneuverable and more effective in areas with irregular terrain. Helicopters are also more effective for treating targeted vegetation in areas with multiple vegetation types. Ground-based herbicide treatments would continue as the primary treatment method in riparian areas, while aerial herbicide applications would primarily occur in larger, more expansive areas to treat cheatgrass. However, treatments could occur anywhere in the CESA where Nevada-listed noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation are found. Irrigated Crops and Irrigation Facilities on Private Lands Approximately 24,357 acres are under irrigation in Diamond Valley, and 280 acres were under irrigation in Kobeh Valley in 201 1. Agricultural development in Pine Valley was approximately 5,100 acres in 2007 (USDOI BLM 2012c). Irrigation facilities and irrigation of crops are only permitted on private lands, with the exception of ditches that require a right-of-way. Continued agricultural activities in Diamond Valley, Kobeh Valley, and Pine Valley are reasonably expected to occur in the form of flood and pivot irrigation (USDOI BLM 2012c). Irrigated croplands near the 3 Bars Project area are shown on Figure 3-2. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-10 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ft bod/and Products Private fuelwood, Christmas tree, and pine nut harvest areas are found within the CESAs (Figure 3-2). Commercial pine nut harvesting occurs under permits issued by the Mount Lewis Field Office. Yearly commercial pine nut harvesting is very sporadic, based on the tree production of cones and nuts. Other woodland product harvesting activities include the commercial and personal cutting of pinyon pine and Utah juniper for firewood, the personal cutting of pinyon pine for Christmas trees, the greenwood cutting of primarily juniper for fence posts, and commercial and personal harvesting of pine nuts (USDOI BLM 2012c). Personal use of woodland products would occur in the future in the CESAs. Public and tribal pine nut and woodland products harvesting would continue based on the trees’ production of cones and nuts. Commercial firewood and pine nut harvesting could occur in the Sulphur Spring Range, Roberts Mountains, and Whistler Mountains in the 3 Bars Project area, and in the Fish Creek Range in Eureka County. Wild Horse Management Activities Wild horse gathers to achieve the Appropriate Management Level (AML) were conducted in the Roberts Mountain Herd Management Area (HMA) in 1987, 1995, 2001, and 2008. Drought-stressed wild horses were gathered from the Whistler Mountain HMA in 2001, in conjunction with the Roberts Mountain gather. The Whistler Mountain HMA was gathered with the Roberts Mountain HMA in 2008. The Kobeh Valley area outside the Fish Creek HMA was gathered in 1994 and 2008. The Rocky Hills HMA was gathered in 1997, 1999, 2009, and 2010, and fertility control was implemented during the last two gathers. The objective of BLM wild horse gathers has been to remove wild horses from outside of designated HMA boundaries, achieve and maintain the established AMLs, and in recent years, treat and/or re-treat mares for fertility control to reduce population growth rates. During gathers, the BLM does not remove all wild horses within an HMA. Either a portion of the population remains uncaptured or the BLM selects wild horses to release back to the range. This helps to achieve the low range of the AML and allows the population to increase for about 3 to 4 years before another gather would be required. To date, approximately 1,200 wild horses have been removed from the Roberts Mountain Complex, which includes the Roberts Mountain, Whistler Mountain, and Fish Creek North HMAs, and 650 wild horses from the Rocky Hills HMA. Future wild horse management activities within these HMAs could include AML reviews and adjustments, adjustments to HMA boundaries, fence removal, enhancement of existing water sources and development of new water sources, and implementation of range improvement projects. Methods used to control wild horse populations would primarily involve gathers to remove excess animals to control populations, and fertility control through injections of immunocontraceptives. These activities would help to maintain herd numbers near sustainable levels and to distribute wild horses more evenly across the rangeland. The BLM is also guided by the Nevada Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council to promote healthy rangelands through implementation of standards and guidelines for maintaining healthy wild horse herds on HMAs. Fuels Management and Habitat Improvement Projects The BLM is conducting ongoing, previously authorized, fuels treatments on approximately 17,378 acres in the CESA. These include: Eureka-South Diamond Valley Wildland Urban Interface Treatments (2,087 total acres, 247 acres still to be treated; USDOI BLM 2003a, 2006); Red Hills (3,671 total acres, 859 acres still to be treated; USDOI BLM 2005a); Sulphur Spring Hazardous Fuels Reduction Treatments (8,620 total acres, 6,420 acres still to be treated; 3-1 1 3 liars Project Draft EIS September 20 1 3 HOW THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WERE EVALUATED USDOI BLM 2009d); Tonkin ( 1 ,000 total acres, 650 acres still to be treated; USDOl BLM 2005b); and Roberts Mountains Habitat Enhancement Project (2,000 total acres, 500 still to be treated; USDOI BLM 2007d). Of the 8,676 acres still to be treated, about 8,021 acres would be treated using manual and mechanical methods, and 655 acres would be treated using prescribed fire. In addition, the BLM would seed or plant many of the acres after treatment to restore native vegetation, and would continue to monitor past treatments, and treat as necessary, to mitigate any noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation that may establish in treatment areas and ensure that treatments meet established goals. In addition to these projects, the BLM would continue to conduct projects to slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and restore lands degraded by wildfire, which are allowed under previously approved authorizations. If the No Action Alternative (Alternative D) is selected, it is likely that the BLM would authorize additional treatments within the 3 Bars ecosystem to meet the goals in the Shoshone-Eureka RMP, including hazardous fuels reduction, stream restoration, and fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects. These projects may be similar to those proposed under the action alternatives, but under Alternative D, these projects would have to be analyzed individually under separate NEPA analyses. These projects would likely be similar to those described in the previous paragraph, but would be smaller in size and would take longer to implement than would be the case for treatments under the action alternatives. It is estimated that the BLM would conduct about 1,500 acres of treatments annually under current and future authorizations under the No Action Alternative, not including treatments that would be conducted as part of rehabilitation of lands burned by wildfires. While the acreage burned by wildfires in a given year is sporadic and highly variable, since 1985 wildfires have burned an average of 4,200 acres annually within the 3 Bars Project area and an average of 6,900 acres annually within watersheds that are wholly or partially within the CESAs, and several large fires have occurred within the CESA since 1985 (Figure 3-3). The BLM and local fire districts would continue to conduct fire suppression activities when wildfires occur within the CESAs. The scale and scope of those acti vities would be proportional to the size of the wildfire and its proximity to structures. Recreation Dispersed recreation opportunities include sightseeing, pleasure driving, rock collecting, photography, winter sports, off-highway vehicle use, mountain biking, picnicking, camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, and Pony Express Trail re- rides. This wide range of opportunities is possible because virtually all of the public lands in the CESAs are accessible to the public and offer a variety of settings suitable for different recreational activities. Numerous roads provide access to off-highway vehicle users within the CESA (Figure 3-4). Recreational use within the CESA is likely to increase proportionally to changes in population, with dispersed outdoor recreational activities being the predominant type of recreation. Utilities and Infrastructure Past utility and distribution actions include the development of roads, powcrlines, and telecommunications, as well as public water supply and wastewater systems. Roads have been developed by the federal government and the State ot Nevada (U.S. Highway 50, State Route 278, and State Route 892), Eureka County and adjoining counties, the BLM, and the Forest Service. The town of Eureka is in southeastern Eureka County. Individual ranches and farms comprise the remainder of the inhabited areas in southern Eureka County and the surrounding counties of Lander, Nyc, White Pine, and Elko. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-12 September 2013 Sulphur > Spring* Tonkin ■NW Diamond k Valley WUI Diamond 'Vallgy WUI YEureka Eureka WUlY v.xfcV White United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office fhSSHGBSsnr 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ 3m ue4»*i (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Fire Starts (1985 - 2008) Large Fire Perimeter (1985-2012) Fuels Reduction Unit Fire and Fuels CESA Legend Fire Reseeding 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-3 Fire Defense System Assessment | Shrub/Grass Sagebrush/Pinyon-juniper | 3 Bars Project Area Cumulative Impacts from Wildland Fires, Fuels Management, and Reseeding 0 1 2 3 4 S 10 MilSS Kilometers 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Source: BLM 2012d,f,g, 201 3f. No warranty »s made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards Thie product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice v v!Ca33jg.n'fenj S , ^.aKeservoir) JA •* v^n" . ^cs : iJjarikinKpring-tg SIMPSON 'tPARKtff >K> \ me‘ United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office \WWfy 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain. NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Travel Route Accessible to: All Vehicles High Clearance Vehicles 4 Wheel Drive Vehicles All-terrain Vehicles (ATV) O Spring § Reservoir Fishing Stream Wm Wilderness Study Area L J Visual and Recreation CESA | 3 Bars Project Area Source: U.S. Census 2009, 2010a, b, 2011da BLM 201 2d, g; USGS 2012a Figure 3-4 Cumulative Impacts from Recreation and Wilderness No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Three general types of roads have been developed within Eureka County and the adjoining counties — paved roads, gravel surface roads, and dirt roads. There are two major travel routes within the CESAs— U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 278. Development of additional roads is probable; however, most of these roads may be unauthorized dirt roads created during motorized recreational use of public lands in the CESAs, and paved or unpaved roads associated with development in or near the town of Eureka. It is reasonable to expect that traffic would increase in volume on the two major travel routes (U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 278) in the CESAs, as well as on the other county roads in proportion to an expected increase in economic activity and population growth, although no estimate was made on the miles of new roads and railroads and acres of disturbance in the reasonably foreseeable future (Figure 3-5). Two major transmission powerlines are in Eureka County, distributing power in the State of Nevada as part of the power grid. One is the Falcon-Gonder line that travels from north of Beowawe, Nevada, through the project area to U.S. Highway 50 and then east to Ely, Nevada. The other main transmission line is an east-west line that parallels U.S. Highway 50. In addition, there are power distribution lines in Diamond Valley and the town of Eureka and to most of the remote ranches and mining operations within the CESA boundaries. The town of Eureka and the Devils Gate General Improvement District in Diamond Valley have a community water supply system, which is supplied primarily from ground water wells in Diamond Valley, as well as springs in the Pinto Summit area (USDOI BLM 2012c). The town of Eureka is planning to expand beyond its current limits of development and will require additional infrastructure to support the needs of the community. The need for new transmission lines within this portion of the Nevada is not anticipated, however, as existing rights-of ways can accommodate additional transmission line development and it is reasonable to expect that additional utility distribution and telephone lines would be constructed. Mineral Development and Exploration There are ten historic mining districts that occur within the geology and minerals CESA in Eureka County — Alpha, Antelope, Diamond, Eureka, Fish Creek, Lone Mountain, Mineral Hill, Mount Hope, Roberts, and Union. The Alpha District is in the Sulphur Spring Range. The Antelope District is on the western flank of Roberts Mountains. The Diamond District is north of the town of Eureka on the west flank of the Diamond Mountains. The Eureka District, is in the vicinity of the town of Eureka. The Fish Creek District is southwest of the town of Eureka in the Fish Creek Range. The Lone Mountain District is on the north flank of Lone Mountain in Kobeh Valley. The Mineral Hill District is on the northwest flank of the Sulphur Spring Range. The Mount Hope District is on the southeast flank of Mount Hope and is where the Mount Hope Project is being constructed. The Roberts District is on the west flank of the Simpson Park Mountains. The Union District is on the north flank of the Sulphur Spring Range. Surface disturbance associated with these operations has not been quantified, however, the value is likely in the range of several hundreds to a few thousand acres. From the mid-1960s to the present, mineral resource development within the CESA has principally been gold production from four mining operations: Gold Bar, Windfall, Tonkin Springs, and Ruby Hill. The Gold Bar Mine is found in the Antelope District in the southern Roberts Mountains and closed in the 1990s. The Ruby Hill mine is active and is in the Eureka District. The Windfall-Rustler and Lookout Mountain (Ratto Canyon) mines are in 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-15 September 20 1 3 Mour tam j f* I Project I blttr t J H< Id v ^r'Vj nrfke Battle Mountain ■District f ^ CESA Maximum Extent ■ Agriculture ■F Airport * Communication Site < Drill Pad * Dump ® Exclusion Area A Fire Station □ Historical Site * Material Site Legend Monitoring Site Monument Non-Energy Facility Power Facilities Pump Station Range Improvement Recreation Site Right of Way Stream Gaging Station Study Plot Trespass Water Pumping Plant Well Undefined Railroad Interstate Hwy U.S. Hwy State Hwy Other Road Fence Irrigation Facilities Pipeline Telephone Line Transmission Line Irrigated Crop Land Exchange Land Treatment Area Lease 3 Bars Project Area United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-5 Cumulative Impacts from Utilities and Infrastructure 0 2 4 6 8 10 Source: U.S. Census 2009, 2010a, b, 2011a; BLM 2012c, d . 3 Kilometer* 0 2 4 6 8 10 20 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the southern portion of the Eureka District and exploration is ongoing. The Tonkin Springs Mine is currently in closure. Activities associated with mining, exploration, and extraction would continue to occur in the CESA and would be likely to occur in the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-6). There are no active mines within the 3 Bars Project area, although the 8,3 18 acre Mount Hope Project, which is within the 3 Bars Project boundary, is under construction and is scheduled to begin operations in mid- to late 2015. McEwen Mining recently purchased the Gold Bar facilities from U.S. Gold Corporation and is conducting baseline work in anticipation of reinitiating mining on the property. Exploration is also occurring in the Red Hills area and at the north end of Rocky Hills. Gibellini vanadium mine, south of the town of Eureka, has submitted a Plan of Operations to the BLM and preparation of an EIS has begun. There are about 385 acres of sand and gravel materials sites within the Mining Operations and Geothermal, Oil, and Gas CESA. Of these, about 55 acres are within the 3 Bars Project area. Oil, Gas , and Geothermal Leasing and Development There are oil and gas leases throughout the CESAs (Figure 3-6). Four oil fields have been developed in Pine Valley. These oil fields are in Eureka County and are administered by the BLM Elko District. There are two geothermal projects within the Mining Operations and Geothermal, Oil, and Gas CESA. The McGinness Hills geothermal project is in Grass Valley, Lander County, and is west of the 3 Bars Project area. The Beowawe geothermal project is in Whirlwind Valley, northern Eureka County, and is north of the 3 Bars Project area. Both projects are in operation. As energy demands increase and advancements in exploration and drilling technology lead to development of previously unexplored resources, oil, natural gas, and geothermal leasing and exploration are likely to increase. Increased economic incentive may also lead to an increase in exploration and development as oil prices rise, although no exploration or development permit applications for projects in the CESAs have recently been submitted to the BLM. There would be additional disturbance associated with oil and gas and geothermal exploration and development as projects are proposed. All future proposed actions within the CESAs would be analyzed when a lessee submits plans for the action. The BLM would have the ability to limit discretionary activities on public lands, such as oil, natural gas, and geothermal leasing, because of the potential for listing of the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and possibility that leasing actions could adversely impact greater sage-grouse. Land Development The town of Eureka comprises approximately 880 acres. The majority of the town area lies along U.S. Highway 50. In addition, approximately 700 acres have been identified for residential or commercial development in the Diamond Valley area. The town of Eureka and the Diamond Valley community consist of roads, residences, commercial and public buildings, powerlines, fences, and other related development. There has been little industrial activity within the CESAs except for mineral development activities discussed above. There are also cement batch plants in the town of Eureka and Diamond Valley (USDOI BLM 2012c). Approximately 23,000 acres within Diamond Valley and within the project area have been identified for disposal in the Shoshone-Eureka RMP. Public land sales are considered possible under reasonably foreseeable future actions. The BLM is evaluating a proposed 150-acre land sale associated with the Ruby Hill Mine. Other potential land sales could include lands associated with community development or specific resource development projects. Any future land 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-17 September 20 1 3 Poverty Peak GiJtd Circle Rock Creek Beaver Hollister / y / Underground Gold and Silv^rTMinfe Project 3 / V>| ° / Bdots|5ap/Vo / Wells nsion I Arturo Open Prt Gold Mine Project' Iron Point Swales lyiountai Izenhpoi Gold'Q u a rrp Mine \L 1 'Expansion fjroject^ Mountaii Huntington Creek (Elko) Argenta (metallic’ Argenta (non metallic) Safford Beowawe robin ani jSohoma IRartsel Delker ^Valley View Harrison Pass Mountain Modarelli- Frenchie- tlreek Springs o o ave Creek lullion Warm Springs- (Lander) Union » (Eureka Elko) ^ 'Diamond :QUnt Roberts Mount^Hope Molybdenum .'i i m. . MinelProject Callaghan Ranch— 'enswboi Lone Mountain (Eureka )y Newark Pancake, Washington (Nye Landed United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ JW Northumberl (Prepared by MLFO - 09/10/13) jyy q u - a | Buffalo 1 / ^ Mountain / North Battle Legend Oil and Gas Wells through 2006 • Active Production Well Abandoned Well with Evidence of Oil and/or Gas Encountered while Drilling Abandoned Well with No Evidence of Oil or Gas Encountered while Drilling Geothermal Lease Mineral Resources o Precious Metals o Base Metals • Sand and Gravel I 1 Mining District L J CESA Maximum Extent 3 Bars Project Area Source: Tingley, J.V. 1998; Garside and Hess 2007; BLM 2011c, 20 1 2d ; USGS 2012a 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-6 Cumulative Impacts from Mining Operations and Oil and Gas Production t No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES sales that were not within disposal areas identified in the Shoshone-Eurcka RMP would be subject to congressional requirements in the implementing legislation. Public lands converted to private ownership would be subject to all applicable state environmental laws. If a land sale involved community development land, there would likely be a future change in use from wildlife habitat to residential or commercial development. If a land sale involved an ongoing resource development project, current resource activities would likely continue into the future with possible expansion. After the resource activity has been completed, the land could be restored to uses such as livestock grazing and wildlife habitat, which would be the use if the land remained under BLM management, or could be converted to other uses. Long-term use of privatized land would be subject to any covenants agreed to at the time of sale. Information on areas identified for disposal can be found in the 1986 Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area ROD (USDOI BLM 1986a:5) on the BLM Battle Mountain District Office website at URL: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/battle mountain ficld/blm programs/planning/resource management.html. 3.2.2.4 Set of Receptors to be Assessed The set of receptors assessed in the cumulative effects analysis are the natural, cultural, and social resources discussed in this chapter. 3.2.2.5 Magnitude of Effects and whether Those Effects are Accumulating The potential extent of the total cumulative effects (e.g., number of animals and habitat affected), and how long the effects might last (e.g., population recovery time) are estimated to determine the magnitude of effects that could accumulate for each resource. Where possible, the assessment of effects on a resource is based on quantitative analysis (e.g., acres affected by treatment activity). However, many effects are difficult to quantify (e.g., animal behaviors; human perceptions) and a qualitative assessment of effects is made. As suggested by the CEQ, this EIS considers the following basic types of effects that might occur: • Additive - total loss of sensitive resources from more than one incident. • Countervailing - negative effects are compensated for by beneficial effects. • Synergistic - total effect is greater than the sum of the effects taken independently. The cumulative effects analysis assumes that maintenance of past treatments has occurred, and that the BLM would make an investment in maintaining the condition achieved or the objectives of the project, rather than implementing stand-alone, one-time treatments. The analysis also assumes that the BLM would determine the need for the action based on past monitoring, and that additional monitoring would occur after the project to ascertain if effects are still accumulating or if the treatment has been effective in achieving the resource objective. 3.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Commitments Unavoidable adverse commitments arc those commitments that could occur as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives. Some of these effects would be short term, while others would be long term. 3 liars Project Draft I IS 3-19 September 20 1 3 HOW THE EFFECTS OF T1 IE ALTERNATIVES WERE EVALUATED 3.2.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Irreversible commitments are those commitments that cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long term. This term applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrcnewablc resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to factors, such as soil productivity, that are renewable only over long periods of time. Irretrievable commitments arc those commitments that are lost for a period of time. For example, timber production is lost while an area is mined. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If the site is reclaimed, it is possible to resume timber production. 3.2.5 Resource Protection Measures Considered in the Effects Analysis The impacts assessment assumes that SOPs, monitoring measures, and mitigation developed by the BLM for the alternatives would be adopted to protect environmental and socioeconomic resources on public lands (Appendix C). In addition, a number of federal, state, local, and tribal resource management and monitoring programs have been established to protect environmental resources and, in cases where there is existing environmental impairment, to effect restoration. The assessment of cumulative impacts recognizes the existence of these programs and assumes that the mandate under which each program was established will continue. The effects analysis assumes that these programs effectively avoid or mitigate the environmental impacts that they are designed to address. The programs are discussed in the sections that follow. 3.2.6 Incomplete and Unavailable Information This E1S discusses the baseline environment that exists today, and impacts from treatments that the Mount Lewis Field Office proposes to conduct during life of the project. It is assumed that baseline conditions would change little during the expected life of this EIS (about 10 to 15 years). Still, treatments could occur during the life of this EIS that are substantially different from those evaluated in this EIS. If so, the Mount Lewis Field Office would conduct additional NEPA analysis to assess those projects’ effects. The analysis of impacts of the treatments in this EIS is based on the best and most recent information available. As is always the case when developing management direction for a wide range of resources, not all information that might be desired is available. The CEQ regulations provide direction on how to proceed with the preparation of an EIS when information is incomplete or unavailable: “If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement: 1) a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; 2) a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; 3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; and 4) the agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the purposes of this section, “reasonably foreseeable” includes “impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the impacts is supported by 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-20 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason” (40 CFR § 1502.22 b). For this EIS, the primary effect of unavailable information is the inability to quantify certain impacts. Where quantification was not possible, impacts have been described in qualitative terms. A summary of existing credible scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on the human and socioeconomic environment and supports the BLM’s evaluation of such impacts has been included in Chapter 3, in the appendices that accompany this EIS, and in supporting documents that were prepared for this EIS. There are also uncertainties associated with the assessment process used to determine the effects from the use of the treatment methods. Our knowledge of risks to the environment from treatment methods continually evolves. Our knowledge is, and always will be, incomplete regarding many aspects of terrestrial and aquatic species; ecology of the lands administered by the BLM; the economy; society; the types of vegetative threats the Field Office will face in future years; funding; and changes in government policy. To reduce the level of uncertainty, the best available information was used, and it was assumed that future treatment actions, funding, and government policies, as they apply to BLM-administered lands, would be similar to actions and policies that have occurred in recent years. Should these conditions change and as the best available science emerges such that assumptions made in this EIS are no longer valid, the Mount Lewis Field Office would conduct additional NEPA analysis to better understand risks from their treatments. 3.3 General Setting 3.3.1 Project Area The 3 Bars Project area is in northern Eureka County, Nevada (Figure 3-7). The project area spans about 750,000 acres and includes three major mountain ranges (Roberts Mountains, Simpson Park Mountains, and the Sulphur Spring Range). The project area is located in the central portion of the Basin and Range physiographic province. Within the project area, surface elevations range from approximately 10,100 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the peak of Roberts Mountains in the middle of the project area, to approximately 5,450 feet along Pine Creek at the northern edge of the project area. Other high elevation areas within the project include the Simpson Park Mountains (ranging generally from 7,600 to 8,200 feet amsl) along the western part of the project area, and Table Mountain and the Sulphur Spring Range (the latter ranging generally from 7,400 to 7,800 feet amsl) in the northeast. Lower elevations are approximately 6,070 feet amsl along U.S. Highway 50; approximately 5,830 feet amsl in Diamond Valley, approximately 5,640 feet amsl in the northwest comer of the project area, and approximately 5,480 feet amsl along Henderson Creek in Garden Valley in the northern part of the project area. Block faulting in the area has resulted in generally north-south trending mountain ranges. Structural deformation has resulted in a series of valleys separated by mountain ranges. The three valleys of interest that are within the ecosystem are Diamond, Kobeh, and Pine Valleys (Figure 3-7). 3.3.2 Ecoregions There are nine ecoregions within the project area (Figure 3-8; Bryce et al. 2003). Ecoregions are geographic areas that are delineated and defined by similar climatic conditions, geomorphology, and soils (Bailey 1997, 2002). Since these factors are relatively constant over time and strongly influence the ecology of vegetative communities, 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-21 September 20 1 3 j LITTLE HUMBOLDT RIVER Humboldt County County Pershing -Mountain County j CHIN W l MOUNTAIN / . IQ -os y SPRING 'ElilUD ;EBAR RIDGE County TOBIN [RANGE AUGUSTA [MOUNTAINS Lander County ROBERTS moIKIn SIMPSON [park! ’ White Pine County Eureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office \ 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 V Nye County (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) / c- [ ■ . i \ - \V - -- - i iV ft 1 s / l.;; ' C'.v ; f /7 ■_ (k\ ** Legend 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Interstate Highway U.S. Highway State Highway Major Road • City or Town LT“j CESA Maximum Extent Wilderness Study Area 3 Bars Project Area Figure 3-7 Study Area Source: BLM 201 2d. g. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards, This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. | I Elko County Eureka County ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ Jr (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) k» *1 ffw, ^ ‘"d** . r " I ii |SLv. • riL«.£& * 'Sin ' Basin and Range Salt Deserts Shadscale-dominated Saline Basins Legend ■1 13r 13s Central Nevada High Valleys Central Nevada Mid-slope Woodland and Brushland 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-8 Lahontan and Tonopah Playas Carbonate Sagebrush Valleys Carbonate Woodland Zone 1 I 13t Central Nevada Bald Mountains 13z Upper Lahontan Basin 3 Bars Project Area Source: USEPA 2012a Ecoregions of the 3 Bars Project Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 Kilometers 10 10 3 Miles No warranty it made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice GENERAL SETTING ecoregions may have similar potentials and responses to disturbance (Clarke and Bryce 1997; Jensen et al. 1997). Ecoregions, therefore, provide a useful framework for organizing, interpreting, and predicting changes to vegetation following management treatments. These ecoregions are discussed below. Several ecological sites occur within each respective ecoregion. Finer scale descriptions of the soils, vegetation, and associated plant community dynamics can be obtained from the ecological site descriptions for the ecological sites correlated to specific soils within the project area. A list of the dominant ecological sites can be found in Section 3.1 1.2.2 based on ecological site descriptions. Rangeland landscapes are divided into ecological sites for the purposes of inventory, evaluation, and management. An ecological site, as defined for rangeland, is a distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation. The ecological site descriptions are based on physiographic, climatic, vegetative, and soil factors for each soil association. 3.3.2.1 Lahontan and Tonopah Playas The nearly level and often barren Lahontan and Tonopah Playas ecoregion contains mud flats, alkali flats, and intermittent saline lakes, such as the Black Rock Desert, Carson Sink, and Sarcobatus Flat. Marshes, remnant lakes, and playas are all that remain of Pleistocene Lake Lahontan, which was once the size of Lake Erie. Playas occur at the lowest elevations in the Lahontan Basin and represent the terminus or “sink” of rivers flowing east off the Sierra Nevada. They fill with seasonal runoff from surrounding mountain ranges during winter, providing habitat for migratory birds. Black greasewood or four-winged saltbush may grow around the perimeter in the transition to the salt shrub community, where they often stabilize areas of low sand dunes. This ecoregion has very limited grazing potential. Windblown salt dust from exposed playas may affect upland soils and vegetation. The Lahontan and Tonopah Playas ecoregion is important as wildlife habitat and for some recreational and military uses. 3.3.2.2 Carbonate Sagebrush Valleys The basins and semi-arid uplands of the Carbonate Sagebrush Valleys ecoregion surround the carbonate ranges of eastern Nevada. Like the ranges, the Carbonate Sagebrush Valleys ecoregion is also largely underlain by limestone or dolomite. The combination of summer moisture and a limestone or dolomite substrate affects regional vegetation, particularly in terms of species dominance and elevational distribution. The substrate favors shrubs, such as black sagebrush and winterfat, which can tolerate shallow soil. Even in alluvial soils, root growth may be limited by a hard pan or caliche layer formed by carbonates leaching through the soil and accumulating. As a result, shrub cover is sparse in contrast to other sagebrush-covered ecoregions in Nevada, including the Central Nevada High Valleys ecoregion. The grass understory grades from a dominance of cool season grasses, such as bluebunch wheatgrass, in the north, to warm season grasses, such as blue grama (an indicator of summer rainfall), in the south. 3.3.2.3 Carbonate Woodland Zone In the Carbonate Woodland Zone ecoregion the singleleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper woodland canopy overtops and spans the existing sagebrush and mountain brush communities. The pinyon-juniper woodland has a broader elevational range in the carbonate areas of eastern Nevada than elsewhere in the region, even extending onto the floors of the higher basins, partially because of greater summer precipitation. Both pinyon and juniper decline north of this ecoregion. Historically, miners cut pinyon and juniper for mine timbers. Since the beginning of fire suppression early in the last century, pinyon-juniper woodland has increased in density and expanded into lower sagebrush zones. The woodland understory is diverse due to the influence of carbonate substrates and summer rainfall. There are more 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-24 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES springs and live streams in this ecoregion than in western non-carbonate woodlands (c.g., Central Nevada Mid-Slope Woodland and Brushland ccorcgions) because the carbonate substrate is soluble and porous, allowing rapid infiltration. 3.3.2.4 Central Nevada High Valleys The Central Nevada High Valleys ecoregion contains sagebrush-covered rolling valleys that are generally over 5,000 feet amsl in elevation. Alluvial fans spilling from surrounding mountain ranges fill the valleys, often leaving little intervening flat ground. Wyoming big sagebrush and associated grasses are common on the flatter areas, and black sagebrush dominates on the volcanic hills and alluvial fans. This ecoregion tends to have a lower species diversity than many other sagebrush-dominated ecoregions (including the Carbonate Sagebrush Valleys ecoregion) because of its aridity and its isolation from more species-rich areas. Saline playas may occur on available flats. Less shadscale and fewer associated shrubs surround these playas compared to other lower, more arid ecoregions to the west. Valleys with permanent water support endemic fish species, such as the Monitor Valley speckled dace. 3.3.2.5 Central Nevada Mid-slope Woodland and Brushland The Central Nevada Mid-slope Woodland and Brushland ecoregion at 6,500 to 8,000 feet amsl is analogous in altitudinal range to other woodland areas in Nevada. However, continuous woodland is not as prevalent on the mountains of central Nevada as in other woodland ecoregions. Pinyon-juniper grows only sparsely through the shrub layer due to the combined effects of past fire, logging, and local climate factors, including lack of summer rain and the pattern of winter cold air inversions. Where extensive woodlands do exist, understory diversity tends to be very low, especially in closed canopy areas. Areas of black and Wyoming big sagebrush grade upward into mountain big sagebrush and curl-leaf mountain mahogany, which straddles the transition between this mid-elevation brushland and the mountain brush zone of the higher Central Nevada Bald Mountains ecoregion. 3.3.2.6 Central Nevada Bald Mountains The Central Nevada Bald Mountains ecoregion is dry and mostly treeless. Although they rise only a hundred miles east of the Sierra Nevada, they lack Sierra Nevada species because of the dry conditions. These barren-looking mountains are covered instead by dense mountain brush that is dominated by mountain big sagebrush, western serviceberry, snowberry, and low sagebrush. In moister microsites, scattered groves of curl-leaf mountain mahogany and quaking aspen (aspen) grow above the shrub layer. A few scattered limber pines grow on ranges that exceed 10,000 feet amsl. The Toiyabe Range is high enough to have an alpine zone, but it lacks a suitable substrate to retain snowmelt moisture. The isolation of these “sky islands” has led to the evolution of many rare and endemic plant species. 3.3.2.7 Upper Lahontan Basin The Upper Lahontan Basin ecoregion lies outside of the rain shadow cast by the Sierra Nevada and records somewhat higher rainfall and cooler temperatures than other portions of the Lahontan Basin. It is characterized by the shadscale and greasewood plant community, with Thurber’s needlcgrass common in the understory. This ecoregion has a shorter growing season than the rest of the Lahontan Basin. 3 Bars Project Draft I. IS 3-25 September 20 1 3 GENERAL SETTING 3.3.2.S Salt Deserts The Salt Deserts ceorcgion is composed of nearly level playas, salt Hats, mud Hats, and saline lakes. These features arc characteristic of those in the Bonneville Basin; they have a higher salt content than the Lahontan and Tonopah Playas. Water levels and salinity fluctuate from year to year; during dry periods salt encrustation and wind erosion occur. Vegetation is mostly absent although scattered salt-tolerant plants, such as picklcwced, iodine bush, black greasewood, and inland saltgrass, occur. Soils arc not arable, and there is very limited grazing potential. The salt deserts provide wildlife habitat, and serve some recreational, military, and industrial uses. 3.3.2.9 Shadscale-dominated Saline Basins The Shadscale-dominated Saline Basins ceorcgion is arid, internally drained, and gently sloping to nearly flat. These basins are higher in elevation and colder in winter than the Lahontan Salt Shrub Basin to the west. Light-colored soils with high salt and alkali content occur and are dry for extended periods. The saltbush vegetation common to Shadscale-dominated Saline Basins Ecoregion has a higher tolerance for extremes in temperature, aridity, and salinity than big sagebrush, which dominates the Sagebrush Basins and Slopes ecoregion at somewhat higher elevations. The basins in Nevada, in contrast to those in Utah, arc more constricted in area and more influenced by nearby carbonate mountain ranges, which provide water by percolation through the limestone substrate to valley springs. Isolated valley drainages support endemic fish, such as the Newark Valley tui chub. 3.4 Meteorology and Climate Change 3.4.1 Regulatory Framework On October 30, 2009, the USEPA published a rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (40 CFR § 98) from large greenhouse gas emissions sources in the U.S. Implementation of 40 CFR § 98 is referred to as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 40 CFR § 98 applies to direct greenhouse gas emitters, fossil fuel suppliers, and industrial gas suppliers. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will provide a better understanding of where greenhouse gases are coming from and will guide development of the policies and programs to reduce emissions. The publicly available data will allow greenhouse gas emitters to track their own emissions and compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. In general, the threshold for reporting is 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent per year. Reporting is at the facility level, except for certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases. An estimated 85 to 90 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from approximately 10,000 facilities are covered by this final rule. Most small businesses and mining operations would fall below the 25,000 metric ton threshold and arc not required to report greenhouse gas emissions to USEPA. 3.4.2 Affected Environment 3.4.2. 1 Meteorology Limited meteorological data have been collected in the 3 Bars Project area. Baseline meteorological conditions representative of the project area were assessed using data from nearby monitoring stations in north-central Nevada. Meteorological data from the Elko, Nevada airport, 70 miles north of the project area, was utilized for climate characterization. The Elko monitoring station measures ambient temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-26 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES precipitation at an elevation of approximately 5,080 feet amsl. Meteorological data from the Mercury- Desert Rock monitoring station was also used because the Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control (Nevada BAPC) determined that the meteorological data at that site are most representative for the project area. Local climatic factors include the occurrence of cold air inversions during winter and scarce summer rain. Average maximum temperatures are 86 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July, while average minimum temperatures arc 17 °F in January. Mean annual precipitation varies directly with elevation, ranging from approximately 8 inches per year in the lower valley Boors, up to approximately 1 8 inches per year at the highest elevations in the Roberts Mountains (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1998). Most of the study area receives between 10 and 16 inches of precipitation in an average year. Nearby long-term regional climate stations are at Eureka (station elevation 6,540 feet amsl) and at a USDA site to the north in Diamond Valley (station elevation 5,970 feet amsl). For the Eureka station, averages are indicated in Table 3-3 (Western Region Climate Center 2012). The precipitation climate in the project area is classified as arid, with elevations below 6,500 amsl feet receiving the least amount of precipitation (5 to 9 inches per year), while the mountainous areas are significantly wetter, receiving 1 1 to over 16 inches of precipitation annually (Western Region Climate Center 2012). An arid climate is characterized by low rainfall, low humidity, clear skies, and relatively large annual and diurnal temperature ranges. Net evaporation exceeds precipitation in the project area. Most precipitation accumulates as snow on the mountain ranges. During the spring snowmelt period, water flows from the mountain ranges into the basin fill deposits. As water flows from areas of bedrock outcrop in the mountains toward the valley, it rapidly infiltrates into the basin fill deposits along the range fronts. Thus, most recharge into the basin fill deposits occurs along the margins of the valleys or at higher elevations and not in the central portion of the valleys. However, some streams may flow into the central valley during times of high runoff, causing water to accumulate in the playas (Western Region Climate Center 2012). The BLM operated 3 flow-recording stations and 20 bulk precipitation collection stations in the Coils Creek watershed, a 50-square mile area in the northwestern part of Kobeh Valley, from 1963 to 1980 (Houng-Ming et al. 1983). The average annual precipitation was 1 1.4 inches during the period, but they did not find an increase in precipitation with altitude, which is uncommon in the Great Basin, where orographic lift effects usually produce a well-defined elevation-to-precipitation relationship. Orographic lift occurs when an air mass is forced from a low elevation to a higher elevation as it moves over rising terrain, and often generates clouds and precipitation. The precipitation data from the Coils Creek watershed may indicate unusual storm tracks, a lack of orographic lift effect, or potentially a data problem that cannot be resolved with existing information (Montgomery and Associates 2010). 3.4.2.2 Climate Change Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of man-made greenhouse gas emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due to land management activities on global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these greenhouse gas emissions cause a net wanning effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Although greenhouse gas levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of fossil fuels have caused C02(a greenhouse gas) concentrations to increase dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) recently concluded that “wanning of the climate system is 3 Mars Project Draft BIS 3-27 September 2013 METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE unequivocal” and “most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Several activities contribute to the phenomena of climate change, including emissions of greenhouse gasses (especially C02 and methane) from fossil fuel development, large wildfires, and activities using combustion engines; changes to the natural carbon cycle; and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity from the earth’s surface (albedo). It is important to note that greenhouse gasses would have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal scales. For example, recent emissions of C02 can influence climate for more than 100 years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1 .8 °F from 1 890 to 2006. Models indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. Northern latitudes (above 24° North) have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 2.1 °F since 1900, with nearly a 1.8 °F increase since 1970. Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses arc likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicated that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures would increase 2.5 to 10.4 °F above 1990 levels. The National Academy of Sciences (2010) agrees with these findings, but also has indicated there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect different regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in temperature would not be equally distributed, but arc likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Wanning during the winter months is expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures are more likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Increases in temperatures would increase water vapor in the atmosphere and reduce soil moisture, which would increase generalized drought conditions and enhance heavy storm events. Although large-scale spatial shifts in precipitation distribution may occur, these changes are more uncertain and difficult to predict. TABLE 3-3 Monthly Climate Summary for Eureka, Nevada (1888 through 2012) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Precipitation (inches) 1.07 1.05 1.34 1.34 1.42 0.84 0.68 0.78 0.77 0.89 0.78 0.89 11.85 Total Snowfall (inches) 9.4 9.8 10.2 7.0 3.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.4 6.1 9.4 59.0 Average Maximum Temperature (°F) 38.3 41.2 48.3 57.0 66.0 77.2 86.4 84.3 74.9 63.3 48.8 39.7 60.4 Average Minimum T emperature (°F) 17.1 19.2 23.9 28.9 36.4 44.1 52.9 52.0 43.7 34.6 24.5 18.3 33.0 Source: Western Region Climate Center (2012). 3 Bars Project Drall BIS 3-28 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Karl ct al. (2009) assessed the effects of global climate change impacts in the U.S. They noted that the average temperature in the Southwestern U.S. has increased about 1 .5 °F compared to the 1960-1979 baseline, and is predicted to increase 4 to 10 °F above the historical baseline by the end of the century. Although the Southwest experiences frequent droughts, recent warming in the Southwest is among the most rapid in the nation. This is causing declines in spring snowpack and water in some areas in the Southwest has become limited. Climate change is projected to cause substantial reductions in rain and snowfall in the spring months, when precipitation is most needed to till reservoirs. Despite the greater likelihood of drought, however, the incidence of flooding is expected to increase as the precipitation rate exceeds the infiltration rate, with a trend toward both more frequent extremely dry and extremely wet winters. With wanner temperatures, more precipitation will fall as rain than as snowfall. The increase in rain on snow events will also cause rapid runoff and flooding. Because of temperature increases, pinyon-juniper woodlands in portions of the Southwest are dying off, and area burned by wildfires is expected to increase. However, where fire is limited by the availability of fine fuels, such as occurs in the 3 Bars Project area, fire frequency is expected to decrease. Temperature increase is projected to increase the amount of grassland acreage, and acreage dominated by invasive vegetation, such as red brome, that do well in high temperatures (Karl et al. 2009). Climate change is predicted to increase water temperature in most regions including the arid Southwest (Meyer et al. 1999). The effect of increased water temperature on aquatic habitat and species could include changes in water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen) and biological conditions such as direct mortality from acute temperature stress, sublethal stress on physiological functions, and shifts in species distributions. In North America, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that coldwater fisheries would likely be adversely affected, wannwater fish species generally would be positively affected, and cool water fisheries would have a mixture of positive and negative changes in terms of habitat conditions and species distribution and diversity. In general, climatic wanning would result in a general shift in species distributions northward, with extinctions of cool-water species at lower altitudes and range expansion of warmwater and cool-water species into higher altitudes (Meyer et al. 1 999). As a means of assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change, NatureServe initiated a collaborative effort to develop a Climate Change Vulnerability Index (Young et al. 2009). The Index was applied to a selection of test species in Nevada, where it will be used to modify the State Wildlife Action Plan by incorporating climate change species information. Based on this initial case study (Young et al. 2009) and subsequent analyses by the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (201 1), vulnerability index ratings for aquatic species provide some indication of potential effects of climate change in Nevada. The index score was moderately vulnerable for Lahontan cutthroat trout, a federally listed threatened species under the Endangered Species Act that is found on the 3 Bars Project area. The analysis also predicted that the abundance and/or range extent of this species within the geographical area assessed likely would decrease by 2050. 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences 3.4.3. 1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on the AECC and public scoping comments, a number of concerns specific to meteorology and climate were identified and are discussed in this section. These include: • Concern that big fire years are a result of climate change, and are beyond agency control. 3 Bars Project Draft P IS 3-29 September 2013 METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE • The potential adverse effects of climate change and increasing temperatures, including on noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation problems, alterations in runoff, and reduction in perennial flows, and changes to upland conditions. • Whether 3 Bars Project actions may promote desertification, global wanning, and climate change processes. • The current degree of desertification that exists across the District and on adjacent lands and how climate change may exacerbate effects of deforestation and/or sagebrush removal or eradication effects. • Effects of global warming and climate change, and increased risk of site desertification and noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation invasion following treatment, grazing, or other and overlapping disturbances. 3.4.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.4.3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to AH Action Alternatives The combustion of fossil fuels would release C02 to the atmosphere. The use of chainsaws, and vehicles to transport workers, would be the primary sources of C02 emissions common to all alternatives. These emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate change. Treatments would help to improve ecosystem health and reduce the risk of wildfire and associated smoke emissions, to the benefit of the global climate. 3.4.3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit, and use of equipment for mechanical treatments and to transport workers, would be the primary sources of C02 emissions. ENSR (2005a) modeled annual CO? emissions for BLM vegetation treatments for the 17-States PEIS and PER (USDOI BLM 2007b, c). Based on modeling done for Nevada, the acreage treated on the 3 Bars Project area would comprise about 4 percent of acres treated by the BLM annually in Nevada and would contribute about 19, 1 15 tons of CO? to the atmosphere annually. The actual amount of emissions could vary from estimates from modeling based on differences in the acres and types of vegetation treated under each method. However, in the context of C02 emissions from BLM treatments in Nevada, and from other sources of C02 emissions in the region, C02 emissions for the 3 Bars Project would be negligible. Treatments to improve the health and resiliency of native vegetation, thin and remove pinyon-juniper, and control cheatgrass and other noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation should help to reduce the occurrence of wildfire and associated C02 emissions from wildfire smoke. 3.43.2.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, the BLM would not use prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit and thus CO? emissions from those sources would not occur under this alternative. Mechanical treatments contribute negligible amounts of C02 emissions. Based on modeling, the 3 Bars Project would contribute about 5,600 tons of CO? to the atmosphere annually under Alternative B. The actual amount of emissions could vary from estimates from modeling based on differences in the acres and types of vegetation treated under each method. Because prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit would not be used under this alternative to thin and remove pinyon-juniper and improve the health and resiliency of native vegetation, the occurrence of wildfire and associated smoke production may be greater under this alternative than under Alternative A. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-30 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.4.3. 2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) The BLM would only use manual and classical biological treatments under Alternative C. Based on modeling, these methods would contribute only about 2 tons of C02 emissions annually. Because these treatments would do little to improve ecosystem health and reduce wildfire risk, smoke emissions from wildfire would likely be greater under this alternative than under Alternatives A and B. 3.4.3.2.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct C02 emissions under this alternative as no treatments would be authorized. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; or reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire. Thus, the 3 Bars Project area would be subject to large-scale wildfires with potentially uncontrolled dense smoke emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from wildfires would likely be greater under Alternative D than under the action alternatives. 3.4.3.3 Cumulative Effects The effects of changing climate on future fire regimes and C02 emissions are difficult to predict, not only due to uncertainties associated with future climate, but because of interactive effects between climate change, biological factors, and vegetation treatment activities, and politics. Cumulative impacts to climate change could result from C02 emissions from a number of sources within the CESA that are associated with reasonably foreseeable land development and utility and infrastructure projects. Mechanical equipment would be used during construction of utility and infrastructure projects, and construction workers and users of the facilities would travel by vehicle to project sites. Technology, however, will continue to play an important role in reducing C02 emissions from engine operations. Wildfires would continue to be the primary contributors to C02 emissions in the CESA. 3.4.3.4 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives A significant adverse effect on climate is not likely to be caused by BLM restoration activities. Treatments that improve ecosystem health and reduce hazardous fuels buildup, thereby reducing the risk of wildfire, should provide long-tenn benefits to local and regional air quality (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-9). Nationally, there were about 7,385 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 201 1 (USEPA 2012). The Mount Hope Project would be a contributor to greenhouse gases, and based on modeling, would emit up to approximately 604,000 tons per year of greenhouse gases, or approximately 0.00008 percent of the national annual emissions. Other developments in the CESA would contribute negligible amounts of greenhouse gases. The 3 Bars Project would contribute about 0.000003 percent to the national annual greenhouse gas emissions under Alternative A, and even less under the other alternatives. 3.5 Air Quality 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework Ambient air quality and the emission of air pollutants are regulated under both federal and state laws and regulations. Regulations potentially applicable to the proposed action and alternatives include the following: Federal Clean Air 3 Bars Project Draft I , IS 3-31 September 20 1 3 AIR QUALITY Act (Clean Air Act) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Nevada AAQS, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), New Source Performance Standards, Federal Operating Permit Program (Title V), and State of Nevada air quality regulations (Nevada Administrative Code 445B). 3.5.1. 1 Federal Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act and the subsequent Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 require the USEPA to identify NAAQS to protect the public health and welfare. The Clean Air Act and amendments establish NAAQS for seven pollutants, known as “criteria” pollutants because the ambient standards set for these pollutants satisfy “criteria” specified in the Clean Air Act. The criteria pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act and their applicable NAAQS set by the USEPA arc listed in Table 3-4. The list of criteria pollutants is amended by the USEPA as needed to protect public health and welfare. The most recent revisions include amendments to standards for the following pollutants (dates represent publication in the Federal Register): particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2 5) and particulate matter less than ten micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PMi0; October 2006), ozone (03; March 2008), lead (Pb; November 2008), nitrogen dioxide (N02; February 2010), and sulfur dioxide (S02; June 2010). TABLE 3-4 National and Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Nevada Standards1 National Standards1 Primary Secondary Ozone (03) 1-Hour 235 235 235 8-Hour NA 157 157 Carbon monoxide (CO) 1-Hour 40,500 40,000 40,000 CO less than 5,000 feet amsl 8-Hour 10,500 10,000 10,000 CO at or greater than 5,000 feet amsl 8-Hour 7,000 Sulfur dioxide (S02) 1 -Hour NA 197 NA 3-Hour 1,300 N/A 1,300 24-Hour 365 NA NA Annual Average 80 NA NA Nitrogen dioxide (N02) 1 -Hour2 NA 189 NA Annual Average 100 100 100 Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM|0) 24-Hour 150 150 150 Annual Average 50 NA NA Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2 5) 24-Hour 35 35 35 Annual Average 12 12 12 1 Micrograms per cubic meter (pg/rrf). 2 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1 -hour average at each monitoring site within an area must not exceed 1 89 pg/m3 (0. 100 parts per million [ppm]). N/A = Not applicable. Sources: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (2012) and USEPA (2012). 3.5. 1.2 Nevada State Ambient Air Quality Standards The Nevada Administrative Code 445B. 22097 includes AAQS for the State of Nevada (Table 3-4). The Nevada AAQS arc generally identical to the NAAQS, with the exception of the following: 3 Bars Project Draft lilS 3-32 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • Nevada has not formally adopted the 8-hour O3 standard adopted by the USEPA in 2008. • Nevada has not formally adopted the recently promulgated 1-hour NAAQS standards for N02 and S02. • Nevada retains the state standard for PM,o (annual arithmetic mean) where the comparable NAAQS standard was revoked by the USEPA in 2006. • Nevada has not formally adopted the 24-hour and annual NAAQS standards for PM25 promulgated by USEPA in 2006. • Nevada has an additional state standard for carbon monoxide (CO) in areas with an elevation in excess of 5,000 feet amsl. 3.5. 1.3 Attainment and Non-attainment Areas and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the USEPA has developed classifications for distinct geographic regions known as air quality management areas. Under these classifications, for each federal criteria pollutant, each air basin (or portion of an air quality management area (AQMA) [or “planning area”]) is classified as “in attainment” if the AQMA has “attained” compliance with (i.e., not exceeded) the adopted NAAQS for that pollutant; is classified as “non- attainment” if the levels of ambient air pollution exceed the NAAQS for that pollutant; or is classified as “maintenance” if the monitored pollutants have fallen from non-attainment levels to attainment levels. Air quality management areas for which sufficient ambient monitoring data are not available are designated as “attainment unclassifiable” for those particular pollutants until actual monitoring data support formal “attainment” or “non- attainment” classification. In addition to the designations relative to attainment of conformance with the NAAQS, the Clean Air Act requires the USEPA to place each planning area within the U.S. into one of three PSD classes, which are designed to limit the deterioration of air quality when it is “better than” the NAAQS. “Class I” is the most restrictive air quality category and was created by Congress to prevent further deterioration of air quality in National Parks and Wilderness Areas of a given size which were in existence prior to 1977, or those additional areas that have since been designated Class I under federal regulations (40 CFR § 52.21). All remaining areas outside of the designated Class 1 boundaries were designated Class II planning areas, which allow a relatively greater deterioration of air quality. For future re- designation purposes, Congress defined as Class III any existing Class II area for which a state may desire to promote a higher level of industrial development (and emissions growth). Thus, Class III areas are allowed to have the greatest amount of pollutant increase of the three area classes while still achieving the NAAQS. There have been no Class III re -designations to date. Regardless of the class of the planning area, the air quality cannot exceed the NAAQS. The nearest Class I planning area to the project, the Jarbidge Wilderness Area, is approximately 130 miles northeast of the project area. There are no Class I airsheds within 60 miles of the project area. Federal PSD applicability regulations limit the maximum allowable increase in ambient particulate matter in a Class 1 planning area, resulting from a major or minor stationary source, to 4 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3; annual geometric mean) and 8 ug/m (24-hour average). For Class II planning areas, the maximum allowable increase is 17 pg/m (annual geometric mean) and 30 pg / m (24-hour average). Specific types of facilities that emit, or have the potential to emit, 1 00 tons per year (tpy) or more of PMm or other criteria air pollutants, or any facility that emits, or has the potential to emit, 250 tpy or more of PM]0 or other criteria air pollutants, is considered a major stationary source. A stationary source that emits less than 100 tpy of criteria pollutants and less than 10 tpy of individual 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-33 September 2013 AIR QUALITY hazardous air pollutants, and less than 25 tpy of hazardous air pollutants in the aggregate, would be considered a minor source. The proposed 3 Bars Project would be classified as a minor source. Fugitive emissions are not included as part of the calculation to determine if a proposed source is a major source of emissions for PSD purposes. Permit applicants for proposed major stationary sources or major modification to a source arc required to notify federal land managers of Class 1 planning areas within 60 miles of the new or modified major stationary source. There are no Class 1 planning areas within 60 miles of the project area. Air pollutant emission sources under the proposed action and alternatives, including from prescribed burning, are minor stationary sources that are not subject to PSD regulatory requirements. Since the proposed 3 Bars Project would not be a PSD source, there is no air quality permit requirement to assess impacts to Class I areas; however, Class 1 areas are protected by federal land managers who manage air quality related values (AQRVs) such as visibility and atmospheric deposition. Though not a regulatory program under PSD, federal land managers review the issuance of a PSD permit for any impacts that exceed guideline thresholds for visibility, atmospheric deposition, and changes in the acid neutralizing capacity of sensitive lakes. The federal land managers consider a source greater than 30 miles from a Class I area to have negligible impacts with respect to Class I AQRVs if the total S02, nitrous oxides (NOx), PM,0, and sulfuric acid (H2S04) annual emissions (in tons per year, based on 24-hour maximum allowable emissions), divided by the distance (in kilometers [km]) from the Class I area (Q/D), is 10 or less. In general, the Federal Land Managers" Air Quality Related Values Work Group recommends that an applicant apply the Q/D test for proposed sources greater than 50 km (30 miles) from a Class I area to determine whether or not any further AQRV analysis is necessary (USDA Forest Service ct al. 2010). Federal agencies would not request any further Class I AQRV impact analyses from sources with a Q/D ratio that is 10 or less. 3.5.1. 4 Nevada Air Quality Operating Permit The Clean Air Act delegates primary responsibility for air pollution control to state governments, which in turn often delegate this responsibility to local or regional organizations. The State Implementation Plan was originally the mechanism by which a state set emission limits and allocated pollution control responsibility to meet the NAAQS. The function of a State Implementation Plan broadened after passage of the Clean Air Act and now includes the implementation of specific technology based emission standards, permitting of sources, collection of fees, coordination of air quality planning, and PSD of air quality within regional planning areas and statewide. Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, requires that federal agencies must not engage in, approve, or support in any way any action that does not conform to a State Implementation Plan for the purpose of attaining ambient air quality standards. The Nevada BAPC is the agency in the State of Nevada with the responsibility for implementing a State Implementation Plan (excluding Washoe and Clark Counties, which have their own State Implementation Plans). Included in a State Implementation Plan arc the State of Nevada air quality permit programs (Nevada Administrative Code 445B.001 through 445B.3485, inclusive) and the Nevada State AAQS (Tabic 3-4). In addition to establishing the Nevada State AAQS, the Nevada BAPC is responsible for permit and enforcement activities throughout the State of Nevada (except in Clark and Washoe Counties). The 3 Bars Project is in Eureka County, Nevada. The applicable permitting authority for the county is the Nevada BAPC. Before any construction of a potential source of air pollution can occur, an air quality operating permit application must be submitted to the Nevada BAPC in order to obtain an Air Quality Operating Permit. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-34 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5. 1.5 Burn Management The Battle Mountain District Fire Management Plan (Fire Management Plan) was approved in 2004 and provides program guidance based on the Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire Management for the Shoshone-Eureka RMP (USDOI BLM 2004a). Fire management in the 3 Bars Project area is discussed in more detail in Section 3.13, Wildland Fire. The Eureka County Master Plan discusses air quality and makes these recommendations regarding air quality within the County (Eureka County 2010). These include: • Prevent significant deterioration of the superior air quality found in Eureka County. • Review best management practices as necessary to assure applicability and compliance. 3.5.2 Affected Environment 3.5.2. 1 Study Methods and Study Area No air quality data have been collected in the 3 Bars Project area. Baseline air quality conditions representative of the project area were assessed using data from nearby monitoring stations in north-central Nevada. Meteorological data from the Elko, Nevada, airport (WB0262573), 70 miles north of the project area, were used for climate characterization (Figure 3-1). Upper air meteorological data from the Mercury-Desert Rock monitoring station, about 200 miles south of the project area, were used for air dispersion modeling. The Mercury-Desert Rock monitoring station was used because the Nevada BAPC determined that the meteorological data at that site are most representative for the project area. The study area for direct and indirect impacts to air quality is the 3 Bars Project area and local airshed. The cumulative effects study area includes the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 watersheds that are all or partially included in the 3 Bars Project area. 3.5.2.2 Air Quality Air quality is defined by the concentration of various pollutants and their interactions in the atmosphere. Pollution effects on receptors have been used to establish a definition of air quality. Measurement of pollutants in the atmosphere is expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or pg/m . Both long-term climatic factors and short-term weather fluctuations are considered part of the air quality resource because they control dispersion and affect concentrations. Physical effects of air quality depend on the characteristics of the receptors and the type, amount, and duration of exposure. Air quality standards specify acceptable upper limits of pollutant concentrations and duration of exposure. Air pollutant concentrations within the standards generally are not considered to be detrimental to public health and welfare (USEPA 2012). The air quality within the study area is typical of the largely undeveloped regions of the western U.S. For the purposes of statewide regulatory planning, the area has been designated as in attainment for all pollutants that have an AAQS. Important sources of air pollutants in the area include several precious metals mines that are sources for PM|0 and PM2.5. No areas in Nevada are currently designated as nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard. There is a lack of sufficient data to develop a comprehensive emissions inventory for PM2.5 from mine sources; nevertheless, an 3 Bars Project Draft I , IS 3-35 September 2013 AIR QUALITY Three important meteorological factors influence the dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere — mixing height, wind surface would mix by convection and turbulence. Local atmospheric conditions, terrain configuration, and pollutant source location determine dilution of pollutants in this mixed layer. Mixing heights vary diurnally, with the passage of weather systems, and with season. For the study area, the mean annual morning mixing height is estimated to be approximately 1,000 feet amsl; however, during the winter months the mean morning mixing height is approximately 80 feet above ground (Holzworth 1972). The mean annual afternoon mixing height exceeds 7,400 feet amsl. Wind speed has an important effect on area ventilation and the dilution of pollutants. Light winds, in conjunction with large source emissions, may lead to an accumulation of pollutants that can stagnate or move slowly to downwind areas. During stable conditions, downwind usually means down valley or toward lower elevations. Climate data from Elko indicate that the potential for air pollution episodes to last 5 or more days is nearly zero (Holzworth 1972). A potential air pollution episode is defined as a period of time with wind speeds less than 4 miles per hour and mixing heights less than 3,300 feet amsl. Morning atmospheric conditions tend to be stable because of the rapid cooling of the layers of air nearest the ground. Afternoon conditions, especially during the wanner months, tend to be neutral to unstable because of the rapid heating of the surface under clear skies. During the winter, periods of stable afternoon conditions may persist for several days in the absence of the synoptic (continental scale) storm systems that can generate higher winds with more turbulence and mixing. A high frequency of inversions at lower elevations during the winter can be attributed to the nighttime cooling and sinking air flowing from higher elevations to the low-lying areas in the basins. Although winter inversions are generally not very deep they tend to be more stable because of reduced surface heating (Holzworth 1972). Because of the typically dry atmosphere, bright sunny days and clear nights frequently occur. This in turn allows rapid heating of the ground surface during daylight hours and rapid cooling at night. Since heated air rises, and cooled air sinks, winds tend to blow uphill during the daytime and down slope at night. This upslope and down slope cycle generally occurs in all the geographical features, including mountain range slopes and river courses. The volume of air affected depends on the area of the feature; the larger the horizontal extent of the feature, the greater the volume of air that moves in the cycle. The complexity of terrain features cause complex movements in the cyclic air patterns, with thin layers of moving air embedded within the larger scale motions. The lower level, thermally driven winds also are embedded within largcr-scale upper wind (synoptic) systems. Synoptic winds in the region arc predominantly west to east, characterized by daily weather variations that enhance or diminish the boundary layer winds, and significantly channeled by regional and local topography (Western Region Climate Center 2012). Based on the AECC and public scoping comments, one commcntcr asked that the current air quality be assessed and the impacts to air from multiple or overlapping treatments be assessed. (speed and direction), and stability. Mixing height is the height above ground within which rising warm air from the 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3.5.3. 1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences 3 liars Project Dralt EIS 3-36 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.3. 2 Significance Criteria Impacts to air quality would be considered significant if BLM actions resulted in a: • Violation of any regulatory requirement of the Nevada BAPC. • Violation of any state or federal ambient air quality standard. • Substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. A substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation could occur if the contribution of project- related pollutants results in a violation of the NAAQS, or if the pollutant is among the top percentage contributors to the ambient concentrations of pollutants from multiple sources. Sensitive receptors include hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. These are areas where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. Extra care must be taken when dealing with contaminants and pollutants in close proximity to areas recognized as sensitive receptors (USEPA 2012). 3.5.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.5.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Adverse Effects Air quality would be affected by vegetation treatment activities, including dust and combustion engine exhaust from manual treatments. However, effects would be small in scale, temporary, and quickly dispersed throughout the treatment area. Provided SOPs are followed, and site-specific plans are developed and reviewed before a treatment activity occurs, federal, state, and local air quality regulations would not be violated. Primary sources of PM10 and PM25 emissions include road dust from unpaved roads and wind erosion on disturbed land. Emissions also include engine exhaust, tire and brake wear, and fugitive dust generated from travel on paved roads. These emissions would have an incremental but insignificant impact on the air quality in the vicinity of roads throughout the project area. Treatment methods would have minor air quality impacts that would be temporary, transitory, and limited to the immediate vicinity of the specific activity. Combustion of diesel in transport trucks and mobile equipment, such as loaders, dozers, pickups, etc., would produce emissions of CO, N02, S02, PM10, PM25, and 03 (from volatile organic compound emissions). Hazardous air pollutant emissions would result from the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, and the handling and use of various chemicals. Diesel fuel combustion emissions contain a number of hazardous air pollutants including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. The USEPA’s guideline air quality CALPUFF air pollutant dispersion model (referenced in Appendix W of 40 CFR § 51 ) was used to provide example predictions of potential particulate matter (total suspended particles, PM)0, and PM25) impacts that could result from five vegetation management methods at receptors located between approximately I and 100 km (0.6 and 60 miles) from the assumed center of the modeled treatment areas. The 3 Bars Project Draft I , IS 3-37 September 20 1 3 AIR QUALITY nearest receptors were placed 0.5 km (0.3 miles) from the edge of the modeled treatment area in each case. Both 24-hour and annual impacts were predicted. CALPUFF “litc” version 5.5 was selected because of its ability to screen potential air quality impacts within, as well as beyond, 50 km (30 miles) and its ability to simulate plume trajectory over several hours of transport based on limited meteorological data. In Nevada, sources that were modeled included lire, unpaved roads used by transportation and ignition vehicles, and fugitive dust occurring from pre/post-treatment fuel-break blading (ENSR 2005b). This modeling is consistent with general modeling practices described in 40 CFR § 51, Appendix W, and with CALPUFF screening procedures outlined by the USEPA. The maximum potential impacts found through modeling for each treatment method arc summarized here and more details concerning the modeling are available in the 17- States PEIS and PER (USDOI BLM 2007b, c), and ENSR (2005b). Beneficial Effects Carefully planned and implemented restoration treatments that reduce fuel accumulations can reduce the risk of wildfire and smoke effects. Manual methods would be an important treatment option in the wildand urban interface or near other sensitive areas where the use of other treatment methods is limited. Restoration of vegetation in areas that currently consists of bare ground would help to reduce dust emissions. 3.5.33.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Riparian Treatments Adverse Effects For the 17-States PEIS and PER, the BLM modeled concentration estimates of particulate matter for typical, but hypothetical (“example”) emission scenarios for each of the treatment methods at six representative locations throughout the western United States (ENSR 2005a, b, USDOI BLM 2007c:4-9). Winncmucca, Nevada, is the closest modeling location to the 3 Bars Project area. For analysis of air quality impacts in the 17-States PER, it was assumed for manual treatments that the BLM would treat up to 5 acres per day using chainsaws or other hand-held equipment, and would drive to and from the work site. Table 3-5 shows the modeling results for manual treatments. Total suspended particles, PM !0, and PM7.5, from manual treatments on the 3 Bars Project area would be negligible and would not exceed ambient air quality standards. It was assumed that mechanical treatments consisted of 50 acres of mowing and 6 acres of brush blading and piling each day. For prescribed fire, it was assumed that 700 acres were treated each day on 6 separate days with prescribed fire, that the fire began at 9 AM and was extinguished at 6 PM, and that the fuel combustion rate was 50 percent. All treatment scenarios assume that workers and their equipment arc transported to the site each day (ENSR 2005b). Tables 3-6 and 3-7 show the modeling results for mechanical and prescribed fire treatments based on assumptions used in modeling. Modeling indicates that no proposed treatment method would result in significant air quality impacts. Total concentrations of particulates arc virtually unchanged from background levels, and all project-related 24-hour and annual particulate impacts arc less than 1 pg/nT. The acreage treated daily would be substantially less than the acreage used to model impacts to air quality from treatment methods. Thus, adverse effects on air quality from riparian treatments would be substantially less than those reported in Tables 3-5 to 3-7 and would be negligible. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-38 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND EN V I RON M ENT A I . CONSEQUENCES Fire treatments could expose bare soil and could lead to particulate matter impacts due to wind-blown dust. Beneficial Effects Restoration of riparian, wetland, and spring habitats in areas that currently consists of bare ground would help to reduce dust emissions. Fire treatments would be used on only a few acres annually, if at all, and would help to reduce hazardous fuels and restore natural fire regimes in riparian zones. Carefully planned and implemented prescribed fire should produce far less smoke impact to air quality than uncontrolled wildfires. The BLM would use bum models to determine when to bum during periods with good air dispersion (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-10). TABLE 3-5 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Manual Treatments Pollutant Averaging Period CALPUFF Lite Concentration Background Concentration1 Total Concentration AAQS Standard2 (pg/m3) (pg/m3) (pg/m3) (pg/m3) Total Suspended 24-hour 3.583E-02 40 40.04 150 Particles Annual 1.007E-04 1 1 11.00 50 PM.o 24-hour 3.32E-02 30 30.03 150 Annual 9.16E-05 8 8.00 50 PM2.5 24-hour 3.25E-02 30 30.03 35 Annual 8.92E-05 8 8.00 15 1 PMI0 concentrations are also conservatively used as background concentrations for PM25. 2 There are no Nevada AAQS for total suspended particles or for annual PMI0. Total suspended particles concentrations calculated by multiplying PM|0 data by 1.33. PM 10 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. PM2.5 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, pg/nr' = Micrograms per cubic meter. AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards. Source: ENSR (2005b). Aspen Treatments Adverse Effects Modeling indicates that no proposed treatment method for any project groups would result in significant air quality impacts. Total concentrations of particulates are virtually unchanged from background levels, and all project-related 24-hour and annual particulate impacts are less than 1 pg/m . Only about 1 5 acres would be treated annually to restore aspen habitat under the proposed action. The acreage treated daily would be substantially less than the acreage used to model impacts to air quality from treatment methods. Thus, adverse effects on air quality from aspen treatments would be substantially less than those reported in Tables 3-5 to 3-7 and would be negligible. Beneficial Effects Creating and enhancing fuel breaks in pinyon-juniper stands would break up of the continuity of fuels and moderate fire behavior, and reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire and the associated smoke impacts. Restoration of aspen and other vegetation in areas that currently consists of bare ground would help to reduce dust emissions. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-39 September 2013 AIR QUALITY TABLE 3-6 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Mechanical Treatments Averaging Period CALPUFF Lite Background Total AAQS Pollutant Concentration Concentration1 Concentration Standard2 (pg/m3) (pg/m3) (pg/m3) (pg/m3) Total Suspended 24-hour 3.53E-02 40 40.04 150 Particles Annual . 9.69E-05 1 1 1 1.00 50 PM10 24-hour 1 .40E-02 30 30.01 150 Annual 3.84E-05 8 8.00 50 PM2.5 24-hour 9.68E-03 30 30.01 35 Annual 2.65E-05 8 8.00 15 12 See Table 3-5. PM |0 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. PM2 5 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, jag/ m ' = Micrograms per cubic meter. AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards. Source: ENSR (2005b). TABLE 3-7 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Prescribed Fire Treatments Pollutant Averaging Period CALPUFF Lite Concentration (pg/m3) Background Concentration1 (pg/m3) Total Concentration (pg/m3) AAQS Standard2 (pg/m3) Total Suspended 24-hour 3.19E-01 40 40.32 150 Particles Annual 8.85E-04 11 11.00 50 PM10 24-hour 3.19E-01 30 30.32 150 Annual 8.86E-04 8 8.00 50 PM2.5 24-hour 2.91E-01 30 30.29 35 Annual 8.08E-04 8 8.00 15 12 See Table 3-5. PM|0 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. PM2.5 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, pg/m = Micrograms per cubic meter. AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards. Source: ENSR (2005b). Piny on-juniper Treatments Adverse Effects Prescribed fire treatments in pinyon-juniper treatment units could total several thousand acres annually, while wildland fire for resource benefit treatments on the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit could be used on up to 1 ,000 acres per treatment. Nonetheless, the adverse impacts from individual prescribed fire treatments would be similar to those modeled (700 acres per day, 4,200 total acres per treatment) and shown in Tabic 3-7. 3 Oars Project Draft I IS 3-40 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Modeling indicates that no proposed treatment method would result in significant air quality impacts. Total concentrations of particulates arc virtually unchanged from background levels, and all project-related 24-hour and annual particulate impacts arc less than 1 pg/nr . Although many acres would be treated under pinyon-juniper treatments, the acreage treated daily should still be less than the acreage used to model impacts to air quality from treatment methods. Thus, adverse effects on air quality from pinyon-juniper treatments would likely be less than those reported in Tables 3-5 to 3-7 and would be negligible. Fire treatments could expose bare soil and could lead to particulate matter impacts due to wind-blown dust. Beneficial Effects Manual, mechanical, and fire treatments in pinyon-juniper treatment areas would provide several benefits. Creating and enhancing fuel breaks in pinyon-juniper stands would break up of the continuity of fuels and moderate fire behavior, and reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire and the associated smoke impacts. Thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper in Phase 11 and III stands should encourage revegetation of bare ground in these stands and reduce dust emissions. In general, wildfire impacts on air quality would likely be greater than emissions from prescribed burning. Alternative A would have greater long-term benefits than the other alternatives since the proposed treatments are intended to minimize uncontrolled wildfires and reduce the potential for widespread wildfires in future years, with much less potential for widespread dense smoke from these fires to affect nearby receptors. Unlike wildfire, the impacts of smoke from prescribed fire are managed. Where smoke impacts from prescribed fire are of concern, fuel accumulations can be reduced through manual or mechanical treatments prior to, or instead of, prescribed burning. Smoke impacts can also be reduced through scheduling burning for times when the wind is blowing away from smoke-sensitive areas and during good dispersion conditions. Scheduling prescribed bums before new fuels accumulate can reduce the amount of emissions produced. Fire managers can also reduce the amount of area burned, increase the combustion efficiency of a bum, and increase the plume height in order to reduce smoke impacts to air quality (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-10). The 1 7-States PER did not analyze the long-term effects on air quality from implementing a vegetation treatment management program similar to that proposed under Alternative A. However, an analysis of a similar vegetation management program in the Interior Columbia Basin showed that effects from wildfire on air quality and visibility could be significantly greater in magnitude than effects from prescribed burning and other treatment methods. As discussed in the 1 7-States PER, and as shown in the Interior Columbia Basin study, particulate matter emissions associated with prescribed burning and other treatment methods, when considered alone, should not cause widespread regional-scale exceedances of NAAQS. The same would not be true for wildfires. Thus, vegetation treatment actions that improve ecosystem health and reduce hazardous fuels buildup, thereby reducing the risk of wildfire, should provide long-term benefits to local and regional air quality (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-10). Sagebrush Treatments Adverse Effects Modeling indicates that manual, mechanical, and prescribed fire treatments proposed for sagebrush areas would not result in significant air quality impacts. Total concentrations of particulates are virtually unchanged from background levels, and all project-related 24-hour and annual particulate impacts arc less than 1 pg/nr (Tables 3-5 to 3-7). 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 3-41 September 20 1 3 AIR QUALITY Adverse effects on air quality from sagebrush habitat treatments would likely be less than those reported in Tables 3- 5 to 3-7 and would be negligible. The BLM may use livestock to control chcatgrass and other non-native vegetation and to increase the effectiveness of other treatment methods. Livestock can reduce chcatgrass dominance and can be used to remove some chcatgrass before the unit is treated using other methods and seeded. For air quality modeling, it was assumed that vegetation could be treated using goats or insects (ENSR 2005b). It was also assumed that 1 0 acres would be treated per day using goats, over a 30-day period, while 100 acres per day would be treated using a hand release of insects. Travel to and from the worksite by workers was assumed under both scenarios. Modeled impacts from biological treatment arc listed in Table 3-8. Adverse effects on air quality from sagebrush habitat treatments would likely be less than those reported in Table 3-8 and would be negligible. Beneficial Effects Thinning of sagebrush should encourage revegetation of bare ground and reduce dust emissions. Sagebrush treatments would also help to reduce wildfire incidence and associated smoke production. Treatments should lead to improved sagebrush habitat and sagebrush resiliency to fire, and open up the sagebrush canopy to slow fire spread and promote the development of an herbaceous understory that is resistant to fire. Creating and enhancing fuel breaks in sagebrush would break up of the continuity of fuels and moderate fire behavior, and reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire. At sites dominated by herbaceous or invasive species, such as the Rocky Hills and West Simpson Park units, up to 50 percent of the area could be treated with mechanical methods, and herbicides under existing authorizations. The West Simpson Unit has substantial chcatgrass cover and is in an area rated as high to very high for risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Chcatgrass is quite flammable during the summer, and efforts to eliminate it or slow its spread would help to reduce the risk of wildfire and smoke production. TABLE 3-8 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Compliance Analysis for Biological Treatments Averaging CALPUFF Lite Background Total AAQS Pollutant Concentration Concentration1 Concentration Standard2 Period (pg/m3) (pg/m3) (pg/ni3) (pg/m3) Total Suspended 24-hour 7.93E-03 40 40.01 150 Particles Annual 6.01E-05 11 11.00 50 PMI0 24-hour 1.86E-03 30 30.00 150 Annual 1.42E-05 8 8.00 50 PM2.5 24-hour 2.59E-04 30 30.00 35 Annual 1.98E-06 8 8.00 15 1,2 See Tabic 3-5. PM |0 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. PM2.5 = Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, jag/ m ’ = Micrograms per cubic meter. AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards. Source: ENSR (2005b). 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-42 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMEN TAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.3 .3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, the BLM would treat approximately half as many acres as under Alternative A, and would not be able to use prescribed lire or wildland fire for resource benefit. This alternative would have fewer particulate emissions and no smoke emissions compared to Alternative A. Modeling indicates that treatments would not result in significant air quality impacts. Total concentrations of particulates arc virtually unchanged from background levels, and all project-related 24-hour and annual particulate impacts are less than 1 pg/rn3. Adverse effects on air quality from treatments would likely be less than those reported in Tables 3-5 to 3-8 and would be negligible. As about half as many acres would be treated annually to reduce hazardous fuels under this alternative than under Alternative A, there would be more wildfire risk and resultant smoke impacts could be greater under this alternative than Alternative A long term, since wildfires would generate more smoke than a prescribed bum. It is unlikely that the BLM would be able to slow the spread of large infestations of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, including cheatgrass, using manual, mechanical, and biological control methods, which would contribute to greater risk for a large-scale wildfire. Under Alternative B, the BLM would treat fewer acres and conduct fewer treatments in areas with high risk for catastrophic fire than under Alternative A due to the reduction in methods available and increase in costs and time from using manual and mechanical methods. The BLM would be less able to slow pinyon-juniper encroachment and the densification and deterioration in tree health, slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and decrease the fire cycle over much of the 3 Bars Project area. Thus, wildfire smoke production and impacts to air quality would be greater under this alternative than under Alternative A. 3.5.3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, the BLM would treat approximately one-fourth as many acres as under Alternative A, and would not be able to use mechanical methods, prescribed fire, or wildland fire for resource benefit. This alternative would have fewer particulate emissions than Alternatives A and B. Modeling indicates that treatments would not result in significant air quality impacts. Total concentrations of particulates are virtually unchanged from background levels, and all project-related 24-hour and annual particulate impacts are less than 1 pg/nr. Adverse effects on air quality from treatments would likely be less than those reported in Tables 3-5 to 3-8 and would be negligible. In addition to the effects discussed under Alternative B, the BLM would not be able to use mechanical methods to slow pinyon-juniper encroachment, create fire and fuel breaks, thin pinyon-juniper and sagebrush, remove downed wood and slash, and remove noxious weeds and other invasive/non-native vegetation. Only about 500 to 1 ,000 acres would be treated annually to reduce hazardous fuels, so it is unlikely the trend toward large-sized tires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand-replacing fires in pinyon-juniper would slow or reverse long term. Thus, there would be more wildfire risk and resultant smoke impacts under Alternative C than Alternatives A and B. Because of the heightened risk of wildfire, adverse effects to air quality would be greater under this alternative than under Alternatives A and B. 3.53.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct or indirect impacts to air quality from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; or reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire. Thus, the 3 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-43 September 20 1 3 AIR QUALITY Bars Project area would be subject to large scale wildfires with potentially uncontrolled dense smoke emissions from these fires and air quality impacts from wildfires would likely be greater under Alternative D than under the action alternatives. 3.5.3.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for air quality is approximately 1,524,879 acres and generally follows the boundary developed for soil, water, and vegetation resources (all or portions of Hydrologic Unit Code 10 watersheds within the 3 Bars Project area), but also includes additional area to the northwest of the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). This boundary was developed by BLM fire management staff and based on their observations of where smoke from prescribed and wildland fires on the project area drifts, their interactions with federal and state agencies responsible for air quality, and their knowledge of dominant weather patterns in the project area. Approximately 92 percent of the CESA is administered by the BLM, 6 percent is privately owned, and 2 percent is administered by the Forest Service. 3.5.3.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Cumulative impacts to air quality could result from the emissions from a number of sources within the CESA that are associated with reasonably foreseeable land development and utility and infrastructure projects. Mechanical equipment would be used during construction of utility and infrastructure projects, and construction workers and users of the facilities would travel by vehicle to project sites. Technology, however, will continue to play an important role in reducing air emissions from engine operations. The BLM could continue use ground-based herbicide applications to remove noxious weeds and other invasive non- native vegetation, and aerial-based application methods to remove cheatgrass, and would restore burned areas under the Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program, under existing authorizations on about 1,000 acres annually. These treatments could contribute particulate matter and chemicals associated with the herbicides to the atmosphere, but these effects on air quality would be localized and negligible. These treatments would help to reduce hazardous fuels, slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reduce surface runoff and erosion associated with bum sites on a few hundred acres annually. Population growth in Eureka County would lead to additional land development, and construction and use of businesses, homes, and related infrastructure and associated production of pollutants. Air quality impacts could result from generation of fugitive dust and from the burning of fossil fuels. Some of these emissions would be localized and subject to air quality permits. The 8,300 acre Mount Hope Project, under construction in the southeastern portion of the 3 Bars Project area, would be a large contributor of dust and other pollutants in the CESA. Emissions of PM)0, PM2.5, and lead would be generated by numerous processes as a result of the mine project, including the resuspension of road dust, wind erosion of exposed dirt surfaces, and activities related to the processing of ore materials. Combustion of diesel in the haul trucks and mobile equipment, such as loaders, dozers, etc., the combustion of propane in processing units such as boilers, and the combustion of fuel oil or diesel in units such as the roaster, can produce elevated ambient levels of CO, N02, S02, PM]0, PM2.5, and O3 (from volatile organic compound emissions). Modeling done for the Mount Hope Project and Ruby Hill Mine showed that these emissions, however, would not exceed the Nevada State AAQS or national AAQS, even with the addition of the background values. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-44 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Short-term adverse and long-term beneficial effects from 3 Bars Project treatments would accumulate with those outside the project area. Fuels reduction and habitat improvement projects would occur on about 1 percent of the CESA annually (about 12,700 acres within the 3 Bars Project area, and about 1,500 acres within the remainder of the CESA) to reduce hazardous fuels and restore ecosystem health. Treatments would impact air quality, as discussed under direct and indirect effects, but the effects on air quality would be negligible. Treatments should help to reduce the risk of wildfire. Based on long-term averages, approximately 6,900 acres would burn annually from wildfires in the CESA. In general, air quality impacts from wildfires would be greater than air quality impacts from prescribed fire on a per acre basis. 3.5.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Esc Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the BLM would treat approximately 6,300 acres annually within the 3 Bars Project area, and the short-term adverse and long-term beneficial effects from 3 Bars Project treatments would accumulate with those from treatments (about 1 ,500 acres annually) elsewhere in the CESA. The amount of pollutants generated under Alternative B would be less than half those generated under Alternative A, due to fewer acres being treated and lack of use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit. Pollutants generated from 3 Bars Project treatments would be low in the context of emissions from other sources in the CESA, and cumulatively would not result in an exceedance of Nevada AAQS or national AAQS. Treatments would help to reduce the risk of wildfire within the CESA, and resultant smoke emissions, but not to extent as would occur under Alternative A. 3.5.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM would treat about 3,200 acres annually on the 3 Bars Project area, and another 1,500 acres on other public lands within the CESA. Because of the limited number of acres treated, and lack of use of mechanical equipment and fire, particulate and air emissions would be less under this alternative than the other action alternatives. Pollutants generated from 3 Bars Project treatments would be negligible in the context of emissions from other sources in the CESA, and cumulatively would not result in an exceedance of Nevada AAQS or national AAQS. Treatments would help to reduce the risk of wildfire within the CESA, and resultant smoke emissions, but not to extent as would occur under Alternatives A and B. 3.5.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative effects to air quality from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. This alternative would not reduce the risk of wildfire, thus air quality effects from wildfire within the CESA would likely be highest under this alternative. 3.5.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects Use of prescribed fires would result in smoke emissions that contain particulates and gaseous constituents (i.e., PM io, PM2 5, CO, and hazardous air pollutants). Emissions of PMio and PM25, and gaseous materials, would be generated by numerous processes as a result of the proposed action, including the re-suspension of road dust, wind erosion of exposed dirt surfaces, and activities related to the treatment methods. Combustion of diesel in trucks and 3 liars Project Draft I IS 3-45 September 20 1 3 AIR QUALITY mobile equipment, sueh as loaders, dozers, piekups, etc., can produce emissions of CO, N()2, S02, PM|0, PM2 5, and O3 (from volatile organic compound emissions). These activities are inherent to the operational activities and would be ongoing throughout the life of the 3 Bars Project. 3.5.3.6 Relationship between the Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Vegetation treatments would cause short-term degradation of air quality, with most degradation associated with fire use. As discussed earlier, much of the focus of treatments is on restoring ecosystem function including natural fire regimes and reducing the incidence and severity of wildfires. In general, wildfire impacts on air quality would likely be greater than emissions from prescribed burning, since techniques to minimize emissions would be implemented during prescribed bums and smoke management plans would permit prescribed fires only when meteorological conditions are favorable to smoke dispersion. In addition, state smoke management meteorologists would consider the cumulative effects of emissions from other sources (such as road dust, other federal vegetation management activities, and agricultural dust and burning) during the development of daily smoke management instructions. State smoke management program managers would also consider these sources during development of smoke management plans submitted for approval (as a component of the state smoke implementation plan) to the USEPA (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-246). 3.5.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Air quality would be affected by all treatment methods, with fire use contributing the most to degradation of air quality. These effects would occur only during the period of the treatment activity and there would be no irreversible or irretrievable effects on air quality. 3.5.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives There would be negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to air quality from 3 Bars Project actions under all alternatives. The treatment methods under each action alternative would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on air quality in the 3 Bars Project area or CESA since: • There would be no violation of any regulatory requirement of the Nevada BAPC. • No state or federal AAQS would be violated. • Treatments would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • No sensitive receptors would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. 3.5.4 Mitigation No mitigation measures arc proposed for air quality. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-46 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.6 Geology and Minerals 3.6.1 Regulatory Framework 3.6. 1.1 Geological Resources Regulations pertaining to geological resources are concerned with either the preservation of unique geological features or with designing structures or infrastructure to mitigate geological hazards such as earthquakes and landslides. Unique geological features are protected as National Natural Landmarks. The National Registry of Natural Landmarks (16 USC §§ 461 to 467) set up the National Natural Landmarks program in 1962, which is administered under the Historic Sites Act of 1935. 3.6.1. 2 Mineral Resources Most of the mineral estate in the 3 Bars Project area is administered by the federal government. Publicly owned minerals are available for exploration, development, and production, while subject to existing regulations, standard terms and conditions, and stipulations. Federally administered minerals in the public domain are classified into specific categories and these categories only apply to minerals in the federal mineral estate. These categories are locatable, leasable, and salable minerals. Locatable minerals include precious and base metallic ores and nonmetallic minerals such as bentonite, gypsum, chemical grade limestone, and chemical grade silica sand. Uncommon varieties of sand, gravel, building stone, pumice, rock, and cinders are also managed as locatable minerals. Locatable minerals are acquired by a company or individual under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and Surface Use and Occupancy Act of July 23, 1955 (American Geological Institute 1997). The BLM has been charged by the U.S. Congress with the management of activities on public lands under the General Mining Law of 1872. A mining claim gives the holder the right to mine on federal land, while a patent gives the holder outright ownership of mineral-rich land that belongs to the federal government. An individual or company must first possess a claim before applying for a patent. The Mining Law of 1 872 and amendments have provided a process for the filing of mining claims and assessment of fees to facilitate the exploration and development of valuable minerals as described above. Ultimately, claims could be patentable whereby the government would assign title of the claim to an individual or entity and the claim becomes private land. However, since 1994, the BLM has not been able to accept patent applications under a moratorium instituted by various acts of Congress. Leasable minerals are those minerals that are leased to individuals for exploration and development. The leasable minerals have been subdivided into two classes, fluids and solid. Fluid minerals include oil and gas, geothermal resources and associated by-products, and oil shale, native asphalt, oil impregnated sands, and any other material in which oil is recoverable only by special treatment after the deposit is mined or quarried. Solid leasable minerals are specific minerals such as coal and phosphates. These minerals are associated with the following laws: the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended (American Geological Institute 1997). Leasable minerals are acquired by applying to the federal government for a lease to explore and develop the minerals. Salable minerals are all other common mineral materials that were not designated as leasable or locatable, and include sand, gravel, roadbed, ballast, and common clay. These arc sold by contract with the federal government. These 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-47 September 2013 GEOLOGY AND MINERALS minerals arc regulated under the Mineral Material Aet of July 23, 1947, as amended, and the Surface Use and Occupancy Aet of July 23, 1955 (American Geological Institute 1997). 3.6.2 Affected Environment 3.6.2. 1 Study Methods and Study Area Information on the geology and mineral resources of the 3 Bars Project area was derived from maps and publications by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Mount Hope Project EIS and references cited therein (USDOl BLM 2012c). The study area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to geology and minerals is the 3 Bars Project area. 3.6.2.2 Geology The following is a general description of the geology of the study area. A more detailed description is in the Mount Hope Final Project EIS (USDOl BLM 2012c). The study area is located along the leading edge of the Roberts Mountains thrust. The Roberts Mountains thrust was formed when a mix of sedimentary and volcanic rock (the “Western” assemblage) was thrust on top of similarly aged carbonate rocks (the “Eastern” assemblage) about 340 to 370 million years ago, during the Devonian-Mississippian Antler orogeny, or process of mountain building (Roberts et al. 1967). The Western assemblage includes the Vinini and Valmy formations, which are largely composed of mudstones, cherts, sandy limestones, sandstones, and conglomerates and are exposed on the Roberts Mountains and the Simpson Park Mountains (Figure 3-9). The Western assemblage also contains minor amounts of limestone and andesitic volcanic rocks. Eastern assemblage rocks, including the Silurian Lone Mountain Dolomite and Devonian Nevada Formation, arc exposed along the eastern side of the Sulphur Spring Range and in the Fish Creek Range on the southeastern comer of the study area (Roberts et al. 1967). The Eastern assemblage in Eureka County is composed of Cambrian to Ordovician rocks that were originally deposited in a shallow water shelf, and consist primarily of limestone, dolomite, and lesser amounts shale and quartzite. During the Antler orogeny, an elongate foreland basin formed at the toe of the mass of rock that had been moved. This basin was fdled with a post-orogenic coarse clastic (rocks that arc derived from fragments of other rocks due to erosion and weathering and then the rock fragments arc transported and deposited to form new rocks; this is a class of sedimentary rocks) “Overlap” assemblage representing detritus eroded off the Antler highlands. Intermittent orogcnic movement during the late Paleozoic and Mesozoic resulted in folding and thrust faulting of the Overlap assemblage and underlying formations. In addition to the Paleozoic rocks that belong to the assemblages described above, Tertiary volcanic and intrusive rocks are present. The volcanic rocks arc exposed in the Simpson Park Mountains and Roberts Mountains and arc composed of flows and tuffs. Igneous intrusive rocks arc associated with the Mount Hope igneous complex (Roberts et al. 1967, USDOl BLM 2012c). 3 Bars Project Draft MS 3-48 September 20 1 3 < Qoa QTsu __ - - ' QTsu ' ‘*'Tvu^ SI SOwu SOwu ureka Elko County Eureka County «*? .. United States Department of the Interior aWN Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office C; 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 * k v (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Project Area BatUe Mountain Elko Mount Lewis Field Office Battle Mountain District Vagan "" ▼ * Roberts Mountains Thrust mm Dwu-Sedimentary Rocks, Undivided H Qal-Alluvium Deu-Sedimentary Rocks, Undivided Dn-Nevada Formation 1 J Qa- Valley Alluvium and Stream Deposits DSwu-Sedimentary Rocks. Undivided H Qf-Alluvial Fan Deposits Si-Lone Mountain Dolomite MhM Qs-Sinter Deposits ■■■ Sr-Roberts Mountains Formation | | Qoa-Older Alluvium SOwu-Sedimentary Rocks, Undivided f **l Qvu-Volcanic Rocks, Undivided Oh-Hanson Creek Formation ! | QTsu-Sedimentary Deposits, Undivided Ova-Valmy Formation hXv Tg-Gravels H Tvu-Volcanic Rocks, Undivided ■■■ Ov-Vinini Formation HIM Oe-Eureka Quartzite ■■ ir- intrusive Rocks Ou-Sedimentary Rocks, Undivided Op-Pogonip Group | Kn-Newark Canyon Formation I | Pg-Garden Valley Formation Cu-Sedimentary Rocks. Undivided 1 Mu-Sedimentary Rocks. Undivided Undetermined 3 Bars Project Area 1 Dd-Devils Gate Limestone Source: Roberts et al 1967. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-9 Geologic Formations ■■j Kilometers 10 10 i i3 Miles A No warranty m made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This Information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice GEOLOGY AND MINERALS 3.6.2.3 Minerals 3.6.2.3.1 Locatable Minerals The most important locatable mineral commodities in the study area are precious and base metal resources including antimony, gold, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, silver, vanadium, and zinc (Roberts et al. 1967). The Eureka-Battle Mountain trend crosses the study area from northwest to southeast and mines within the trend produced over 100,000 ounces of gold in 2009 (Price et al. 2010). Major mines in Eureka County include the Betze-Post Mine (Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc.), Eastern Nevada Operations (Newmont Mining Corporation), and the Ruby Hill Mine (Barrick Gold Corp.), which have produced a total of 81,382 ounces of gold and 43,276 ounces of silver through 2010 (Driesner and Coyner 201 1). The Mount Hope Project is under construction, and there are several historical mining districts within the study area including the Roberts, Antelope, Lone Mountain, and Mount Hope Districts (Figure 3-10; Roberts et al. 1967). A Record of Decision for the Mount Hope Project was issued in 2012 and construction for the project is underway, with operations scheduled to start in 2014 (USDOI BLM 2012c). Molybdenum was discovered at the site through exploratory drilling in the 1970s and 1980s (General Moly 2012) and the deposit is estimated to have 1.3 billion pounds of molybdenum reserves. 3.6.2.3.2 Leasable Minerals Oil and Gas A few oil and gas test holes have been drilled in the study area, but no commercial production has been established (Figure 3-11; Garside and Hess 2011). Pine Valley is considered an area of high petroleum potential and a small portion of the southern part of the valley extends into the project area. Geothermal Geothermal energy is a potential leasable mineral resource in the study area. Geothermal energy is used for power generation at Beowawe, Nevada, in northern Eureka County, and at the McGinness Hills geothermal project in Grass Valley, Lander County, and west of the 3 Bars Project area. The likelihood of geothermal development on the 3 Bars Project area is low (Zehner et al. 2009). 3.6.2.3.3 Saleable Minerals Alluvial fan deposits along the mountain fronts in Eureka County provide a large potential source of sand and gravel (Lumos and Associates 2007). There are about 24 saleable minerals sites covering about 55 acres within the 3 Bars Project area. Annual production is about 100,000 tons of material. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-50 September 2013 Elko County Eureka County Union Cortez Roberts ur V Mounl Hope 5 B99 i bone Mountain ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ Legend Mineral Resources Precious Metals Base Metals Mining District 3 Bars Project Area Source: Lumos & Associates 2007. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-10 Mineral Resources 0 1 2 3 4 5 ii Kilometers 10 10 t No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for Individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County Table Mountain^' Eureka County East Henderson Creek No* 1 27-,oil'-05228 ^ ^A'lpha^Strat 27:0.11-05290, * Jackpot Federal No. 1 27:011-05249 North Kobeh Valley Federal No. 13-10> 27-011-05242 Willow Wash Federal No. 42-24 27-011-05225 Lone Mountain No. 15tK 27-011-05243 Silver State Federal No. 33-18 27-011-05208 ureka V . V ' \ .VHMMfet v United States Department of the Interior J Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office PjSi 50 Bastian Rd. \~ ~1 j/ Battle Mountain, NV 89820 jff (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) y \ -i*h ? " P-rfT” v 3V Legend Abandoned Well with Evidence of Oil and/or Gas Encountered while Drilling Abandoned Well with No Evidence of Oil or Gas Encountered while Drilling 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-11 Oil and Gas Resources (through 2006) 3 Bars Project Area Source: Garside & Hess 2007 1 2 3 4 5 l No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 3.6.3. 1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on the AECC and public scoping comments, key issues of concern for geology and minerals are the potential for restoration treatments to interfere with existing or proposed mineral extraction operations and the ability to access the underlying minerals. 3.6.3.2 Significance Criteria Effects to geology or minerals would be considered significant if BLM actions resulted in a prolonged or permanent restriction on use of, or access to, mineral resources. 3.6.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.6.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives There is potential that restoration treatments could affect or be effected by mineral exploration and development, as an area could be restored and later affected by mineral exploration or development that could cause the loss of restoration benefits; or restoration treatments could interfere with staking and maintenance of mineral claims. Conflicts (and subsequent potential effects) between mineral exploration and development and land restoration would be minimized by the implementation of General Standard Operating Procedure 4 (Appendix C), whereby the location of mineral claims and other mineral activity would be determined prior to the start of treatments. By reviewing the LR 2000 database, the BLM would be able to identify areas with current and possibly future mineral activity, such as current fluid minerals leases. The presence of mining claims or fluid mineral leases would not preclude restoration work, but these sites would require more coordination with affected interests. Restoration treatments would not be expected to interfere with current ongoing mineral extraction operations. However, areas disturbed by ongoing mineral development (leach pads, waste rock dumps, roads, and mine facilities) would be precluded from treatment, as restoration of these areas would be handled under federal mining laws and Nevada State regulations. Eventual reclamation of these areas would be consistent with BLM land management goals and objectives. 3.6.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Riparian Treatments The use of minerals would be greater for riparian treatments than for other treatment types. Gravel and crushed rock resources would be needed for streambank restoration and grade stabilization. This effect on local gravel and rock resources would be negligible as valley fill deposits provide an abundance of gravel and rock resources, but the BLM may have to develop pits near Roberts Mountains and other treatment areas to provide mineral resources. Riparian treatments would have little effect on mineral access or potential for conflict with mineral exploration and development because of the limited extent of the riparian treatment areas. 3 Bars Project Draft US 3-53 September 20 1 3 GEOLOGY AND MINERALS Aspen Treatments Aspen treatments would have no effect on mineral use because aspen treatments do not involve the use of gravel or crushed rock. Aspen treatments would have little effect on mineral access or potential for conflict with mineral exploration and development because of the limited extent of the aspen treatment areas. Piny on-juniper Treatments Pinyon-juniper treatments would have no effect on mineral use because pinyon-juniper treatments would not involve the use of gravel or crushed rock. Pinyon-juniper treatments could affect mineral access and contribute to potential conflicts with mineral exploration and development because of the large area being treated to control pinyon-juniper and the potential for treatment areas to overlap with future mineral resource development areas. Sagebrush Treatments Sagebrush treatments would have no effect on mineral use because sagebrush treatments would not involve the use of gravel or crushed rock. Sagebrush treatments would have little effect on mineral access or potential conflicts for conflict with mineral exploration and development because of the limited area being treated and the limited potential for treatment areas to overlap with mineral resource areas. 3.6.33.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Direct and indirect effects to local gravel and rock resources under Alternative B would be similar to those for Alternative A. Potential conflicts over access to and use of mineral resources would be about 50 percent less under this alternative than under Alternative A. 3.6.33.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Direct and indirect effects to local gravel and rock resources under Alternative C would be about one-fourth those for Alternative A. Potential conflicts over access to and use of mineral resources would one-fourth that of Alternative A. 3.633.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to geology and minerals from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. 3.63.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for geology and mineral resources is the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). 3.63.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative A would have a negligible contribution to the cumulative effects on mineral resources. About 12,700 acres would be treated annually on the 3 Bars Project area, and another 1 ,500 acres annually on other public lands within the CESA, to restore riparian, aspen, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush habitat and reduce hazardous fuels. Approximately 3 1 miles of stream would be restored, and restoration activities would require gravel and crushed rock. However, in the context of road and other land development and mining within the CESA, gravel and crushed rock 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-54 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES needs for the 3 Bars Project would be negligible. Potential conflicts over access to and use of mineral resources would also be negligible. 3.6.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Alternative B would have a negligible contribution to the cumulative effects on mineral resources. About 6,300 acres would be treated annually on the 3 Bars Project area, and another 1,500 acres annually on other public lands within the CESA, to restore habitat and reduce hazardous fuels. Approximately 3 1 miles of stream would be restored, and restoration activities would require gravel and crushed rock. However, in the context of road and other land development and mining within the CESA, gravel and crushed rock needs for the 3 Bars Project would be negligible. Potential conflicts over access to and use of mineral resources would also be negligible. 3.6.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Alternative C would have a negligible contribution to the cumulative effects on mineral resources. About 3,200 acres would be treated annually on the 3 Bars Project area, and another 1,500 acres annually on other public lands within the CESA, to restore habitat and reduce hazardous fuels. Only about 8 miles of stream would be restored, one-fourth the miles of stream restored under Alternatives A and B. In the context of road and other land development and mining within the CESA, gravel and crushed rock needs for the 3 Bars Project would be negligible, as less than 1 percent of the CESA would be affected annually. Potential conflicts over access to and use of mineral resources would be negligible. 3.6.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no cumulative impacts to geology and mineral resources from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. 3.6.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects There would be a loss of gravel and rock from mine quarries for stream bioengineering activities under Alternatives A, B, and C. 3.6.3.6 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity There would be a long-term loss of mineral resources from quarries to provide gravel and rock resources for stream bioengineering. However, these resources would have a long-term benefit to riparian and stream habitat. 3.6.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of geological or mineral resources. Gravel and rock used for stream bioengineering would be moved from one location (mine quarry) to another (stream), but not lost. 3.63.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives There would be negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to geology or mineral resources from the alternatives and these effects would not be significant. Demand for gravel and crushed stone to support mining activities in the CESA would far exceed the amounts of material that would be needed for 3 Bars Project treatments. 3 liars Project Draft PIS 3-55 September 20 1 3 GEOLOGY AND MINERALS None of the alternatives are expected to result in a prolonged or permanent restriction on use of or access to mineral resources within the 3 Bars Project area or CESA. 3.6.4 Mitigation No mitigation measures are proposed for geology or minerals. 3.7 Paleontological Resources 3.7.1 Regulatory Framework Federal legislative protection for paleontological resources stems from the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Public Law-59- 209; 16 United States Code [USC] § 431 et seq; 34 Statute 225), which calls for protection of historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interests on federally administered lands. Federal protection for scientifically important paleontological resources would apply to construction or other related project impacts that occur on federally administered lands. The Paleontological Resource Protection Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-011) requires the Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise. The Act includes specific provisions addressing management of these resources by the BLM and other federal agencies. The BLM manages paleontological resources under a number of other federal laws including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Sections 310 and 302[b]), which directs the BLM to manage public lands to protect the quality of scientific and other values; 43 CFR § 8365:1-5, which prohibits the willful disturbance, removal, and destruction of scientific resources or natural objects; 43 CFR § 3622, which regulates the amount of petrified wood that can be collected for personal noncommercial purposes without a permit; and 43 CFR § 3809.420 (b)(8), which stipulates that a mining operator “shall not knowingly disturb, alter, injure, or destroy any scientifically important paleontological remains or any historical or archaeological site, structure, building or object on federal lands.” The BLM has adopted the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system to identify and classify fossil resources on federal lands (Tabic 3-9; USDOI BLM 2007c). Paleontological resources are closely tied to the geologic units (i.e., formations, members, or beds) that contain them. The probability of finding paleontological resources can be broadly predicted from the geologic units present at or near the surface. Therefore, geologic mapping can be used for assessing the potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources. The PFYC system is a way of classifying geologic units based on the relative abundance of vertebrate or scientifically significant fossils (plants, vertebrates, and invertebrates) and their sensitivity to adverse impacts. A higher class number indicates higher potential for presence. The PFYC system is not intended to be applied to specific paleontological localities or small areas within units. Although significant localities may occasionally occur in a geologic unit, a few widely scattered important fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher class. Instead, the relative abundance of significant localities is intended to be the major determinant for the class assignment. The PFYC system is meant to provide baseline guidance for predicting, assessing, and mitigating paleontological resources. The classification should be considered at an intermediate point in the analysis, and should be used to assist 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-56 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in determining the need for further mitigation assessment or actions. The BLM intends for the PFYC System to be used as a guideline rather than as a rigorous definition. In addition to the statutes and regulations previously listed, fossils on public lands are managed through the use of internal BLM guidance and manuals. Included among these are BLM Manual 8270, Paleontological Resource Management , and BLM Handbook H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance far Paleontological Resource Management (USDOI BLM 2008c, d). TABLE 3-9 Potential Fossil Yield Classification Class Description Basis 1 Igneous and metamorphic (tuffs are excluded from this category) geologic units or units representing heavily disturbed preservation environments that are not likely to contain recognizable fossil remains. • Fossils of any kind known not to occur except in the rarest of circumstances. • Igneous or metamorphic origin. • Landslides and glacial deposits. 2 Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils. • Vertebrate fossils known to occur very rarely or not at all. • Age greater than Devonian. • Age younger than 1 0,000 years before present. • Deep marine origin. • Aeolian origin. • Diagenetic alteration. 3 Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence. Also sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. • Units with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils. • Vertebrate fossils and significant invertebrate fossils known to occur inconsistently, and predictability known to be low. • Poorly studied and/or poorly documented. Potential yield cannot be assigned without ground reconnaissance. 4 Class 4 geologic units are Class 5 units (see below) that have lowered risks of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation. • Significant soil/vegetative cover; outcrop is not likely to be impacted. • Areas of any exposed outcrop are smaller than 2 contiguous acres. • Outcrop forms cliffs of sufficient height and slope that most is out of reach by normal means. • Other characteristics that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified fossil localities. 5 Highly fossiliferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce invertebrate fossils and/or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils, and that are at risk of natural degradation and/or human-caused adverse impacts. • Vertebrate fossils and/or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils are known and documented to occur consistently, predictably, and/or abundantly. • Unit is exposed and little or no soil/vegetative cover. • Outcrop areas arc extensive and discontinuous areas are larger than 2 contiguous acres. • Outcrop erodes readily and may form badlands. • Easy access to extensive outcrop in remote areas. • Other characteristics that increase the sensitivity of both known and unidentified fossil localities. Sources: USDOI BLM (2007c, 2008c). 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-57 September 2013 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7.2 Affected Environment 3.7.2. 1 Study Methods and Study Area Information on the paleontological resources of the 3 Bars Project area was derived from maps and publications by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and USGS, and the Mount Hope Project EIS and references cited therein (USDOI BLM 2012c). The study area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to paleontological resources is the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). 3.7.2.2 Fossil Potential in the Study Area No paleontological resources of critical scientific or educational value are known to occur within the 3 Bars Project area. Paleontological resources have been identified in several mountain ranges in the study area (Lumos and Associates 2007, USDOI BLM 2012c). At Roberts Mountains and Lone Mountain, the paleontological resources are associated with Ordovician rocks where the fossil assemblages provide evidence of mass extinctions. The Simpson Park Mountains and Roberts Mountains have yielded marine vertebrate fossils from Devonian rocks. The fossil- bearing formations have not been classified according to the PFYC system. At Roberts Mountains, paleontological resources have been found near Vinini Creek, Pete Hanson Creek, and Cottonwood Canyon, and are significant for their invertebrate fossil resources because they have yielded numerous new species. Johnson (1962) reports a previously unrecorded species of brachiopod, leading to the designation of a new Middle Devonian zone from rocks in the Roberts Mountains. Ausich (1978) reports a new species of Pisocrinus from the Roberts Mountains which expanded the known range for this type of Silurian crinoid. Stone and Berdan (1984), based on investigations of the Late Silurian strata of the Roberts Mountains, identified 3 new genera and 18 new species of ostracodes. 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 3.7.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on the AECC and public scoping comments, no key issues of concern were identified for paleontological resources. However, the BLM is obligated by statute to protect paleontological resources on federal lands from damage by activities initiated or approved of by the BLM. 3.7.3.2 Significance Criteria The loss or destruction of scientifically important or valuable paleontological resources would constitute a significant impact. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-58 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAE CONSEQUENCES 3.7.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.7.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Paleontological resources are most valuable when they are found in place and undisturbed. Even if fossils arc present “in float,'1 on the soil surface or as part of soil horizons, if they are not found in their original stratigraphic position in the sedimentary layers they are less valuable scientifically. Restoration treatments should have little or no impact on paleontological resources. Scientifically valuable fossils that may be present in the study area would be in bedrock outcrops and should not be affected. Indirect adverse effects to paleontological resources could occur through unauthorized collecting by workers at easily accessible outcrops. 3.7.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Riparian Treatments Mechanical treatments involving the use of heavy equipment, and any treatment method that has the potential to disturb more than surficial layers (disturbance greater than 6 to 8 inches deep), or has the potential to disturb bedrock, have the greatest possibility of causing impacts to paleontological resources. Equipment with treads (i.e., bulldozers with grousers) could damage fossil specimens contained in float, but such action would not have as much impact as disturbance of fossils that are contained in bedrock and outcrop. If the disturbance is shallow, and not on exposed bedrock, the potential for loss or damage of fossils would be minimal. However, soil excavation and removal would only occur on a few acres annually within riparian zones, and mostly in areas that have likely been disturbed in the past by stream channelization and movement, so impacts to fossils from riparian zone treatments should be negligible. The effects of fire on fossil resources have been studied by the National Park Service. A study was conducted in the Badlands National Park, South Dakota, where the effects of elevated temperatures on fossils were studied in controlled bums and under laboratory conditions (Benton and Reardon 2006). They found that moderate fire conditions appear to have “minimal impact on fossil resources'1 unless the specimens are in direct contact with burning fuel. It was found that high intensity fire conditions could have an effect on fossils even if there is no contact with burning fuel. Fossils exposed to low intensity fire conditions showed no alteration while fossils exposed to higher temperatures exhibited discoloration and fracturing. Since the most valuable fossil resources are still entrained in outcrops where there is less likelihood for fuel, and only a few acres of riparian habitat would be burned annually, the risk of impacts to fossil resources from prescribed fire on the 3 Bars Project area would be negligible. Aspen Treatments Mechanical treatments would generally involve the manipulation of vegetation above the soil surface. Aspen treatments presents a lesser risk of potential effects to fossils than riparian treatments, because mechanical treatments would not disturb the soil as deeply as would stream restoration treatments, and fire treatments would be small in size and primarily limited to aspen stands. Pinyon-juniper Treatments Manual treatments would primarily occur in Phase I and II woodland stands (see Section 3. 1 1 .2, Native and Non- in vasive Vegetation Resources, for a discussion of pinyon-juniper phase classes) found at lower elevations and would be unlikely to disturb fossils. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-59 September 2013 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Bulldozers pulling Ely chains within Phase II and III stands could expose fossils and impact their integrity. However, the risk to fossils from chaining would be very low, as typically bulldozers arc limited in their reach due to steepness of terrain, and the BLM would try to avoid impacting any rock outcrops with the chain. Because the BLM proposes to use prescribed fire primarily in Phase III stands that are often found at higher elevations, it is possible that fires would come into contact with rock outcrops that might contain fossils. These include treatments in the Atlas, Frazier Unit, Henderson Corridor, Gable Corridor, and Vinini Corridor units, which arc on Roberts Mountains where fossils have been found. Paleontological resources have been found near Vinini Creek, Pete Hanson Creek, and Cottonwood Canyon. Rock outcrops are also associated with old-growth pinyon- juniper and limber pine, but the BLM has no plans to conduct fire treatments in old-growth areas. Sagebrush Treatments The BLM would use a roller chopper, rangeland mower, or smooth chain to open up sagebrush stands, but these treatments would create little disturbance to the soil and rock outcrops would be avoided. The BLM proposes to use prescribed fire on a few acres annually in the Three Corners Unit. No fossils have been identified in this unit, and due to the limited acres treated using fire, risks to fossils would be negligible even if they are present. The BLM also proposes to treat cheatgrass and other non-native vegetation at the Rocky Hills, Table Mountain, West Simpson Park, and Whistler Sage units using all treatment methods. No fossils have been found in these areas, and if present, would be found below the soil surface and should not be affected by treatment methods, including disking, tilling, and seeding, and use of livestock. 3.7.3.33 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) The effects to paleontological resources under Alternative B would be less than for Alternative A. Approximately 6,350 acres would be treated annually, half as many as would be treated under Alternative A, and the BLM would not be able to use prescribed fire or wildland fire for resource benefit. Thus, there would be no risks to fossils from the use of fire, or from the equipment used to conduct these treatments. The BLM would conduct stream bioengineering on approximately 3 1 miles under this alternative; risks to fossils from stream treatments would be similar to those for Alternative A. Instead of using fire to treat Phase II and III pinyon-juniper, the BLM would rely on tracked bulldozers to pull an Ely chain to break up the continuity of fuels, and disking, harrowing, and drill seeding to remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation and restore sagebrush habitat, potentially exposing fossils. 3.7.33.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) The effects to paleontological resources under Alternative C would be less than for the other action alternatives. Only about 3,200 acres would be treated annually, one-fourth that of Alternative A, and only using manual and classical biological control methods. Both of these methods would have little or no ground disturbance, and would not be done near rock outcrops. The BLM would conduct about 8 miles of riparian restoration, but the area of disturbance would be very small and the BLM would not be able to use mechanical equipment to restore stream habitat. 3.733.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to paleontological resources under Alternative D as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation. 3 liars Project Draft BIS 3-60 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND FN V I RON M ENT A L CONSEQUENCES especially cheatgrass; restore lire as an integral part of the ecosystem; or reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire. As a result, there may be loss of soil and other land degradation that could affect paleontological resources found close to the ground surface, but this risk would be negligible. 3.73.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for paleontological resources is the same as for geology and minerals and is the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). 3.73.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Cumulative effects to paleontological resources would result from surface disturbance related to industrial developments, unauthorized collection, and natural erosion processes in the CESA area. Utilities and infrastructure and land development activities in fossil-bearing formations could impact, expose, damage, or destroy paleontological resources, although these activities would be unlikely in the 3 Bars Project area. These projects would require large amounts of sand, gravel, and crushed rock, however, and these materials could contain fossils. The BLM would continue to use ground-based herbicide applications to remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and aerial-based application methods to remove cheatgrass, and would restore burned areas under the Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program, under existing authorizations on about 1,000 acres annually. These treatments should not have a direct effect on paleontological resources, which would be found in rock outcrops or buried in the soil. These treatments would help to reduce hazardous fuels, slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reduce surface runoff and erosion associated with bum sites, potentially to the benefit of paleontological resources. The BLM would conduct hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments on about 1,500 acres annually under existing authorizations, and likely on additional acreage under future authorizations, within the CESA. The effects of these treatments on paleontological resources would be similar to those for 3 Bars Project treatments and should be negligible. The 8,300 acre Mount Hope Project is in the southeastern portion of the 3 Bars Project area. There are no known fossil-bearing rocks associated with the Mount Hope Project, and most geologic units associated with the mine site have low probability of having fossils (USDOl BLM 2012c:3-268). Mines occurring in non-fossil-bearing geologic formations would not impact or affect paleontological resources. Surface disturbance from drilling of wells and construction of infrastructure for oil, gas, or geothermal development could impact fossil resources. The primary impact to paleontological resources would result from the excavation of material for construction of the permanent facilities. Extraction of gravel materials could impact paleontological resources. If a pipeline was constructed and placed underground, there could be impacts to subsurface fossil resources. Overall, disturbance from development would have a very low probability of impacting paleontological resources. In the context of other land-disturbing activities in the CESA, effects from the 3 Bars Project would be negligible, as less than 2 percent of the surface area (about 12,700 acres) would be disturbed annually from 3 Bars Project actions. Thus, the cumulative effects from project actions in the context with disturbances from other activities within the CESA should be negligible. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-61 September 20 1 3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on paleontological resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The cumulative risks to paleontological resources under Alternative B would be less than for Alternative A, as only half as many acres would be treated on the 3 Bars Project area and lire treatments would not be allowed under this alternative. However, the BLM would compensate for not being able to use fire by using heavy equipment, which could increase the risk to paleontological resources. Approximately 6,300 acres would be treated annually on the 3 Bars Project area to improve habitat and reduce hazardous fuels, or about 1 percent of the CESA. Thus, the cumulative effects from project actions in the context with disturbances from other activities within the CESA should be negligible. 3.7.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on paleontological resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The cumulative risks to paleontological resources under this alternative would be the least for the action alternatives. Approximately 3,200 acres would be treated annually on the 3 Bars Project area, or about 0.5 percent of the CESA. Only manual and classical biological control methods would be used, and these methods would have negligible effect on fossils. Stream bioengineering would occur on only about 8 miles of stream during the life of the project, one-fourth the mileage treated under Alternative A. 3.7.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no cumulative impacts to paleontological resources as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. This alternative would not reduce the risk of wildfire or loss of soil due to erosion, thus there could be effects to fossils if wildfires occur in rock outcrops, or fossils are lost due to erosion. 3.7.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects The loss of paleontological resources has the potential to be adverse, especially if it results in the loss of scientifically important fossils. However, if surveys and inventories are conducted in areas where ground-disturbing activities are proposed to occur, the likelihood of adverse impacts would be greatly reduced and any impacts that did occur would be minimal. 3.7.3.6 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity Because paleontological resources arc nonrcnewablc, there is no difference between short-term and long-term impacts. The resource cannot recover from some types of adverse impacts. Once disturbed, the materials and information associated with paleontological deposits may be permanently compromised. Any destruction of paleontological sites, especially those determined to have particular scientific value, would represent long-term losses. Furthermore, once paleontological deposits were disturbed and exposed, natural erosion could accelerate the destruction of fossils, and exposed fossils would be vulnerable to unauthorized collecting and digging. Any discoveries of paleontological resources as a result of surveys required prior to treatment would enhance long-term knowledge of the area and these resources (USDOI BLM 2007b). 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-62 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.7.3. 7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Because paleontological resources are nonrencwable, any impacts would render the resource disturbance irreversible and the integrity of the resource irretrievable. 3. 7.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives None of the alternatives would be expected to result in the loss or destruction of scientifically important or valuable paleontological resources within the CESA or 3 Bars Project treatment areas. Thus, none of the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts from the alternatives would create a significant impact within the CESA or 3 Bars Project area. 3.7.4 Mitigation No mitigation measures for paleontological resources are recommended. According to Instructional Memorandum 2009-01 1 Guidelines for Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources (USDOl BLM 2008e), “If the proposed project will not disturb potentially fossil-yielding bedrock or alluvium, no additional work is necessary. . . Examples of such projects include noxious weed spraying, mechanical brush treatment, geophysical exploration, or surface disturbing activities such as road construction when the fossil resource is expected to be buried well below project compression or excavation depth or when surface fossil resources would be left undamaged.” 3.8 Soil Resources 3.8.1 Regulatory Framework There are no federal or state laws or regulations specific to soil. State and federal agencies, however, have identified best management practices (BMPs) to limit the effects of soil erosion on the aquatic environment, including water quality. The USEPA guidelines define BMPs as “methods, measures, or practices to prevent or reduce water pollution, including but not limited to, structural and non-structural controls, operation and maintenance procedures, and scheduling and distribution of activities. Usually BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. Best management practices are selected on the basis of site-specific conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility.” The BLM Nevada Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, as chartered by the USDOl to promote healthy rangelands, has developed Standards and Guidelines for grazing administration on about 16.2 million acres of public lands in Nevada. Included in the Standards and Guidelines is Standard 1 - Upland Sites. This Standard states that “upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate to soil type, climate and land form.” Indicators include canopy and ground cover, including litter, live vegetation and rock, appropriate to the potential of the site. Livestock grazing management and wild horse and burro population levels are appropriate when in combination with other multiple uses they maintain or promote upland vegetation and other organisms and provide for infiltration and permeability rates, soil moisture storage, and soil stability appropriate to the ecological site with management units (USDOl 2007b). 3.8.1. 1 Nevada Best Management Practices The use of BMPs in Nevada is addressed in the Handbook of Best Management Practices (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and Nevada Division of Conservation Districts 1994). Nevada Administrative Code 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-63 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES 445 A. 306 defines “Best Practices” as “measures, methods of operation, or practice that arc reasonably designed to prevent, eliminate, or reduce water pollution from diffuse sources and that are consistent with the best practices in the particular field under the conditions applicable. This term is intended to be equivalent to the term ‘best management practices’ as used in federal statutes and regulations.” 3.8.2 Affected Environment 3.8.2. 1 Study Methods and Study Area Information on major land resource areas and soil characteristics was obtained from the Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin (USDA 2006), while information on soil characteristics was obtained from the Soil Survey Geographic Database (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). The Mount Hope Project EIS, and references cited therein, was also consulted (USDOI BLM 2012c). The study area for direct and indirect effects to soil resources is the 3 Bars Project area. The cumulative effects study area for soil resources is the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 watersheds wholly or partially within the project area (Figure 3-1). 3.8.2.2 Soils Characteristics on the Project Area 3.8.2.2.1 Soil Orders Soil resources in the project area formed in major land resource area 28B, the Central Nevada Basin and Range. The dominant soil orders in this major land resource area are Aridisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, and Mollisols (Figure 3-12). Aridisols form in an arid or semi-arid climate and are well developed soils that have a very low concentration of organic matter. In contrast, Mollisols are fertile soils with high organic matter and a nutrient-enriched, thick surface. Entisols are considered recent soils that lack soil development because erosion or deposition rates occur faster than the rate of soil development. Inceptisols are generally young mineral soils, but have had more time to develop profile characteristics than Entisols. The soils in this major land resource area generally are well drained, loamy or loamy- skeletal, and range from shallow to very deep (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). 3.8.2.2.2 Soil Physical Properties Soil physical characteristics, such as the susceptibility to erosion and the potential for revegetation, arc important to consider when planning for vegetation treatment activities and stabilization of disturbed areas. These hazards or limitations for use arc a function of many physical and chemical characteristics of each soil, in combination with the climate and vegetation. Table 3-10 summarizes some important soil characteristics to be considered when evaluating the effects of vegetation treatment activities. 3.8.2.23 Soil Compaction Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together and the pore spaces between them are reduced and bulk density is increased. Moist, fine textured soils arc most susceptible to severe compaction. Approximately 19 percent of the soils in the project area arc compaction prone (Figure 3-13). 3 liars Project Draft lilS 3-64 September 20 1 3 Elko County ureka County 'Ml- ureka United States Departr United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Manag Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Offi< Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 8 Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ dm Legend Soil Order Aridisols ■■ Entisols Inceptisols ■■ Mollisols ■■ Not Rated CZI 3 Bars Project Area Source: USDANRCS 2012. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-12 Soil Order \v,- . Kilometer s 5 saw Project Area Battle E ft 0 Moui tain Mount Lewis Held Office Battle Mountain District Lae Vega* No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards Thrs product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County Touwraur? Eureka County 'Afita ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office yWHyl 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Compaction Prone Soils 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Source: USDA NRCS 2012. Figure 3-13 Compaction Prone Soils 0 1 2 3 4 5 ■m2 Kilometers 10 ■N No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.S.2.2.4 Soil Erodibility Hazard Water erosion is the detachment and movement of soil by water. Natural erosion rates depend on inherent soil properties, slope, soil cover, and climate. Soil erodibility hazard potential has been assessed for both water driven and wind driven causes of erosion on each soil unit within the project area. Erodibility ratings are based on analyzing the dominant conditions of the surface layer of each soil within a soil unit. Water driven causes have been qualified based on the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service K factor. The erosion K factor indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water, based primarily on the percentage of silt, sand, organic matter, and rock fragments within the soil unit and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.64. Soils with higher K values are more erodible than soils with lower K values. A small percentage of the soils within the project area (approximately 15 percent) have a “severe” soil erodibility hazard rating for water-caused erosion. These soils are on steep slopes (Figure 3-14, Table 3-10). TABLE 3-10 Project Area Soil Limitations Limitation Acres Percent of Project Area Compaction Prone 141,484 19 Low Revegetation Potential 51,321 7 Wind Erodible 1,043 <1 Water Erodible 109,139 15 Shallow to Bedrock 490,311 65 Droughty 156,905 21 Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012). Wind erosion is the physical wearing of the earth’s surface by wind. Wind erosion removes and redistributes soil. Small blowout areas may be associated with adjacent areas of deposition at the base of plants or behind obstacles, such as rocks, shrubs, fence rows, and roadbanks (Soil Quality Institute 2001). Wind driven erodibility interpretations are based on USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service wind erodibility group ratings. Wind erodibility group ratings range from 1 to 8 with values of 1 and 2 considered “severe,” and thus considered a limitation within the project area. The wind erodibility group value is closely correlated to the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, and organic matter, and the calcareous reaction potential of the soil. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erodibility group ratings. Wind erodible soils are not prevalent in the project area. A small percentage of the soils within the 3 Bars Project area (less than 1 percent) have a “severe” soil erodibility hazard rating for wind-caused erosion (Figure 3-15). These soils are in the southeastern portion of the project area. 3.8.2.2.5 Soil Productivity and Quality Site productivity is primarily a measure of vegetation success. Productivity varies with vegetation community, but more importantly, with land management objectives as they relate to the establishment of desirable or productive vegetation types. In contrast, soil quality is an inherent soil resource characteristic involving aeration, permeability, texture, salinity and alkalinity, microbial populations, fertility, and other physical and chemical characteristics that are 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-67 September 20 1 3 Elko County Eureka County ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management _ Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Soil Erosion Potential from Water Severe Water Erosion Moderate Water Erosion Low Water Erosion 3 Bars Project Area Source: USDA NRCS 2012. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-14 Soil Erosion Potential from Water 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 ■2 Kilometers 10 10 5 Miles No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This Information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. Elko County Eureka County ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management t Mount Lewis Field Office ^yrifcjfcli 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ Legend Soil Erosion Potential from Wind ■■ Severe Wind Erosion Moderate Wind Erosion ■H Low Wind Erosion 3 Bars Project Area Source: USDANRCS 2012 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-15 Soil Erosion Potential from Wind MlomHns Project Area Batl e Eko Mo in tain Mount I X W IS Field Office No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Th»s product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice SOIL RESOURCES accepted as beneficial to overall plant growth and establishment. Topsoil thickness and organic matter content influences water and nutrient holding capacity and improves soil structure and soil quality. Topsoils in the project area have organic matter contents that range from 0 to 5 percent, as shown in Table 3-11 and Figure 3-16. 3.8.2.2.6 Soil Textures Surface soil textures in the project area range from silty clay to loamy very fine sand. Rock fragments such as gravel, cobbles, and stones are common in surface soils within the project area. The soils in the mountainous central part of the project area are typically very stony to very gravelly loams found on 8 to 50 percent slopes intermixed with rocky outcrops. These soils are shallow to moderately deep over lithic and paralithic bedrock and derive from residuum and colluvium from mixed igneous, metamorphic, and volcanic rocks. Soils found in the hilly terrain surrounding Mount Hope are on slopes ranging from 4 to 30 percent and derive from volcanic rocks and limestone. Table 3-12 and Figure 3-17 provide information on the surface soil textures within the project area. 3.8.2.2.7 Low Revegetation Potential Soils with low revegetation potential have chemical characteristics such as high salts, sodium, or pH that may limit plant growth. Saline soils affect plant uptake of water and sodic soils (soils with high levels of sodium) often have drainage limitations. In addition, the success of stabilization and restoration efforts in these areas may be limited unless additional treatments and practices are employed to offset the adverse physical and chemical characteristics of the soils. Approximately 7 percent of soils in the project area are characterized as having low revegetation potential (Figure 3-18). 3.8.2.3 Vegetation Treatment Soil Suitability 3.8.2.3.1 Fire Damage Susceptibility Wildfire is a naturally occurring event that has helped maintain ecosystem function in wildlands. Wildland fire can be caused by natural ignition, such as a lightning strike, or by man-caused ignition, and is used for a resource benefit. Buildup of excess fuel loads can result in high severity fires that damage the soils in the bum area. Prescribed burning is a restoration practice that is primarily designed to help return the natural fire cycle to the landscape. TABLE 3-11 Project Area Topsoil Organic Matter Content Percent Organic Matter Acres Percent of Project Area <1 121,740 16 1-1.9 396,013 53 2-3.9 213,342 28 >4 18,714 2 Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012). Vulnerability to fire damage ratings are used to assess the risks that a fire will create a water repellant (hydrophobic) soil layer, volatilize essential soil nutrients, destroy soil biological activity, and cause soil and water erosion on a burned site. Vulnerability to fire damage ratings are directly related to bum severity (e.g., a low to moderate severity bum will not result in water repellant layer formation). Table 3-13 and Figure 3-19 provide vulnerability to fire damage ratings for the 3 Bars Project area (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Sandy soils are 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-70 September 20 1 3 County Elko Eureka County liUT Mtft /• ' ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management < Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. \ Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Project Area Ball ■ Eko Mount Lewis Held Office Battle Mountain Distnct Legend Organic Matter within Surface Soils < 1% 1 - 3% 3 - 5% 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-16 Organic Matter within Surface Soils Source: USDA NRCS 2012. 0 1 2 3 4 5 mi Kilometers 10 10 3 Miles t No warranty it made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Ongmal data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County .ureka County ureka Oft United States Department of the Interior j't Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office CjjS 50 Bastian Rd. i / . Battle Mountain, NV 89820 1 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) W Legend Soil Surface Texture Fine Texture Medium Texture ■■ Coarse Texture Not Rated 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-17 Soil Surface Texture Source: USDA NRCS 2012 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 12 3 4 5 1:400,000 3 Kilometers 10 10 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. Elko County Eureka County oSlv mlSv? ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management _ Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. \ \/ Battle Mountain. NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) 1 V A ~ I»h Legend Revegetation Potential Low Potential Moderate Potential High Potential Not Rated 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-18 Revegetation Potential Source: USDA NRCS 2012. 0 1 2 3 4 5 IS Kilometers 10 10 3 Miles No warranty « made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County Eureka County :*'* (f> *! ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management R Mount Lewis Field Office BWWi 50 Bastian Rd \ Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ jm Project Area Battle Mountain Elko £5 Mount Lewis Field Office fteno Battle Mountain District Legend Fire Damage Susceptibility ■■ Highly Susceptible Moderately Susceptible ■i Slightly Susceptible ■1 Not Rated 3 Bars Project Area Source: USDA NRCS 2012 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-19 Fire Damage Susceptibility 5 Kilometers 10 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES more susceptible to formation of a water repellant layer than are fine textured soils. High rock fragment content increases the rate of heat transfer into the soil. Steep slopes increase the vulnerability to water erosion. Vulnerability to formation of hydrophobic (water repellant) layers varies by vegetation type. For example, pinyon- juniper vegetation types arc more susceptible to hydrophobicity than other shrubland or grassland vegetation types. Hot, dry south slopes arc more susceptible to fire damage than cool northern slopes. The vulnerability to fire damage rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding rating or the opportunity for restoration rating depending upon whether seeding or natural regeneration will be utilized on the site. TABLE 3-12 Soil Textures in the Project Area Surface Texture Acres Surface Texture Acres Cobbly Loam 46,483 Silt Loam 66,405 Extremely Cobbly Loam 3 Silty Clay 317 Extremely Stony Loam 10,389 Silty Clay Loam 2,298 Fine Sandy Loam 19,655 Stony Loam 40,686 Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam 13,842 Very Cobbly Clay Loam 255 Gravelly Loam 119,273 Very Cobbly Loam 94 Gravelly Sandy Loam 15,949 Very Fine Sandy Loam 4,451 Gravelly Silt Loam 183 Very Gravelly Loam 75,154 Loam 138,274 Very Stony Loam 87,785 Loamy Very Fine Sand 1,043 No Data 5,307 Sandy Loam 101,965 Total 749,810 Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012). TABLE 3-13 Soil Suitabilities for Vegetation Treatment (acres) Suitability or Susceptibility Fire Damage Susceptibility Shredder Susceptibility Chaining Susceptibility Site Degradation Susceptibility Poorly Suited/Highly Susceptible 78,786 109,545 201,250 112,900 Moderately Suited/ Susceptible 444,257 210,470 121,653 426,103 Well Suitcd/Slightly Susceptible 225,446 428,474 425,586 209,487 Not Rated 1,321 1,321 1,321 1,321 Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012). 3.8.2.3.2 Shredder Susceptibility Shredder mechanical treatment is commonly practiced, sometimes in combination with seeding, for rangeland restoration. This type of treatment is often implemented in sagebrush, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper vegetation types to reduce the size and composition of dense brush and trees up to 1 5 to 1 8 inches diameter at breast height. The treatment objective of creating a mulch layer can include reducing hazardous fuel loads, increasing forage tor 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-75 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES livestock and wildlife, increasing infiltration, and reducing runoff and erosion (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serviee 2012). Shredder mechanical treatment suitability ratings represent the relative physical limitations of soil factors upon use of shredder implements suitable for treatment of rangeland sites. This rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding rating or the opportunity for restoration rating depending upon whether seeding or natural regeneration will be utilized on the site. Table 3-13 and Figure 3-20 show shredder suitability ratings for the 3 Bars Project area. 3.5.2.3.3 Chaining Susceptibility Chaining is commonly practiced, sometimes in combination with seeding, for rangeland restoration. Chaining is implemented to reduce the composition of pinyon-juniper trees or sagebrush. Chaining also helps bury seed prior to chaining or between double-chainings. The chaining suitability ratings represent the relative physical limitations of soil factors upon use of implements suitable for chaining rangeland sites. Table 3-13 and Figure 3-21 show chaining suitability ratings for the 3 Bars Project area. Steep slopes limit the ability to safely perform the chaining operation along the contour. Stones and rock outcrops potentially hinder the operation of the equipment. High water table affects the timing of chaining by limiting access to the site (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). 3.8.2.3.4 Site Degradation Susceptibility Vulnerability to degradation is a function of resistance to degradation. Resistance to degradation of a rangeland or woodland site is a measure of its ability to function without change throughout a disturbance. The magnitude of decline in the capacity to function determines the degree of resistance to change. Resistance to degradation thus could be described as an area’s buffering capacity (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). The vulnerability to site degradation suitability ratings represent the relative risk of water and wind erosion, salinization, sodification, organic matter, and nutrient depiction and/or redistribution, and loss of adequate rooting depth necessary to maintain desired plant communities. This rating should be used with the objective to protect vulnerable sites from the type of degradation that would result in accelerated erosion, reduction in water and air quality, invasion by annual grasses or noxious weeds, and other large scale potential natural plant community conversions. When degradation of soil and natural plant community characteristics goes beyond the threshold for the ecological site, the ecological site characteristics cannot be restored without artificial restoration efforts. Table 3-13 and Figure 3-22 show the site degradation susceptibility ratings for the 3 Bars Project area (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences One of the goals of the 3 Bars Project is to improve soil quality and productivity and reduce soil erosion, especially in riparian zones. Restoration treatments would potentially affect soils by altering their physical, chemical, and/or biological properties. Physical changes could include the loss of soil through erosion or changes in soil structure, porosity, or organic matter content. Fire and other treatments would potentially alter nutrient availability and soil pH. 3 Bars Project Draft lilS 3-76 September 20 1 3 Project Area Battle Mountain Eko Mount Lewis Field Office Battle Mountain District H', Vegas Legend Mechanical Treatment Suitability (Shredder) ■■ Poorly Suited Moderately Suited M Well Suited Not Rated 3 Bars Project Area Source: USDA NRCS 2012 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-20 Mechanical Treatment Suitability (Shredder) Mill"-. I Kilometers County United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) No warranty « made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County Eureka County United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management , Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Mechanical Treatment Suitability (Chaining) AM Poorly Suited 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-21 Moderately Suited Well Suited Not Rated 3 Bars Project Area Mechanical Treatment Suitability (Chaining) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Source: USDA NRCS 2012. 0 1 2 3 4 5 ii Kilometers 10 10 ■ Miles t No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Legend Site Degradation Susceptibility ■■ Highly Susceptible Moderately Susceptible ■■ Slightly Susceptible Not Rated 3 Bars Project Area Source: USDA NRCS 2012 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-22 Site Degradation Susceptibility M'l-'' 4 Kilometers Elko County United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management _ Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. \ Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Ongmal data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice SOIL RESOURCES Some vegetation treatments might also alter the abundance and types of soil organisms that contribute to overall soil quality, including mycorrhizae (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-l 1). These consequences are expected to be short-term. Over the long term, treatments that remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, reduce fuels, and restore native plants should enhance soil quality on the 3 Bars Project area. 3.8.3. 1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Issues identified during public scoping include soil stability, wind and water erosion hazards, and effects of multiple treatments on soil resources. 3.8.3.2 Significance Criteria Impacts to soil would be considered significant if BLM actions resulted in: • Accelerated erosion that would likely exceed annual soil loss tolerances. • Loss of topsoil, soil quality, or productivity that would limit revegetation success. • Accelerated erosion from watershed slopes, leading to increased sedimentation or turbidity in streams or ponds, or to other instabilities along stream corridors. 3.8.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.8.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Adverse Effects Restoration treatments could result in increased rates of erosion and reduced water infiltration, leading to reduced soil productivity. Erosion results when unstable soils are displaced under the forces of gravity, wind, or water. Although erosion is a natural process, it can increase markedly when vegetation is cleared (Bonneville Power Administration 2000). Unnaturally high erosion rates could occur as a result of soil disturbance during the restoration treatment, or from the resultant vegetation removal and associated decrease in soil stability. The effects of loss of plant cover and organic matter on soil erosion would be greatest for treatments in areas with soils having severe water and wind erosion hazards as shown in Figures 3-14 and 3-15. Soils that are highly prone to water erosion would likely undergo accelerated erosion for a period during and after treatments. These areas are indicated on Figure 3-14. Erosion risk would be greatest for treatment areas on steep slopes, or where soils have clay, poor structural aggregation, or low organic content, and includes most riparian treatment areas. Treatments on these soils, particularly during wet periods, would encourage adverse impacts from soil erosion and sedimentation. Removal of vegetation on public lands would influence the amount of water infiltrating into the soil in some areas. Removal of vegetation could increase surface runoff, reducing the amount of water that might infiltrate into the soil. However, vegetation removal would also eliminate the loss of water to the soil from water being captured by the plant canopy or lost through evapotranspiration. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-80 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Soil compaction associated with some vegetation treatment methods eould reduce infiltration and soil productivity by eliminating pore spaces used for water storage and air exchange. Where highly compactable soils occur, noticeable compaction impacts would likely occur from vehicle traffic and equipment operations. These areas arc indicated on Figure 3-13. Compaction eould impede infiltration and accelerate runoff and erosion. Soil compaction may also result from manual construction of fences and spring exclosures, although disturbance areas would be small. Soil compaction risk would be greatest during wet or muddy conditions, such as during spring runoff, during rainstorms, and for a day or so after storm events. Vegetation treatments can alter the chemistry of the soil. Treatment methods that reduce organic matter cover can reduce the productivity of soils by reducing carbon and other nutrient inputs, and by reducing the moisture-holding capacity. Erosion can result in the transport of organic matter and nutrients off site. Soils with little organic matter to begin with (e.g., most Aridisols) are more susceptible to losses of organic matter. Removing nitrogen-fixing plants, such as legumes, can reduce soil nitrogen, and removing logs and other plant material can deprive soils of nutrients provided by decaying material. Removing vegetation can also reduce evapotranspiration, allowing more water to leach soluble nutrients from the soil (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-12). Laborers and vehicles accessing the site could disturb topsoil and/or surface organic matter; however, the extent of this disturbance should be limited. Coarse-textured soils and steep slopes would be the most fragile, and extensive areas of disturbance could result in increased erosion rates. There is the potential for some contamination of the soil from petroleum products used in hand-held power equipment or from transport vehicles, but these effects would be localized. Beneficial Impacts Although treatments would have short-term effects on soil condition and productivity, it is predicted that disturbance effects resulting from restoration activities would be less severe than wildfire effects and erosion that would result from lack of restoration. In particular, efforts to restore stream functionality, reduce noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation spread, and reduce wildfire risk would benefit soils. The time necessary to accomplish these beneficial results would vary between treatments and from site to site, but would likely be on the order of years to decades after treatment. Based on soil characteristics, site revegetation potential is moderate to high for 3 Bars Project treatment sites (Figure 3-18). Vegetation treatments that reduce or eliminate noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation could be beneficial to soil quality. Beneficial impacts to soil stability and quality would ultimately result from revegetation treatments, due to the overall improvement in nutrient cycling, structural aggregation, reduction of erosion and sedimentation, accumulation of topsoil and organic matter, and enhanced infiltration. If these treatments were to result in increased native plant cover on sites degraded by noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, soil quality would begin to rebound. Sites with a large component of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation may be at a higher risk for erosion than sites that support native vegetation. Invasive plants can increase the potential for wind or water erosion by altering fire frequency or producing chemicals that directly affect soil quality or organisms. These negative effects include increased sediment deposition and erosion, and alterations in soil nutrient cycling. In areas where pinyon-juniper has invaded, studies show that when tree dominance is reduced and herbaceous cover is increased, runoff and soil erosion decrease on sites with relatively fine- textured soils. Leaving tree debris on the ground after mechanical treatments can intercept runoff and increase 3 liars Project Draft I 'IS 3-81 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES infiltration, increase soil moisture by reducing cvapotranspi ration and evaporative loss of soil water, and promote nutrient cycling (Tausch et al. 2009). Restoration treatments would benefit soil quality and productivity by reducing the risk of wildfire. Wildfires generally occur when soils are driest, resulting in hot soil temperatures, loss of nutrients, consumption of soil organic matter, and reduction of soil aggregation, infiltration, and aeration (Erickson and White 2008). Catastrophic, stand-replacing wildfires in pinyon-juniper woodlands can cause the loss of 75 to 100 percent of the soil organic matter (Neary ct al. 1999). Given the ability of an unplanned, uncontrolled, severe wildfire to cover a large geographic area, the detrimental effects of wildfire on soil quality have the potential to be high. Thus, vegetation management that reduces this risk would be beneficial to soil resources on public lands. Lower intensity prescribed fires would help avoid these conditions. This would be especially important on moderate and steep slopes, where uncontrolled catastrophic wildfires fires could cause severe erosion impacts. Removal of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation should improve soil function and increase both soil biodiversity and soil moisture. Many noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation have relatively sparse canopies, which allow for greater evaporation from the exposed soil than dense vegetative cover. Sites infested with noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation often experience more extreme soil temperatures that can alter soil moisture regimes. Removal of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation and reestablishment of native vegetation should slow runoff and evaporation and moderate soil temperatures (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-23). 3.83.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Accelerated erosion and sediment yields could occur under Alternative A, primarily from pinyon-juniper and sagebrush treatments. About 4,000 of the acres treated annually would occur in areas that are susceptible to wind or water erosion, or would be compaction prone, while about 1 0,000 of the acres treated annually could occur in areas that are susceptible to damage from fire treatments. Over time, the risks of water and wind erosion should be reduced from current levels. Soil fertility would improve over time for most treatments. Treatment activities that move pinyon-juniper woodlands and rangelands toward historical ranges of variability would provide favorable conditions for soil functions and processes that contribute to long-term soil productivity at a broad scale (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-18). Riparian Treatments The following discussion focuses on the effects of riparian treatments on soil. A discussion of stream processes, and how proposed stream engineering treatments would affect stream morphology and functionality, including processes related to soil erosion and deposition, is in Section 3.10.3 under Wetland, Floodplain, and Riparian Zones. Adverse Effects Locally, riparian conditions could be adversely affected if treatments resulted in accelerated soil erosion or deposition occurred near water bodies. These effects would occur along streams or other riparian zones if soils on nearby slopes were exposed and subjected to greater transport capacities from raindrop splash or overland flow. Treatment work at several streams, ponds, and springs, including projects associated with the Black Spring Unit, Garden Spring Unit, Henderson above Vinini Confluence Unit, and Frazier Creek Unit groups, would involve using 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-82 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES heavy equipment to reconstruct streams and improve riparian habitat. Because of the spatial scale of construction- related disturbance associated with channel modification projects, the risk of unanticipated impacts can be very high. This is particularly true when projects do not meet restoration objectives, arc not constructed as planned, or arc designed with inadequate knowledge of watershed processes, disturbance regimes, or altered watershed conditions. Poorly designed channel modification projects can result in unexpected channel erosion in adjacent reaches, aggradation or degradation of the channel bed, or other impacts to habitat and processes due to changes in channel slope, bed elevation, and sediment transport capacity. Furthermore, the dynamie nature of hydraulic forces, and the uncertainties inherent in design and analysis, may result in inadvertent impacts from channel modification even when properly designed (Saldi-Caromilc et al. 2004). The use of heavy equipment can result in soil compaction, particularly in areas of moist soils. Compaction by vehicles and other heavy equipment can reduce the porosity of soils, thus limiting water infiltration and increasing surface water runoff and erosion. Soil disturbance during stream restoration could increase erosion and degrade riparian habitat, especially when the treatment is performed on hillslopes. Erosion can be a problem on slopes greater than 20 percent. About 21 percent of riparian treatment acreage has moderate to high soil water erosion potential, 8 percent has moderate to high wind erosion potential, and 27 percent is compaction prone. The treatment areas most prone to compaction and severe water erosion include the McClusky Creek and Indian Creek Headwaters North units. The McClusky Creek Unit in particular has a combination of severe water erosion risk and compaction-prone soils. For those streams identified for Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat improvement, streams most prone to severe water erosion would include portions of streams within the Vinini Creek and Roberts Creek units. Compaction prone soils exist at the upper Henderson Creek, Vinini Creek, and Willow Creek units. The Vinini Creek and Willow Creek units in particular have a combination of severe water erosion risk and compaction-prone soils. Wind erosion hazard is also a moderate risk for adverse impacts in the Lower Henderson Creek Unit. Treatment by mechanical methods during dry months can minimize the effects of erosion on riparian zones. In general, prescribed fires would have fewer impacts on soil than wildfires, as they are low severity and can be controlled to occur in one particular area. In addition, if the BLM does conduct prescribed fire treatments near riparian zones, fire treatments would be limited to no more than a few acres annually. However, nearly 90 percent of riparian treatment acreage has high risk for fire damage to soils and this risk would be considered when planning treatments. Prescribed fires could consume or degrade peat soil, change the vegetation composition and structure of an area, and increase soil erosion. When the various potential impacts to soils (water erosion hazard, compactability, fire damage, and other site degradation factors) are reviewed in combination, the areas where riparian treatments have the most potential for adverse impacts occur along Roberts Creek, Vinini Creek, Willow Creek, McClusky Creek, and Henderson Creek. Beneficial Effects Stream restoration efforts would help reconnect the streams with their floodplains, help the systems dissipate energy associated with high water flow, filter sediment, capture bcdload, aid floodplain development, improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge, restore desirable soil moisture regimes, and provide suitable conditions for riparian plants to develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against erosion. Stream bioengineering and stabilization efforts using manual and mechanical methods would reduce soil erosion and episodes of bank failure. The BLM would remove pinyon-juniper that is encroaching into riparian zones. Pinyon-juniper is not a riparian species and does not hold soil as well as native riparian species. Pinyon-juniper would be cut into logs or mulched. 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-83 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES Vegetation that is uprooted, shredded, mowed, or otherwise altered and seattcrcd on the surface would improve soil cover and organic matter. Scattered vegetative debris could temporarily provide greater soil stability than before treatment. Nocllc (2012) observed that slash did not affect runoff but sediment yield was significantly reduced in pinyon-juniper stands where slash was used to slow runoff on steep slopes. Stream degradation in the 3 Bars Project area can be attributed to historic livestock, wild horse, and wild ungulate soil disturbance in addition to other natural and human-caused factors, and this disturbance has led to soil erosion (USDOl BLM 1999a, 2004b, 2007f, 2008f, 2009c). To reduce these impacts, the BLM could use fencing to temporarily exclude livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates from treatment areas to reduce soil disturbance in treatment areas and allow native vegetation to recover. Aspen Treatments Adverse Effects Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments could lead to soil erosion, as 57 percent of aspen management acreage has moderate to high soil water erosion potential and 14 percent is compaction prone; none of the aspen management treatments areas have potential for wind erosion. Nearly all potential treatment acres have moderate to high fire damage susceptibility, so fire should be used sparingly in aspen treatment areas. Beneficial Effects The BLM would remove pinyon-juniper trees to slow pinyon-juniper encroachment into aspen stands, and to create fire and fuel breaks. Only about 10 acres of pinyon-juniper would be treated annually near aspen stands. Creation of fire and fuel breaks would slow or stop the spread of a wildfire, to the benefit of soil, as discussed earlier. Pinyon-juniper Treatments Adverse Effects Pinyon-juniper treatment areas arc generally on moderate to steep hillslopcs that are prone to erosion. Where trees are in dense stands, removal of these trees could lead to water and wind erosion as vegetative ground cover is mostly absent from these stands. These effects of vegetation loss would lessen as forbs and grasses improve ground cover, and soil loss could also be mitigated by leaving downed wood and slash on the ground as mulch. Manual treatments using chainsaws would have few effects on soil as there would be little soil disturbance. The effects of mechanical treatments on soil would depend on the following: 1 ) the amount of soil exposed during the treatment; 2) the effect of ground disturbance on soil properties; and 3) the site conditions, especially slope and patterns of precipitation. Mechanical treatments would affect soils by removing vegetation and by disturbing or removing topsoil. Because plant and litter cover protect the soil, and roots hold the soil in place, removal of plant materials exposes soil. Exposed soils are vulnerable to increased water and wind erosion and reduced water holding capacity. Overall, 37 percent of pinyon-juniper management acreage has moderate to high water erosion potential, 16 percent has moderate to high wind erosion potential, and 32 percent is compaction prone. Of those areas where mechanical treatments could occur, about 1 8 and 38 percent of the treatment acreage are poorly suited for shredding and chaining, respectively. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-84 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Although most of the mechanical treatments would not directly disturb the soil, the use of heavy equipment on treatment sites could result in increased soil compaction, and heavy equipment can shear and rut wet soils. Compaction by vehicles and other heavy machinery can reduce soil pores and limit water infiltration, soil aeration, and root penetration. Approximately 21 percent of treatment acres are prone to soil compaction. Mechanical treatments could disrupt biological soil crusts. Crusts arc sensitive to compaction by vehicles and other heavy equipment. The removal or destruction of biological soil crusts could adversely affect soil quality by increasing susceptibility to erosion, reducing nitrogen inputs, reducing infiltration, and potentially encouraging weed establishment (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-15). The BLM would use manual and mechanical treatments to thin pinyon-juniper and create fire breaks on up to 1 ,400 acres on the Lone Mountain area. Most trees would be thinned using chainsaws, while fire breaks would be created using manual and mechanical methods, such as shredding. These methods have minimal impact on the soil layer, and soils on Lone Mountain are not prone to compaction. Approximately 60 acres have water erosion hazard, and 400 acres have moderate wind erosion hazard. The BLM would thin and remove pinyon-juniper and create fire breaks in several drainages on Roberts Mountains. Treatment units include the Atlas, Birch, Frazier, Gable, Henderson, Upper Pete Hanson, Upper Roberts, and Vinini units. Approximately one-third of the proposed treatment acres are on soils that are susceptible to compacting, and the resulting adverse impacts to erosion, runoff, sedimentation, and degraded soil quality, would be of concern for this treatment group. In addition, approximately 17 percent of acres have severe water erosion hazard. Nearly 80 percent of acres have moderate or high fire damage susceptibility, while 43 and 26 percent are poorly suited for chaining and shredding, respectively. Thus, mechanical treatments may be preferable to fire treatments if there is concern about soil damage and loss. On the 3 Bars Ranch, Cottonwood/Meadow Canyon, Dry Canyon, Lower Pete Hanson, Tonkin North, Tonkin South, whistler, and Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management units, soil compaction risk occurs on about 15 percent of the treatment areas, and the resulting accelerated erosion, runoff, sedimentation, and degraded soil quality would be a minor adverse impact within this treatment group. Approximately 21 percent of the treatment areas have severe water erosion hazard due to slopes and inherent soil conditions. About 70 percent of the areas have moderate or high fire damage susceptibility, while 45 and 1 8 percent of the areas are poorly suited for chaining and shredding, respectively. Thus, shredding treatments may be preferable to prescribed fire and chaining treatments if there is concern about soil damage and loss. Approximately 30 percent of the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit is at risk for water erosion, while 90 percent of the unit has moderate or high fire damage susceptibility. Potential adverse impacts from wildland fires in pinyon-juniper treatment areas include greater vulnerability to accelerated erosion, loss of organic matter, temporarily reduced microbial populations, and the potential formation of water-repellent surface layers (Ice et al. 2004). Barger (2012) found that prescribed fire in pinyon-juniper stands led to a 1 1 - to 32-fold increase in wind erosion compared to shredded and control sites. He recommended that shredding should be preferred over prescribed fire where possible. Biological soil crusts could be destroyed in areas that are burned; however, lightly scorched biological crusts may still function to reduce erosion. Extensive and severe wildfires often destroy biological crusts and leave the bare soil unprotected, whereas small, less intense prescribed burns may leave some biological soil crusts intact and functioning. Over 80 percent of pinyon-juniper treatment areas arc prone to fire damage that can create a water repellant soil layer, volatilize essential soil nutrients, destroy soil biological activity, and cause soil and water erosion on a burned site. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-85 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES Conducting prescribed burns when soils arc not extremely dry, or during cooler times of the year, could reduce fire effects to soils and biological soil crusts. Beneficial Effects Restoration treatments that move woodlands toward historical ranges of variability would provide favorable conditions for soil functions and processes that contribute to long-term soil productivity at a broad scale (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-18). Erosion and sedimentation processes in pinyon-juniper stands would be reduced long term by vegetation treatments. In a review by Wilcox and Davenport (1995), they found that as pinyon-juniper increases in density, the understory cover decreases. Hastings et al. (2003) observed accelerated erosion in areas where pinyon- juniper was encroaching into native woodlands and displacing native vegetation. Pierson et al. (2007) noted that juniper-dominated hillslopes had significantly lower ground cover and produced rapid runoff from rainfall events that was up to 1 5 times greater than on sites that were not dominated by juniper. They noted that cutting juniper stimulated herbaceous recovery, improved infiltration capacity, and protected the soil surface from rainfall events. Lossing (2012) observed that interception by pinyon-juniper reduced the amount of rainfall reaching the soil beneath the tree canopy by 44 percent. Mechanical treatments that ultimately result in improved plant cover and diversity can improve habitat for soil organisms and reduce the risk of soil erosion. Soil organic matter contents, nutrient cycling, topsoil fonnation, and greater structural aggregation would increase following treatments. Soil fertility, aeration, and infiltration should improve over time. The length of time for these effects to occur is likely to be on the order of years to decades, but improving trends may become noticeable after a few years (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-18). Crushing, chipping, and shredding of vegetation can result in all or most of the organic material remaining on site. The application of large quantities of fresh, woody organic material to the soil surface can provide protection to the soil in the form of mulch. It is well documented that mulch results in attenuated soil temperatures, improved water infiltration, increased soil moisture retention, and reduced sediment yield. Chaining is a common and relatively inexpensive mechanical method of converting woodlands to a mix of herbaceous and shrubby vegetation. It is effective in adding litter to the soil surface (Grahame and Sisk 2002). Several beneficial effects to soils would result from prescribed fires. These include increases in plant nutrient availability, and long-term enhancement of organic matter and microbial populations under desirable plant communities. Sagebrush Treatments Adverse Effects In areas where mechanical treatments could occur, water and wind erosion is of concern at several treatment units. Overall, about 24 percent of sagebrush treatment acreage has moderate to high soil erosion potential, 75 percent has moderate to high wind erosion potential, and 39 percent is compaction prone. Only about 10 percent of the treatment units are poorly suited for chaining or shredding of vegetation. At Alpha, Coils Creek, Kobeh East, Nichols, Roberts Mountain Pasture, and South Simpson units, approximately 60 percent of sagebrush treatment areas for this group have wind erosion hazards, and thinning of the shrub overstory could increase the risk of soil loss from this process. Approximately 2,100 acres in the South Simpson Unit are compaction prone. These units arc moderately to well-suited for shredding and chaining of vegetation. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-86 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Approximately 48 percent of the Table Mountain Unit has compaction prone soils, most (84 percent) of West Simpson Park is susceptible to severe water erosion, and the Rocky Hills Unit has moderate risk of wind erosion (63 percent of potential treatment area). About 63 percent of the Whistler Sage Unit also has moderate wind erosion risk. About 78 percent of the West Simpson Unit is poorly suited for vegetation shredding. Use of equipment in these areas could contribute to soil loss and reduced water infiltration, and some soils may not be well suited for use of shredding and chaining equipment. Fire could be used on sagebrush treatment areas to treat mountain big sagebrush" on a few acres in the Three Comers Unit, and to remove non-native vegetation on Table Mountain, Rocky Hills, Whistler Sage, and West Simpson Park units. The Three Corners Unit is moderately susceptible to fire damage, while about half of the acreage on the Rocky Hills and West Simpson Park units is moderately to highly susceptible to fire damage. Disking would be used to control non-native vegetation, while drill and broadcast seeding would be used to revegetate treatment sites. These methods could improve soil porosity and aerate the root zone in clayey or compacted soils, but may degrade soil structure and reduce permeability to air and water on more fragile soil surfaces. This could promote soil erosion. Similar impacts could occur from harrowing and dragging, but generally would be less severe because of the shallower nature of these techniques. Treatments would likely destroy any existing biological soil crusts in the treatment area, which could reduce infiltration, accelerate erosion, and degrade soil microbiological properties (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-15). The BLM could use livestock, in combination with mechanical treatments, to control cheatgrass and other invasive non-native vegetation. The action of animal hooves could cause some disturbance, shearing, and compaction of soil, increasing its susceptibility to both water and wind erosion. Severe compaction often reduces the availability of water and air to plant roots, sometimes reducing plant vitality. Domestic animals could damage biological soil crusts at treatment sites through physical disruption, resulting in reduced species richness and lichen/moss cover (Belnap et al. 2001). Biological soil crusts, however, are not likely to be well developed in areas dominated by non-native vegetation. Beneficial Effects Treatments that thin the sagebrush canopy and promote the development of understory vegetation would help to stabilize soils and reduce the risk of wind and water erosion. Sites with a large component of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation may be at a higher risk for erosion than sites that support native vegetation. Units with a large component of cheatgrass (fine fuels) may experience faster moving wildfires, which would adversely affect soils. Reestablishment of native vegetation on treatment sites would stabilize the fire cycle and lend to improved soil stability and productivity. 3.8.3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Adverse effects to soil would generally be the same as described for Alternative A. Excluding prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit would avoid the increases in runoff and erosion common to burned areas. Reduced soil infiltration, due to resinous scaling after intense burning, and loss of soil microorganisms would not occur as a result of prescribed bums. The BLM would primarily be limited to mechanical methods and using livestock to control non-native vegetation over large areas. These methods could result in more soil disturbance and soil compaction than the use of fire. The 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-87 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES Tabic Mountain and West Simpson Park units arc on rugged terrain, and use of mechanical equipment to control chcatgrass would be difficult and erosion potential from treatments would be great, especially on the West Simpson Park Unit. The BLM would not be able to conduct prescribed burns to open up woodland stands to promote understory development and improve infiltration. The BLM also would not be able to use fire to create fuel breaks, remove hazardous fuels in Phase II and III pinyon-juniper stands, and prepare areas with chcatgrass for seeding, potentially resulting in an increase in wildfire and reduction in sagebrush restoration success. Thus, many of the beneficial, long-term effects of treatments on soils discussed under Alternative A would not be realized under Alternative B. 3.8.33.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) The BLM anticipates treating about one-fourth as many acres under Alternative C as under Alternative A. Because the BLM would be unable to use mechanical methods, and prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit, adverse impacts and benefits to soil would be similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. The risk of localized compaction and short-term accelerated erosion would be less under Alternative C than the other alternatives, as there would be little ground disturbance under Alternative C. By not being able to use mechanical methods, there would be less risk of soil compaction and erosion from these treatments, and less risk for soil disturbance that could lead to noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation infestations. However, the BLM would not be able to use mechanical equipment to thin and remove pinyon-juniper and sagebrush and create mulch to promote understory development, improve soil fertility, reduce soil erosion, and increase infiltration. The BLM also would also not be able to use equipment to reduce hazardous fuels, create fire and fuel breaks, and pile and slash bum to remove downed wood and slash, increasing the risk of wildfire and its impacts on soil. Thus, many of the beneficial, long-term effects of treatments on soils discussed under Alternatives A and B would not be realized under Alternative C. 3.8.33.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to soil resources from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM, however, would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; or reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire. Thus, long- term loss of soil and soil productivity due to erosion, stream channel instability, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and wildfire would be greatest under Alternative D. 3.83.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for soil resources is approximately 1,841,700 million acres and includes those watersheds at the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 level that are all or partially within the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). Approximately 92 percent of the area is administered by the BLM, 6 percent is privately owned, and 2 percent is administered by the Forest Service. Past and present actions that have influenced soil resources in the 3 Bars ecosystem are discussed in Section 3.2.2.33. 3.83.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Historic overgrazing, introduction of cheatgrass, large wildfires, and other natural and human-caused factors have contributed to the deviation of the plant communities from the Potential Natural Communities across the 3-Bars 3 liars Project Draft BIS 3-88 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ecosystem. The Potential Natural Community is the plant community that would become established if all sueccssional sequences were completed without interference by humans under current environmental conditions. Potential Natural Communities can include naturalized non-native species. This has led to a decrease in the functionality of ecological processes, thus reducing the resilience and resistance of these ecosystems to disturbance. The treatments proposed in the 3-Bars ecosystem are designed to help these ecosystems recover their functionality and return to their Potential Natural Community. The BLM would continue wild horse management activities including Appropriate Management Level reviews and adjustments, adjustments to Herd Management Area boundaries, wild horse gathers and fertility treatments to control wild horse populations, fence removal, enhancement of existing water sources and development of new water sources, and implementation of range improvement projects. These activities would better distribute wild horses across the range and reduce localized adverse effects to soils. The measures that the BLM would take to minimize livestock impacts to treatment areas are discussed in more detail in Section 3.17.4, and in Appendix C. Land development, utility and infrastructure development, mineral development, and oil, gas, and hydrothermal geothermal exploration and development could affect about 1 0,000 acres in the reasonably foreseeable future, including about 8,335 acres of surface disturbance associated with the Mount Hope Project. Although disturbance areas would be reclaimed using soil removed from the site and stockpiled for later use, soil productivity may be less after reclamation. Land sales in Diamond Valley and Kobeh Valley associated with the Mount Hope Project, agriculture, ranching, and other land development interests, and for rights-of-ways for power and telephone lines, could lead to loss of soil if land sales lead to a use of that land, such as undeveloped land being converted to a housing development. Impacts to soil resources would be similar to those described under direct and indirect effects, and would include compaction, removal, stockpiling, denudation, and alteration of runoff. Although many past actions were not subject to reclamation, many current and reasonably foreseeable activities would be subject to reclamation, especially those regulated by federal, state, or local agencies. The BLM would continue to conduct ground- and aerial-based herbicide application treatments to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation. Although initial vegetation treatments using herbicides could indirectly lead to minor short-term soil erosion from the lack of rooting weedy plants, in the long term those treatments would allow for deeper-rooting native plants to stabilize soils, enhance soil fertility, and reduce the risk of wildfire. Five herbicides are typically used on the 3 Bars Project area are 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, and picloram. For the 3 Bars Project, it is likely that the BLM would also use imazapic to treat cheatgrass. Based on an assessment of risks to soil from the use of herbicides, there is potential for glyphosate and metsulfuron methyl to be transported by wind and water in areas with moderate to high risk of wind or water erosion. There should be few risks to soil organisms and soil productivity from use of these herbicides, as most break down quickly (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-18). Hazardous fuels reduction, habitat improvement, and invasive species control projects would occur on approximately 142,000 acres ( 1 27,000 for the 3 Bars Project and 15,000 for other hazardous fuels projects in the CESA), or about 8 percent of the CESA during the life of the project. Loss of vegetation and soil disturbance associated with the use of treatment equipment could cause some short-term loss of soil functions, process, and productivity on nearly all treated land. However, these treatments would help to reduce the risk of wildfire within the CESA, a major contributor to loss of soil function and processes. In addition, the BLM would conduct stream bioengineering and plantings along about 3 1 miles of stream to restore surface water systems to Proper Functioning Condition to improve riparian habitat and reduce soil erosion. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-89 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES Although 3 Bars Project treatments would have short-term adverse effects on soil resources, soil functions and processes on 1 27,000 acres should improve long term as discussed under the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives. These benefits, along with those associated with hazardous fuels and habitat improvement projects elsewhere in the CESA (about 15,000 acres), would be greater under Alternative A than the other alternatives and would help to offset adverse effects to soils occurring elsewhere in the CESA from reasonably foreseeable future actions. 3.83.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on soil would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The BLM anticipates treating about half as many acres under Alternative B as under Alternative A, and less effort would be spent by the BLM on treatments to reduce wildfire risk and loss of soil from erosion, including use of fire to restore natural fire regimes. Adverse effects to soil would generally be the same as described for Alternative A. However, by not using prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits, there would be no risk to soil from fire treatments, including soil erosion, hydrophobicity, and loss of soil productivity, or increase in spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation. The BLM would be limited to all mechanical methods and using livestock to control non-native vegetation on several thousand acres annually. These methods could result in more soil disturbance than the use of fire. By relying on manual, mechanical, and biological control methods, the BLM would be unable to use reduce hazardous fuels over large acreages, including dense stands of Phase II and III pinyon-juniper, and remove large amounts of downed woody material from treatment areas. Thus, the risk of wildfire and its effects on soil would be greater under this alternative than under Alternative A. Although 3 Bars Project treatments would have short-term adverse effects on soil resources, soil productivity on 63,500 acres should improve long term, as discussed under the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives. Although these actions would benefit soils on the project area, and would help to offset adverse effects to soils occurring elsewhere in the CESA from reasonably foreseeable future actions, benefits to soils would not be as great as those that would occur under Alternative A. 3.8.3.43 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on soil would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM would treat about 3,200 acres annually within the 3 Bars Project area, and about another 1 ,500 acres annually in the remainder of the CESA. Because of the limited number of acres treated, and lack of use of mechanical equipment and fire for 3 Bars Project treatments, short-term effects associated with the use of mechanical equipment and fire, including soil compaction, erosion, and disturbance, would not occur within the project area. By not being able to use mechanical methods and fire, however, the BLM would have less ability to reduce hazardous fuels, create fire and fuel breaks, thin and remove pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to promote understory development, enhance stream habitat and channel stability and functions in the riparian zone, shred vegetation to create mulch to help reduce soil water erosion and improve water infiltration, and remove downed wood in the 3 Bars Project area. Thus, there would be more soil erosion, less improvement in soil productivity, less infiltration, and a greater risk of wildfire and its impacts on soil within the CESA than would occur under the other action alternatives. Actions taken 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-90 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES under this alternative would help to offset adverse effects to soils occurring elsewhere in the CESA from reasonably foreseeable future actions, but not to the extent that would occur under the other action alternatives. 3.S.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative I) (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on soil would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative impacts to soil resources from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM could conduct stream bioengineering treatments; create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; and reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire, but on a very limited acreage. Thus, loss of soil and soil productivity due to erosion, stream channel instability, spread of noxious weeds and other invasive and non-native vegetation, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and wildfire would continue on the 3 Bars Project area and would likely be greatest under this alternative. Treatments under Alternative D would do little to offset adverse effects to soils occurring from other reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CESA. 3.8.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects Regardless of the method used to remove vegetation, restoration treatments could potentially result in adverse short- term impacts through increased erosion and reduced water infiltration, leading to loss of soil and reduced soil productivity. The degree of these effects would vary by treatment method (greater risk with mechanical and fire treatments), treatment type (greater risk with stream restoration in riparian zones) and soil risk category (greater risk in areas prone to water or wind erosion, or soil compaction), and if downed vegetation is left on the ground as mulch. To reduce this level of variability as much as possible, achievement of objectives would be evaluated for past projects and an adaptive response to less than favorable results would be applied to future treatments. Vegetation treatments could disturb biological soil crusts, potentially reducing soil quality and ecosystem productivity. The extent of impacts to biological soil crusts would be dependent on the intensity and kind of disturbance and the amount of area covered. The duration of the effects would vary, but recovery of biological soil crusts typically takes much longer than the recovery of vascular vegetation (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-243). 3.8.3.6 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Although treatments would have short-term effects on soil condition and productivity, it is predicted that the soil disturbance associated with restoration activities would have less impact and be less severe than soil erosion caused by wildfire and encroachment by noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation. Furthermore, monitoring and evaluation, integrated with an adaptive management approach, would allow the BLM to adjust treatments to reduce soil disturbance to levels to match management objectives. Studies in woodland and rangeland environments indicate that landscapes that resemble conditions within historical ranges of variability provide favorable conditions for soil functions and processes that contribute to long-term sustainability of soil productivity. Restoration activities that move landscapes toward historical ranges of variability would provide favorable conditions for soil functions and processes, and contribute to long-term soil productivity levels at the broad scale (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-247). 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-91 September 20 1 3 SOIL RESOURCES 3.5.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Disturbance activities associated with proposed treatments could result in soil erosion and loss of soil and soil productivity. This loss of soil and soil productivity would be irretrievable in the disturbance area, although the soil could be available for use at some other location. This commitment of resources could extend over many years, depending on treatment methods and site-spccific conditions, until soil quality attributes improved either through amendments or natural processes. However, a benefit of increasing the amount of acres treated would be to slow the loss of soil and soil productivity due to noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation and wildfire and to restore soil structure and function on degraded sites as part of a larger goal to restore native ecosystem processes. As a result of these actions, soil productivity in disturbed areas should reestablish over time (USDOl BLM 2007b:4-251). 3.8.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives Under all alternatives, there would be a short-term (greater than 5 years) increase in soil erosion from 3 Bars Project and other CESA habitat improvement and hazardous fuels reduction treatments, primarily those where the soil is disturbed by mechanical or fire treatments, or by large-scale removal of non-native vegetation using herbicides. This increase in erosion could lead to increased sedimentation or turbidity in streams or ponds. These impacts from soil erosion would accrue with soil erosion and loss of soil associated with other land disturbance activities in the CESA. These losses of soil due to erosion and its impacts to water quality in streams and ponds in the CESA would be offset by long-term benefits from: 1 ) stream restoration projects that promote stream stability and riparian vegetation development; 2) improvements in vegetation in areas where thinning pinyon-juniper and sagebrush promotes understory development; 3) removal and control on noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation and revegetation of treatment sites with native vegetation; and 4) hazardous fuels treatments that reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire, including prescribed burning and use of wildland fire for resource benefits, and the creation of fire and fuel breaks. It is possible that prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits treatments could result in erosion that could exceed annual soil loss tolerances, and in the loss of topsoil, soil quality, or productivity that could limit revegetation success. Based on monitoring done by the BLM at fire treatment sites, loss of soil is low when sites are revegetated and noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation is removed from treatment sites (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-18). There is also the potential that large-scale non-native control treatments using mechanical equipment could result in loss of vegetation and soil over large areas. However, the BLM would use SOPs to minimize this risk, including disking on contour, avoiding treatments on steep slopes, and restricting livestock access to treatment sites. Based on monitoring, loss of soil would be greater in areas burned by wildfire, as these areas can be large, are often in remote areas, and can be difficult to revegetate (Erickson and White 2008). Thus, BLM treatments that reduce the risk of wildfire should help to slow soil loss and loss of soil quality and productivity in the project area. There should be an overall improvement in soil quality and productivity from treatments under all alternatives. Although the risks and benefits to soil from 3 Bars Project treatments would be greatest under Alternative A, proper adaptive management should greatly reduce these risks by identifying and addressing treatment issues as they arise. 3 Bars Project treatments would not result in a long-term (greater than 5 years) significant increase in soil erosion, water quality degradation from soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or loss of soil quality or productivity in the 3 Bars Project area or CESA. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-92 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.8.4 Mitigation Soil resources would benefit from mitigation and monitoring measures identified in Section 3.17.4 (Livestock Grazing Mitigation). No mitigation or monitoring measures arc recommended specifically for soil resources. 3.9 Water Resources 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework Major regulations and agency policies guiding water resources management include: • Clean Water Act Section 303 - Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans. This requires each state to review, establish, and revise water quality standards for all surface waters within the state. Designated beneficial uses are assigned to surface waters. • Clean Water Act Section 404 - Permits for Dredged or Fill Material. This regulates activities in wetlands and waters of the U.S. Subsequent court decisions and regional guidelines apply. • Safe Drinking Water Act - 40 CFR Chapter 1 , Subchapter D, Part 142 (National Primary Drinking Water Regulations) and Part 143 (National Secondary Drinking Water Standards). • Title 40 Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 445A - State of Nevada water controls (authority for waterbody designated uses and water quality criteria). • Title 48, Nevada Revised Statutes - State of Nevada water use administration. • Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 445A.070 through 445A.2234, “Water Pollution Control” including beneficial use categories, water quality classes, and associated water quality criteria and standards promulgated from the Clean Water Act and Nevada Revised Statutes listed above. Additional important policies and procedures involving water resources for the project area include water rights and water quality programs administered in the Nevada Division of Water Resources and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; Memoranda of Understanding between the BLM and other state or federal agencies; and BLM policies developed under the Rangeland Health Standards promulgated under 43 CFR § 41 80.2. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, BLM Handbook H-4 180-1 ( Rangeland Health Standards. ; USDOl BLM 2001), and BLM Manual H-1601 -1 ( Land Use Planning Handbook ; USDOl BLM 2005c), describe the agency goals and management approaches for water resources and riparian zones. 3.9.2 Affected Environment 3.9.2. 1 Study Methods and Study Area Information sources consulted for this study include data collections, maps, and publications from the Nevada Division of Water Resources, USGS, a Montgomery and Associates (2010) report entitled Hydrogeology and Numerical Flow Modeling , and the Mount Hope Project EIS and references cited therein (USDOl BLM 2012c). 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-93 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES The study area for direct and indirect effects to water resources lies within the 3 Bars Project area. The study area for cumulative effects to water resources is the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 watersheds wholly or partially within the project area (Figure 3-1). This area includes parts oflhc drainages and groundwater basins as defined by the Nevada Division of Water Resources and identified in I'able 3-14. 3.9.2.2 Hydrologic Setting 3.9.2.2.1 Overview Most precipitation accumulates as snow on the mountain ranges. The highest elevations consist of moderately to steeply sloping mountains and ridges such as the Roberts Mountains. Rock outcrops arc common at elevations above about 8,000 feet amsl and contribute to the increased extent of impervious areas there. Moderate to high gradient headwater streams occur at these elevations, mainly supplied by cold springs and snowmelt. In this zone, riffle sections in the streams generally have cobbly substrates (Bryce et al. 2003). TABLE 3-14 Nevada Hydrographic Areas Included in the Water Resources Assessment Hydrographic Area Basin Number Basin Area (acres) Area within Project Boundary (acres) Approximate Percentage of Basin Area within 3 Bars Project Area Pine Valley 053 641,280 269,482 42 Grass Valley 138 380,800 59,174 16 Kobeh Valley 139 555,520 341,495 61 Diamond Valley 153 481,280 79,659 17 Total 2,058,880 749,810 36 Source: Nevada Division of Water Resources (2012). Most of the annual runoff within the project area is derived from snowmelt. In the spring months, typically April through June, snowmelt produces runoff, which often results in the highest seasonal flows in the high mountain drainages. Occasionally, spring season rainfall coincides with the snowmelt, resulting in extremely high runoff. While there is potential for heavy thunderstorm events in mid- to late summer, spawned by moisture from the desert southwest, the hot, dry weather at this time of year, typically combined with little or no rain and high evaporation rates, generally produces the lowest flows of the year (USDOI BLM 2012c). During the spring snowmelt period, water flows from the mountain ranges into nearby basins. As water flows from the mountains towards the valleys, it infdtratcs into basin fill deposits along the range fronts. Thus, recharge into the basin fill deposits occurs along the margins of the valleys (or at higher elevations), and, except during times of high runoff, not in the central portion of the valleys. Soils at mid-elevations arc commonly rocky and shallow, promoting runoff. Perennial or intermittent moderate gradient streams occur at middle elevations, and are supplied by snowmelt and springs. Broad alluvial fans and flatter saline playa deposits commonly accumulate in the extensive lower-elevation terrain. Eroded gullies arc generally more common at lower elevations, and permanent lakes arc uncommon to absent. In general, the lower elevation streams are relatively low-gradient, with substrates consisting of finer sediments (Bryce et al. 2003). 3 Bars Project Ora It BIS 3-94 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.9.2. 2.2 Basin Hydrology Of the major basins in the study area, only Pine Valley drains outward to a larger surfaec water system (the Humboldt River). Kobeh Valley drains to Diamond Valley. The remaining three basins (Diamond, Grass, and Antelope Basins) are elosed, with no external surface drainage. Kobeh Valley is a large basin with a drainage area of approximately 870 square miles. This basin is bounded on the north by the Roberts Mountains, on the west by the Simpson Park Mountains, on the east by Whistler Mountain, and on the south by the Monitor Range and Monitor and Antelope Valleys. Elevations on the basin floor range from 6,400 feet amsl on the west side of the basin to around 6,000 feet amsl on the cast side at Devils Gate, an erosional gap that allows surface water from Kobeh Valley to enter Diamond Valley. Surface water also occasionally flows into the southern part of Kobeh Valley via the main ephemeral drainages in Antelope Valley (Antelope Wash) and the northern part of Monitor Valley (Stoneberger Creek). Ephemeral streams bring mountain-front runoff from the north, east, and south, and converge in the vicinity of U.S. Highway 50. This water is sufficiently close to the surface to allow for the development of an extensive area of phreatophytes, which are deep-rooted plants that obtain water from a permanent ground supply or from the water table. Springs in Kobeh Valley are found mainly within the mountains that border the valley, while wells are found throughout the basin (USDOI BLM 2012c). Diamond Valley has a drainage area of approximately 750 square miles and is bounded on the west by the Sulphur Spring Range and Whistler Mountain, on the north by Diamond Hills, on the cast by the Diamond Mountains, and on the south by the Fish Creek Range. The valley floor of Diamond Valley ranges in elevation from 6,200 feet amsl to 5,770 feet amsl at the playa found in the north end of the valley. Surficial drainage is from the bounding mountain ranges to the central axis of the valley and then northward to the playa. Diamond Valley is a closed basin and an extensive playa occupies the northern end of the valley, where all shallow groundwater flow converges. Agricultural irrigation and withdrawals of groundwater for municipal water supply occur in the southern part of the valley, north of Eureka, Nevada. Shallow alluvial groundwater in this area is recharged by mountain-front runoff from the major drainages near Eureka. Many springs are found within Diamond Valley at the north end, where groundwater flow converges and the water table in the shallow alluvial aquifer approaches the surface (USDOI BLM 2012c). Pine Valley is north of Kobeh Valley and west of Diamond Valley. This basin is bounded on the south by Roberts Mountains, on the west by the Sulphur Spring Range, and on the north and west by the Cortez Mountains. The basin occupies approximately 1,000 square miles and drains northward to the Humboldt River. Basin floor elevations range from 5,800 feet amsl at the south end near Henderson Creek to 4,840 feet amsl at the north end. The Garden Valley sub-basin occupies the southeastern part of Pine Valley and is a separate basin between the Roberts Mountains and the Sulphur Spring Range. Drainage in this sub-basin converges on Henderson Creek and Hows into Pine Valley. Springs in Pine Valley are mostly in the bounding mountain ranges, with local areas of springs in the basin along major drainages. Wells are found at the north end of Pine Valley in the area where ephemeral drainages from the mountains converge. There are a few wells in the Garden Valley sub-basin near Henderson Creek (USDOI BLM 2012c). Grass Valley is west of Kobeh Valley and is a closed hydrographic basin bounded on the cast by the Simpson Park Mountains and on the west by the Toiyabe Range. The Cortez Mountains bound the valley to the north (Everett and Rush 1 966). The valley consists of two sub-basins that arc interconnected, a smaller basin at the southwest end ot the valley that is east of Mount Callaghan and the main part of Grass Valley. The lowest elevation in the valley is 5,61 1 feet amsl in the playa that occupies the northern part of the basin. The highest point is Mount Callaghan in the Toiyabe Range at 10,187 feet amsl. The basin has internal drainage only and groundwater is recharged by mountain- 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-95 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES front runoff. Springs arc found mainly in the smaller sub-basin at the southwest end of Grass Valley and along the mountain fronts where the basin alluvium contacts the bedrock of the bounding mountain ranges. All water in the basin flows toward the playa in the northern part of the basin and groundwater comes sufficiently close to the surface in the vicinity of the playa to allow for the development of an extensive area of phreatophytes. Limited irrigation and farming of alfalfa arc found south of the playa (USDOI BLM 2012c). Antelope Valley, although not a part of the hydrologic study area, is located south of Kobeh Valley and south of Diamond Valley. It is part of the regional groundwater flow system. This basin occupies 450 square miles and drains into Kobeh Valley. Groundwater in Antelope Valley also flows north into Kobeh Valley through the same gap as the surface water drainages. Elevations in Antelope Valley range from 6,800 feet amsl on the south end to around 6,075 feet amsl a the gap between Antelope Valley and Kobeh Valley (USDOI BLM 2012c). Kobeh Valley, Diamond Valley, and Antelope Valley arc part of the Diamond Valley Regional Flow System as described by Harrill et al. (1988). Basins that are part of this flow system arc internally connected by ephemeral streams and subsurface groundwater flow through the alluvial basin aquifers and the bedrock carbonate aquifers (Tumbusch and Plume 2006). Diamond Valley is the terminus of this flow system and the water resources at the south end of Diamond Valley have been developed for use in agricultural irrigation, mining in the Eureka area, and for municipal water supply for Eureka. Pine Valley, the Garden Valley sub-basin connected to Pine Valley, and Grass Valley are part of the Humboldt Regional Flow System (Harrill et al. 1988), where surface and groundwater flows northward to the Humboldt River system. 3.9.2.3 Surface Water Resources 3.9.2.3.1 Streams and Creeks - Overview Numerous perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams occur within the project area (Table 3-15). In general, perennial segments have their source in the mountains and, although they do respond to snowmelt and rainfall events, much of their flow is provided by groundwater discharge that occurs as spring flow. Perennial flow only occurs in a relatively few isolated stream reaches (Figure 3-23). Stream flows in the 3 Bars Project area primarily occur as intermittent flows from isolated springs, as short-term seasonal runoff from snowmelt or winter storms, or as ephemeral flow from intense but infrequent thunderstorms. 1 Numerous drainages leave the mountain fronts and cross over alluvial fans, where flows typically dissipate. When water docs reach the valley floor during larger runoff events, the water is soon taken up by evapotranspiration and seepage into valley-floor sediments. Channels become poorly defined as they near the flatter portion of the basins and runoff infiltrates into permeable alluvial fan material (USDOI BLM 2012c). Major perennial stream reaches include parts of Henderson Creek, McClusky Creek, Pete Hanson Creek, Roberts Creek, Vinini Creek, and Willow Creek. Additional, shorter pcremiial reaches occur on Birch Creek, Kelley Creek, Ferguson Creek, and in scattered locations on other streams throughout the project area. 1 The USGS does not distinguish between intermittent and ephemeral streams. The majority of streams classified as intermittent on the 3 Bars Project area do not have seasonal water, but only have water occasionally and would be classified as ephemeral. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-96 September 2013 Elk , County Eureka Covn*5r Pine Valley Basin # 053 Grass Valley > > < Basin # 138 ■ / ,-j-r Kobeh Valley Basin #139 ' • • n. •. ureka Diampnd Valley Baskin #153 ? United States Department of the Interior * Bureau of Land Management -1 Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Project Area EfcO Moui lair Mount Lewis Field Office Reno Battle Mountain Distnct m Mai Legend Spring Moist Site Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Canal/Ditch Lake or Pond Playa Freshwater Emergent Wetland Y - Freshwater Forested/ Shrub Wetland l 13 Hydrographic Basin 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2012g, USFWS 2012, NDOW 2012a. NDWR 2012, USGS 2012b. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-23 Streams, Lakes, Ponds, and Wetlands I Miles Mlnmelrt No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards Th» product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. WATER RESOURCES TABLE 3-15 Perennial and Intermittent/Ephemeral Streams in the Project Area Basin Number Basin Name Stream Name Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent/ Ephemeral Stream Miles' Canal/ Ditch Total Miles 053 Pine Valley Birch Creek 1.50 5.07 6.57 Denay Creek 2.22 22.61 24.83 Dry Creek 8.38 8.38 Frazier Creek 5.86 5.86 Garden Pass Creek 0.98 0.98 Geyser Creek 7.33 7.33 Grouse Creek 2.30 2.30 Henderson Creek 18.34 11.28 29.62 Horse Creek 9.08 9.08 Indian Creek 8.68 8.68 Kelley Creek 2.20 0.68 2.89 Niel Creek 5.21 5.21 North Fork Pete Hanson Creek 1.71 0.69 2.40 Pete Hanson Creek 6.07 12.84 18.91 Pine Creek 12.84 12.84 Vinini Creek 9.51 9.51 Willow Creek 6.74 6.31 13.05 Unnamed Creeks 7.85 728.76 1.87 738.47 138 Grass Valley Coils Creek 0.94 0.94 Indian Creek 0.01 0.01 McClusky Creek 7.12 3.26 10.39 Pine Creek 0.04 0.04 Unnamed Creeks 5.09 138.46 143.55 139 Kobeh Valley Coils Creek 35.62 35.62 Cottonwood Creek 4.42 2.45 6.87 Ferguson Creek 5.09 4.53 9 Horse Creek 4.56 4.56 Jackass Creek 2.96 2.96 North Branch Horse Creek 0.89 0.89 North Fork Horse Creek 2.42 2.42 Roberts Creek 8.38 15.31 23.69 Rutabaga Creek 12.79 12.79 Slough Creek 7.78 7.78 South Fork Horse Creek 1.64 1.64 Stoneberger Creek 5.67 5.67 U’ans-in-dame Creek 15.14 15.14 Underwood Creek 11.06 11.06 Willow Creek 0.27 0.27 Unnamed Creeks 9.22 1,015.89 1.33 1,019.57 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-98 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TABLE 3-15 (Cont.) Perennial and Intcrmittcnt/Ephcnicral Streams in the Project Area Basin Number Basin Name Stream Name Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent/ Ephemeral Stream Miles1 Total Miles 153 Diamond Valley Garden Pass Creek 6.01 6.01 Slough Creek 0.57 0.57 Tyrone Creek 4.57 4.57 Unnamed Creeks 0.1 1 192.53 192.64 Totals 96.24 2,326.75 3.20 2,426.18 1 The USGS does not distinguish between intermittent and ephemeral streams. The majority of streams classified as intermittent on the 3 Bars Project area do not have seasonal water, but only have water occasionally and would be classified as ephemeral. Sources: JBR (2009), Montgomery and Associates (2010), and USGS (2012a). The USGS (2012b) is monitoring streamflow at several locations within the project area (Table 3-16). Although monitoring only began in 201 1, it is apparent that daily surface flows vary widely. The maximum flow months generally occur in spring, and the smallest flows are usually in late summer. Tonkin Spring has the steadiest flow of the stations in the USGS monitoring program. In addition to USGS monitoring, stream studies were carried out for the Mount Hope Project EIS (JBR 2009, USDOI BLM 2012c). The results of these investigations, which were conducted in the Pine Valley basin draining the northern and eastern Roberts Mountains, are summarized in Tabic 3-17. These investigations included the upper portions of Birch Creek, Henderson Creek, Pete Hanson Creek, and Vinini Creek. All measurements and samples were collected within the mountainous portions of the streams. They were conducted in a short time frame in late March and early April, 2009. Based on the amount of snow pack and occurrence of bare ground during the investigation, it was evident that some snowmelt and spring run-off had occurred prior to the initial sampling round. The air temperature was typically above freezing during the days, and snowmelt and runoff were observed (JBR 2009). An important result of these flow investigations is that flow-gaining and flow-losing reaches occurred within short distances on upper Birch Creek and Pete Hanson Creek. These flow increases and decreases often occurred within several hundred feet (or less) of each other, and are likely to result mainly from groundwater and geologic factors along these headwater channel lengths. On Vinini and Henderson Creeks, snowmelt conditions and other complicating factors prevented conclusions about gaining and losing stream sections (JBR 2009). 3.9.2.3.2 Streams and Creek Flows by Basin The following describes stream and creek flows by basins within the 3 Bars Project area. This information is based on studies for the Mount Hope Project EIS, and references cited therein (USDOI BLM 2012c). Major perennial stream reaches occur within the Pine Valley (56.1 miles). Grass Valley (12.2 miles), Kobch Valley (27.1 miles), and Diamond Valley (0.1 1 mile) watersheds. In addition, approximately 2,327 miles of intermittcnt/ephemeral stream reaches have been identified in the project area. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-99 September 2013 WATER RESOURCES TABLE 3-16 Flow Summary from L.S. Geological Survey Monitoring Stations Waterbody USGS Station Number Monitored Location (Latitude / Longitude) Monitoring Period Average Recorded Flow (cfs) Maximum Recorded Flow (cfs) Minimum Recorded Flow (cfs) Maximum Monthly Average Flow (cfs) Minimum Monthly Average Flow (cfs) Coils Creek above Horse Creek 10245960 39° 46’ 11” 116° 27’ 52” 1/12/201 1 to 9/30/2011 11.0 64 (1/17/2011) 0 (many) 24 (Apr) 0.01 (Aug) Henderson Creek below Vinini Creek 10322535 39° 52’ 08” 1 16° 10’ 01” 1/1 1/2011 to 6/2/2012 8.1 19 (5/23/2011) 0 (many) 14 (May) 0.02 (Sep) Pete Hanson Creek above Henderson Creek 10322555 39° 53’ 25” 1 16° 22’ 42” 5/5/2011 to 6/2/2012 9.7 17 (6/15/2011) 0 (4/2012) 12 (Jun) 0.84 (Sep) Roberts Creek 10245970 39° 47’ 23” 116° 18’ 03” 6/4/2011 to 6/2/2012 2.8 1 1 (6/2012) 0.18 (1/2012) 8.9 (Jun) 0.68 (Aug) Tonkin Spring above Denay Creek 10322510 39° 54’ 17” 116° 24’ 45” 8/26/20 10 to 6/2/2012 1.7 2.4 (9/2011) 1.0 (1/2011) 2.0 (May, Aug) 1 .2 (Jan) cfs = cubic feet per second. Source: USGS (2012b). TABLE 3-17 Site-specific Stream Investigations Stream Measurement Date Range in Channel Widths (feet) Flow Range (gpm) Flow Range (cfs) Birch Creek March 22-26, 2009 2.7 to 3.9 64 to 274 0.14 to 0.61 Pete Hanson Creek March 3-27, 2009 0.9 to 5.7 269 to 614 0.60 to 1.37 Vinini Creek March 25, 2009 1.3 to 3.8 15 to 269 0.03 to 0.60 Henderson Creek April 7, 2009 2.2 to 2.5 269 to 359 0.60 to 0.80 gpm = gallons per minute, cfs = cubic feet per second. Source: JBR (2009). Kobeh Valley In Kobeh Valley, surface drainage is directed generally from the mountains to the central valley floor and then eastward toward Devils Gate, where flow occasionally passes into Diamond Valley via Slough Creek (Figure 3-23, Table 3-15). Surface water occasionally flows into the southern part of Kobeh Valley via the main ephemeral drainages in Antelope Valley (Antelope Wash) and the northern part of Monitor Valley (Stoneberger Creek). The Stoncbcrgcr Creek drainage enters the southwestern side of Kobeh Valley from Monitor Valley and crosses southern Kobeh Valley in a west to east direction through Bean Flat. Antelope Wash enters Kobeh Valley from the south at a point where several ephemeral drainages join on the southeastern side of Kobeh Valley to form Slough Creek. Slough Creek, also ephemeral, drains east through Devils Gate into southern Diamond Valley. Channel geomorphology and a 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-100 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES lack of vegetation scour indicate that outflow through Devils Gate is a rare occurrence related to low frequency, high runoff events. The two main internal drainages within Kobeh Valley arc Coils Creek in the western part of the valley, which drains the east side of the Simpson Park Mountains and the western side of the Roberts Mountains, and Roberts Creek, which drains the central and southeastern part of the Roberts Mountains. Rutabaga Creek lies between these two drainages and drains the southern part of the Roberts Mountains. Roberts Creek is perennial from the headwaters of its middle and east fork tributaries to near the base of the mountain. A segment of the Cottonwood Canyon drainage, on the southwest side of the Roberts Mountains, is also identified as containing perennial flow upstream of its confluence with the Coils Creek drainage. The only other identified perennial stream reaches in Kobeh Valley are Snow Water Canyon and Ferguson Creek on the east side of the Simpson Park Mountains, as well as Ackerman Creek, Basin Creek, Coils Creek, Dry Canyon, Dry Creek, Kelly Creek, Jackass Creek, and Meadow Canyon. A small segment of U’ans-in-dame Creek to the east-northeast of Lone Mountain has also been classified by the USGS as perennial. However, other investigations indicate that based on 2010 field observations, a review of Landsat images, and the USDA’s National Agricultural Imaging Program aerial photography, it is now believed that this stream segment is not perennial (Montgomery and Associates 2010, USGS 2012b). Stream discharge measurements were taken along the course of Roberts Creek in 2007 (Montgomery and Associates 2010). Measurements made during August 2007 on the tributaries of Roberts Creek indicated that most of the flow originated from the east fork, at 108 gallons per minute (gpm; 0.24 cubic feet per second [cfs]), which received its flow from springs along the west and south to southeast flanks of the Roberts Mountains. The west and middle forks of Roberts Creek contributed little flow at that time, with the west fork being dry, and the middle fork discharge estimated at 4.5 gpm (0.01 cfs; Montgomery and Associates 2010). Measured discharge below the confluence of the three forks of Roberts Creek consistently decreased with distance downstream, indicating that Roberts Creek loses water over most of its length. These stream losses are assumed to result in recharge to the local alluvial and carbonate aquifer systems. Flow loss due to evaporation and transpiration from riparian vegetation adjacent to the stream bed may also be a contributing factor to the consistent downstream decrease in flow. Coils Creek is interpreted by Rush and Everett (1964) to be the principal tributary to Slough Creek. They reported a flow of approximately 3,600 gpm (8 cfs) in May 1964 at a location in Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 49 East, in the west-central portion of the project area. Intermittent reaches of upper Coils Creek arc mainly fed by spring flow and are used for irrigation purposes. More recent estimates of flows in Coils Creek are presented in Table 3-16. In August 2007, Montgomery and Associates (2010) measured a flow of 9 gpm (0.02 cfs) in Rutabaga Creek on the southern flanks of the Roberts Mountains. Along the east slope of the Simpson Park Mountains, on the west side of Kobeh Valley, no surface flow was observed by Montgomery and Associates (2010) in Snow Water Canyon during June and December 2007, and April 2008. No surface flow was observed in Ackerman Canyon in April 2008, but a flow of 27 gpm (0.06 cfs) was observed in May 2008. An estimated surface flow of less than 1 12 gpm (0.25 cfs) was observed in Ferguson Creek in May, but not in August 2007. No surface flow was observed in Dry Canyon in June 2007. At the stream gauge on Roberts Creek, flows were 561 and 1 ,872 gpm ( 1 .25 and 4. 1 7 cfs) during April and May 2008, respectively. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-101 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES Reported Hows in Willow Creek and Dagget Creek, which drain the north end of the Monitor Range in southern Kobeh Valley, were approximately 450 and 670 gpm ( I and 1 .5 cfs), respectively, in May 1 964 (Robinson ct al. 1967). No other drainages within the Kobch Valley basin have recorded stream flows. Pine V alley The main streams in Pine Valley are in the Horse Creek, Denay Creek, Henderson Creek, and Pine Creek drainages (Figure 3-23, Table 3-15). Pine Creek is the principal stream in the valley and is a tributary to the Humboldt River. Eakin (1961) reported that the flow in Pine Creek is maintained primarily by the discharge from hot springs. Numerous headwater tributaries to Pine Creek form on the east- and southeast-facing slopes of the Cortez Mountains (Horse Creek drainage) and the northern part of the Simpson Park Mountains (Denay Creek drainage); on the north to northwest flanks of the Roberts Mountains (Pete Hanson Creek, Neil Creek, Kelly Creek, Birch Creek, Willow Creek, and Dry Creek); and on the northeast side of the Roberts Mountains in the Garden Valley subbasin (Henderson Creek, Vinini Creek, and Frazier Creek). Perennial streamflow segments have only been identified on portions of Denay Creek, Pete Hanson Creek, Willow Creek, Vinini Creek, and Henderson Creek (USDOI BLM 1997 in USDOl BLM 2012c). Isolated reaches in the Horse Creek drainage of Pine Valley were reported to have flows ranging from 9 to 58 gpm (0.02 to 0.13 cfs) during August 2005 before surface flows were lost to infiltration or evapotranspiration (USDOI BLM 2008g). The Denay Creek drainage arises from headwater springs in Red Canyon on the north slope of the Roberts Mountains, and is fed lower down in the drainage by perennial discharge from Tonkin Spring (Table 3-16). Denay Creek discharges into Tonkin Springs Reservoir, a small surface-water impoundment, approximately 1 mile downstream of Tonkin Spring. Between August 2007 and September 2009, Montgomery and Associates (2010) measured the discharge from Tonkin Spring during all months of the year, and the range of observed flows was from 525 to 1,086 gpm (1.17 to 2.42 cfs). This is generally within the range reported by the USGS (2012b) in Table 3-16. This provides an estimate of the flows in Denay Creek just downstream of Tonkin Spring. Further east, along the north side of the Roberts Mountains, no flow was reported in Pete Hanson Creek during August 2007, but a flow of 1,023 gpm (2.28 cfs) was reported in June of 2009. Also, Willow Creek was observed to have flows of 3 1 and 9 gpm (0.07 and 0.02 cfs) in August and October 2007, respectively (Montgomery and Associates 2010). As part of the baseline characterization investigations for the proposed Mount Hope Project, three surface water monitoring stations were established on Henderson Creek in 2006, allowing two distinct reaches of the creek to be studied (Table 3-17). The upper monitoring station is approximately one-half mile southeast and downgradient of Spring 585 at an elevation of approximately 7,177 feet amsl. SRK (2008) reported that the creek flow is perennial at the upper monitoring station, with the flow sustained by discharge from local springs and seeps. The middle monitoring station is approximately 2 miles downgradient of the upper station and is approximately 50 feet below the confluence of the north and south forks of Henderson Creek at an elevation of approximately 6,688 feet amsl. The creek flow at this location is also thought to be perennial and fed by springs and seeps in the upper part of the watershed. The stream channel morphology at the middle monitoring station is described as being substantially incised, with arroyo-like features. The lower monitoring station is approximately 2.5 miles downgradient of the middle station and is located roughly 60 feet west of State Route 278 at an elevation of approximately 6,446 feet amsl. SRK characterized the lower reach as being perennial, but noted that the actual flowing locations of the creek near the lower monitoring station vary on a seasonal basis, such that the established sampling-point location was observed to be dry in the third and fourth quarters of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. 3 Bars Project Drail BIS 3-102 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMBNT AND ENVIRON MEN' fAL CONSEQUENCES During site visits in May 2006 and 2007, SRK (2008) recorded maximum How rales of approximately 400, 3,1 80, and 2,600 gpm (0.9, 7.1, and 5.8 cfs) at the upper, middle, and lower monitoring stations, respectively, on Henderson Creek. Subsequent monitoring events recorded smaller flow rates, ranging from 45 to 112 gpm (0.1 to 0.25 cfs), at the upper and middle monitoring stations and no flow at the lower station. Stream flow measurements were also made on Henderson and Vinini Creeks, north of Mount Hope in the Garden Valley subbasin of Pine Valley (Montgomery and Associates 2010). During August and October 2007, Vinini Creek was observed to be dry, whereas in May 2008 and June 2009 flows of 3,1 10 and 950 gpm (6.93 and 2.12 cfs), respectively, were recorded. Henderson Creek was measured in August 2007 at the confluence of its north and south fork tributaries. No stream flow was observed from the north fork at that time, whereas discharge from the south fork was reported to be 27 gpm (0.06 efs). Other flow measurements in Henderson Creek were 36 gpm (0.08 cfs) in December 2007 and 135 gpm (0.3 cfs) in May of 2008. Henderson Creek contained observable flow in a reach approximately 2.3 miles long before losing all of its surface flow to infiltration and evapotranspi ration (Montgomery and Associates 2010). Diamond Valley Harrill (1968) described the existence of only a few perennial streams in Diamond Valley, all of which are on the east side of the valley on the western slopes of the Diamond Mountains (Figure 3-23, Table 3-15). This area is outside the 3 Bars Project area, but within the cumulative effects study area. Cottonwood and Simpson Creeks were mentioned as the two most prominent perennial streams, and the only ones that supported ranching operations in the 1 960s. The only intermittent streams in Diamond Valley with a significant volume of seasonal runoff are also in the Diamond Mountains. The rest of the streams in Diamond Valley are intermittent or ephemeral and were reported to have only minor flows. Between May of 1 965 and October of 1 966, reported stream flows in 1 1 drainages within the CES A along the western side of the Diamond Mountains ranged from zero flow to a maximum of 785 gpm (1.75 cfs) in Cottonwood Creek on one occasion; all other observed flows during that time period were less than 287 gpm (0.64 cfs; Harrill 1 968). No flow was observed during March and June of 1966 in Garden Pass Creek, an ephemeral creek on the western side of Diamond Valley that originates at the topographic divide between Pine and Diamond Valleys, and an unnamed drainage on the eastern slopes of the Sulphur Spring Range in the northern part of Diamond Valley was also reported to be dry in April and October of 1966 (Harrill 1968). Peak flow measurements made by the USGS in Garden Pass Creek between 1965 and 1981 ranged from 314 to over 290,000 gpm (0.7 to 650 cfs). 3.9.23.3 Springs Approximately 334 springs occur within or immediately adjacent to the project area, including 141 known sites in Pine Valley, 131 in Kobeh Valley, 49 in Grass Valley, and 13 in Diamond Valley (Figure 3-23). Most springs are in mountainous parts of the project area, although some occur on alluvial fans or in valley floor positions. At any specific site, spring flows are either perennial (flowing year-round) or intermittent (flowing part of the year), depending on historic precipitation and geologic factors that govern the groundwater source of the spring. Some general flow characteristics are indicated in Table 3-18 for springs where data arc available. A substantial range in flows is apparent. Additional geologic aspects of spring origins and characteristics are discussed in the groundwater section. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-103 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES 3.9.23.4 Other Surface Water Features There are no naturally occurring lakes or ponds within the project area. However, range water improvements, windmills, reservoirs, and improved springs occur throughout the project area (Figure 3-24). Agricultural water uses for irrigation and stock watering occur in Garden Valley and along the western edge of Diamond Valley. Other surface water impoundments that intermittently or perennially contain water include the following: 1 ) Tonkin Reservoir on upper Denay Creek, JD Ranch reservoirs on lower Henderson Creek and Pete Hanson Creek, and the Alpha Ranch impoundments of Henderson Creek and Chimney Springs in Pine Valley; 2) the Roberts Creek Ranch impoundment on Roberts Creek in Kobeh Valley; 3) the Shipley Hot Spring pond and the Flynn Ranch springs water impoundments in Diamond Valley; and 4) several small reservoirs on the upper Antelope Wash and its tributaries near the Segura Ranch in Antelope Valley. There may be other, smaller man-made impoundments in various drainages and downgradient of certain springs within the project area that were not located in the field or identified on maps or aerial photographs. Saline flats or playas exist where streams empty or ground water discharges into areas with no outflow. Temporary ponding occurs in such areas after snowmelt or prolonged rainfall, but the accumulated water typically soon evaporates. TABLE 3-18 Flow Measurements at Springs Spring Associated Drainage Flow (gpm) Flow (cfs) Measurement Date Tonkin Spring Denay Creek 449 to 1,077 1.0 to 2.4 Continuous BC-1 Upper Birch Creek 78 0.17 03/22/2009 PH-2 Upper Pete Hanson Creek 10 0.02 03/27/2009 PH-7 Upper Pete Hanson Creek 2 0.004 03/27/2009 PH-7A Upper Pete Hanson Creek 8 0.018 03/27/2009 PH-8 Upper Pete Hanson Creek 0 0 03/23/2009 PH-14 Upper Pete Hanson Creek 1 0.002 03/23/2009 PH-15 Upper Pete Hanson Creek 0 0 03/23/2009 HC-10A Upper Henderson Creek 1 0.002 03/28/2009 gpm = gallons per minute, cfs = cubic feet per second. Source: JBR (2009) and USGS (2012a). 3.9.2.4 Surface Water Quality Beneficial uses of surface water in the project area include livestock watering, irrigation, aquatic life support, recreation with either contact or noncontact with water, municipal supply, and wildlife propagation (Nevada Administrative Code 445A). The Nevada Water Pollution Control Law provides the State of Nevada the authority to maintain water quality for public use, wildlife, industry, agriculture, and the economic development of the site. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection defines waters of the state to include surface water courses, waterways, drainage systems, and underground water. The Nevada Water Pollution Control Law also gives the State Environmental Commission authority to require controls on diffuse sources of pollutants, if these sources have the potential to degrade the quality 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-104 September 20 1 3 Derfay Pon'ci V Tonkin , Reservoir Grass Valley Basin# 13j8 Diampnd Valley Basin #153 ■- t Roberts li^reek'* ^TReservoir Kobeh Valley Basin# 139 1 ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office WSBflRBSIjBr 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ dm (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) /Km \ v / j[ r •Vj v'1 ** 1 * * \ ' 1 V f A Legend Water Developments and Water Uses • Spring * Windmill/Well ^ Reservoir G Stock Tank, Trough, or Waterhaul Perennial Stream Lake or Pond Playa Hydrographic Basin 3 Bars Project Area Irrigated Crop Source: BLM 2012c, g; NDWR 2012; USGS 2012b. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-24 Water Developments and Water Uses No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. WATER RESOURCES of the waters of the state. The USEPA has also granted Nevada authority to enforce drinking water standards established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The State of Nevada classifies surface water bodies into four classes — A, B, C, and D. Each class has associated water quality standards. Class A waters include waters or portions of waters in areas of little human habitation, and no industrial development or intensive agriculture, and where the watershed is relatively undisturbed by human activity. The beneficial uses of Class A waters are municipal or domestic supply, or both, with treatment by disinfection only, aquatic life, propagation of wildlife, irrigation, watering of livestock, recreation including contact with the water, and recreation not involving contact with the water. Class B waters include waters or portions of waters that are on areas of light or moderate human habitation, little industrial development, light-to-moderate agricultural development, and where the watershed is only moderately influenced by human activity (USDOI BLM 2012c). The beneficial uses of Class B water are municipal or domestic supply, or both, with treatment by disinfection and filtration only, irrigation, watering of livestock, aquatic life and propagation of wildlife, recreation involving contact with the water, recreation not involving contact with the water, and industrial supply. Class C waters include waters or portions of waters that are located in areas of moderate to urban human habitation, where industrial development is present in moderate amounts, where agricultural practices are intensive, and where the watershed is considerably altered by human activity (USDOI BLM 2012c). The beneficial uses of Class C water are municipal or domestic supply, or both, following complete treatment, irrigation, watering of livestock, aquatic life, propagation of wildlife, recreation involving contact with the water, recreation not involving contact with the water, and industrial supply. Class D waters include waters or portions of waters in areas of urban development, are highly industrialized or intensively used for agriculture, or a combination of these, and where effluent sources include a multiplicity of waste discharges from the highly altered watershed. The beneficial uses of Class D waters are recreation not involving contact with the water, aquatic life, propagation of wildlife, irrigation, watering of livestock, and industrial supply, except for food processing purposes (USDOI BLM 2012c). Roberts Creek and its tributaries are Class A water bodies from the headwaters to the reservoir and Class B water bodies below the reservoir. Denay Creek and its tributaries from the headwaters to Tonkin Reservoir and the Reservoir itself are Class A water bodies. Denay Creek below Tonkin Reservoir is a Class B water body. J.D. ponds are Class C water bodies. These waterbodies have aquatic life, livestock, recreation, irrigation, and other beneficial uses. All other perennial streams in the vicinity of the project area are unclassified (USDOI BLM 2012c). The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection requires compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits related to discharge to waters of the U.S., including discharges of stormwater runoff. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection requires that discharges into subsurface waters be controlled if the potential for contamination of groundwater supplies exist. Surface water quality has been investigated through more intensive sampling at several locations within the Roberts Mountains by the USGS and JBR from 2009 to 201 1 (JBR 2009, USGS 2012a). No water quality assessments are known to have occurred outside the Roberts Mountains. Results indicate generally good to excellent water quality in drainages within the Roberts Mountains. The waters are a calcium/magnesium bicarbonate type, with pH ranging generally between 7.8 to 8.6 standard units. Some pH values are slightly higher. Hardness ranges between approximately 200 to 300 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as calcium carbonate. In Birch Creek and Vinini Creek, the electrical conductivities are somewhat elevated (on the order of 6,500 micromhos per centimeter), indicating higher 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-106 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES levels of dissolved salts. Elsewhere, conductivity values were moderate to low (200 to 400 microSiemens per centimeter). At springs such as PI 1-14 on Pete 1 lanson Creek, 1 1C- 10 on I lenderson Creek, and Tonkin Spring above Denay Creek, somewhat greater concentrations of magnesium occurred in comparison to other locations. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were moderate in the USGS samples (6.6 to 8. 1 mg/L). The lower dissolved oxygen values (c.g., below 7 mg/L) occurred with warmer water temperatures during June 201 1 (USGS 2012b). It is anticipated that water quality from these upgradient streams and springs would generally decline with increasing distance from the mountain headwaters. As the streams traverse lower-elevation alluvial fans and valley deposits, remaining flows arc likely to have increased salinity and sediment concentrations. 3.9.2.5 Groundwater Resources 3.9.2.5.1 General Hydrogeologic Setting The mountains that border the basins consist of complexly faulted and folded Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, with widespread occurrences of Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary intrusive and volcanic rocks. Carbonate rocks dominate the Sulphur Spring Range and Roberts Mountains, as well as the mountains bordering Eureka, Nevada. Siliceous clastic rocks arc found in the Diamond Mountains along the east side of Diamond Valley. Tertiary intrusive and volcanic rocks are predominant in most of the other mountain ranges. The approximate axis of the Northern Nevada Rift extends from Eureka northeastward through the Roberts Mountains and northeast into Grass Valley (Ponce and Glen 2002). The basin fill deposits consist of middle Tertiary through Quaternary sedimentary rocks and unconsolidated to partially consolidated alluvial, fluvial, and lacustrine sediments. Ash-flow and air-fall tuffs are interbedded with the sediments. Coarse alluvial sediments found along the mountain fronts grade basinward into finer alluvial fan, fluvial, and lacustrine sediments. Pliocene and Pleistocene lakes formed in many of the valleys during a period of wetter climate in the Great Basin. Pine Valley, Kobeh Valley, Grass Valley, and Diamond Valley contained extensive lakes during the Pliocene and early Pleistocene. Remnants of these pluvial lakes are elevated ten-ace deposits and a thick sequence of clay, silt, freshwater limestone, and evaporites that underlie the shallow alluvial sediments of the basins. 3.9.2.5.2 Groundwater Hydrology of Kobeh Valley The Kobeh Valley basin is a roughly equidimensional basin. Descriptions of the valley have been taken from Rush and Everett (1964) and USDOl BLM (2012c). Geologically, Kobeh Valley consists of basin-fill alluvium within the main part of the basin and alluvial fan sediments along the mountain fronts surrounding the basin. Montgomery and Associates (2010) completed a water balance study for Kobeh Valley basin during 2009. This is presented in Table 3-19 along with their estimates for the 2009 water balance for Antelope, Diamond, and Pine Valley basins. The total outflow for the Kobeh Valley basin for 2009 was 20,800 acre-fect/ycar and exceeded the inflow of 18,000 acre-feet/year (Montgomery and Associates 2010). By this water balance estimate, Kobeh Valley basin is losing water from storage due to groundwater pumpage and water levels in the valley should begin to decline. This may eventually affect the growth of phreatophytes. 3.9.2.5.3 Groundwater Hydrology of Diamond Valley Diamond Valley is an elongate basin oriented approximately north-south. The north end of the valley is occupied by an extensive playa. The south end of the basin near Eureka is used for agricultural irrigation. The valley-fill sediments 3 Bars Project Draft l-.IS 3-107 September 2013 WATER RESOURCES consist of at least 7,845 feet amsl of interbedded gravels, silts, clays, evaporates, Pleistocene lake-bed sediments, and volcanic tuffs. Groundwater flow in the Diamond Valley basin has been noticeably altered by extensive agricultural irrigation in the southern part of the valley. Prior to the onset of intensive irrigation, groundwater in the Diamond Valley basin flowed from south to north and terminated in the playa at the north end of the basin. Eakin (1962) completed a groundwater appraisal of the Diamond Valley basin and showed that water elevations in the southern part of the valley were around 5,870 feet amsl and those in the northern part near the playa were around 5,770 feet amsl. Water elevations in 2005 were around 5,800 feet amsl in the southern part of the basin. Irrigation pumping has created a groundwater depression that has concentrated groundwater flow into the southern part of the basin. Consequently, groundwater no longer flows into the playa area in the northern part of the basin from the south. Agricultural irrigation in the southern part of the basin has resulted in subsidence of the basin sediments. TABLE 3-19 2009 Estimated Annual Groundwater Budget for Individual Basins Budget Component Antelope Valley Diamond Valley Kobeh Valley Pine Valley1 Groundwater Inflow (acre-feet per year) Precipitation Recharge 4,100 21,400 13,200 34,900 Subsurface Inflow 0 7,800 (5,800 from Pine Valley and 2,000 from Kobeh Valley) 4,800 (1,600 from Monitor Valley, 2,700 from Antelope Valley, and 500 from Pine Valley) 0 Total Inflow 4,100 29,200 18,000 34,900 Groundwater Outflow (acre-feet per year) Evapotranspiration 1,400 14,700 15,900 17,100 Net Groundwater Pumping Negligible 55,800 2,900 negligible Subsurface Outflow 2,700 (to Kobeh Valley) 0 2,000 (to Diamond Valley) 17,600 (5,800 to Diamond Valley, 500 to Kobeh Valley, and 1 1,300 to northern Pine Valley) Total Outflow 4,100 70,500 20,800 34,700 Inflow (Outflow) 0 (41,300) (2,800) 200 1 Within Hydrologic Unit Code 10 watersheds on/within 3 Bars Project area. Source: Montgomery and Associates (2010) in USDOI BLM (20 1 2c:3-55 to 3-56). Eakin (1962) completed a preliminary water balance for the Diamond Valley basin. He estimated that groundwater recharge was around 16,000 acre-fect/year and that groundwater discharge was about 23,000 acre-feet/year. Evapotranspiration from natural vegetation was estimated at 14,100 acre-feet/ycar and water loss from meadow and pasture grass was estimated at 8,900 acre-feet/ycar. Pumpage from irrigation wells was around 5,000 acre-fect/year and the wells were screened in the upper 200 feet of the basin fill with well yields in the range of 1 ,000 to 2,500 gpm. Montgomery and Associates (2010) estimated the pre-development water balance for the Diamond Valley basin. Their values are considerably different from those of Eakin (1962), with precipitation recharge at 21,400 acrc- 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-108 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES feet year and 8,900 acre- feet/y car of groundwater inflow from Fine and Kobch valley basins. Their evapotranspiration loss was 30,300 acrc-feet/ycar and groundwater pumpage was only 800 aerc-feet/year. As of 2009, the water balance estimate of Montgomery and Associates (2010) has groundwater pumpage at 55,800 aere-fcct/ycar with groundwater inflow from Fine Valley and Kobch Valley basins and precipitation recharge being about the same as in the 1960s. The main change for 2009 is the substantial increase in irrigation pumpage. With irrigation pumpage resulting in a groundwater sink in the southern part of the Diamond Valley basin and accompanying basin sediment subsidence, the playa at the north end of the valley no longer receives groundwater flow from the southern part of the valley. Prior to agricultural development of Diamond Valley, the playa at the north end of the valley was the terminus of the Diamond Valley regional groundwater flow system. Now, the groundwater sink created by irrigation pumpage is the terminus of the flow system. Without groundwater flow from the southern part of the valley, the playa at the north end of Diamond Valley can be expected to become progressively dryer, resulting in a change in vegetation types and a reduction in phreatophytes surrounding the playa. 3.9.2.S.4 Groundwater Hydrogeology of Pine Valley Pine Valley is an elongate basin, 55 miles long by 30 miles wide, northwest of Diamond Valley and north of Kobeh Valley. The principal drainage is Pine Creek and this drainage flows into the Humboldt River, placing Pine Valley in the Humboldt River Flow System. Garden Valley is a sub-basin of Pine Valley and is along the southeastern part of the basin, adjacent to Mount Hope. Henderson Creek drains Garden Valley and flows into Pine Creek. Most of the drainages that feed into Pine Creek originate in the Cortez Mountains or the Roberts Mountains. The Pine Valley basin is characterized by shallow groundwater levels in the valley-fill alluvial aquifer. Groundwater elevations in the basin alluvial aquifer are around 5,800 feet amsl at the southern end of the valley and around 4,800 feet amsl near the northern end of the basin where Pine Creek flows into the Humboldt River. The hydrology of Pine Valley is characterized by shallow groundwater levels in the valley-fill alluvial aquifer (Eakin 1961). Depth to groundwater, in the valley fill along Pine Creek, ranges from 0 to 10 feet below ground surface. Pine Creek is fed by groundwater baseflow on a year-round basis and by mountain-front runoff during the spring snowmelt in the bordering mountains, especially the Cortez Range and the Roberts Mountains. Eakin (1961) estimated the recharge to Pine Valley at 46,000 acre-feet/year with discharge by evapotranspiration from natural vegetation and pasture grass at 24,000 acre-feet/year. Pine Creek discharges from 30 acre-feet/year during low flow periods to 2,100 acre-feet/year during high flow periods (Eakin 1961). Montgomery and Associates (2010) estimated the precipitation recharge for 2009 to be 34,900 acre-feet/year for the southern two-thirds of the basin (the area within the project area). Their water balance estimate had 1 7,100 acre-feet/year of evapotranspiration loss and 17,600 acre-fcet/ycar of subsurface groundwater outflow to Diamond Valley (5,800 acre-fcet/year), Kobch Valley (500 acre-feet/year), and the northern one-third of Pine Valley (1 1,300 acre-fect/year). Montgomery and Associates (2010) did not discuss groundwater baseflow to the Pine Creek basin and the discharge of this groundwater eventually to the Humboldt River. 3.9.2.5.5 Groundwater Hydrology of Grass Valley Grass Valley is a closed hydrographic basin that has not received much study. Everett and Rush (1966) described the general features of the basin hydrology. The Grass Valley basin is topographically and hydrologically closed and consists of two interconnected basins. The smaller basin is in the southwest comer of Grass Valley and is adjacent to Mt. Callaghan and fed by Current Creek and Skull Creek. This smaller basin contains abundant springs and drains through a gap in the bounding mountain ranges into the main part of the Grass Valley basin. The main basin of Grass Valley is elongate in a north-south direction and fed by ephemeral streams draining the Toiyabc Range that bounds 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-109 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES the west side of the valley. Springs are found along both the cast and west sides of Grass Valley near the contact between the alluvial fans that form the margins of the basin and the bounding bedrock of the fault-block ranges that border the basin. The Grass Valley basin is dominated by a large playa and the surrounding area phreatophytes that tap the shallow groundwater of the basin. Groundwater recharge in the valley was estimated to be around 13,000 acre-fcct/year. This is approximately balanced by evapotranspiration from the phreatophytes and groundwater pumpage of about 200 acrc-fect/year. Estimated total precipitation for Grass Valley is around 29,000 acre-feet/year and approximately 4.5 percent of this precipitation recharges groundwater. This is balanced by evapotranspiration from the phreatophytes estimated at 12,000 acre- feet/year and by both limited groundwater pumpage and consumption of groundwater by alfalfa grown south of the playa in the central part of the valley (Everett and Rush 1966). 3.9.2.5.6 Basin Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality in all the basins is similar and generally suitable for irrigation and stock watering. Over most of the basins, the groundwater is dominated by calcium-sodium bicarbonate or sodium-calcium bicarbonate with the total dissolved solids generally below 1,000 mg/L and often below 500 mg/L. Water quality is best in the alluvial fans near the mountain fronts and becomes more saline near the valley centers. For valleys with playas, the water quality can become quite saline, with the total dissolved solids exceeding 1,000 mg/L and the groundwater near the playas being dominated by calcium sulfate. Chloride can be locally elevated near the playas. Shallow groundwater near the basins centers is generally more saline than groundwater in the alluvial fans near the mountain fronts. Grass Valley has calcium bicarbonate dominated groundwater, with a total dissolved solids in the range of 300 to 500 mg/L (Everett and Rush 1966). Sulfate ranges up to 116 mg/L. Near the playas, groundwater in Grass Valley becomes saline with the total dissolved solids ranging up to 1,800 mg/L (Cohen 1964). Groundwater quality is suitable for irrigation, except beneath the playa area. Surrounding the playa and in the area of the phreatophytes, groundwater is dominated by sodium-calcium bicarbonate with a total dissolved solids in the range of 300 to 500 mg/L, sulfate ranging from 40 to 120 mg/L, and chloride less than 25 mg/L. In the area of the playa, the groundwater quality becomes saline due to evaporation in the playa. There are 23 wells of record and the deepest well is only 327 feet below ground surface. Water levels in the wells are generally within 50 feet of the surface, with only two wells having water levels deeper than 100 feet below ground surface (Everett and Rush 1966). Big Smoky Valley has groundwater that increases in total dissolved solids with depth (Handman and Kilroy 1997). The total dissolved solids ranged from a low around 65 mg/L up to 600 mg/L for groundwater in the alluvium away from the playas. Near the playas, total dissolved solids can reach 9,000 mg/L and the groundwater becomes dominated by calcium sulfate. Diamond Valley is divided into two valleys (Eakin 1962). The lower or southern part of the valley has good groundwater used for irrigation that is dominated by calcium bicarbonate, with total dissolved solids generally below 500 mg/L. The northern part of the valley is dominated by a playa and the groundwater becomes quite saline and dominated by calcium sulfate. Monitor, Antelope, and Kobch Valleys have groundwater dominated by calcium bicarbonate and a total dissolved solids below 500 mg/L. Near the centers of the basins and especially near playas, the groundwater quality becomes more saline and the total dissolved solids exceed 1,000 mg/L (Rush and Everett 1964). 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-1 10 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 3.9.3. 1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on the AECC and public scoping comments, the following issues were identified for water resources: • How will water rights be addressed? • How will treatments maintain or improve water quality? • How will treatments protect surface and groundwater resources from degradation by fuel or oil spills and other human activities in the 3 Bars ecosystem that could result in the pollution of water resources? • How will treatments maintain or improve watershed and streams/riparian zone conditions? • How will treatments reduce the threat of knickpoints and/or headcuts, which indicate vertical instability and are a point source for accelerated erosion? • Will pinyon-juniper treatments help to lessen water demands (through decreased evapotranspiration and sublimation), and increase the amount of water that infiltrates into the ground and discharges to seeps and springs? • Will treatments remove stock ponds that have inhibited sediment transport conditions locally, stored sediment, and caused channel incision downstream? • Will treatments improve bank stability? • Will treatments benefit deep-rooted perennial upland herbaceous species that have declined due to decreasing infiltration rates and increasing run-off and surface erosion? • What kinds of water developments that are being considered for the planning area, and what are the projected water flow production rates and availability to wild horses, wildlife, and livestock? • How will treatments reduce the impacts of wildfires on groundwater and surface water resources? • Would there be effects on local aquifers from the removal of pinyon-juniper and from mining and other projects in the CESA? 3.9.3.2 Significance Criteria Impacts to water resources would be considered significant if BLM actions resulted in: • Release of contaminants such as sediment, fuels, or lubricants into perennial or intermittent streams or springs, creating a change of water quality that often or regularly exceeds the applicable Nevada Division of Environmental Protection water quality standards specified in Nevada Administrative Code 445 A for existing uses such as aquatic life, irrigation, livestock watering, or propagation of wildlife. • Prevention of access, consumptive use, or long-term diversion of surface water that adversely affects recognized water rights holders. This would include flows and seasons of use where existing beneficial water uses, as defined by the Nevada Division of Water Resources, may be affected. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-111 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES • Accelerated erosion occurs from watershed slopes and leads to increased sedimentation in streams or ponds, or to other uncontrolled stream channel and bank instabilities (including conditions that foster aggradation and lateral migration, bank erosion or piping, or channel degradation through scour or collapse at kniekpoints or headcuts). • Treatments result in lower groundwater levels due to decreased recharge. For groundwater levels, the water level decline would need to be greater than seasonal fluctuations in water levels and persist for several years or more to be statistically verifiable. 3.93.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.9.33. 1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Much of the focus of restoration treatments would be on maintaining connections between streams and floodplains, increasing infiltration, decreasing overland flow, reducing discharge velocity, and encouraging riparian plant establishment. Numerous streams lack characteristics necessary for properly functioning riparian habitats. Invasive plant species, hazardous fuels buildup, pinyon-juniper encroachment, disturbance by historic livestock use, wild horses, and wild ungulates, and climatic conditions are factors that have degraded riparian function on the 3 Bars Project area. Groundwater in the 3 Bars ecosystem is an important component of riparian and wetland ecosystem health because it provides baseflow to streams, springs, and seeps that are an important source of water in riparian and wetland areas. Improvement of ecosystem health in riparian zones and increasing stream flows are expressed goals for the 3 Bars Project area (USDOI BLM 2009a:50). When functioning properly, streams, springs, seeps, and associated floodplains and wetlands absorb snowmelt and storm runoff, extend flows further into the year, and attenuate flood discharges. Water Access There could be short-term access restrictions to water access along portions of streams, or at developed or undeveloped springs to promote site restoration and establishment of native vegetation. Access to surface water sources could be temporarily interrupted through road closures, fencing, or other factors. However, the BLM would not completely block access to water for livestock, wild horses, and wildlife and access to water resources would be ensured to meet the needs of those species in accordance with Nevada Water Law and to ensure that existing water rights are satisfied and unimpaired. Hillslope Erosion and Runoff Removal of vegetation and disturbance of the soil could lead to increased water runoff and soil erosion. Interception and infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt would decrease as a result of overstory vegetation removal, formation of water resistant soil surfaces, or compaction. These effects could be minimized through the application of mulch and/or other erosion controls. After restoration with desirable vegetation, the erosive effects of snowmelt and rainfall would decrease, surface retention and infiltration would increase, and runoff and erosion conditions would improve. Streambed or Bank Instability Treatments could lead to short-term degradation of streambeds and banks due to removal of undesirable riparian vegetation, short-term impacts to desirable vegetation, and from in-ehanncl earthwork. Adverse effects could include 3 Bars Project Dralt EIS 3-112 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRON Ml iNTAL CONSEQUENCES initiating or increasing the occurrence and migration rate of knickpoints, headcuts, or bank caving and lateral migration, with the largest expected effect being an increase in sedimentation. Restoration at treatment sites, stabilization practices along streams, and post-project monitoring and maintenance would reduce the severity and duration of these impacts. Long term, treatments would ultimately improve stream function. Surface Water Quantity Restoration treatments would affect surface water quantity. Removal of vegetation could lead to increased runoff, and decreased infiltration, groundwater recharge, stream Rows, and flow duration. Reductions in baseflows (groundwater contributions to streams) may result from increased surface runoff and reduced infiltration and ground water recharge. Rcvcgetation may increase evapotranspiration demands on springs and perennial or intermittent streams at some sites. Some treatments may increase demands by phrcatophytic vegetation and reduce water flows at or near treatment sites. These effects may contribute to increased episodes of little or no flow in ephemeral streams. Use of water from nearby sources to extinguish wildfires could reduce the quantity of surface water resources, particularly in arid climates or during dry seasons (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-22). Several studies have shown that removal of pinyon-juniper that is encroaching into riparian habitat can improve stream flow. Buckhouse (2008) and deBoodt (2008) found that in areas where all junipers were cut from a watershed, late season spring flow, days of recorded ground flow, and late season soil moisture increased compared to pre- treatment conditions. As a result, flows may endure longer into the summer months at some springs and perennial or intermittent streams where dense, deep-rooted pinyon-juniper or other stands were treated. The lengths of perennial or intermittent stream reaches may also increase. These benefits would be more likely in Phase II and III pinyon-juniper stands, or in the mountains or on upstream reaches of mountain-front alluvial fan channels. Pierson et al. (2013) found that 2 years post fire, erosion remained 20-fold greater on burned than unbumed pinyon- juniper woodland plots, but concentrated flow erosion from the intereanopy was reduced by growth of forbs and grasses in the understory. Their study suggested that burning may amplify runoff and erosion immediately post fire, but that activities that stimulate vegetation productivity may provide long-term reduction of soil loss, especially when compared to untreated areas with pinyon-juniper. Burning of Phase II and III woodlands enhanced herbaceous cover, decreased bare ground connectivity, improved infiltration, and reduced concentrated flow erosion within the intereanopy over the first 2 years following the fire. Short-term improvements in infiltration and erosion suggest that tree removal by burning may create a restoration pathway for woodland-encroached sagebrush steppe habitat, but that improvements may take 3 or more years to take effect, depending on the rate of vegetation and ground cover recruitment. In contrast, Pierson et al. (2013) observed that simply placing cut-downed trees into the unbumed intereanopy had minimal immediate impact on infiltration and soil loss. If slash and other downed woody material from treatments are used as mulch, this material should slow runoff and sedimentation, and infiltration and soil moisture would likely increase. Mulch would also help to capture sediments and decrease peak flows. As treated areas revegetatc, there should be long-term benefits to stream flow and soil moisture. Surface Water Quality The water quality of perennial and intermittent streams could decrease in the short term after treatments, due to runoff and erosion from loss of vegetative cover and soil disturbance. Some treatments would be on soils that are susceptible 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-113 September 2013 WATER RESOURCES to water and wind erosion (sec Figures 3-14 and 3-15). However, by retaining downed woody material in treatment areas, these effects can be minimized or avoided. If streamside vegetation is removed, the loss of shade could result in higher water temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen, to the detriment of fish and other aquatic organisms (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-22). Removal of vegetation and an increase in erosion and sedimentation could result in an increase in salts in receiving water bodies. Birch Creek and Vinini Creek have elevated electrical conductivities, indicating higher levels of dissolved salts. However, other streams on Roberts Mountains have lower conductivity values, so the potential for adverse salinity effects varies across the project area. There is potential for fuel and lubricants used for equipment and transport vehicles to spill into water bodies. The BLM would minimize this risk by refueling and servicing equipment away from water bodies, and minimizing equipment use in aquatic bodies, where feasible. The removal of hazardous fuels from public lands would result in a long-term benefit to surface water quality by reducing the risk of a future high-severity wildfire on the treatment site. A high-severity wildfire that removes excessive plants and litter could subsequently increase surface soil erosion and cause soil mass failures and debris flow, resulting in short-term increases in stream flows. In addition, fire retardants could affect water quality. Fire retardants that are used most extensively for emergency suppression contain nitrogen and phosphorus that could cause nutrient enrichment of surface waters. When mixed with water and exposed to ultraviolet radiation, some fire retardants break down into hydrogen cyanide, an extremely toxic substance (Frcsquez et al. 2002). Over the long term, vegetation treatments that move the 3 Bars ecosystem toward historical ranges of variability, with a preponderance of native plant communities in natural mosaic patterns and relatively uninterrupted disturbance regimes, would provide favorable conditions for surface water quality by reducing the incidence of soil erosion and sedimentation. Groundwater Quantity and Recharge As discussed above, studies by Buckhouse (2008), deBoodt (2008), and Pierson et al. (2013) showed that the removal of vegetation could increase surface water runoff and reduce infiltration in treatment areas in the short tenn, to the detriment of local-area groundwater recharge and availability, although some water may be retained in the system due to reduced evapotranspiration; on a basin-wide scale, groundwater recharge would increase. Long term, treatments may improve groundwater availability as native vegetation re-establishes on treatment sites, which would reduce runoff and increase infiltration; these effects would be most noticeable in Phase II and III pinyon-juniper stands where there is little understory. Baseflow to streams may also increase due to increased infiltration of precipitation and an increase in recharge to shallow groundwater. The increase in baseflow may be temporary unless long groundwater flow paths arc involved. Removal of pinyon-juniper and replacement with a less water consumptive species is often cited as the prime example of the beneficial effect to groundwater recharge from removal of an invasive water consumptive species (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-21). The key factors relating removal of a water consumptive species and increased infiltration arc topographic slope, soil permeability, precipitation frequency and duration, and the water consumptive nature of the replacement species. Steep slopes with tight or compact soils would have a greater tendency to show increased runoff after removal of a species. This increased runoff would be temporary and would decline once the replacement species has established. I lowcver, the increased runoff would cause a reduction in infiltration and thus a potential reduction in recharge to 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-1 14 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES shallow aquifers. Mulching treated areas with chopped vegetation would mitigate for these effects by slowing runoff and enhancing infiltration. Areas with frequent or intense precipitation would be expected to show a greater potential for increased infiltration after removal of a water consumptive species. Similarly, if the replacement species has a high capacity for soil water retention and consumption, then the benefits of removal of the less desirable species would be only temporary. Groundwater Quality Improvements in groundwater quality from vegetation treatments are more difficult to quantify, primarily due to the lack of long-term groundwater quality data needed to statistically defend an improvement in water quality. If vegetation treatments reduce nutrient uptake by plants, either by removing plants or replacing one species with another that requires less or different nutrients, then soluble nutrients like nitrogen may enter streams via groundwater baseflow from shallow aquifers due to dissolution of these nutrients by infiltrating precipitation (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-21 ). In areas with high salt levels in soils, a change in vegetation species may result in increased flushing of salts to groundwater. Nutrients sorbed onto soil particles, such as phosphorous, may be carried to streams in runoff. Groundwater quality may be affected, at least temporarily, by an influx of nutrients that would otherwise have been consumed by the vegetation that has been removed. Conversely, since runoff beneath pinyon-juniper has been shown to far exceed that of non-pinyon-juniper terrain, removing pinyon-juniper, placing mulch, and allowing native vegetation to stabilize the soil could decrease runoff and the associated erosion which carries sediment loads and increases total dissolved salts and other pollutants. 3.9.33.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Riparian Treatments The BLM has identified about 3,885 acres of riparian zone treatments. Most of the riparian treatments would be in the Kobeh Valley and Pine Valley watersheds. Treatment acres comprise only a small portion of the watershed basins within the project area (Table 3-20) and only 3 percent of all project treatment acreage. The BLM would restore 3 1 miles of perennial streams (Table 3-21), 17 miles of intermittent streams, and 40 springs that are within the riparian treatment zone. Riparian area treatments would focus on restoring stream and habitat functionality in areas where the stream channel morphology, and the plant species composition within the riparian zone, have been compromised by past actions. Because of the loss of structural integrity in compromised channels, stream velocities have increased over historic levels, nutrient-rich sediment is not being delivered to riparian vegetation, and there is less groundwater recharge within the floodplains. Near-stream groundwater levels have also dropped as a result of stream incision. The following discussion focuses on the effects of riparian treatments on water resources. A discussion of stream processes, and how proposed stream engineering treatments would affect stream morphology and functionality, including processes related to water quantity and quality, is in Section 3. 10.3 under Wetland, Floodplain, and Riparian Zone Resources. Adverse Effects Because riparian treatments would, by definition, be conducted close to surface water features, of all of the treatment types they would have the most potential to have adverse and beneficial impacts on water resources. Avoidance of 3 Mars Project Draft EIS 3-115 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES these impacts would be particularly critical for occupied and potential Lahontan cutthroat trout streams, stream segments on the Roberts Mountains, such as Roberts Creek, and those tributaries that have Class A stream standards. Degraded stream systems on the 3 Bars Project area reflect degraded conditions in their contributing watersheds. These conditions tend to increase the magnitude and frequency of high flows after precipitation events, increase sediment inputs into stream systems, and diminish the streams’ ability to resist degradation. The annual hydrograph, as differentiated from the storm event flow response described above, is also changed. High spring runoff flows often increase, while seasonal low flows (baseflows) decline or cease. Direct alterations include channel straightening, dredging, widening, narrowing, levee construction, floodplain fill, and riparian zone modification. Indirect activities include those that alter the principal processes that create and maintain stream channel conditions. Tree harvest, road building, and grazing also influence the supply and transport of water, sediment, energy (light and heat), nutrients, solutes, and organic matter (ranging from woody material to leaf litter; Saldi-Caromile 2004). Stream restoration treatments could further degrade conditions within the stream until it stabilizes. Channel restoration and vegetation removal and planting may temporarily increase erosion in treated areas. TABLE 3-20 Percent of Watershed Basin within Treatment Areas Basin Name Basin Acres Riparian Aspen Pinyon- juniper Sagebrush Diamond Valley 477,506 <0.1 0 6.8 1.4 Grass Valley 379,846 <0.1 0.0 0 2.2 Kobeh Valley 551,961 0.2 <0.1 8.9 8.1 Pine Valley 640,588 0.3 <0.1 7.8 8.0 TABLE 3-21 Perennial Stream Miles within Treatment Areas Stream Name Miles by Treatment Type Aspen Pinyon-juniper Riparian Sagebrush Birch Creek 0.6 1.5 0 0 Denay Creek 0 0.1 0 0 Henderson Creek 0 1.8 5.6 4.6 McClusky Creek 0 0 3.3 0 Pete Hanson Creek 1.2 1.4 0 0 Roberts Creek 0 3.2 5.4 0 Vinini Creek 0.3 0 5.2 1.3 Willow Creek 0 0 5.0 0 Unnamed 1.7 5.7 6.7 0.5 Total Miles 3.8 13.7 31.2 6.4 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-116 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Treatments at the Black Spring, Cadet Spring, and Indian Creek 1 lcadwaters units groups, as well as those streams identified for Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat improvements, would involve using heavy equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes to reconstruct streams and improve riparian habitat. The soil disturbance associated with machinery used to remove vegetation and reconstruct streams, such as digging, plowing, or scraping, and from wheels and tracks of machinery, would increase the likelihood of soil and plant material being carried into streams by surface runoff. In addition, the compaction of soil by heavy equipment would increase the likelihood of surface runoff by reducing the soil's infiltration capacity. However, leaving debris in place after treatments would limit these negative effects on infiltration rates and stream sedimentation (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-23). Manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire could be used at the Frazier Creek Unit, and at Garden Spring, Hash Spring and several other springs to remove pinyon-juniper. Because manual treatments would occur over small areas, and would involve little soil disturbance or vegetation removal, the effects on water resources would be minimal. Manual treatment seldom results in exposed soil, and plant materials would remain in the treatment areas, minimizing the risks of sedimentation and alteration to water flow (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-23). The burning of vegetation would be expected to lead to an increase in surface runoff and sediment inputs to water, and a decrease in infiltration and groundwater recharge. The amount of runoff would be a function of the timing and severity of the fire, the slope of the treatment site, and the timing, amount, and intensity of precipitation. As discussed earlier, Pierson et al. (2013) found that 2 years post fire, erosion remained 20-fold greater on burned than unbumed pinyon-juniper woodland plots, but concentrated flow erosion from the intercanopy was reduced by growth of forbs and grasses in the understory. Their study suggested that burning may amplify runoff and erosion immediately post fire, but that activities that stimulate vegetation productivity may provide long-term reduction of soil loss, especially when compared to untreated areas with pinyon-juniper. High severity fires tend to bum much of the organic material on a site, exposing mineral soil and sometimes forming hydrophobic, or water repellant, soil layers. In severe, slow-moving fires, the combustion of vegetative materials creates a gas that penetrates the soil profile. As the soil cools, this gas condenses and forms a waxy coating, which in turn causes the soil to repel water. This increases the rate of water runoff. Percolation of water into the soil profile is reduced, making it difficult for seeds to germinate and for the roots of surviving plants to obtain moisture. Hydrophobic soils do not form in every fire. Factors contributing to their fonnation are a thick layer of litter before the fire, a severe slow-moving surface and crown fire, and coarse textured soils such as sand or decomposed granite. Finely textured soils such as clay are less prone to hydrophobicity (Moench and Fusara 2012). Approximately 90 percent of riparian treatment acreage has high fire damage susceptibility, so fire use should be limited to small treatment areas in areas with low fire damage susceptibility. After a low severity prescribed bum, erosion, runoff, and water quality arc often unaffected on level areas, whereas adverse effects to water resources may persist for 9 to 1 5 months on moderate slopes, and for 1 5 to 30 months on steep slopes (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-23). As only a few, if any, acres would be burned annually in riparian zones, and only in areas where hydrophytic vegetation was absent, these impacts to water conditions from prescribed fire should be minor. It is unlikely that burning would be conducted along streams with Lahontan cutthroat trout due to the potential for adverse impacts to stream water quality and loss of vegetative cover adjacent to streams. The BLM would consult with the USFWS before conducting treatments on streams occupied by Lahontan cutthroat trout. 3 liars Project Draft I IS 3-117 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES Beneficial Effects The primary objective of riparian management is to restore degraded streams to Proper Functioning Condition to benefit riparian habitat, riparian-dependent wildlife, and Lahontan cutthroat trout and other aquatic species. A proper functioning riparian zone has the necessary physical and structural components to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, as well as conditions that support a diverse and healthy population of fish and other aquatic organisms. Stream bioengineering treatments that include improvements to stream channel morphology and plantings should reduce the occurrence of high flow events and allow higher flows to be distributed across the floodplain rather than focused in the channel. Where flows are restricted to narrow channels, the increase in energy confined within the channel has resulted in stream degradation. By creating conditions that slow water flow, and creating associated floodplains and wet meadows, the energy associated with water flow would be dissipated, reducing the potential for future channel degradation. In-channel work and road mitigation projects would provide additional benefits. Grade control structures would reduce incision rates and in some cases, reverse it through aggradation (one rock dam series). Post vanes and baffles would induce meanders and help restore natural sinuosity and slow discharge velocity. Road mitigation, such as rolling dips, berms, swales, and spill pads, would help move water off of roads and into the riparian and wetland areas. These structures may be installed in conjunction with stream bioengineering to improve and expand riparian habitat. Hydrologic functions would improve over the long term due to stream restoration, including stabilization or reduction of drainageway erosion features such as knickpoints, hcadcuts, gullies, and bank caving, and as a result of reconnecting hydrologic pathways, from overland flow through infiltration. Pinyon-juniper removal from riparian zones and adjacent upland areas may benefit hydrologic function as well, by generating some minor improvement in water flow in treated streams. Greater infiltration and interception of precipitation from improvement in riparian vegetation would help increase groundwater recharge and attenuate runoff peaks. Local increases in flow durations and flowing reaches could occur at some streams and springs (Tague et al. 2008). Incised channels and channel straightening from roads have caused water levels to drop along many proposed treatment streams, causing nearby areas to dry out. By creating conditions that reduce channel incision, reduce surface runoff, and increase infiltration, the deep-rooted herbaceous species that are being lost in many riparian zones should benefit from these actions. In turn, as these species become reestablished, they should help to stabilize soils and improve water quality. Treatments to remove pinyon-juniper from riparian treatment units and in nearby upland areas where pinyon-juniper is encroaching into riparian and sagebrush habitat may increase groundwater recharge. Longlcaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper are not riparian species, and are not as effective as native vegetation in stabilizing soil near streams. Encroaching pinyon-juniper in Phase II and III stands has led to the loss of understory vegetation through shading, which has resulted in increased runoff and highcr-than-normal flows in streams and accelerated the erosion of natural stream meander bends. Since sinuosity and slope arc inversely proportional, the streambeds have begun incising to compensate for the increased flow rates, resulting in the lowering of the streambed and water table. By removing trees and leaving treatment slash and other woody debris on the ground as mulch, and allowing understory vegetation to re- establish, surface runoff rates and peak stream flows should lessen, less sediment would be transported to streams, and more water should infiltrate into the soil and recharge the groundwater (Lossing 2012, Noellc 2012). Improvement in riparian habitat and construction of fire breaks would help to slow or stop the spread of wildfire, to the benefit of water resources. Exclosure fencing would control access to treatment sites by livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates and allow treatment areas to rcvcgetatc. Livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates can affect surface 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-118 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES runoff through trampling, soil disturbance, and soil compaction. Past studies found that runoff from a heavily grazed w atershed was 1 .4 times that of a moderately grazed watershed, and 9 times greater than that of lightly grazed watershed. In some eases, however, light grazing may actually improve soil infiltration by breaking up physical crusts on the soil (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-24). Small breaks would be provided in the fencing, as needed, to ensure that animals have access to water in the vicinity of treatments. Aspen Treatments Aspen treatment areas overlap with approximately 4 miles of perennial streams, 55 miles of intermittent/ephemeral streams, and 35 springs. Efforts to stimulate aspen suekering and sucker survival would cause short-term soil disturbance and erosion, but as aspen stands improve, treatment actions should stabilize soils and improve hydrologic functions to the benefit of water resources. The BLM would remove pinyon-juniper and other non-riparian trees near aspen stands. Although it is unlikely that these treatments would enhance water yields, except perhaps at RM-A2 and RM-A10 along upper Roberts Creek and Upper Pete Hanson Creek, respectively, they would help to enhance fire breaks. Efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires would reduce the potential for excessive loss of plant and litter cover and the potential for soil erosion and mass failures that would cause a decrease in water quality. Fire use and other treatments that restore natural fire regimes and ecosystem processes would reduce the effects of fire suppression and benefit water resources and quality (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-26). Pinyon-juniper Treatments Treatments that reduce the abundance of pinyon-juniper near water bodies, promote the development of native forbs, grasses, and shrubs, and reduce the risk of fire spread in pinyon-juniper stands would provide the most benefits to surface and groundwater resources. Pinyon-juniper treatments would overlap with approximately 14 miles of perennial streams, 464 miles of intermittent/ephemeral streams, and 63 springs. Adverse Effects Impacts to water quantity and quality could be greater for pinyon-juniper treatment areas than for other treatment types because of the large acreage treated, and because pinyon-juniper treatment areas are generally on moderate to steep hillslopes that are prone to water erosion. In addition, where trees are in dense stands, removal of these trees could lead to short-term water and wind erosion as vegetative ground cover is mostly absent from these areas. Thurow and Hester (2012) found that runoff and erosion were greater from manual, mechanical, and fire treatments in pinyon treatment areas than untreated areas, and that it could take up to 10 years to return to normal levels, especially for mechanical treatments that disturb the soil. They noted that fire can increase the water repcllency of soils, and increase runoff and erosion and loss of soil nutrients from the site until the burned site is revegetated. They noted that studies have shown that burning can significantly reduce the infiltration rate and increase erosion due to loss of vegetation. These effects lessen as sites are revegetated. Pierson ct al. (2013) found that 2 years post fire, burning may amplify runoff and erosion immediately post fire, but that activities that stimulate vegetation productivity may provide long-term reduction of soil loss, especially when compared to untreated areas with pinyon-juniper. Burning of Phase II and III woodlands enhanced herbaceous cover, decreased bare ground connectivity, improved infiltration, and reduced concentrated flow erosion within the intercanopy over the first 2 years following the fire. Short-term improvements in infiltration and erosion suggest that tree removal by burning may create a restoration pathway for woodland-encroached sagebrush steppe habitat, but that 3 Mars Project Draft BIS 3-1 19 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES improvements may take 3 or more years to take effect, depending on the rate of vegetation and ground cover recruitment. Several thousand aeres could be burned caeh year using prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits. The potential effects of fire on water resources would depend largely on the severity and size of the fire, with a low severity bum being less likely to degrade water quality and quantity than a severe burn, and a small fire affecting a smaller surface area than a large fire. In addition, the closer the fire is to a water body, the more likely it would be to affect water quality. The BLM would use fire and fuel breaks to limit the spread of fire. Most fire treatments would occur along the western slopes of the Roberts Mountains, and at the Whistler and Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management units. Prescribed fire could be used on all pinyon-juniper treatment areas except Lone Mountain; only wildland fire for resource benefit would be used at the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit. The BLM would thin and remove pinyon-juniper and create fire breaks in several drainages on Roberts Mountains. Approximately one-third of the proposed treatment acres are on soils that are susceptible to compacting, and the resulting adverse impacts to erosion, runoff, sedimentation, and degraded soil quality would be of concern for this treatment group. In addition, approximately 1 7 percent of acres have severe water erosion hazard. Nearly 80 percent of the acreage associated with the Atlas, Birch, Frazier, Gable, Henderson, Upper Pete Hanson, Upper Roberts, and Vinini units has moderate or high fire damage susceptibility, while about 70 percent of acreage of the 3 Bars Ranch, Cottonwood/Meadow Canyon, Dry Canyon, Lower Pete Hanson, Tonkin North, Tonkin South, and Whistler units, and Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit, has moderate to high fire damage susceptibility. Thus, mechanical treatments may be preferable to fire treatments if there is concern about soil damage and loss. If fire is used, effort should be made to bum during the cooler periods of the year and keep fire intensity low. Beneficial Effects Historical fire suppression has affected water quality and quantity on the 3 Bars Project area, as fire suppression is partly responsible for the spread of pinyon-juniper woodlands. The spread of Utah juniper and increase in the density of juniper stands has led to conditions that favor decreased soil infiltration and increase in peak discharges, especially in areas where dense pinyon-juniper cover has resulted in a lack of understory vegetation. An important objective of pinyon-juniper treatments is to remove encroaching pinyon-juniper to restore the natural hydrologic regime. Treatments should lead to a long-term decrease in runoff, and an increase in infiltration, which should help to reduce the short-term intensity of stream flows during high rainfall events to the benefit of stream function and stability. Hydrologic functions may ultimately improve along some perennial and intennittent streams and springs within the pinyon-juniper treatment areas. Petersen and Stringham (2008) found that water infiltration decreased as juniper canopy cover increased due to the loss of herbaceous and shrub vegetation. Depth of water was also lowest in plots dominated by juniper. Pierson et al. (2008) and Thurow and Hester (2012) found that runoff and erosion are greater from interspace areas than vegetated areas within pinyon-juniper woodlands. Lossing (2012) observed that removal of pinyon-juniper resulted in a 40 percent increase in the amount of rainfall reaching the soil surface compared to untreated stands. Thus, removal of trees should increase runoff, but could also increase infiltration in the short term. Noelle (2012) observed that by leaving slash and other woody debris on the ground, sediment yield was significantly reduced. It is unlikely that additional water yields (flow durations and volumes) would be widespread, but they may 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-120 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES occur at some treatment sites where dense pinyon-juniper stands occur along streams or near springs. As discussed earlier, removal of pinyon-juniper that is encroaching into riparian habitat can improve stream How. These benefits would be more likely in Phase II and III pinyon-juniper stands, or in the mountains or on upstream reaches of mountain-front alluvial fan channels (Buckhouse 2008, dcBoodt 2008). However, Ffolliott and Gottfried (2012: 1 5), in their literature review of hydrologic processes in pinyon-juniper woodlands, came to the conclusion “that the potential for increasing streamflow volumes by converting tree overstories to an herbaceous cover is poor.” They attributed this to the fact that there are few opportunities to reduce evapotranspiration losses in areas with little rainfall where pinyon-juniper is typically found. The low amount of annual precipitation also has little influence on soil moisture. Treatments along riparian corridors, including Atlas, Birch, Frazier, Henderson, Upper Pete Hanson, Upper Roberts Creek, and Vinini units may result in some streamflow increases and water quality improvement, while improvement to the understory should reduce soil erosion and impacts to water quality long term. These treatment areas are within and along the flanks of the Roberts Mountains. Removal of pinyon-juniper from these areas can be expected to improve infiltration and recharge to shallow groundwater along and near stream areas. The degree of improvement would depend on the depth to groundwater and the nature of the bedrock hosting the shallow aquifer. Thurow and Hester (2012) found that runoff and erosion was greater from manual and mechanical treatments when slash was removed than allowed to remain on the ground. They also reported that runoff increased and water quality declined on chained sites, but that after 5 to 1 1 years there was little difference in these parameters compared to undisturbed sites. At the 3 Bars Project hazardous fuels reduction site-specific treatment units, including Cottonwood/Meadow Canyon, Dry Canyon, Lower Pete Hanson, Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management, and Tonkin units, some flow increases may occur at springs or along streams. Hydrologic and wetland functions may improve at the base of alluvial fans and along the valley axis in the upper Coils Creek drainage, near Meadow Canyon, and in the western part of the 3 Bars Ranch treatment area. The Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management and Whistler units are along the western side of Diamond Valley and are in recharge areas for the shallow alluvial aquifer in Diamond Valley. Removal of pinyon- juniper could lead to an increase in groundwater recharge in Diamond Valley. Efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires through reduction of hazardous fuels and creation of fire and fuel breaks would reduce the potential for excessive loss of plant and litter cover and the potential for soil erosion and soil mass failures that cause a decrease in water quality. Fire use and other treatments that restore natural fire regimes and ecosystem processes would reduce the effects of fire suppression and benefit water resources and quality. Sagebrush Treatments Adverse Effects Approximately 5 miles of perennial stream are associated with riparian management projects within the larger sagebrush treatment area (Lower Henderson 1 and 3, and Lower Vinini Creek units). Only 1.3 miles of perennial stream habitat are associated exclusively with sagebrush treatment projects — Tabic Mountain (Henderson and Vinini creeks), and West Simpson Park (unnamed) units. Approximately 400 acres of treatments arc associated with intermittent/ephemeral streams. Water erosion risk is low for most sagebrush treatment areas, except at West Simpson Park, where most (84 percent) of the treatment area would be susceptible to severe water erosion, and at the Three Comers Unit, where 27 percent of unit has severe or moderate risk of water erosion. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-121 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES If animals arc used as a method of biological treatment, the action of their hooves would cause some disturbance, shearing, and compaction of soil, increasing its susceptibility to both water and wind erosion. Severe compaction often reduces the availability of water and air to the roots, sometimes reducing plant vitality. Beneficial Effects Treatments that promote the development of understory vegetation within sagebrush habitats, and sccdings and plantings to promote sagebrush development in areas where sagebrush should occur based on ecological site description reference, desired state, or management objective, would help to stabilize soils and reduce the risk of wind and water erosion. Removal of pinyon-juniper from sagebrush treatment areas could improve water flows and groundwater recharge. Mechanical treatments could improve infiltration in clayey or compacted soils. Henderson Creek is found within the Table Mountain area. Sagebrush reductions, enhancement of native riparian species, and pinyon-juniper thinning in this area may improve hydrologic functions along the creek, particularly by improving runoff conditions and reducing accelerated erosion and related suspended sediment and turbidity. For some treatment areas, the removal of vegetation, especially in large quantities, could improve groundwater recharge by limiting the amount of water lost through plant evapotranspiration. In this case, base flows, which are dependent on the quantity of groundwater discharge, would increase. These changes could be very minor or short- lived if areas were revegetated quickly. Under some circumstances, vegetation removal could result in the reduction of groundwater discharge and baseflow as a function of reduced infiltration rates. Reduced infiltration rates result in more surface runoff reaching streams and lakes immediately after a rain event, thus increasing the velocity, frequency, and magnitude of peak stream flows. These changes in water quantity could alter the physical characteristics of stream channels and affect the speed of water movement. Any changes would last until the site was revegetated. Stream restoration projects adjacent to sagebrush treatment areas that improve stream function and restore riparian communities, however, should mitigate the short-term increase in runoff from these sites. Non-native vegetation, specifically chcatgrass, on the 3 Bars Project area is associated with the occurrence of wildfires, which in turn have detrimental effects on water quality. Use of mechanical and biological methods and fire use can benefit water quantity and quality if non-native vegetation removal reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire. 3.9.3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Of the approximately 6,350 acres that would be treated annually under Alternative B, about 2,000 acres would be treated in areas that have moderate to high water erosion potential, or about half that of Alternative A. Because prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit would not be allowed under Alternative B, there would be no risks to water resources from fire use. Excluding prescribed burns would avoid the increases in runoff and erosion common to burned areas. Reduced soil infiltration, due to resinous sealing after intense burning than can occur in high fire susceptibility risk areas, would not occur as a result of prescribed bums. This may not be particularly beneficial however, if more extensive and intense wildfires occur in place of controlled burns. By not being able to use prescribed fire, however, the BLM would be limited to mechanical and biological control treatments to slow pinyon-juniper encroachment, thin pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to promote understory vegetation, and to control noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation. In addition, mechanical methods could result in 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-122 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE'S more soil disturbance than the use of lire, which could lead to water degradation in areas with high water erosion risk. 1 he fable Mountain and West Simpson Park units arc on rugged terrain, and use of mechanical equipment to control cheatgrass would be difficult and erosion potential from treatments in these areas would be great. If not controlled, large infestations of cheatgrass and other noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation could result in frequent wildfires that would degrade water quality. 3.93.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, the BLM would only be able to use manual and classical biological control methods to treat vegetation and would only treat about one-fourth as many acres as would be treated under Alternative A. The risk of localized soil compaction and short term accelerated erosion from treatments, and its contribution to water quality degradation, would be less under Alternative C than the other alternatives, as there would be little ground disturbance under Alternative C. By not being able to use mechanical methods and fire to reduce hazardous fuels and create fire and fuel breaks, the risk of wildfire and its impacts on soil would be greater under this alternative than the other action alternatives. In addition, fewer acres would be treated to improve stream function and capability, and to remove pinyon-juniper and improve key sagebrush habitat, and benefits to surface and groundwater availability and quality from treatments under Alternative C would be less than under Alternatives A and B. 3.9.33.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to soil resources from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; or reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire. The processes that create knickpoints, headcuts, and unstable streambanks would remain active, there would be few benefits to deep-rooted vegetation near streams, and there would be little improvement in stream flows. Thus, the health of the landscape would continue to deteriorate, and water quality and quantity would also deteriorate due to loss of soil due to erosion, stream channel instability, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and wildfire. These long-term effects would be greatest under Alternative D. 3.93.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for water resources is approximately 1,841,700 million acres and includes those watersheds at the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 level that are all or partially within the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). Approximately 92 percent of the area is administered by the BLM, 6 percent is privately owned, and 2 percent is administered by the Forest Service. Past and present actions that have influenced water resources in the 3 Bars ecosystem arc discussed in Section 3.2.2.33. 3.93.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Actions to better distribute livestock across the rangeland and keep wild horse populations near the Appropriate Management Level, and the use of temporary fencing to protect treatment areas within the CESA, should benefit water resources. The measures that the BLM would take to minimize livestock and wild horse impacts to treatment areas arc discussed in more detail in Section 3.17.4 (Livestock Grazing Mitigation), and in Appendix C. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-123 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES The BLM would continue to use ground-based herbicide applications to remove noxious weeds, and aerial-based application methods to remove chcatgrass, and would restore burned areas under the Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program, under existing authorizations on about 1 ,000 acres annually. These treatments eould have short-term effects on water quality, primarily through ground disturbance and erosion associated with use of mechanical equipment, or if herbicides were accidentally spilled into a water body, but these risks would be negligible. Treatments would help to reduce hazardous fuels, slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reduce surface runoff and erosion associated with burn sites on about 1 ,000 acres annually, to the benefit of water resources. Five herbicides arc typically used on the 3 Bars Project area — 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, and picloram. For the 3 Bars Project, it is likely that the BLM would also use imazapic to treat chcatgrass. Based on an assessment of risks from the use of herbicides, there is potential for glyphosate and metsulfuron methyl to be transported by wind and water in areas with moderate to high risk of wind or water erosion. Several herbicides are known groundwater contaminants (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-29 to 4-34). The BLM would minimize the risk of contamination of water bodies from herbicides by using appropriate buffer zones for herbicides not labeled for aquatic use based on risk assessment guidance, with minimum widths of 100 feet for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray applications. Land development, mineral development, and oil, gas, and hydrothermal exploration and development would disturb soil, which would lead to soil erosion and water quality impacts and use of groundwater for public and industrial uses. Land development and development of natural resources would involve the use of equipment and drilling wells, which could result in spills of hydrocarbons and other hazardous materials. This, in turn, could impact surface water and groundwater. For example, a recent oil spill at the Blackburn oil well in Pine Valley impacted over 3 acres (USDOI BLM 2012b:4-47). Modeling suggests that there could be a significant impact to groundwater levels near the Mount Hope Project due to mining and other activities in the CESA, and that it may be 100 years or more before groundwater levels have recovered to their pre-mining levels (USDOI BLM 2012b:4-48 to 4-50). Mining activities within the CESA may also create significant adverse impacts to surface water resources including 2 perennial stream segments (Roberts Creek and Henderson Creek) and 22 springs, mainly by altering drainage features, by dewatering springs or stream segments, and by water quality impacts from disturbed area runoff or escapes from processing facilities. Most of these impacts from mining activities would be avoided or reduced through state and federal mining regulations and related compliance programs. However, modelers did not feel that agriculture, mining, and oil and gas development would lead to significant water quantity and quality issues in the CESA (USDOI BLM 2012b:3-74 to 3-1 12). Hazardous fuels reduction, habitat improvement, and noxious weeds and invasive non-native species control projects would occur on approximately 142,000 acres (127,000 for the 3 Bars Project and 15,000 acres for other hazardous fuels projects in the CESA), or 8 percent of the CESA (about 1 percent of the CESA annually). These treatments would lead to short-term increases in soil erosion and surface water runoff, but would have long-term benefits to water quality and possibly to water Hows. The disturbance effects resulting from restoration activities arc predicted to have less impact and be less severe than effects and erosion caused by catastrophic wildfire, which could occur on about 6,900 acres annually. In addition, a reduction in the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation is expected to help reduce soil erosion, especially in areas that are prone to water erosion. Overall, 3 Bars Project actions would have a minor contribution to water resources effects occurring within the CESA under Alternative A. 3 Bars Project Drall HIS 3-124 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.93.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on water resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The BLM anticipates treating about half as many acres under Alternative B as under Alternative A, and less effort would be spent by the BLM on treatments to reduce wildfire risk and loss of soil from erosion, including use of fire to restore natural fire regimes. Adverse effects to water resources would generally be the same as described for Alternative A. However, by not using fire, there would be no risks to water quality from fire on several thousand acres annually within the 3 Bars Project area. Instead, the BLM would be limited to disking and plowing and using livestock to control non-native vegetation on several thousand acres annually. These methods could result in more soil disturbance and soil erosion that could impact water quality, than the use of fire. The Table Mountain and West Simpson Park units are on rugged terrain, and use of mechanical equipment to control cheatgrass would be difficult and erosion potential from treatments would be great, especially on the West Simpson Park Unit. Under Alternative B, annual hazardous fuels reduction and habitat improvement projects could occur on about 6,300 acres within the 3 Bars Project area, and on an additional 1 ,500 acres within the CESA under current or reasonably foreseeable future authorizations, or less than 1 percent of acreage within the CESA. Because of the large acreage treated, water quantity and quality should improve within the 3 Bars Project area and CESA, although not to the extent as would occur under Alternative A. 3.9.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on water resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM would treat about 3,200 acres annually within the 3 Bars Project area. Adverse, short-term effects to water resources associated with the use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit and mechanized equipment would not occur under Alternative C. However, fire use, herbicides, and mechanized equipment would be used in other portions of the CESA. These treatments in other portions of the CESA would affect about 1,500 acres annually. 3 Bars Project restoration treatments would have short-term adverse and long-term beneficial effects on water resources, but these effects would be negligible (0.2 percent of acreage within the CESA on an annual basis) in the context of the acreage within the CESA and other types of acti vities that have effects on water resources, such as the Mount Hope Project and irrigation. By not being able to use mechanical methods to thin and remove pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to encourage development of the understory, create fire and fuel breaks, and remove slash and other downed woody debris and reduce hazardous fuels, however, the risk of wildfire and its impacts on water resources would likely increase on the 3 Bars Project area. Because of the acreage treated, water quantity and quality would improve within the 3 Bars Project area and provide a minor benefit to water resources within the CESA, although not to the extent as would occur under Alternatives A and B. 3.93.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on water resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative impacts to water resources from this alternative as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM could conduct stream bioengineering treatments; create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-125 September 20 1 3 WATER RESOURCES stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, espeeially eheatgrass; restore lire as an integral part of the ecosystem; and reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire, but on a very limited acreage. Thus, factors that contribute to reduction in water quantity and degradation of water quality would remain, including soil erosion, stream channel instability, spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and wildfire, and would likely be greatest under this alternative. 3.9.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects An increase in soil erosion and surface water runoff could result from restoration treatments, which could lead to streambank erosion and sedimentation. Rates of runoff would be in fluenced by precipitation rates, soil types, and proximity to the treated area. All vegetation removal activities could disturb the soil and reduce the amount of vegetation binding to soil, potentially causing erosion and increased sedimentation. The removal of vegetation would decrease the amount of rainfall captured by plants, detritus, and soil, potentially leading to increased stormwater flows, runoff velocity, and sedimentation. 3.9.3.6 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Over the short-term (several months or a few years), access for some users to surface water features within treatment areas would be restricted. The BLM would investigate the status of any water right associated with an affected water feature to determine whether, and to what extent, it could implement the proposed treatment, and if any mitigation was needed and the effectiveness of the mitigation. This would be an adverse impact to existing water rights holders and beneficial uses. The BLM would offset those impacts to existing water rights holders. Treatment of vegetation would cause a short-term increase in soil erosion and surface water runoff. Successful control of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants, however, would lead to improved conditions in watersheds over the long term, with the greatest improvement likely to occur in degraded watersheds. The eventual growth of desirable vegetation in treated areas would moderate water temperatures, buffer the input of sediment from runoff, and promote streambank stability. Ongoing efforts by the BLM to enhance vegetation would also help to increase the acreage of watersheds that are functioning properly. Improvement of watersheds and water resources and quality would benefit salmonids and other species of concern that depend upon these habitats for their survival. Vegetation treatments that reduce hazardous fuels would benefit ecosystems by reducing the chances of a large, uncontrolled wildfire, which could destroy a large amount of high quality habitat and potentially lead to erosion, especially if followed by heavy rainfall. Hazardous fuels reduction would also decrease the likelihood that wildfire suppression activities would occur in or near aquatic habitats (USDOl BLM 2007b:4-247). 3.9.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources An accidental fuel spill or uncontrolled wildland fire could cause damage to water bodies and the ability to use water resources in the affected area could be lost for a short period of time. However, these impacts would be highly unlikely and could be reversed if restoration treatments were successful. Other treatments should not result in irreversible or irretrievable commitments of water resources. Under all alternatives, there could be a short-term (less than 5 years) increase in soil erosion from 3 Bars Project treatments, primarily those where the soil is disturbed by mechanical or fire treatments. This increase in erosion could 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-126 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES lead to increased sedimentation or turbidity in streams or ponds. These impacts from soil erosion would accrue with soil erosion and loss of soil associated with other land disturbance activities in the CESA. These losses of soil due to erosion and its impacts to water quality in streams and ponds in the 3 Bars Project area would be offset by long-term benefits from: 1 ) stream restoration projects that promote stream stability and riparian vegetation development; 2) improvements in vegetation in areas where thinning pinyon-juniper and sagebrush promotes understory development; 3) removal and control of non-native vegetation and revegetation of treatment sites with native vegetation; and 4) hazardous fuels treatments that reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire, including prescribed burning and use of wildland fire for resource benefit, and the creation of fire and fuel breaks. It is possible that prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit treatments could result in erosion that could adversely affect water quality. However, the BLM would use SOPs to minimize this risk, including disking on contour, avoiding treatments on steep slopes, and limiting the amount of time that livestock graze on treatment sites. Loss of soil, and its effects on water quality, could be greater in areas burned by catastrophic wildfire, as these areas can be large, are often in remote areas, and can be difficult to revegetate. Thus, BLM treatments that reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire should help to slow soil erosion and improve water quality. 3.9.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives Under all alternatives, there could be short-term releases of sediments and fuels and lubricants from equipment into water bodies from actions within the CESA. The BLM would prevent or minimize the movement of fuels and lubricants into water bodies by fueling and servicing equipment off-site or away from streams. Although multiple treatments could occur on some treatment units or sites, especially those where prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits are used (e.g., fire treatment followed by mechanical treatment to control non-native species and seeding), treatments would likely occur only once or twice a year. By retaining buffers between treatment areas and water bodies where feasible, and following other SOPs that protect water quality, it is unlikely that there would be a change in water quality that would often or regularly exceed Nevada water quality standards. The BLM could, but is not likely to, divert water while reconstructing streams, and use water to manage prescribed fires and wildland fires for resource benefit. The BLM also may prevent access by livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates to treatment sites near water in riparian and aspen treatment areas until these areas were restored and able to accommodate use by these animals. It is anticipated that diversions and access restrictions would be in place for a minimum of 2 growing seasons, or until establishment criteria arc met, while use of water for fire control would only last a few days. If access to treatment areas is restricted, the BLM would provide breaks in the fencing to allow livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates to access water within small portions of the treatment area. Thus, there should be no significant long-term diversion, access restriction, or consumptive use of surface water that substantially reduces water availability and the uses recognized by Nevada Department of Water Resources in the CESA under all alternatives. This would include flows and seasons of use in springs or streams where existing beneficial water uses, as defined by Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and recorded by Nevada Department of Water Resources, may be affected. Nearly all 3 Bars Project restoration treatments would cause short-term erosion that leads to increased sedimentation in streams or ponds. These risks would be greatest in restoration areas with moderate to severe water or wind erosion potential, or where soils are susceptible to fire degradation. Treatments that disturb the soil or remove large amounts of vegetation, including the use of mechanical treatments such as disking and plowing, and prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit, would also lead to short-term erosion and sedimentation. Long term, restoration treatments would lead to conditions that should reduce the risk of erosion, including revegetation of treatment sites 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-127 September 2013 WATER RESOURCES with native vegetation and treatments to stimulate growth of the understory. Treatments that reduee the risk of wildfire, including hazardous fuels treatments, control of noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation, and create fire and fuel breaks would reduee the risk of erosion resulting from wildfire and its effects on water quality. Thus, none of the alternatives would result in a significant long-term (greater than 5 years) accelerated erosion from watershed slopes or increased sedimentation in streams or ponds. None of the treatments proposed under the alternatives should lead to significant uncontrolled stream channel and bank instabilities. However, stream channel improvements arc not proposed under Alternative D, and only about 8 miles of degraded streams would be treated under Alternative C. Thus, it is likely that the number of miles of streams with stream and bank channel instability within the 3 Bars Project Area and CESA would continue to increase under Alternative D, while there would be little improvement in stream and bank channel stability under Alternative C, long term. As discussed in the Mount Hope Project EIS, mining, agriculture, and other activities in the CESA are predicted to have a significant impacts to surface and groundwater quantity, including 2 perennial stream segments and 22 springs (USDOI BLM 2012b:4-48 to 4-50); these impacts could last 100 years or more. To reduce these impacts, the BLM identified several mitigation measures, including installation of new wells or deepening of existing wells, development of existing water sources, including springs, and fencing to protect water sources (USDOI BLM 20 12b: 19-22). Short-term, 3 Bars Project restoration treatments also could contribute to localized, minor declines in groundwater levels, especially in large-scale fire treatment areas. However, these declines would likely not exceed seasonal fluctuations in water levels. Long term, 3 Bars Project treatments should result in improved surface water flows and groundwater recharge. Thus, the effects of 3 Bars Project treatments would not, by themselves, result in a significant cumulative effect to water resources. 3.9.4 Mitigation Water resources would benefit from mitigation measures identified in Section 3.17.4 (Livestock Grazing Mitigation). No mitigation or monitoring measures are recommended specifically for water resources. 3.10 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Zones 3.10.1 Regulatory Framework This section discusses the laws and regulations that apply to wetlands, floodplains, and riparian zones potentially affected by the 3 Bars Project. These resources are considered valuable natural resources that provide habitat for a variety of dependent plant and wildlife species. 3.10.1.1 Definition of Wetlands Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and USEPA in 33 CFR § 328.3 and 40 CFR § 230.3 as those areas that arc inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, wet meadows, and similar areas. 3 liars Project Draft lilS 3-128 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The USACE’s Wetland Delineation Manual dcllncs a three parameter approach to delineating jurisdictional wetlands. In order for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland it must support each of the three wetland parameters: hydric soils, wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology (USACE 1987). Hydric soils arc defined as “soils that are saturated. Hooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation.” Wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation is defined as any macrophyte that grows in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water. The Wetland Delineation Manual requires that, in most cases, more than 50 percent of the dominant vegetation include species that meet the wetland plant technical criteria. Wetland hydrology, although the driving force for wetland formation, is the most obscure attribute to define. Wetland hydrology encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soil saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season (USACE 1987). 3.10.1.2 Definition of a Riparian Zone BLM Manual 1737, Riparian-Wetland Area Management , defines a riparian zone as a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas (USDOI BLM 1992a). These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels are typical riparian zones. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. 3.10.1.3 Definition of a Floodplain The geomorphic floodplain is that area starting at or just above the bankfull elevation of the stream channel, where frequent flood events spill out of the channel. The floodplain is inundated relatively frequently, such as once every 1 to 3 years. The floodplain is normally a relatively fiat topographic feature adjacent to the stream channel that allows fioodwaters to spread out and thus dissipate energy. When flood energy is dissipated, floodwater velocity is reduced and sediments begin to settle out. All of this happens best when the active riparian floodplain is properly vegetated with riparian grasses, sedges, shrubs, and trees. The root masses of these plants anchor them into the floodplain and hold the sediments in place. The above ground parts of these riparian plants help to physically disrupt and retard the energy of floodwater and to trap and stabilize sediments. 3.10.1.4 Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, (including wetlands) without a permit from the USACE. The regulations and policies of the USACE mandate that the filling of wetlands be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that no practicable alternatives (to filling wetlands) exist. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that an applicant applying for a USACE permit for the discharge of dredge or fill material must also obtain a water-quality certificate from the appropriate state agency that states that their activity is consistent with the state’s water quality standards and criteria. The conditions in the certificate are incorporated into the USACE permit. Section 401 certifications arc issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 3 liars Project Draft PIS 3-129 September 20 1 3 WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN ZONES 3. 1 0. 1 .5 Executive Orders Two Executive Orders apply to wetlands and floodplains: • Executive Order 1 1 990, Protection of Wetlands - agencies are to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and enhance and preserve the natural and beneficial values of wetlands; and • Executive Order 1 1 988, Floodplain Management - addresses activities in floodplains and management of multiple resources comprising floodplain values. 3.10.2 Affected Environment 3.10.2.1 Study Methods and Analysis Area Study methods employed in the preparation of this section include review of baseline information, a reconnaissance- level site visit, project-specific vegetation mapping, and agency coordination. Several sources were reviewed in the preparation of this section, including USGS topographic and USFWS National Wetland Inventory maps; aerial photographs; documents prepared for nearby projects, including the Falcon to Gonder EIS (EDAW 2001, 2002), AECC (USDOI BLM 2009a), and Mount Hope Project EIS and references cited therein (USDOI BLM 2012c); discussions with BLM resource specialists; Geographic Information System shapefiles provided by BLM resource specialists for spring inventories and riparian monitoring; site-specific studies conducted on the 3 Bars Project area; and site visits. The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to wetlands, floodplains, and riparian zones lies within the 3 Bars Project area. The analysis area for cumulative impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and riparian zones includes the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 watersheds wholly, or partially within, the project area (Figure 3-1). This area includes parts of the drainages and groundwater basins as defined by the Nevada Department of Water Resources and identified in Figure 3-23. 3.10.2.2 Wetlands No formal delineation of wetlands has been done for the project area. Based on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, approximately 2,363 acres of wetlands are found on the project area (USFWS 2012). Wetlands in the 3 Bars Project area include saline flats or playas, and wetlands associated with surface water features, including stream channels and reservoirs Wet meadows on the project area are dominated by hydrophytes such as Nebraska sedge, spikerush, alkali bluegrass, foxtail barley, clustered field sedge, and Baltic rush. 3.10.2.3 Riparian Zones Approximately 96 miles of perennial stream are on the project area. These include Dcnay Creek, Henderson Creek, McClusky Creek, Roberts Creek, and Vinini Creek (Figure 3-23). There arc also 2,327 miles of intcrmittent/cphemeral streams. The USGS docs not distinguish between intermittent and ephemeral streams within the project area. The majority of streams classified as intermittent on the 3 Bars Project area do not have seasonal water, but only have water occasionally and would be classified as ephemeral. These streams may have associated riparian habitat. Riparian zones in the project area have vegetation dominated by wild rose, narrow-leaf willow. 3 Bars Project Draft IilS 3-130 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES narrow-leaf cottonwood, red-osier dogwood, and water birch. Aspen characterizes some of the mountainous riparian zones. 3.10.2.4 Floodplains Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated Zone A flood hazard areas, which would be flooded during a 100-year, 24-hour runoff event, have been delineated in low-lying areas in the northern, eastern, and southern parts of the project area. Based on historical maps, the major Zone A delineations occur along Pine Creek, Henderson Creek, and lower Pete Hanson Creek in the northern part of the project area. All of the lower-elevation areas along Slough Creek, Coils Creek, and lower Roberts Creek are within floodplains (FEMA 2012). These zones range from approximately one-eighth to one-quarter mile wide along the individual streams, and coalesce to form broad flood zones up to 2 or 3 miles wide along the valley floors. No FEMA flood hazard Zone A delineations occur in the central or western part of the project area. 3.10.2.5 Proper Functioning Condition Surveys Proper Functioning Condition surveys have been conducted by the BLM for wetlands and riparian zones on the project area. A wetland area or riparian zone is considered to be in Proper Functioning Condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris ARE present to: • dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; • filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; • improve flood water retention and groundwater recharge; • develop root masses that help to stabilize streambanks against cutting action; • develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and • support greater biodiversity. If a wetland or riparian zone is not in Proper Functioning Condition, it is placed into one of three other categories (BLM 1998a): • Functional-at-risk - Riparian or wetland areas are in functional condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. • Nonfunctional - Riparian or wetland areas clearly arc not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, or meeting other goals mentioned above. • Unknown - Riparian or wetland areas where managers lack sufficient information to make any form of determination. Functional-at risk areas may be placed into other sub-categories, depending on whether an upward trend toward attaining, or a downward trend away from. Proper Functioning Condition can be determined. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-131 September 20 1 3 WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN ZONES Proper Functioning Condition ratings for the 3 Bars ecosystem for those streams and wetlands that have been rated are: • Proper Functioning Condition - 47 miles of stream and 58 acres of wetlands. • Functioning-at-risk with upward trend - 35 miles and 13 acres. • Functioning-at-risk with trend not apparent - 34 miles and 29 acres. • Functioning-at-risk with downward trend - 37 miles and 61 acres. • Non functioning - 26 miles and 6 acres. Factors contributing to degraded conditions include hcadcuts and knickpoints within deeply incised channels that are lowering the water table and drying out nearby wet meadows and riparian areas; altered runoff and infiltration regimes; bank shearing and terracing; channel erosion; poor sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient along the stream reach; roads impacting stream flow; degradation by livestock and wild horses; frost heaving; lack of stream- floodplain connections; insufficient type or amount of vegetation to protect streambanks and slow discharge velocity; and noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation (USDOI BLM 2009a, b). A number of riparian or wetland areas on the Roberts Mountains arc not at Proper Functioning Condition or are functional-at-risk conditions with actively upward trends (Figure 3-25). Similar areas arc more widely scattered in the Simpson Park Mountains. Pinyon-juniper expansion and/or encroachment are occurring in the Pete Flanson Creek and Birch Creek areas on the northern Roberts Mountains. Parts of Indian Creek and Indian Springs, a complex of sites in the northwestern part of the project area, and several sites in the Vinini and Henderson Creek drainages, are the major areas at Proper Functioning Condition. Other streams and springs are generally in a Functioning-at-risk condition; many have no observable trend, or are in a downward trend. 3.10.3 Environmental Consequences 3.10.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Key issues of concern that pertain to wetlands, floodplains, and riparian zones were identified in the AECC and during scoping. These issues include: • Concerns about the impacts of the various treatments on wetlands and riparian zones. • Impacts of livestock on wetlands and riparian zones. • The potential that desertification is making riparian zones less resilient. • Questions about hot season use of riparian and wetland areas for grazing. • Recommendations that the BLM remove wild horses, cut trees, and construct enclosures in meadow areas. • Streams, springs, and meadows are functioning at less than the Proper Functioning Condition. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-132 September 20 1 3 Pine Valley Basin # 053 tmrt Grass Valley “V' Basin # 13JL** Kobeh Valley Basin# 139 ureka No warranty la made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for Individual or aggregate use with other data Ongmal data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice k ^ \ 1 ... \ / I Vv i # ' / j ' . L -j L ‘ . J f > < Jv 1 \ « r* / ^ , Elko County Eureka County [Diamond Valley Basin #153 co 3 X 3 CD _c 3 3 X o fcb 4-H c3 C/3 X 3 3 3 3 3, >% X O O £ c/f 3 C/3 l-H O X l-H o X o o 4-H CD . JD 1h 3 X 3 +-» X o X 3 3 c/3 3 C/3 C/3 3 fej X 3 3 C/3 X l-H <2 JD X 3 s- C/3 3 X 3 3 3 3 X 3 > 3 C/3 X 3 > 3 CD 3 3 "3 O -2 3 3 3 C/3 3 >-H 4-H 3 3 E 3 OX) 3 3 3 £ 3 Ih 3 X 3 c C/5 X 03 CD CO in in ? rd O in l-H 0 i— ( oS «4b; Tb b/J 1-. u CD d d 03 5 3 .2 C/5 4b X £ Tb r^; CD O CD 3 c/T f— H d 4-H 4-H X ,0 * c rT^ s OX) 3 3 N £ > X ^ c/i N 3 lb l-H 3 CD O CD 3 3 Xi "3 3 3 3 X 3 l-H C/3 3 _o 4—* C/3 O £ o CD in o3 41! CD bS C/5 C/5 43 l-H cE X 3 3 c/T 3 OX) X 3 C/3 3 X >4 X 3 3 3 3 X CD O -4— » Tb (D & b O 4—* c/5 l-H O CD 44 CD E o C/5 <4 % O C/3 C/3 3 l-H OX) 3 3 3 l-H 3 X s 3 ■*— » C/3 C/3 X ■4— » 3 X 3 > 3 3 I-. o E 3 X 3 3 X 3 3 3 £ O o X 3 3 4—» ccS £ 3 X 4—* x" 3 X 3 3 3 H 4-n 3 3 3 O 3 X 3 3 T Of) c/3 3 > 3 3 3 O 0*4 4—* ’£ 3 g g o 3 4— * 3 3 C/3 3 5X3 X 3 3 X C/3 3 X 'E4 C/3 X CO _ 3 CD x> 4—* 3 3 3 3 4-H 4—* 3 _ 3 4-H C/3 x 00 42 3 ,3 o ® x -S 3 OX) X 3 in bD d ’> jD l-H CD 4—* ccS £ C/3 C/3 3 l-H 5b 3 C/3 X 3 3 C/3 3 _g E 3 X 3 O X 3 O 3 O 3 '5b JO 2 3 3 C/3 < 3 X *3 X 3 3 3 O 4— » 03 CD 03 C/5 03 13 C/5 03 CD C/5 03 CD Ih CD .d 4b C/5 d 03 a> x 4—* C/5 CD 1-4 (D > CD in CD Vh .. S c/5 4b 03 CD l-H ?? s 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 & H 3 3 3 _3 "3 X 3 l-H 3 4-4 C/3 'o £ o C/3 3 01) 3 3 X 3 o 3 4- 3 3 CD 3 X 4-H >4 X X 3 X 3 3 3 3 3 C/3 3 74 ~t o o X CQ 00 D C/5 b/j o 3 o 3 c/3 3 X 3 OX) s s E E o U x c -2 C/3 C/1 05 i. o S_ £ C/3 3 — c/5 3 *CXD _o ’o 3 W r^) r4 1 r*i td J 03 < H 3 3 E E o O 3 > X 05 z ."2 ’■*-< 3 3 -*» O 0- i>4 CJ X X X 3 4-H 3 3 £ o X 3 3 £ E o o 4-H cb 03 Oh D 4b H o3 CQ d o c3 CD 03 C/5 03 13 c/T C/5 03 l-H bD CD bS 13 03 m •4: 00 d D o Oh C/5 C/5 03 l-H bD 4-H 13 in d 03 'd d oS 4b C/5 s 3 o X 3 3 o C/3 O CD E o 3 3 > 4-H 03 -4-H CD bD CD > in X) Vh £ 4-H £4 3 3 l-H 3 CD IT) X 3 cd C/3 3 C/3 C/3 3 l-H OX) 4-H 3 3 3 l-H 3 CD (4*4 X X 3 4-H 3 3 E o X >4 HH S 3 S £ o o C/3 C/3 3 H OX) 3 J3 X 3 X 3 > 3 z C/3 C/3 3 H OX) 3 3 3 X Eh X X 3 3 l-T 3 > o *3 3 ^H _3 c7 5 x 4-H O E 3 3 CD 4-H 3 3 4-H 3 O CD £ 3 l-H 3 czi 3 OX) X 3 c/l 3 X H 3 CC 3 3 © -S ^ CD 3 3 £ 3 4-H * in in • r—< X 4-H X 4— < 'I X 3 4-H 2 *0 o C/5 in o3 X) Tb CD 4-H 03 d E o X 3 3 g g O 3 4-H J2 04 D 4b H 03 13 in in 03 b/j Tb Uh o CD OS < d o 4-H 3 3 3 c/l 3 X *3 3 3 ti o CD E 3 l-H 3 cn 3 OX) X 3 c/l X 3 3 c/T C/3 3 l-H OX) 3 3 un 3 00 3 O X 3 3 3 4-H O Ph C/3 _3 ’G 3 Cd - o CD E o a 2 & - 2 X C/3 3 O C/3 4—» 3 3 CD X 3 4-H 3 3 O C/3 C/3 3 3 _> 4-H 3 4—* 3 OX) 3 > c/i 3 X I C/3 C/3 3 l-H OX) x 3 3 c/3 3 C/3 C/3 3 l-H OX) 4-H 3 3 3 l-H 3 CD 3 3 3 1-4 3 CD CTl X 3 3 GO X 3 3 3 l-H 3 CD 3 CD O C/5 X £ o X 3 3 g co 3 X 3 3 3 OO £ 2 o X 3 3 g 4-H CD £ o X 3 3 £ 3 .3 ”3 C/5 Dh O •— 3 c/l 3 Q 3 +H c r> > Z "Of O X "Of (N O 06 > Z IT) o o >« >r, Z 4 Q E E o U ■*—> e es c/3 u c/3 x O x o G. D G O 3 c/3 d c D X o o 4— < 1/3 D > >4 X 00 G 'n 03 bb g c o3 C/3 D G T> D G C O rG G! 03 G x 03 d t 3 cr C/3 CD CD 00 03 G 03 g CD x 4 G P G CD o G ID X) x G X H o X X G 03 C/3 D C/3 C/3 03 x 00 D G C/3 C/3 o3 x 00 ■*— > 03 D X U C/3 D C/3 C/3 G 00 o C/3 03 X h_ C/3 £ 2 D g G G D X *- * D ■*— * g G X G D O -5 a. D t-i D G G G 4—* G 03 G O -o D X C/3 o3 O -a c D X O o3 G G C G x D X X X 03 C/3 G 00 G O a G G o3 X C/3 o3 O 'ob o o a D X D G G X 00 D X D Ih x: c D D X C/3 o3 X G O h— » 03 G 03 x X D 00 o3 c/3 00 X 00 G O C/3 x D > O D X G D X o X C/3 2 X •4— » X X 03 l-i G C 03 G D G __G 12 D X 4— < X o oo G 1/3 X oS D >3 >n O 4-4 o 2 g x >5 D C/3 03 D X O c D G D 4—» C/3 D Ih D X G O G G O o D X 03 C C/3 £ o o X D o G X C G D 3—* 03 D Gh D X D D X 4H D <4—/ o3 G O G C/3 C/3 D 03 > Ih D 4-* G 4-4 03 ^“4 '£ G £ £ o o 03 G G G c3 X D O G 03 G O G D D D X 4— * G G 03 G !h 3 X C/3 G £ >3 C/D a cd -4—* T3 G C/D C/D 03 ^3 X 00 G 'n oS kb Ih D Gh o x Gh x 03 D >3 D X X G cC G 03 a ^4 G O o- £ >3 X G D D _G X D C/3 D _C "a oo x _G c/3 03 X G C 03 T3 O o D C/3 G D ob x D 03 D & G ^ 2 X C/D £ £ C/3 3 x X X 03 x G G .2 *x G G O D 15 D 'ob _o o D D C/3 03 D C/3 03 D X o _G X C/3 G x X D 00 G C/3 4*4 Id X C/3 • 2 D D Oh C/3 D X G c/3 C/3 G 00 H G D X D G C G D G G 'c/3 C/3 G c2 D D G G > G G 3 E E o U D "-C G z G G o o a. G D G G ■g £ G O G G c/3 .2 % >v ob X D £ G x rn 4 G 44 D 00 D > D C/3 C/3 G X 00 4— » G D D X C/3 c D O X D Gh D O O. G- G D 4— » G D X G G O o O oo G 'x) .2 G * 'I G D 4—* .5 o o C/D C/D 03 G £ £ o o 4—* G 03 D x y a G D > 4H G G G D d y 00 D Gh r o G t"" D Gh C/3 G G G X C/3 G ■x X O Gh _ C/3 Gh 03 D X X >3 H X x P C/3 x X X D D 00 X G x C/3 O G D 4— » O Oh D 4-4 C/3 C/3 X 3 O- X G G O C/3 O Gh £ o o in n C/3 D C/3 C/3 G X 00 C/3 X 3 x X C/3 4—4 G D a x D Gh D a, >4 H "o (Z3 00 >4 C/3 C G -g h3 .1 -2 'Hh G O o Gh Q u o »■ D C/3 D Q D 4— > 2 «n o o >- 2 CM O C2 > 2 x o o 2 2 G" CM O cC D ^ .ts « D ‘5d _o c D w 3 3 C O U D X .SP x x H 00 X C/3 C/3 G 00 D O >4 X "d G 00 G G G c/3 G .2® G 00 X C C/D £ 2 O -g g ,2 00 G D c 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-155 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Big Sagebrush Community NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES C/5 CJ I ci C 3 E E o U *— 3 cl EH O > D CX D l-H CD '2 o l-H 3 o 3 c/2 D 3 D 2 o bo 03 C 03 O l-H &> T3 C3 3 3 ■> C/2 > O o bo C3 C/2 3 3 3 2 SP -§ p d 2 o d D bo 3 'n 3 n-/ 2 p So 33 CZ) 2 i-H CD Oh O ^ Dh n 2 I i-H ^ cb ^ O ■4—* " 3 3 3 o CD CD 3 JD Id < 3 3 3 3 33 ID CD 3 33 > bO 3 3 P 2 o o 4-» 3 3 Oh D 3 3 CD 3 £ 3 CD 3 3 3 Dh O czi 3 3 g X (Z) cb i-H bo H— * 3 D D & ’2 bX) 0 £ »> ■4—4 T3 X cb ■4—4 D l-H D —> £ a> Tb D bD 0) > D^ O- >n (N -a £ 0 0 4-H D CZ) ^i-H bo sb o CZ) CZ) cb i-H bJO a> o 4b CZ) 2 3 4b H Jb .2 ’^3 Jb H-H X Td 5b cb 4b CZ) X D bO cb CZ) X -4—4 4-H o -4—4 o X •4—4 +-H 3 ■4— » O bO OD > "2 H— H 3 D HH o a. z 3" • • H O X in (N o c4 > Z >n — I > 4 X x bD ^ D ^ i-. » o 3 3 E E o U 3 3 3 3 3 E E o U o> #-w C3 z [g ”■3 3 04 3 O — o a. H "o C/5 - O u u C/5 04 Q 04 3 a & & « 5 •- E oi 3 O 3 "o o § U U 3 3 c/5 in 3 00 £ .3 c/5 3 X kb 04 X 3 X 4) C/5 c/s' £ 05 04 0) 3 ’a o> o 3 33 C/5 2 04 J3 3) 3 X 3 > 04 z x 3 3 04 3 _ .2 x £ X 3 O o ”3 04 X) 32 3 (-< x 3 3 C/5 3 X) C/3 3 0) X) X 3 3 o +-* 3 33 3 00 0) X 04 4—* "c/5 X 04 3 3 4— > 3 O 04 X! C/5 .2 0 O) CL C/5 X 3 3 3 3 3 s o x 04 x CO "5 .S ‘-S o x 3 >4 3 04 in X X * —4 Lh ' ' 3 4-4 4-5 in in O 3 £ £ 04 X 04 4—* 3 3 3 O X 04 > 4— • 3 4—* 04 bfl 04 > "3 .2 3 - 04 >4 43 X 0 3 3 3 >4 I £ 3 04 04 — 04 CL »/-> OO 4— » 3 O X 3 3 .2 CL $ 04 X H x X 3 3 in X S-H <2 4— » 3 04 O — 04 CL m C/5 o m CL 2o C/5 3 £ o 04 bO in X 3 Lh X 1/5 4-* 3 04 04 Li 04 CL O X 3 O X m 04 O 4—4 o > z CO o o >- 03 00 04 CL 04 Lh X C/5 3 O £ 04 04 b0 3 3 3 04 Lh 04 X X 04 bO 3 C/5 bJ4 Lh 04 X X 3 3 C/5 X 3 3 04 bo 3 Lh o bi) X 04 (U X 04 04 3 3 .00 2 bb .3 "n 3 3 c r C/5 X C/5 04 X Lh 3 X H 04 ?? 2 * ^ 2 8. 2 1 § 2 ^ '2 Lh c/5 3 3 04 SL >5 X I 4—4 X X 3 X £ £ 04 C/5 3 04 Lh o 3 X 3 Lh C/5 04 X Lh 04 X -*—* o X 3 3 in C/5 3 Lh bo 4—4 3 04 X C/5 04 X 3 X 3 04 Lh C/5 C/5 3 X 3 3 3 O >4 .3 'CL X 3 04 04 £3) .3 C/5 3 4-4 04 04 3 04 04 o 04 3 04 X £ 04 C/5 04 bt> o X 04 3 3 bO X 04 3 04 3 X X 3 04 X U 04 C/5 3 04 3 04 04 X C/5 .2 04 04 CL C/5 3 X C/5 c/5 X 04 X 3 bO 3 T jg 2 04 04 .9? ‘3 ^3 x 3 C/5 X 3 3 X o o £ 3 04 Dh "3 s T"1 3 O ^5 3 'CL o 3 04 04 3 2? 3 CL 2 o 04 04 X -*— » aJ "O a c3 >> 3 O 3 C/5 e- c o -a 2 x 2 3 > 3 3 2 C/5 04 3 ^ ,3_ 04 2 a- 3 c^ o 3 >» 04 3 X • *— < -*— * Cl O >% CL 3 04 04 O 3 04 CL 3 3 04 3 04 • S' "2 3 T“ 3 O >> 3 ‘Eh X 3 04 3 3 3 3 £3 04 LH 3 3 04 3 3 04 04 X 04 c/5 O >5 X X 04 3 3 3 O X X 04 3 3 X 04 3 C/5 C/5 >> 2 3 3 3 o 04 3 3 3 04 X X C/5 X 04 bO 3 C/5 bJ5 X X bX5 JD xt _ 04 3 04 3 in C/5 3 C/5 "Lh 04 X Lh 3 X H 3 O C/5 o CL 2 o o 04 _> *3 3 3 04 bfi 04 > "3 3 04 04 Lh 04 CL X 3 3 C/5 X bJ5 -rd 3 04 X 3 04 3 o Oh C/5 04 C/5 C/5 3 Lh bO 3 3 04 04 Lh 04 CL «/d X 3 3 O X 3 3 04 04 Lh 04 CL X ON X 3 3 c/T X Lh £ C/5 04 04 H (N £ 3 o X C/5 04 X 04 3 > z r- o o >- CQ oc fS o £ c/5 04 r- 4—i L- CO 3 04 04 kb 04 x 3 X H 23 C/5 2 X 04 - bi) bo 04 rn ^ n 1 ML C/5 C/5 C/5 3 £5 04 04 £ O <3 04 _ CL 04 3 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-157 September 20 1 3 NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVH VEGETATION RESOURCES s o U 4 U -J PC < c 3 E E o U 3= t/5 3 3 -O a* DJD 3 c r> OX) 5 t/5 a> *-> C/0 ’<5 o> '3d o © CJ UJ 05 bl E « s a £* *3 3 E E o U ■<-> c « 3 3 E E o U Cm 3 Z ."S "-M 3 a > ■M © Q« © a. © C/5 s- © 3 0 © Q © £ bi) • H 1-0 bo 3 E £ |£ of 0) _3 o CD TO 3 O ■*— * • H T3 3 O O 13 o '5b o o o 0) 05 < jy IS £ t— 1 O a> TD TO 3 05 Jo 4— » cu TO 3 TO 4-* >> 05 -O' > 05 ' a> 4— ^ 3 3 H- 4 D 32 D 05 O TO D £ o 3 D 3 05 D o 3 3 O 3 D 3- 3 O -4—4 3 ■4—4 D 00 D > t' o D TO 3 3 13 D -M 3 3 C/D ’ c C/D pin 03 u 03 O 32 • > £ 2 4D (D GO .2 3 O *c 4— » D D C/D J— < G 0 J-H CD 05 _D O D 4^ 03 4—* D G o3 G > 4— » 0 ^5 Oh Oh o3 C/D M ’c/d O 05 O TO £ D 3 3 3 E o TO 05 3 3 s £ o o ■4— » G G G G 45 *4—4 3 4-* D 00 D > 13 D 4—4 o CO 3 D D 3 D CO >T5 -o 3 3 05 -O 2 45 C/3 C/D g G bX) g 3 D o 1-4 D Co o <^5 D CO 1 n 3" T2 3 3 3 1/2 I - Is '-2 C/D 4 E 3 o 05 D 32 O 3 D •ts >» c/5 .E 3 g •- E ox) 5 o c © © 8 U U > z o p 4 o z PQ 00 (N O T3 3 3 3 < 3 .5? 12 d £ 1 J! bfl S 1 C 05 05 ■a I “ O gj >> bO £ * feb ^ D D D fa 05 -C 22 TO D 4—4 3 3 £ o T3 ’S 3 o D -M 3 -2 D- D 32 f— 1 D _> 4—4 3 4—» D 00 D > s 4—4 3 D 4—4 o Oh D 4^5 05 3 32 >4 -3 3 D D t-4 D >0 OO 4—4 3 O -3 3 3 _o 4—4 05 o 3, E o D E o 22 O 32 ^ C-> 3* 3 05 D 32 3 O i—l + 3t" > z 3" «N O PQ 00 £> .3 3 3 3 O 2 C/D 2 32 D bO 3 > 05 > D T2 D bfi IS 3 3 •4—* 3 3 O 05 D .3 13 D T3 3 O T3 3 O o H o 3 3 g E o T3 D E o D D 32 & D 32 £ O 3 05 33 3 3 00 32 O 05 D 32 D D < bO 3 05 3 4-J 3 3 O £ D 05 3 D 5-4 D D TO TO D 4—4 3 3 3 3 E •— 0) G s 0 4— » 4—* (D CD O- bp 03 T3 H-J C/D G IS c/d' 05 T3 3 4D Vh 3 3 G G 3 4-H ’S D c C/D 3 3 4-3 G CD 3 £ 3 O 1— (D 45 O E O J-H go £ 32 H d) Oh G H 4^ C/D O 0 4—4 3 _3 3 4—4 3 C/D C/D G H JO TO (U 4—4 C/T 4—* JS 3 CD 3 d) C/D G d> Oh O f4 ^d> 3 C/D 03 O J-H CD D 32 E >4 T3 CD CD '£ 0 bD Oh H 32 G TO c3 4=3 C o 4— > .5 o o C/D C/D cd 4H cn 2 JO CD bX) cd C/D C/D 43 2 32 C/D + VO S' 05 E 3 32 J -E > Z Os n o Z PQ 00 I 3 C 3 3 E E o U -w 3 3 C 3 E E o U u a z ."2 3 u o Cu o a. H '© C/5 — o ■— 0 (/l o Q a/ £ I 'O 3 3 I X c/2 2 ix 4—* x x 3 c/f U 3 o u 33 3 O 33 3 O cu *3 o '5b o o cu u 3 £ T3 3 3 . X j- 1/5 U 3 2 X U 33 3 O O X c/2 C/2 3 2 •- 60 3 JU 3 > 0) S-« c/2 Q- 3 U <4 33 3 O o C/2 u c/2 C/2 3 in 60 0) 3 < X o £ a> £ o cu u X) X cz> 3 >— X U 60 3 C/3 C 60 « 3 X JD U X 4-» d> •4—* cd C £ o X 33 U 4— > o 0 J-H 1 £ o ~3 X >4 Crt 3 3 C/3 au c "o 6) -a _ cu 3 O O g cd C/3 Id X) <4-H cd JD £ o V-H — cd XJ C cd cd 4— » rC u C/3 d> cd T3 C O U-4 cd d> CD C/3 bi) C/3 .£ x C/5 (U +-* C/2 C/2 X ■4—* u X 3 > 3 33 3 O o C/2 3 u O 4—* C/2 l-H u 33 U X 3- CT X 173 33 C/3 _au o u a. W u X u x 3 > 3 X 3 U u .9r '£ 3 x 3 4—* D x 3 3 3 o U*t 3 U 4—* 3 X P £ o X ^>4 "3 3 4— » 3 U > u £ u P >1 "* X 33 3 3 3 3 5 x 3 C/2 P C/2 x -3 O •£= H u _cx '£ 3 ‘T1 3 O U~4 3 u u 3 u C/3 X 3 U X 3 O u C/2 3 U t-H o 3 3 3 £ £ o o 4—* 3 3 U X 33 3 T3 CD 4—* cd on on cd c/f cd "X 4—* Xj C 3 Uh • TD 0) O ,0 £ 0 -o Sb cd C/3 4— » O CU X 3 C/2 d—< 4—* C d) C/3 d) 0) C/2 C/3 cd 4b C/3 2 3 0 Uh Uh 4— » 4— » j— i bD 4— * O 4—4 d> Oh 'O c *£ £ £ cd d) 4b £ X u 60 3 C/2 60 C/2 O Dh £ 0 O C/f d) C/3 cd C/3 X) 2 X 0 0 0 C/3 C^ 0 3 X cd 4_< 4— > X u _> bD c d) cd u 5 4—* 4—4 d) * * 4— » cd $b Uh CU sb d) d> 4b X Pn bJ 0 d> bD Oh IT) H X £ > Cu 9/ £ x 3 3 E E o U 3 o '53d _o o u U (N 2^ 00 £ 3 x o £ x .£ > Z o on o >- CQ 00 X X G cd +-* d fc 3 cr CO jd 50 G O Q TD C cd CO _d o 0) a, CO X CO X D O X 4-i O co CL) co cd s_ o G CO CO cd feb cd (L) X O o CL) T3 G G (L) X co -e <2 D T3 cd > G D X 50 +d « % 2 c5 E T3 G cd CO .CD O D Cl co D X £ _o T3 C cd X CO 2 X 4— » X X cd Lh oT D _G 7j D T3 C o D G D X £ D <4-H m m m Oh T3 G O cd Vh 'r£ 4— » CO £ m G cd 2 o o x D G cd CD 3- c 4— » o 50 .s O ■4—* CZ) a Lh o #\ ’o D l~l rt 1 OJ CJ G cd G "G G O o Id D '50 X O co 'o ”* o D o T3 D £ o o D X < X D 50 cd co X X G cd GO "O G cd cd 4—* Id G CT co X CO X D O X G G X cd D T3 G cd G O G 'a* x G JD JD 50 _G c/5 D co D X G D O cd IE cd G a o o D !-h D X co co X Cl G D CD o G O g 'Eh "O ch Cd Lh D .Oh '2 G X 50 T3 D £ _o Id D Lh G CO CD 'Eh o G G C_> G .O H— » G H— » D 50 D > >> S-H o D -a c G D X cd G > G Lh 2 CO D O D CL CO D X D G CL nj G G G G C G O X >i D G 'Eh X G D G G G G O D X D co O Id G O ■*— » ;3 G O D Id D X O G G £ o X D £ o D D I ^ 2 G W G r- 50 C X -3 X co 2 X D 50 G CO X O X CL -o c G co co G 50 D co o D X 3 .£ X - o -f. z 2 50 co cd Eb G O Q "G G G 5b x O co O o D co < 2 X D 50 G co D X T3 C G on X o co D CO G D Lh o G X H— * £ G O co D CD D X co CO G O D D G X Lh D X -4— » G G G £ o o ^ 50 > X &H Lh O -4— • CO Lh D -a G G 2 I 4— < Cd s D X 4— » o "O ■ G T3 D D £ G D T3 G G co G D Lh G co X Lh <2 GO O £ CO D ’o D CL co D X co co G Lh 50 H— » G D X U G O T3 G O D Lh D £ o D D -a G > C <5 m X £ G 3 E E o U D X Cd z X G D © C_ T3 D -+-» G C £ - O D ^ c co 3 'E >> D X G G ^ £ £ o o X co G Lh X D 50 G co G O G D O Lh D CL CO D CO CO G Lh 50 G D X H D G O co - D X O X G 2 X T3 G G c/T CO G Lh 50 -*—* G D co m O H— I X £ o D D > G H — > D 50 D > "g -HH G D HJ o &H co X X co ■4-* c D D Lh D CL D 2 >") D fN ~ T3 c G O X -*-» G O X G co X Lh 2 CD > H— * G CD 00 o CD > "g • 4—* G 0) ■4—* o Oh 'X H— * G O X G co O Gt- "O g £ co *6 ^ 2 g c 2 CD 5 D G Oh 2 T3 D G G £ o X co D O X o _G ^ X co CO Lh G o >> 50 C/3 ;o — X CO 5 CO O in OJ G X) CL m CD a> G m CD OX) G cd Lh cd O }-« CD m CD bX) Oh g O D H — ' G B "E- D r— H G D X X o G G X D _G X >> X o T3 G G co X CO G L- X D 50 G co X o G D h_, 50 co D X D > HH G ■4— » D c D O Lh D Oh -a D -4 — * o CL D "O 50 ^ d) +x ; § X) cd in in cd X. (DD C o r oq o in in 2 x D 50 G CO (11 1-1 D | I O G ■M G D H— 4 o CL, c o in G- TG G G wT X Lh 2 D O Lh D Cl Oh co G D Lh G 50 co G O - g O o p £ CO D CO co G Lh 50 co X G Lh X co -4~H G D O Lh D CL D a. H ‘o 05 X CN G G CL D 50 -a js -g U .£ (N ’ ' co G G X Oh £ U - _c G 4—* C G O s co D X o _g + G- - o L. D CO D o D -LH > z F" o >- X >n z co o Z OQ oo (N O c2 > Z oo CO o Z OQ oo C4 o 2 D CAJ .-fa G G 3 D G 00 _o c D u E o U 2 2 CO g 1 OJ CO g X D 50 G CO D o cz> (0J M— ( X D G G CZ) m cd bxj 4—* X D 50 G CO £ D HH CO o X cd G £ Q D ^ z O Lh qG D "§ O- H CO CO G fcb _D T3 D D G X co X D 50 G CO £ O X 2 m 2 X D X m 50 D cd cd m G G fcb X X cd CJ D D cd G X X X £ 3 Mars Project Draft BIS 3-161 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Black Sagebrush Community NATIVE AND NON-INVASI VE VEGETATION RESOURCES C/5 CJ E 03 Q £ *S 3 O u C p X C/5 3 O X d> bX) P C/5 44 cj P X) c/f d> #P o CD T3 C/5 d> C/5 C/5 (73 H bX) ."2 '3 p d> ^H d> Oh JD 2 £ df C/5 P d> kn CJ .s JD P CJ C/5 4—4 3 T3 d> 4— » X D P d> 3 np X O *p 4-* • »-H (75 4—4 D p cx p C/5 3 p C/5 C/5 P d) 4—* C/5 0 C/5 d) Ip 4— » (75 d> D X £ t-H bJ) 4—* P d) (75 ^P 4— » P hP CJ 4—* P Oh "P P > P C/5 P P £ C/5 2 O d> Oh C/5 0) X 4— » O X u aj C/5 P d> J-H cj d> ”0 C/5 X) t-H £ d> X P > p 44 4— » X X 3 X X 3 (75 .2 *CJ 3 0 (75 T3 c/T D Oh CJ 3 X C/5 13 P 2 d> _o X hP C/5 P to (75 P O 2 d> 0 'd X X 4—* d) CJ P to d> X P O (75 < X) p t-H P Oh 13 43 P s C/5 X) X D U 3 1) x ’> o D"> 13 o ’Eh >> X O — > TD P C/5 d> .Sr *5 3 0 x (73 CJ 03 d) bX) o3 C/5 Oh O X .S 'Eh C/5 X p d) cj .03 T? o3 (75 t-H p CJ cj o d) Vh d) X £ C/5 O 4—4 'a, o S3 3 O o a/ a CD 3 3 X 3 3 U o 4— » C/5 t-H d> T3 P P d) 4— » o3 P d) P 03 CJ d) . rH X O *-H 4—4 £ d" CO 4— » 43 O bp O ’rP O 3 JD 4-4 _o 3 p X D £ 4—4 3 4-4 D p O to > D p P > C/5 d> C/5 , — 1 C/5 13 2 £ C/5 1— < - 2 x ‘3 C/5 P P O X d> bX) P c/5 X 0 p d) 5 -ts „ .2 d 1/5 3 CD 1- O 3 • hH o C/5 T3 P X C/5 T3 P P X C/5 2 X 4— > X X 03 C/5 C/5 3 H 00 4— » 3 CD X U P’1 3 o CD X C/5 C/5 CD X "2 3 X K> 3 X 3 CD CD cd '£ 3 ■ ' — 1 x 3 CD 3 3 X O O £ d> C/5 d> X d> cj P tT p C/5 l-H P 0 o o Oh C/5 d> X 4—* o X C/5 d> 4—* d) 2 o cj d) O- o p p CJ t-H d> Ph d) X p d> p p TD P P df ^H P 4—* C/5 'o S i-H O 4— » C/5 kn d) P P "p d> 4—* P P d) P P o d> C/5 O (75 4-h b0 0 4—* 3 X J-H 4—* 43 4—* ‘•P 3 D bfi r~; £ (75 d> d> 0 P CJ d) d> 'Bh P 3 p ^0 *4-4 3 4—4 D C/5 44 CJ P P X) d) C/5 P d> l-H CJ p 13 to P CJ CJ > (75 D d> 0 p > QQ 3 T3 jy X d> C/5 P d> Ui CJ P X X X P l-H -a p p x C/5 P P C/5 C/5 P C/5 d) C/5 C/5 P b/j d) X P C/5 d) T/ t-H d> TD P P C/5 C/5 P J-H SD 4—* P d> C/5 d> /. P a/ t- CJ P C/5 d> C/5 kn O X XJ P P d> P CJ X aj C/5 P d) > C/5 C/5 aj CJ X d> b/j r~| o 4—* 3 s -S £ P X C/5 X d> b/j P C/5 X CJ p C/5 C/5 P J-H b/j 4—* P d> Oh d> d) X C/5 X d> C/5 P d) > (75 C^ a> CJ X d> X CJ P X CD P C/5 P d> C/5 P d) J— O d) T3 C/5 X J-H C 3 O U a* 3 Z %.* 3 o H o cu 3 3 £ g o o 3 CD (D X H d) 4— * P 43 > d) P- C/5 P 1 d) 4—* p CJ t-H T3 J-H 4—* d> X) TD D Oh P d) d> to bD d> D O c/T P P > IT) X) C/5 44 "O P "2 4— » P J-H cS CJ P P 4—4 3 O X) 4—* C"* X) c/T D 4H p s C/5 0 C/5 CJ X) P Vh bo Oh P t-H d> Oh T3 d) d) CJ X 3 .O 4-* »n 4—* P *C D t-H *C/5 C/5 d P X O d) p 4—* Oh C/5 *£ ’"O 1 X £ C/5 P 0 3 0 5h T3 M 3 0 bX) X C/3 1 ■*—> >0 t/3 X 3 3 X t/3 4—* 3 4 g X 0) 4—* P P £ o X to "3 4— » 3 Oh tn c/T aj C/5 C/5 P t-H b/) (75 d) d) J-H 4— » "O p p C/D X p t-H X C/5 4— » P d> CJ t-H d> Oh 4— > P P £ s o CJ 4-4 3 -2 o, D X H X o 3 3 X D J3 X >4 X X D 4—» 3 3 X C/3 2 X D to 3 C/3 X o 3 O X X 3 3 C/3 C/3 3 t-H BP 3 D X £ 3 _o *4—4 C/3 O CD £ o a D > 4—4 3 4-4 D to D > 13 CO « d y c/3 Jr- c/3 W 3 CD to vo X D 4— » O Oh 3 D CJ ^H D CD >/') X 4-4 3 O X 3 3 3 c/T X D CJ l-H D CD C/3 X 3 — X C/3 D a >4 H ‘o o 13 x GO C/3 3 O C/3 3 O d) t-H 00 CZ) _o d) J-H 00 (75 P JJ g d) X cci P JJ D S3 d> X 13 CJ 3 _o O P X GO 13 CJ O co CJ p £ JO 13 x GO c/i 3 O D Dh 3 z o > CQ 00 (N O od > Z X o >H m 00 (N O cB > Z r-- 34 O CQ 00 C4 O os: D £ x‘ 3 O *53d © 3 E E © © S u u 3 2 x 3 -2 x D D X C/5 ^P C/5 C/5 X 3 D X 0 5 X d> P fcx) | 4— * 1 P bX) d) CQ p C/5 CJ •p P P 3 3 • H X 3 l-H xi x D 3 S JD X D D _3 co co 3 X o 3 3 X D 3 X 3 D J3 (75 2 « m , -II C/5 G P CJ p CQ rP ^ (75 P 2 & -© 3 D C/5 > 3 liars Project Draft lilS 3-162 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 1.2. 2.6 Salt Desert Scrub Salt desert scrub vegetation typically occurs in saline areas along drainages, margins oflake beds and marshes, and on flats and basins. In the 3 Bars Project area, this community occurs at elevations between 5,500 and 6,200 feet amsl. The salt desert scrub community covers about 28,061 acres, or 3.7 percent of the project area. According to the ecological site description, salt desert scrub dominated by shadscalc is expected to cover about 29,552 acres, or 3.9 percent of the 3 Bars Project area (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Other species present in this community include Indian riccgrass, squirrcltail, bud sagebrush, iodine bush, halogcton, spiny hopsage, salt grass, and rock willow. The overall composition for sites with this vegetation type shows that they often have low grass production. The dominant grass species, such as bottlcbrush squirrcltail and Indian riccgrass, arc often absent from the sites (Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and AECOM 2012). However, this community is relatively limited on the 3 Bars Project area, and no management actions specific to salt desert scrub are proposed. The salt desert scrub community is comprised of four ecological sites. Characteristics of these sites are shown in Table 3-28. 3.11.2.2.7 Aspen Since European settlement, the occurrence of aspen in the American West has declined from nearly 10 million acres to 4 million acres (about a 60 percent decline). Eighty percent of remaining aspen stands are being invaded by native conifers. In a study of 100 aspen stands in southeastern Oregon, northeastern California, and northwestern Nevada, 12 percent of the aspen stands were completely replaced by western juniper. These stands were identified as previously being dominated by aspen based on the high density of dead aspen logs in the understory. In addition, post-settlement western juniper was the dominant tree species in 23 percent of the stands and common to co-dominant in 42 percent of the aspen stands (Miller et al. 2005). Quaking aspen occurs in isolated stands in riparian habitats within the project area and is found in deep to very deep soils (see Figure 3-26). The aspen community covers 533 acres, or 0.1 percent of the 3 Bars Project area (USGS 2004, USDOI BLM 2010d, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Aspen communities have the highest biodiversity of any upland forest type in the Intennountain West, supplying important wildlife forage, cover, and nesting sites (Finch and Ruggiero 1993). Aspen are clonal, relying on root sprouting to reproduce and spread. They are also fire-adapted, and require periodic disturbance such as fire to stimulate root suckering and reduce competition from conifers (Bartos and Mucggler 1979, 1981, Bartos et al. 1991, 1994, Sheppcrd 1993, Sheppcrd and Smith 1993; all in Kay 2001). Successful aspen seeding is rare; according to Kay (2001 ) there hasn’t been suitable climatic condition for aspen seedling success for thousands of years. Because aspen trees are short-lived, ongoing regeneration is important for the long-term persistence of aspen stands. A 2001 study of aspen stands in the Roberts Mountains area concluded that aspen are generally in poor condition and that many stands are not readily regenerating (Kay 2001 ). The BLM has also observed that aspen regeneration and recruitment are below their potential throughout the 3 Bars Project area. While fire suppression may be a contributing factor, ungulate herbivory of new growth from root suckers appears to be the primary factor preventing successful regeneration of aspen stands. Aspen regeneration is a key management concern and aspen enhancement is one of the primary goals of the 3 Bars project. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-163 September 20 1 3 TABLE 3-27 NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVL VEGETATION RESOURCES E 03 C Q £ 'E 3 E E o U 3 3 3 C/5 >4 3) 3 O 4— » 3 4—* •44 3 3 3 O 3 O 4-* CD C/5 bfi .3 3 D X D D hd xl HH 4—* 3 E o o X X 3 S_ X 3 O D *3 O '5b D O X o o D < x 3 3 D s- D X 5 cH D C/5 3 E O D X 3 O 4—* 3 D 3 C/5 3 X "b X 3 3 D X 4—* C/5 D O O D X 3 D X C/5 3 X X 3 3 3 D X X 3 O CO u D D CD CO 3 3 3 3 X 3 fcb £ 5 4-* ’S 3 O o x 3 3 3 o 4—* D bfi _o ”3 3C x o o £ D co 3 D feb x D fl X >> X 3 X D co D £ o o D X 3 3 O X D D X 3 > 3 D X co _D O D CD co D H 3 X 1-4 3 4—* CO 3 s 3 3 3 3 3 C 3 E E o U x o o £ D co 3 D U o 3 c® 10 D *-> K D ‘3d "o D W £ E 3 E E o U D V- 3 z [3 3 D *4 O a- >4 x X D 4-4 3 3 £ o X X o o £ D co 3 D l_ bfl X a 3 o 3 CO X 3 4-4 3 D 4-4 o CL, 3 O X X 3 X >4 X X D 4-4 3 3 X 4 X X D 4-4 3 3 X> ^ E m 0 o 44 3 3 D X H D ^5 3 X CO 4-4 3 3 3 co 3 X O X D X 3 O 1/5 o CD £ o o D _> +4 3 4-4 D b0 D > 3 D O 3 D CD »n co~ D CO CO 3 3 bfi 4-4 3 D O o X 3 3 X 1/5 X 3 3 X co 4-4 3 D D 3 D CD D '05 CD 4—* o3 -4— » (D bi) q CD CD J-H CD CX co" CD CO CO o3 H bE) •4—* q QD CD CD a, r- q o •4— » 03 CD 03 co co ^ T & o CO X) 2 X co 4-4 3 D O 3 D CD 3 3 O o 4-4 3 3 D X f— 1 3 X 3 3 D >4 co 3 X 3 O co O CD E o o D > ■4—* 03 -4— • (D bi) (D > 13 -4—* q CD 4—* o Oh CO IZ'i CO 03 J-H bi) "O q q CO CD CO CO q bb § q q co" x J-H c2 x D 4—» 3 3 O X ^4 3 3 O 4—* 3 O 3 co 3 X 3 3 D O 3 D CD O 00 4-4 3 O X 3 3 D CD IT5 3 3 s 3 3 D X co X 3 3 X 1/5 4-4 3 D O )-4 D CD X O O £ D CO 3 D 3 b0 CD ^ O o 4—* 3 3 D X H o 3 3 O 3 O 4-4 3 +4 D bfl D > CO CO 3 3 bB 4—* "3 CO X 3 3 D 2- •g X a V o « 0 3 O 3 O X D 4-4 o co D 3 3 >4 X 3 co D -s co D D > .D >4 Th 3 D 3 C/5 3 O 3 D 4—* O CL co D O 3 CD co l-H D CTi 3 O X 3 3 O 3 O 3 D C/5 3 D S-4 3 X 3 3 O CD x 3 4*4 3 3 i) S-4 3 3 X rp> "3 3 co 3 co O CD £ o a a _> 4-4 3 4-4 0) bJ) X 3 3 c/s' X S-4 ,0 C CL) U i_ 3 CD CO Z r^- o o >« X 3" O > Z o X X 3" (N O > Z 3" o o X OQ 00 Z o b x a ^ co 3 X o o co 3 CL) S-4 0 3 X b CD b X 3 O 4— » q CD q C/3 q 13 'Tb o o CD CO q CD o CO CO q 5) q CO 1 q o 4—* q CD q CO 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-164 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Salt Desert Scrub Community AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES E E o U ■*- s S3 3 cd CO OD 1/3 3 0) 4—* G c O G JG 3" 0 C JD C/5 G 4-4 3 dT cd G X > 0 G 3 C/3 C/5 d) l-H O ’•G bX) bfl * ™ 4— » cd G CD E 3 d) Od d> g: C/5 C/5 T3 X CD c t-H C/T G 4-H d) JD to O X X O *G 0 H C/5 t-H O JG Td G cd tH CD X t: "E 3 G O t-H O C/5 C/5 cd a CD i_ 3 Cl. 3 CD 3 cd X o 4-H 3 cd *-» x cd cd X CD X cd l-H cd X l-H cd 4— > C/3 3 3 co CD X cd o 4—* C/3 cd > bB cd o a £ 5 S “ 1) .3 bfi N 3 cd "5 3 cd X 0D O 3 X 0D cd c cd cu — 4) X cd Vh bfl 1-4 cd a. o s_ 3. P >4 s, a cd X C O cd 3 'g O X CD E o a CD X cd g C/3 3 cd 4-* -a 3 cd 3~ O 4—* (D bfl jo 3 3 co" C/3 3 H bB ^ .3 .S C/3 O 3- s o cd 3 CD 33 3 O CD CD co 33 3 33 1/3 33 3 3 CD 4—* *C/5 C/3 43 4— » G cd X O O £ G O J3 CD 3 3 3 3 3 "a> CO CD O CD 34 CO X 3 3 3 4—* CD fc 3 cr CO -3 CO 2 -3 CD 3 O X) C/T •5 3 O o "cd cd '5b JO o CD CD CO < CD CO 3 CD 3 CD CD X co CO 3 feb d o G .2 *3 G M "G G cd 4— * .cd HH i-H d> C/3 cd C/3 < cd 4—* a/ fc 3 cr C/3 43 C/5 2 X) JD 4—* 4—* o X c/T C/3 cd t-H b/j d> CJ 2 '-3 X £ 4—* C/3 G d> "G d> X 4—* Ui cB X T3 CD O 3 T3 CD t-H CD l-H 3 CO C4— 4 O 4-4 3 CD 4—. X CD CD 3 3 .3 r- 3 O T3 CD e o CD CD X 3 E CD co O CD E o o X 05 2 p X .2 bB B X t-H cd 4— > C/3 >> C/3 G cd 4-* T3 G cd g" o 4— » a/ b/j jD "cd X c/T C/3 cd t-H bX) 4—* cd 3 u CD co X 3 X to 3 co -a 3 x 3 3 4— » CO CD 3 a. Xi 3 ■3 3 bB 2 — CD X -o CD X co .2 a ID O- co (D 3 3 C 3 E E o O a/ > 5 3 Z ."s *-2 C a/ o a. d> 4—* XI G 3 G 3 ’g X O co 'G 2 C/5 X • 4-H CD >> bB 4—* 3 CO G "2 r— 3 X G O -CD O 3 4— » CD G CO cd X Od 3 X d> to G >4 H X C/3 O a, E o CD CD _> *4-4 3 4— > CD bB CD > 3 CD CD tn CD Dh c/T CD CO CO 3 H bfl 3 CD O Vh CD a. CO X 3 l-H X co » o CD 4— 1 3 3 CD X f— X CD _3 X X CD _> 4-4 3 4—4 CD bB (D > "3 *3 3 CD 3 ^ CD OO l-H ^ G d) cd JL> "cd X X 0 to 3 _o CJ t-H d) Gh (75 G G U 0 C/5 0 4-4 tn to CO C/5 4—* cd CD 0 d> 3 43 CO a- C/5 CD C/5 3 3 C/5 CD CD 3 cd l-H dX l-H 0 t-H CD G bB CD b0 3 u d) 4—* cd G s o T3 3 3 £ E o CD 3 3 CD X H C/5 4-H 3 C/5 £ CD C/5 cd 0 CD l-H t-H *4— » CD bX) a. co d) C/5 X 0 O >0 3 9" 3 t-H G C/5 X G .2 5-h O d) C/5 co O C/5 4-* ’G G l-H d> > G bfl 3 CD O 4—» 4— » |-H *G G c CD G G 4—* d) bX) d) CJ t-H a, 1 n G d) d> X C+H i- > Gh X d) G O 3 4— » G ■+—* m 3 £ >4 3 CD O 4— > G O G c o' X l-H O X 3h G X X ID 4—* 2 x 3 ^ g o X CD - o >4 X 3 3 E £ o CD 44 3 3 to CO 3 1- bB CD CD 3 3 -QJ 3 CD to T3 3 X co T3 3 3 3 4—4 4-4 3 4— » CD bB CD > 34 3 O •3 bn co CD CO co 3 l-H bB 3 CD 4—* o P- 3 to >4 E o § -S X 00 o CO X (D CD 3 fc CD CO CD X CD .3 OO OO CO CD >? X X CD C/3 .S >4 ja E o § •£ X 00 3 o 3 CD o Q CD -W > z - X 3" (N O c2 > Z m o o X X "d- 04 o c2 > Z CO o X CQ OO 04 o c2 > Z O' o > 03 00 04 o VC CD C/5 .tS 3 3 ’5jd _c o CD U 3 3 E E o U X 3 X 4— » cd C/5 cd o C/5 T3 G X3 Bd C/) JD -G V5 G ^H X) d) bX) cd C/5 • 2 cd 4-H d) fc 3 cr CO to CO 3 3 bB CD a X CO 3 X 4-H "3 co .CD "3 CD CO T3 3 X C/5 O X CD o 3 4-H CD t 3 cr CO 3 3 •3 3 H— I X ,3 co X co 3 CD 4—* 3 3 bB CD CD 22 CO 3 X 4—* "3 CO -CD "3 CD to 'O 3 X C/5 to to 3 5b CD CD 3 3 X 3 3 4—* CD fc 3 cr C/5 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-165 September 20 1 3 NATIVE AND NON-IN VASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES 3.1 1.2.2.S Mountain Mahogany Woodland Curl-leaf mountain mahogany woodlands occur in hills and mountain ranges of the intermountain basins. T his vegetation type occurs on rocky outcrops or escarpments and forms small- to large-patch stands in woodland areas. Most stands occur as shrublands on ridges and steep rimrock slopes, but may also occur as small trees in steppe areas. The mountain mahogany woodland community covers about 4,275 acres, or 0.6 percent of the project area. According to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012) ecological site description, mountain mahogany woodland is expected to cover about 1 3,730 acres, or 1 .8 percent of the 3 Bars Project area. Elevations range from 6,800 to 9,800 feet amsl. Curl-leaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, greenstem papcrflowcr, and Thurber’s nccdlcgrass arc characteristic species of this vegetation community. Other associated species may include antelope bitterbrush, manzanita, gooseberry, or snowberry. Scattered junipers or pines may also occur. Curl- leaf mountain mahogany is a slow-growing, drought-tolerant species that generally does not resprout after burning and needs the protection from fire that rocky sites provide. In some instances, mountain mahogany is being impacted by pinyon-juniper encroachment or infilling, making this species more susceptible to impacts from fire. Mountain mahogany stands in the project area appear to be in fairly healthy condition, and no management activities specifically targeting mountain mahogany communities arc proposed. The mountain mahogany community is comprised of two ecological sites. Characteristics of these sites are shown in Table 3-29. 3.11.2.2.9 Pinyon-juniper Woodland Pinyon-juniper woodlands generally occur on steep south-trending hillsides and mountains at all aspects, between 5,500 and 8,600 feet amsl. This vegetation type generally occurs on shallow, loamy soils with high percentages of coarse fragments. Singlelcaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper dominate the overstory. The understory is often nothing more than barren soil in dense stands of pinyon-juniper. According to the ecological site description for this association, the potential natural vegetation includes Thurber’s nccdlcgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, black sagebrush. Mountain big sagebrush, Indian ricegrass, and greenstem paperflower (USDOI BLM 2012c, Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and AECOM 20 1 2). Other shrubs present include antelope bitterbrush and rabbitbrush. Additional grasses include Sandberg bluegrass, bottlcbrush squirreltail, Idaho fescue, and basin wildrye. The pinyon-juniper community is comprised of nine ecological sites. Characteristics of these sites are shown in Table 3-30. Based on the project-specific mapping, pinyon-juniper woodlands cover approximately 190,357 acres, or 25.4 percent of the project area. These include areas with Phase II and III stands (see below for a description of phases), but not Phase I stands. According to the ecological site description, this vegetation type would be expected to be present on approximately 209,176 acres or 27.9 percent of the project area. The difference (approximately 18,819 acres) shows that pinyon-juniper is less common that it was historically. This may reflect, in part, the extensive use of pinyon- juniper in the making of charcoal in the late 1 800s (see Section 3. 1 1 .2.6), and recent fires (1999 to present), that removed a substantial acreage of pinyon-juniper on the Simpson Park Mountains and Sulphur Spring Range and on Roberts Mountains. However, if Phase I stands are also considered, there arc about 1 1 8,000 more acres with pinyon- juniper than would be expected under normal conditions. The Phase I acreage demonstrates the rapid expansion of pinyon-juniper woodland in the project area at the expense of other potential natural vegetation. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-166 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Mountain Mahogany Community AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CD E 3 c >> Q C‘ *E 3 E E o U •*— 3 3 d x X D U 3 X u c/5 d £ 3 3 >> c o *■4—* 3 N O D X 3 O X 3 O o O '5b o o o d c/5 < C/J 2 .2 X 3 3 C/5 D C/5 C/5 3 kb b o d X 3 3 -a 3 3 -3 C/5 >5 3 3 60 O 44 3 £ _3 3 3 3 3 O £ D X 3 3 X D 2 2 8* S s4 O C/5 '£ 44 C/5 +—* jg d ** -a 3 3 3 D > o X 3 3 3 O & 3 D 44 u X D ■4—4 D 3 O- j>4 2 3 D > D c/5 > 3 ^5 D 44 C/5 O C/5 D O D O- V5 C/5 D 3 2 D X 3 O X 3 O o 15 D '5b jo o D D C/5 < 13 D O 3 X D t-i D 3 3 C/5 X) 3 £ -a 3 05 C/5 •JH X X 0 X 4—4 X 0 X 3 X 3 “> D 60 3 > 60 3 c/5 X 3 ’> 3 3 3 2 O £ X X kb '£ O O 4— < D X 4-H 3 3 60 CO X 3 .3 4—4 C/5 O X >> X) O £ 3 £ O t-H D D n. C/5 D X 4—* C/5 D ■4—4 C/5 Vi kb C/5 C/5 ^ 3 D X 3 3 > D 3 x •— o O 4^5 2 X 3 O 2 3 X O 1-4 O, 3 C/5 O s 3 E E o D > 3 z 2 1— 4 = D © 0. 13 .2 u. 3 D >% X X D 4-» 03 P £ o X 3 2 _D 60 3 C/5 3 X o 3 C/5 C/5 D D D X £ ^5 X o X £2 3 3 >% O D 4-4 3 3 D X H 3 X 3 3 60 O X 3 £ X D 4—* X £ D £4 X 3 D > o D X >4 3 C D X £ o 3 C/5 X 3 3 X C/5 >5 X — W D 3 X '£4 3 3 4-4 3 3 O £ 3 o x 3 «-i o C4 C/5 t-H 3 o o O ^4 3 £ D 3 o >5 3 3 'x '£- 60 3 C/5 60 X 3 4—4 3 3 O >5 O- o 3 3 O X D 3 3 X D J3 CQ C/5 X 2 X C/5 ^h o -4—* C/5 t-H o 13 4-4 o H C/5 D C/5 C/5 3 J“H 60 ^5 D X 3 3 4-4 3 2 3 > D s- X. ^5 D X 3 D D X 4-* X o 4-* 3 D O Vh D X 3 D O I— D X 1/1 X C/5 X D D O X D I— D > o o X o 3 3 O 3 3 X 4-4 C/5 C/5 2 C/5 D C/5 ’G x £ o o 3 _o 4^ 3 4—4 D 60 D > D > 4—* 3 4-4 D 60 D > *3 4—4 3 D 4—4 o X 3 O 4-4 o 3 X O C— ( X D 4—4 C/5 13 3 D o Vh D X V~> % 3 3 60 O X 3 £ .3 3 4-4 r~j 3 O £ x 3 D 3 O X o fc* o 4—4 C/5 D > o D X H 3 _o 4—4 o 3 X O 1-4 X D 4—* C/5 13 4—4 o 4-4 D X 4—4 X o 4-4 3 D o 1— D X in 00 4-* 3 O X 3 X 3 D 3 o >4 X X D t3 3 £ o X C/5 X C/5 2 X D 60 3 C/5 60 X _s 3 4-4 3 3 O >4 ’£ 3 £ £ o o 4-4 3 3 'x D X H 3 3 60 O X 3 3 3 4—» 3 3 O £ X o 3 X D J3 PQ X 2 X C/5 O D X 3 3 2 _x ’d _3 ’C X D 3 X £ _3 O U c/f C/5 3 t-H 60 2 x D D 3 2 CD ■*—> CO O 2 4-4 o H C/5 D C/5 C/5 3 D X 3 D 3 D X 4—4 X o 3 O o — o >4 OO 3 D D t- D X 3 £ 3 D 4—4 4—4 D X X 3 3 C/T C/5 3 H 60 2 x D D 3 60 O in >5 1-4 o 4-4 C/5 t- D X 3 3 2 2 > D C/5 o £ 3 3 X 4-4 c/5 C/5 D 1-4 D > O o >4 X o 3 3 O D O 1- D X o (N 4—4 3 O X 3 C/5 D C/5 ’G x £ o o 3 O 4—4 3 4—» D 60 U > C/5 O X £ o o D _> 4—» 3 C/5 D C/5 C/5 3 t-4 60 4—4 3 D O — D X D 60 >n d in > *4 3 O X 3 3 D 4-4 o X 3’ _o -j D 3 X O >4 3 O 4-4 C/5 1-H D X 3 3 — o co X) P p x: CO 4— » P CD CD t-H CD Oh rn X5 P 05 c/T X) t-H 2 3 D O 1-4 D X 3 O X 3 3 O C/5 o X £ o o X 2 X C/5 D X D D — 4—4 X 3 3 C/5 D D 3 _o D 3 X O D 4—4 C/5 2 4tJ o 4-4 D X 4—4 X o 4—4 3 D o (-H D X D X >4 H ‘o C/5 3 60 O r— OJ 5 3 3 03 60 p O C2 X 3 > £ 03 CO M O D 1/5 D Q D H > z Z m x o Z CQ 00 CM o 2 D •“ il' c/5 2 3 3 C E O U « D *53d _o c D U 3 ■-H 3 O X 3 D .3 3 4—4 3 O n 3 3 60 O X 3 > X D bt) 3 C/5 Vi 3 D 60 D U £ X D ^ 2 O u< _ 3 £ 60 X H C/5 C/5 3 feb 2 x D D 3 .3 3 3 3 O £ X 3 D 1- 3 u 2 C/5 _ 3 3 4—4 3 3 O 3 J S) W) tn O ^ X 3 £ x C/5 3 D 60 D *— H J-H 60 C/5 C/5 3 i- 60 D D X X D 3 D X 3 D £ o X — 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-167 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Pinyon-juniper Community NATIVE AND NON-1NVAS1VE VEGETATION RESOURCES cj E 3 E a 3 E E o U a 3 cu B 3 O U G V 3 Z ."e *•*•4 B G 4— o cu < z c g g G 0) Oh in m o (N 0) > o g cu o c 3 o CO G G > o B < G G T3 C o G o c 3 C £ o -a g g (U > -4—* <73 4—* £ X o 4— * T3 G G g G *4—» CO g CU g rG 4-» G G T3 G o G g G G2 C 4—* 3 33 4-n g a G 3 33 rG 3 X 3 £ r* d g G co g 33 3 3 C 3 co 3 T3 G _ N ’£ oo o a cu 4h O G 4—» CO O CU £ O g T3 G 3 O 3 0) rC 33 H ai ~o G 3 "3 o o £ <4-h o G _o 4-H 3 4— > G 00 G > T3 G 3 G G 'Gh G O G 'Bn Gh 3 00 CO ^4 rG T3 G 4-H 3 3 _CU 'g _G "Eh CU G rG G 3 -3 G 33 co G G rG g oo 3 CO 00 !g _G 3 4-» G G O s g 0) CU O T3 co CO 3 G GO 4-* 3 G rG £ rG o G G 33 CD 3 CQ 33 G G 33 co b o 4— > co G G T3 G G co O £ d) a 04 o d cd o O CO G CO CO 3 G 00 >4 CO G G T3 G G 4—* G G G G _Gh ’£ _ G 33 3 4-4 D 4—* G G G G G G O r^4 G '5, «G 3 G G o SO 4—* G O 33 3 G Cl, CJ) O £ r-~ co o >n 4-n G O 33 3 G O co O Oh £ O G G G G G G Or O >n o m 4—4 G O 3) 3 X5 G 3 G _o *4-H co O Or £ o G G _> 4— » 3 4— > G GO G > >4 G o 4—» co G G -a G P G G G G G CU O m "G G 3 c/T 33 G 4-H G G G G G CU G o co G CO CO 3 G 00 4-H G G G G G CU G > o G 00 3 G G > 3 G 33 4-H G G 33 £ CO G G G 00 G o ^4 "O G 3 co 33 G G 33 CO G 00 3 G G > < G G G G G CU >n m o CN £ _G -3 G £ H*"4 CU o G 3 G 3 o G G G o G G 33 r~- o 4— » > O G G 3 4—4 U-H 0 O >4 "3 4-H 4-H G o cu 0 CO o 4-H Gh c G in s 3 33 o G 4-H G- -J-H X £ CO G G C/3 G -a '£ 0) bD d -a G s _G G G % CO G r— < 3 G • V- ( .2 33 O O 4 H "o C/5 < Z G O 4-4 .£• *G G co G a G 4-> c7 3 G C/3 __ E 3 3 CJ #5i) 0 "o E E 0 CJ U u > Z On G" O Z X G CN o Uh o 3n c '£- H-H 3 _G "oo G 33 3 00 '£ _G 3 G G O £ G G CU Lo D co 33 G 00 3 co 33 G G G 3) G G co co 3 fcb G & 3 G 33 G G •e G 33 H jj 'G G G G 3 Bars I’rojecl Draft KIS 3-168 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Pinyon-juniper Community AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAE CONSEQUENCES t/5 U I 3 3 E E 0 U X 3 01 3 3 E E o U > o < a> 3 o D O 3 3 3 O 3 O D — ■X t|— l o d > -4—* 3 3 c« 3 ■a d . N '£ oo o o 0) o — tx 3 O (N Cx O >4 0- O 3 cd o >4 53 x co O a> *d x 2 3. o D X) 3 o £ 3 O x ’> 3 (U O .3 x C/2 'x a. CD X (D X x 3 X 3 >4 X 3 iD X 3 3 O 3 00 3 £ o CD 3 'a. 3 X 3 X X C/2 >4 O C/2 X D D X 4-4 4h O 3 _o 'c/3 O 3. g O O -3 3 3 D X 3 X o 2 D x M C/2 X (— 1 CD 3 3 3 ■3 O O £ «x O o y, >4 g 3 -> 3. 3-c 3 JD "ob .3 C/2 "3 3 3 x D .Oh '£ 3 X 3 3 3- • ^ o 5b • rH i-H a. 4 X o 4 — 4 C/3 X D "3 3 3 JD *3 > D C/3 o £ CD 4b +— » O C/3 fclv 3 00 c/2 D c/2 3 3 X f— X 00 o 3" o 3 D 00 D > o c/2 X D ”3 3 P 3 O 4^4 3 ‘a, Cx 3 JD JD rob .g C/3 X 3 D O X D Oh 3 D O x D Oh C/2 D C/3 C/2 3 X 00 X 3 D O X D O- o m X 3 O X 3 3 .o *x 'c/3 o Oh £ o o 3 D X £ C/3 D D 00 3 3 O ■3 3 3 C/3 X 2 X C/3 X 3 D O x D Oh o 3" •3 3 3 c/f X x £ in m o (N 3 ■3 D £ C/2 D 00 3 3 X 3 O £ 3 *3 D £ 3 X D X X C/2 D 3 _3 D .3 3 O D £ in 3 3 X C/2 D 3 O x Oh hO ^>4 Oh X O 3 3 O ^4 X O X C/3 X D > o D 00 3 X D > 3 D X D 3 3 3 D 00 3 X D > < 3 D O x D Oh D X O 3 X D O- C/3 3 3 3 O Oh O O in o o 4 ^ X o D 3 3 P X D > o O >4 o. o 3 3 O o 3 o X o 3 3 O D D .3 x X 3 C/2 3 3 3 O x 00 D X 4—4 X o D a. H ’© c/3 < Z X o X o c/2 D Q D > z o >n o >- X 3 (N O X D c/3 .3 « 5 D 3 ‘oi £ o c o © D (J U P o x D X >4 .00 X 3 1 X D .3 O. X f— .Oh 00 P X cd .3 C/2 .3 d) r-1 g X 3 P jy r~^ ’S H o >4 X D 00 3 C/2 C/2 C/2 3 X 00 JD 3 D D 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-169 September 2013 Ecological Sites for Pinyon-juniper Community NATIVE AND NON-1NVAS1VE VEGETATION RESOURCES C/5 o E 3 Q £ ‘E 3 E E o U -V-> C cs < z 3 3 E E o U /o ro .3 0) 4—* co co X 4-4 3 O 0) cd r~^ 3 3 o 4 3 O c 3 o o 03 CD 4-i O D > 4—4 3 - 3 SO o 3 < co CD u- 3 3 cd 3 3 -3 H 3 3 — 3 4-» 3 3 3 .O H-* 3 4—* X 3 £ CD -3 4— » 4h o 3 O 4-H o a, £ o o T3 3 3 4 X "O CD ■4—4 3 3 £ o T3 0) 4— » co CO X f— ' aj T3 3 _3 "3 o o £ 4h O X CD 3 s 3 CD 3 '£ 3 "-i -3 3 4-4 D T3 3 3 CD 3 ’3 3 o >4 3 '3 4h 3 JD 3x1 3 X 3 l-H X co & O 4— » CO l-H ID T3 3 3 Id .3 cd 3 "3 Oh CD X +— * C/5 C/5 2 4D CD bo o3 C/5 Vh CD X) Vh 3 43 H C/f C/5 o3 Vh bD D 35 C/5 C/5 03 H bD X-* o3 D 43 £ X o 3 3 X CD j3 03 CO O E D X 4—* CD l-H 3 co co 3 l-H CX) D a 3 3 -3 3 3 co CO 3 l-H CX) -9 T3 CD CD 3 >4 Oh O 3 3 CD CD CD 1-4 4-— >4 O 4— ' CO l-H D > o co D CO CO 3 — — CX) >4 t- o 4— » co 1-4 CD 03 l-H CD .34 '£ 3 X 3 4-H D 4-4 3 CD CD Vh 4 3 '£- X 3 -9 JD W> 3 wo co 4—* 3 O X 3 3 CD 3 > CD l-H 34 O WO 4— » 3 O X 3 3 O 4—* CO o 34 £ O CD 3 CD CD l-H CD 3 O wo o 4— > o CO 44 3 o X 3 'O 3 3 3 O X—* C/5 o 3 £ o CD D > 4— * 3 4— » CD CX) CO l-H CD T3 3 P 3 CD CD l-i CD 3 O WO T3 3 3 co~ X i-H £ >4 l-H O D CD l-H D 3 wo co o CD CO 3 l-H 3 CD X CD X £ CO CD CD CO 3 O -4*4 T3 3 3 co X 3 l-H X co ID CO 3 l-H CD > < 3 CD CD O o wo o «/o (N O CD c£h CO ID CO 3 3 l-H DO CO CD > o CD ^4 3 O 3 3 CD £ .3 X CD O CN £ .3 X D £ Do 3 O 3 3 CD 3 .O -4-4 CD 3 •a O l-H 3 >4 l-H o D T3 3 3 3 X 3 3 3 3 3 "cd CD X 4—4 CO CD X 3 3 O *4—4 CD 3 CD X 4—* C-4-H o 4—4 D UO 3- 3 X co CD CD D 3 co ^3 o 3 CD O X O 03 CX O Vh d> Oh Vh o .O C5 C/5 C/5 TD -*— > 4—4 C/5 Vh 3 So H ’o < Z i- o -fa* .3 CD CO 4D Q — > z wo o >- X 3- CN o 3 i r“] o O 03 Vh CD -e So _3 1 X 1 C/5 C/5 3 CD (— 1 C3 4-h 03 .3 '£ C/5 & _0D o C3 "bfj 3 X 2 X CD -3 CD CD 3 X OD 3 SO 3 3 c/3 D 03 C/5 C/5 X CD » 2 o U _g Cu C =3 E E o U o *4 S3 z 4 = o © c_ — o 4 u a> Q o 4 K o a. o C/2 < Z 43 "G 43 £ 3 C/3 C/3 S3 G > O- o c G o >» 4 O - — * C/3 4 43 > O . G CO G 4-1 O G O C/3 CO -4—* a o S-H X o 03 > T3 4) _N "5 00 o o o 43 G <4 _c >> 5b o 4 4— i G U 4) 5b c 4) X G -rr 4> 00 43 > X G 43 X -4-4 4-i o G O co 20 X -g 43 -4— * C3 O ■a 43 ■4-4 ’co CO X CO p 4 X 43 00 G co X o -2 OQ 4 43 G- co CO G CO CO CCJ 4 00 4) 43 X S3 >» oo -r G 43 X 43 c G X 43 O 03 X> 2 to 4 43 > C3 4 -4 — * * — 43 CO 43 4 CO- 43 4 43 X 03 C/3 X r . ' 3 x: 4^ C/3 c •4—* O H cd (D £ G CD o G c3 Qh g o ai ■4— » C/3 ■4— » P •d Xh O -4—* C/3 Xh O X) o G 0) X- ’> Xh •4— » "O c c cd G 43 T3 G c C/3 cd -a G G d> 4-* C/3 *■3 13 •— a aj t-H Z5 •4—* o g o o C/3 '5- 4 o c Id *o ’ U. Cu a C/3 IS ■4— » 'a. ‘C CL G S3 •d G *d c G CO CO cd 4 00 43 -d 43 43 4 43 X 4 G X H CO CO as 4 00 43 G CO 4) CO CO cd ob b O 43 ~a c G -4 c JL3 cd > 43 CO O 5 43 X ■4—4 4) 4 cd G 43 43 4 43 Cl, o r- o in 4 G O X cd G O G O G '5- X G -5 5b c G 43 43 4 43 Q- O •n CO O O- g o a x Q- O G G 4) 43 43 o m 4 G O X G •d G G 4 43 .g- ’S G G 43 4) 4 43 co- in 4 G 4 43 00 43 > 4 o 43 -d c D •d c G co X 2 X co 4 G 43 43 4 43 O- o - 4 o 43 > O 4 o 4 CO 4 43 TO C G 43 00 G 4 43 > 43 4 43 G 4 43 G- co *d G G O G- O O G O 4 43 G GJ O 4 o- to 4 43 *d G 43 G 43 X G 43 a 4 43 a. G 4 CO O 43 o 43 C0- o G G 43 £ _ G ■d 43 £ G X co _43 O 43 a, co G X o c _o *4 4) G ■d o 4 o- "5 G G G G G 43 43 • G X 4 G CO a £ G O Xh 00 43 X 4 X _ o 2 43 43 c2 4 in s -d G -5 x 43 X .£ £ < Z > > z z in o On X o Z Z X X d- d- (N •< Q £ c 3 E E o U h— 3 S3 3 3 E E o U © 03 z ."2 "-W 3 a » -un O CL, < Z bo 3 £ o £ X H 3 X H c/T C/3 c3 H bD 3 CU -3 £ 3: O 3 3 4b 0) 3 x PQ C /! o £ cu -3 ■c— » cu 5-. 3 C/3 4* T3 3 3 X JO -3 CU C/3 cu C/3 C/3 3 H bfl 1- o -t— * C/3 Uh CU T3 3 3 h— » 3 JU *3 > CU S-H CU cu o 3 3 o C/3 X Uh £ >u S-H o h— » C/3 S-H (U T3 3 3 3 O g g O cu u Uh 3 3 < c5 .Cu ’3 3 • ' — 1 -3 3 -Un p H-> 3 O cu >> cu o 3 3 o 5-H 3 •s— » 3 cu C/3 cu S-H CU 3 cu cu 3 >> . — 1 C/3 33 13 3 -4—* o3 C o3 (73 o3 C/3 Uh (U T3 3 P c3 H—» > bO 3 3 O "d 3 3 C/l X 2 X C/3 +-* O t-H CD Qu O m a (73^ *2 £ H-H 3 cu o Uh cu CU o o 3 3 (U CU CU in m o H— * o ' Oh C/5 £ o ^3 (U T3 Uh O 4-4 O t-H 0 3 Oh 0 13 0 0 0 J-H b/j O 4-i O O cu 13 +- * 0 O -4—* CN 0 •4—* a. H ‘o C/3 < Z Uh O 3 *2 u C/3 a j Q z o IT) o >< X ms CN O Pu 0/ c^ .t; 3 5 j *Sd _o "o cu U 3 3 E E © U ba u x ^ bo ^ 3 £ 3 3 g O >3 03 5 ^ X - y 1 § ■8 8 bO 3 03 ■ ' C/3 X c/i c« ao 03 &j au 3 -£ CU 3 X X ^ f— 1 c/3 C/3 3 fc/J T3 CU cu 3 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-172 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Pinyon-juniper Community AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES to 3 Z ."e "to 3 o to o CL -a 4> E 3 co CO 03 3 CL wo co o (N (to o Cl O 3 3 O o to co to 0) > o < c > 3 co 3 03 4> N So ID co a> to CL x o o o 4> to (to 03 3 4> s 3 O to ’> 3 a> 4) 4> X 03 3 4> bO U 3 (U 3 (to 3 bo 3 O 3 -3 4) O 3 X) to 3 CO 'to CL a> x 3 to 3 to 3 3 3 3 _o to 3 4) ^ 00 03 4) > X 3 4> to 3 3 O -a 4) X to (to O 3 .o to co O CL s o o 03 3 3 4) to 3 to 4> 3 X 4) 3 S a> .9? '£ 3 ■ ’ — * X 3 03 3 3 4) 3 03 3 j3 03 o o £ co X to (to o X 3 to X co 4> to CO CO X E— 4> to • to rr> 3 *"L| O 4) >4 X CL (to 3 'bb «> 3 2? • to 3 co co CO X CO 3 to X 4) X 3 £ H 4b £ X 4> 3 3 X 4) J3 CQ CO O £ 4) X ■4—* CL) a3 CO CO 03 5-h bO o CO 4) CO CO 3 to bo 4> 03 3 3 3 jD *3 > 4) to CL 4) .CL ’5 3 • ’ — i X 3 to D to 3 4) 4> to 4> CL O t"- o to o IT) to 3 O X 3 3 O co O CL £ o 4) 3 O 3 ‘5h (to 3 jy bO 3 3 4) 4) to 4) CL O WO o cn -4— * 3 o X 3 03 3 3 V) CO 3 O co O CL 3 O o 4) > to 3 4) > CO CO >> 3 to to O bO 3 4) 4> to 4> CL >o CO to 4) > O 4) bO 3 to 4> > 3 4) X to 3 4) X £ CO 4> bo 3 to 4) > o o wo o to to o 4) cd 3 cd 4) X to «to O < o Id +-* to 4> wo CL O to (N O -4— » 4— 3 r—i 3 4> 3 -a o to CL Jo CO to 4) ~o 3 3 4) to 4> 3 to 4) CL co 03 3 3 O CL 4) 3 03 O to CL pO co to OJ 03 3 P CL co 3 (to O 3 .O to 4> 3 03 O to CL 4) 4) -3 to to 3 CO 03 3 3 O to bO 4) a H o < Z 3 .3 -5 I CO CO 3 M bfl 3 4) x CO co 3 to b/j 4> 4> ’to ^ 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-173 September 20 1 3 Ecological Sites for Pinyon-juniper Community NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES C/3 0 1 3 s a £ ‘5 3 E E o U c _3 a. < Z s 3 E E o U 3 > « Z '•C 3 3 •*- O Oh X 3 E 3 on on 3 on G 3 3 t-H 3 x in m o 4 X o g 3 o >4 t-H o 4— » cn i-< 3 > o 3 < _G 3 4— » cn cn 3 4— > G O 3 o G 3 G O X a) 3 on 3 X 3 'S 60 O o 3 t-l 0) t-H X X 3 t-H 4—< 4—* G X CD 0 g O t-H o3 > c G CD 3 CO CD t-H CD 54 X 4—* CD co t-H t-H CD X X 3 0 X 4—* 4— > 3 X 4— » W 3 3 c X 3 O a) X 4-» X o G O cn o X B o o X G 3 3 t-H 3 4-» a X 3 4—* D >4 X) "3 a) 4—* 3 G O X 3 4—* cn cn X E— 1 3 X G 3 ■3 O O £ cn X 60 X 60 G 6 ^4 £ 3 G 'X G O ^"4 G 'x X 3 JD U ”60 G x G 3 t-H 3 .x "g 3 X 2 X cn b O ■4-* CO t-H CD "c3 a *0 *C Dh CD J4 4— » C/3 4=: CO 2 x CD bo 03 CO CD t-H a3 co co 03 t-H bD JJ TJ 4 03 t-H O 4— » CO t-H CD > o D 4— » a CD t-H Oh 4— * CO O B 3 x 3 o X 3 cn G O G O h>4 G ’x X 3 3 s Tb on o G 1^4 Gh o G 3 3 O X 4—* 3 O X 3 on 4-* G 3 3 i-H 3 Gh O o 4-> o m X 3 S £ Gh 3 G X O 3 G 3 t-H 3 _Oh 'g 3 G 3 3 t-H 3 Gh O 3f X G 3 on X t-H £ 4—* G 3 3 t-H 3 Gh G O 4—4 on O Gh S o 0 3 _> 4— * 3 4-4 3 60 cn' 3 > [>4 t-H o 3 X c D 3 cn cn 3 t-H 60 ^4 S-H O 3 > o 3 60 3 t-H 3 > 3 3 X 4—* G 3 X cn 3 3 60 G 3 O H*4 X G 3 G cn 3 X 3 3 3 Gh X on 3 60 3 t-H 3 > < G 3 O t-H 3 Gh in m o (N s _3 X 3 >4 Gh O G 3 3 O o in l-H 3 > O o >4 Gh O G 3 3 g cn 3 3 X 60 T3 o o (N s o G 3 t-H G O 4— » 3 3 X O l-H Gh ^4 3 X G 3 3 £ 3 x 3 t-H 3 3 t-H 3 Gh cn x G 3 o Gh 3 3 3 G X 3 ••-* 3 X 4-H 3 O .3 4-> X 3 in -G 1* HH 3- on 3 3 X X X -2 x u _G G _o 4-H 3 3 X O t-H Gh ^■4 cn 3 3 3 X cn 3 X o G O on l-H 3 X G D 3 o .3 X l-H 3 cn 3 X 3 G X o 3 O X 60 3 a. H o C/3 < Z o 5 j cn 3 Q 3 > Z x o Z PQ 00 3 X 1 — ) P* cn X G 3 X G ►— 1 1 cn cn 3 5b 4— » 03 a> 44 co CO $9 feb CD CD 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-174 September 2013 Ecological Sites for Pinyon-juniper Community AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CO 3 a c 3 £ E © U — - 3 js Cu 3 3 £ £ © U o> m> 3 z "■C 3 3 4— © £u © Q. H ’© C/5 © .a, 3 y 3 0 01 c 7i < z x 3 X 3 3 C o >4 _c ’EL X 3 jy 35 00 3 >4 X X 3 -*— » 3 3 ’g O X CO 3 4—* 55 co IS h* OX) 3 4 0 4-4 CO 01 > O 3 < 3 _0- '£ 3 3 3 3 3 i — 1 ‘g O X 3 3 o +-» Oh O 3 > 4—* 3 4-4 3 3 CO 3 o 3h 3 o 3 X) X) _3 3 4— » 3 3 O 3 3 £ o o *> 3 3 3 .3 4— » CO ‘G 3. 3 X X) 3 3 30 co b O 3 x 3 3 *3 _3< 3 _3 "G 34 3 X 3 P co CO 3 3 -3 CO X) 3 00 3 CO 3 co- co 3 3 00 3 3 3 3 *5 3 co CO 3 S-H 00 4-4 3 3 X £ 3 3 3 X 3 3 3 3 ~3 > 3 3 Oh 4—* CO O 3 X 4-4 3 3 3 CO CO 3 3 00 JL> X 3 3 3 3 3 X >4 o, o 3 3 3 3 3 ^4 3 3 .5- ’S 3 X 3 4-4 p 4-4 3 3 3 3 3 04 O C" 3 O ^4 3 ’5- Oh 3 3 o X 3 3 O X 3 3 3 3 3 04 o 3 cn X 3 3 .2 CQ H CO 3 3 > o CO 3 CO CO 3 3 00 >4 3 o co 3 3 X 3 3 O in 3 3 O X 3 3 O 3 ’co O 04 3 O 3 00 3 3 3 3 3 3 04 O m o m 4-4 3 O X 3 X 3 3 3 3 co” X 3 <2 3 3 3 3 3 3 O. co O O4 £ o 3 3 _> 3 3 3 3 00 co 3 > 3 CO CO >4 3 3 3 O 00 3 X 3 P 3 3 3 3 3 Oh >4 3 O 3 CO 3 3 > o 3 00 3 3 3 > 3 3 X 3 3 3 X £ co 3 3 3 3 00 3 3 O ^4 X 3 3 co X 3 3 X co 3 00 3 3 3 > < 3 3 3 3 3 o, in x o r- > 0 •4— » O O 0 0 O- m O £ a o3 0 C J .P M— ( £ CO 3 0-) 00 X a C3 £ Ph 3 cd O X •*—» 4— * O £ X 3 O Ph Ph CJ Oh 03 O Ph Z Cn| X o >- OQ 00 cn o u- 3 4— cZ >4 ■3 3 0 >4 *3 •4—* — — 3 3 ’5. 3 ’00 HH c 03 O 8 _© 0 £ © cl 3 U b/j X UJ cd co 5 x 3 00 3 CO C/5 P P ’P 00 X X 3 3 X Z3 CO CO o3 Ph 00 •4— » 03 c Cd cj *s O Js cj o C/3 CD 5=1 CD g 53 CO) cd O cd E o> G> X -4—* X X 3 X V) 2 •S bfl cd C/3 bX) 2 C/3 C/3 Cd J-H bti (D O bJQ J-H CD X) 5=1 Cd C/D nd 5b cd cd 4—> CD fc 3 cr C/3 C/3 VS 3 H GO JlJ X ’cj (D Oh C/3 CD bO (73 J-H £ CD 3 (73 C/3 (D Td CD ■4—* C/3 C/3 ‘J3 4—* C/3 CD T3 cd > .s "3 cd CD ^H C/3 C/3 <73 Ot GO 4—* cc! D X U x 3 D D "go _3 C/5 vs D D 3 D X eel > .3 Sh D Oh '3 p X 3 O ^ Z 3 3 ‘Oh o 3 O "" 5=1 4—* • T— I 3 Co P ^ £ CD 4— » CD Oh 2 o D JO D X +-* D X GO jJ X 3 3 > 3 3 vs cd X) D J-H O vs X J-H CJ 3 O c CJ 3 4—* C/D 3 0 X ^5 <0 4-H 0 bD 5=1 3 'x CD J-H CD 0 £ 0 3 O Jo 4b £ J-H 0) .B =d 3 X vs ^ C/3 D Oh 3 o o ^ O a J-H 4— > CD O ■ B x 3 X 3 ^ 3 O 5b • ?-H CO X c/3 4— » 3 _D ‘C H- 3 3 D V3 O 7:3 b ° o 4-4 X £ £ D > Td O 5=1 XI O (73 - — . o S 3 E E o U D £ X 3 z ."e X c D 4- O CO X 3 3 vT C/3 3 H GO '*-* 3 D X £ - X X D ^3 X X D ■4—* 3 3 O X 3 O 3 3 X D _3 S x 3 3 C/3 C/3 3 3 GO CO G Jo X b -4—4 3 -4-4 D 60 D > "2 ’-4—> 3 D +-» o co x V3 3 Sh X D 60 3 C/3 GO X ITS CN X 3 3 vT X S-h a 4— • 5=1 CD CJ J-h CD Oh C/3 O 5^ < C/3 3 D D 3 S-4 X D X D 3 O D O 3 3 3 ‘g O X 3 X -4-J D O 3 3 X 3 H 3 -4-4 3 3 3 vs 3 X D N o 3 O vs O CO 2 o o X 3 3 D D X f— I D X 3 3 X o o s-i D 1 1 3 X 3 D GO O VS C4_, D O 3 O X 3 4-H D x 3 3 3 o ^4 3 '2- X 3 D 7d 25) 3 x vs b O D X 3 3 *3 .B ’d _3 ’C CO D X D X s- 3 X H vs vs 3 go 5b vs o 2 D X 4-4 D H 3 vs vs 3 D 3 3 vs O o D S-H D S-t X X 3 D 3 C3 _3 Bo 3 o S-H D GO D > X 3 D X ^4 X X D -4—4 3 3 O X X vs X D 60 3 VS X o G 5 vs vs 3 H GO 4-4 3 D X D D 3 3 X ^3 X 3 3 X vs D 3 2 Gf X ^ CD X3 OQ 0) CD 5=1 Oh O 5=1 cd CJ CD o vs D vs vs 3 GO b O vs t-l D X 3 3 3 D G > D ■-H CO ^4 D .B 2 p x 3 3 D O S-i D CO o r- o 4-4 o ITS o X 3 3 -4—4 vs O CO 2 o o 3 o ^4 3 'x, Oh 3 D B> Bb 3 tr> CO 3 D D S— 1 D X 3 X O 3 «0 vs X 3 3 D Q X J-H o vs Ih D > o D 60 3 Jh D > 3 D X D GO 3 J-H D > < 3 D o „ D 3 & D 'O X CO £ O 4—4 M h-. D O D CN O o 10 o 10 CN 2 X vs GO ^3 3 3 J-H 3 O Ih D > O o hO X o 3 3' O 2 3 D 2 3 x 3 <0 D GO vs' D VS vs >4 3 D > J-H o D X 3 D Gb 4-4 3 D O Hi D X GO 3 3 O ^4 X 3 3 vs X 3 H X vs 3 X D 2 o 3 X O J-H D J-H o Jo X o 3 3 O X 03 b g o ^ vs S-H D X 3 3 vs X 3 3 O 3 3 3 3 B5 4—4 o 4H D X 4-4 vs D X p B> _3 3 o 4—* o 3 X O J-H X b o 4-H c n Uh CD *0 O > z z r^- x o Tt p o Z Z « X OO H^- cn n o O x 0/ •tS Jo s 3 E E o U 3 cv 'OJD _o "o (J u 3 O Jo 3 'x X 3 JU S Bb 3 -B B p 3 3 3 X 3 bo D 3 ■4—4 3 3 O £ x o 3 3 X X (1> qj GO 3 3 -x vs X vs cd ^ fcb 3 3 -H (U H X C/D 3 g feb 2 x f— < ju X (U H- J-H 3 6b x 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-176 September 20 1 3 NA = Not applicable. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES One resource management focus of the 3 Bars project is the overall distribution and structure of pinyon-juniper woodlands within the project area. In the Great Basin, pinyon-juniper have expanded outside of their historical range, and the density of trees has increased in older stands. Since the advent of fire suppression, there has been a migration of pinyon-juniper habitat into sagebrush steppe communities. Sagebrush on much of the 3 Bars Project area has also been replaced with pinyon-juniper woodlands (USDOI BLM 2009a, 2012c, AECOM 2011a, Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and AECOM 2012). Many of these indicators have been observed in Phase III (or late successional) pinyon-juniper woodlands, which generally have a high density of trees and buildup of fuels. The BLM considers two classification schemes when assessing the condition of pinyon-juniper woodlands. One scheme is based on historical types of pinyon-juniper vegetation (Romme et al. 2007), and one is based on transitional phases of woodland succession for mountain big sagebrush associations (Miller et al. 2008). These classification systems are summarized in Table 3-31. Generally, areas of potential expansion are areas in which pinyon-juniper woodlands have not historically been present. These areas are targeted by the BLM for treatments to restore historical community types. Phase III woodlands have the greatest tree density, and the greatest amount of canopy fuels, which puts them at increased risk for loss from high intensity fires (Tausch 1999 in Miller et al. 2008). According to Miller et al. (2008), however, treatments in Phase I and II expansion woodlands to halt their succession to Phase III woodlands may be more successful and cost-effective than treatments in Phase III woodlands. Figure 3-28 differentiates expansion areas from areas of historic occurrence. Based on this mapping, approximately 46 percent of areas with trees are in Phase I, 35 percent are in Phase II, and 19 percent are in Phase III (AECOM 201 la). However, pinyon-juniper trees occupy only a portion of the area delineated into phases, especially for areas dominated by Phase I and II pinyon-juniper. In Phase I areas, grasses, forbs, and shrubs comprise much, if not most of the area. Areas of recent pinyon-juniper expansion seem to be most prevalent at the lowest elevations, where topography is gentle (AECOM 201 la). Old growth pinyon-juniper stands are 1 40 years old or greater. Because age is difficult to estimate from tree core samples from Utah juniper trees, cores from singleleaf pinyon pines are typically used to determine the age of a particular stand of trees. Old-growth pinyon-juniper stands tend to occur on slopes, ridges, and inaccessible areas (i.e., areas not easily logged; AECOM 201 la). Areas having old growth pinyon-juniper woodlands are Indian Springs, Pete Hanson Creek, higher elevations on steep slopes, and the northern portion of the Sulphur Spring Range. Based on sample tree cores from the 3 Bars Project area, the majority of old-growth trees are between 160 and 200 years old, and as old as 290 years (AECOM 201 la). As discussed in Section 3.1 1.2.6, much of the older pinyon-juniper was harvested to make charcoal for the mining industry in the mid- 1800s. The following indicators of decline in the health of pinyon-juniper woodlands have been observed within the project area; • Lack of understory species diversity, and absence or decline in associated woodland species (e.g., aspen, bitterbrush, and curl-leaf mountain mahogany). • Widespread occurrence of Fire Regime Condition Class II and III (fire regimes that have been moderately or significantly altered from their historical range) due to excessive fuel loadings. • Decreased tree vigor and pine nut production. • Increased pathogen infestations resulting in greater than 20 percent ongoing mortality within a given stand. • Stand conditions in excess of 1 ,200 trees per acre in several watersheds. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-177 September 20 1 3 Elko County ■ ■ ’"mrr'-Tr? Eureka County United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) V/ :\S^0 i A9' } Legend Pinyon-juniper Succession Phase I Phase II WKM Phase III Pinyon-juniper Old Growth O 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-28 Pinyon-juniper Phase Classes Source: AECOM 2011a. 0 1 2 3 4 5 ■3 Kilometers 10 10 3 Miles IJ No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • Expansion onto adjacent range sites and encroachment into the interspaces within woodland sites including important wildlife and greater sage-grouse habitats. Many of these indicators have been observed in Phase III (or late successional) pinyon-juniper woodlands, which generally have a high density of trees and buildup of fuels. 3. 1 1 .2.3 Allotment Vegetation and Monitoring Studies Rangeland systems common to the 3 Bars ecosystem consist of shrublands with a bunchgrass understory (Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and AECOM 2012). Overall, the area is experiencing issues with invasive annual grass species (mainly cheatgrass) that are altering the fire regime, as discussed in Section 3.12 (Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Non-native Vegetation). Large wildfires, caused by a buildup of cheatgrass and shrubs, are compromising the health of the sagebrush-steppe habitat. The encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands is also compromising the health of the sagebrush-steppe habitat. TABLE 3-31 Pinyon-juniper Classification Schemes Classification Description Historical Based System1 Persistent Woodlands Vary from sparse stands of small trees growing in poor substrates to relatively dense stands of large trees on productive sites. However, by definition they are communities in which pinyon pine and/or juniper are dominant species (historically and currently). Pinyon-juniper Savannas Predominantly found on gentle upland and transitional valley locations, where soil conditions favor grasses (or other grass-like plants), but can support at least some tree cover. Areas of Potential Expansion Occur when pinyon pine and juniper expand into new areas where they were not found historically. 2 Transitional Phases of Woodland Succession System Phase I (early) Trees are present, but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes on the site. Phase II (mid) Trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs, and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site. Phase III (late) Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing ecological processes on the site. 1 Romme et al. (2007). 2 Miller et al. (2008). Rangeland health studies were conducted in six allotments between December 2010 and September 201 1 (Figure 3- 29). Seventy Key Management Areas (KMAs) within these allotments were assessed for their ecological status. These areas were selected because they met the following criteria: 3 Bars Project Draft E1S 3-179 September 2013 Eureka County m mm P ARMAN PRIVATE GRASS VALLEY mpR JW DTAMQND •/ if - flbnrifr ROBERTS MOUNTAIN ROMANO - % fl SANTA FEr FERGUSON SHANNON sVation LUCKY® ureka WILLOWS RANCH United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management t Mount Lewis Field Office ^iMM 50 Bastian Rd Battle Mountain, NV 89820 WILLOWS CREEK RANCH (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) r; f'* L >0 \ . \ . ;u J * 1 t. 50j i a ISt it c v v Vi i iw V I „ r $?{rv 1/ * * ; Oi.A - v. Jt \ ■ i 4 «*• ** ** s _ . 1 V 'yt iMril is '* \V\Fm y nk J Jj \ — it Elko County - 1 1 W7 Legend Successional Status Early (0-25%) Mid (25-50%) Late (51-76%) Not Available Allotment Boundary 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2012g, ENLC and AECOM 2012. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-29 Current Rangeland Conditions 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 ■3 Kilometers 10 10 ■3 Miles No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • representative of larger areas of interest; • contained within a single ecological site and plant community; • contain key species; and • capable of responding to management action that would be indicative of a response on a larger scale. The results of these studies were discussed in the Final 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Rangeland Health Report (Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and AECOM 2012). This report provides an overview assessment of rangeland health in the 3 Bars ecosystem as well as a more detailed analysis of six allotments that span the project area from the northern to southern extent. The analysis focused on the assessment of individual KMAs within each allotment; the condition of the KMA was extrapolated to the entire allotment. Within these KMAs, three parameters were used to measure overall rangeland health — production, desired dominant species, and Potential Natural Community for grass, forb, and shrub species. Production is a measurement of the above-ground weight of the sampled vegetation. Desired dominance refers to the species types that should be present on an ecological site given its stage of succession. The Potential Natural Community is a measurement of composition, not to be confused with production. A site could be experiencing high production, but have low Potential Natural Community, if it is only producing a single grass, forb, or shrub species. One of the objectives of the 3 Bars Project is to restore the functionality of the plant communities within the project area. The similarity index is used to compare the present state of vegetation on an ecological site in relation to the kinds, proportions, and amounts of vegetation expected for the site. For many areas within the project area, the goal is to restore the state of the plant community to a condition that is considered to be in a mid- to late-successional status. However, desired plant communities may be developed on a treatment-by-treatment basis depending on site-specific conditions and needs (e.g., use of non-native desired species to combat cheatgrass). After management objectives have been developed, one specific plant community may be identified as the desired plant community. Once the desired plant community has been identified, it is appropriate to determine the similarity index of the existing community to the desired plant community. Successional status is determined by the similarity index, which is expressed as the percentage of a plant community that is on the site compared to the Potential Natural Community for that site. Early successional status indicates that 0 to 25 percent, mid-successional status indicates that 26 to 50 percent, and late successional status indicates that 51 to 76 percent of the plant community is presently on the site compared to the Potential Natural Community. The Potential Natural Community occurs when 77 to 100 percent of the Potential Natural Community is on the site. Figure 3-30 shows successional status on the 3 Bars Project area. Tables 3-32 to 3-37 discuss some of the vegetation concerns and plant community status at each of the KMAs. 3.11.2.3.1 Flynn/Parman Allotment The Flynn/Parman Allotment consists of terrain ranging from moderately sloping hills to low mountains. Vegetation in the lower elevations includes big sagebrush with an understory of Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Indian ricegrass. Mid-elevation vegetation includes pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush with an understory of bottlebrush squirreltail, Nevada bluegrass, and western wheatgrass. The vegetation at upper elevations includes pinyon-juniper with understories of bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, Thurber’s needlegrass, and antelope bitterbrush. Five wildfires have occurred in this allotment since 1994, ranging from 61 to 3,275 acres, and have resulted in some of the area being infested with cheatgrass (see Section 3.12, Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Non- native Vegetation). Four of these fire sites were re-seeded with a mixture of native and non-native species. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-181 September 2013 Elko County Eureka County ND-02 FLYNN/: PARMAN GRASS — " / \ VALLEY PRIVATE -NDRThl/ SlAMQND A gO-07 MOUNTAIN ROMANO RM020 SANTA FE / FERGUSON SHANNON sVation LUCKY C ureka WILLOWS RANCH *■^1 DRY WILLOWS CREEK RANCH United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office rtfBBBSprt 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain. NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 09/10/13) '» V I'wlni Legend Key Management Area Fence Allotment Boundary 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-30 Range Allotments and Key Management Areas 0 1 2 3 4 5 Source: BLM 2012h, 2013i. 3 Kilometer* 10 10 3 Miles t No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 1.2.3. 2 Roberts Mountain Allotment The Roberts Mountain Allotment consists of terrain ranging from level valleys to high mountains. The vegetation in the valleys includes big sagebrush with an understory of Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlcbrush squirreltail, and Indian rieegrass. Vegetation at mid-elevations includes pinyon-juniper, big sagebrush, and low sagebrush with an understory of bottlebrush squirreltail, Thurbcr’s nccdlegrass, and Nevada bluegrass. Vegetation at upper elevations includes pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, willow, aspen, big sagebrush, and low'sagcbrush with an understory of bottlcbrush squirreltail, Thurber’s needlegrass, and Nevada bluegrass. Since 1954, five vegetation treatments have been applied; they include three crested wheatgrass scedings between 1954 and 1956 totaling 8,425 acres, an herbicide treatment application in 1965 totaling 2,1 1 1 acres, and pinyon-juniper thinnings in 2008 and 2009 totaling 1,660 acres. Additionally, a fire burned 627 acres in 2006. 3.11.2.3.3 JD Allotment The JD Allotment consists of terrain ranging from flats and rolling hills to high mountains. Several seeps, springs, and streams are found in the mid to upper elevations, supporting willow and aspen stands. Vegetation in the lower elevations includes Wyoming big sagebrush, shadscale, and budsage with an understory of Sandberg’s bluegrass and bottlebrush squirreltail. Vegetation in the higher elevations consists of pinyon-juniper, low sagebrush, and some mountain mahogany with an understory of Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, Thurbcr’s needlegrass, and bluebunch wheatgrass. Since 1961, nine scedings, eight wildfires, two mechanical treatments, and one herbicide treatment application have occurred, as follows: Seedings (1 1,133 acres) 1961 = 888 acres of crested wheatgrass 1 964 = 1 ,692 acres of crested wheatgrass 1 966 = 698 acres of crested wheatgrass 1985 = 1,383 acres of crested wheatgrass 1994 = 1,642 acres of native and non-native species 1995 = 838 acres of native and non-native species 1996 = 385 acres of native and non-native species 1 999 = 2,250 acres of crested wheatgrass 2000 = 1,357 acres of native and non-native species Fires (34,581 acres) JD Fire 1 985 = 1,128 acres Simpson Fire 1994 = 1,663 acres (rebumed in the 1999 Trail Canyon Fire) Mud Fire 1996 = 385 acres (reburned in the 1999 Trail Canyon Fire) Trail Canyon Fire 1999 = 1 7,694 acres Tonkin Fire 2000 = 1 ,357 acres Tonkin Fire 2006 = 72 acres JD Fire 2006 = 210 acres Frazier Fire 2012 = 12,072 acres 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-183 September 2013 Flynn/Parman Allotment Key Management Areas NATIVE AND NON-1NVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES t/> c Ln © © e o U •— o G5 s Cm o LL © © x b G T3 G o o © C/3 T3 G G © 4— » X 4-i C G _G 3 X £ c/f ’o (D CX C/5 Q C/5 4—> ‘P P P cd o > Mh X CD LH bO P _o Lh © P Vh £ T3 3 X > © 3 P 03 a> ■4—* *C/5 o Cl 03 u X 03 — C/3 (L) "O G G G G 1/3 X O M © -2 © LG -lj OX) G o G "O O G T3 G X G 4—. o G G X) CD CD X 4—* G O ID 4-4 C/3 C/3 3 H 3 LG C/3 C/3 T3 CD >4 G .© a O X3 G C/3 C/5 D ‘5- p CD O O t-i D cx (D P O 4—1 CD P T3 O t-H cx pA X 03 03 C/5 4—* D 3 C/3 CD >> G •- TD C^ G "O Lh o 4— c/i Lh CD G <4- O c G 4-H G c G CD X c .o *3 o CL E ^ © 6s- JC 3 3— X C/3 « 3 — CD /3 G" m G" C/3 o CL E o O x — © u. G 3 CD o X> o CO Oc r<-3 T3 © _L- *s CD Q «o C/3 C/3 G Lh o N® eN 3 _© Vh "3 © CL E © U G 3 — CD < r- rg */3 (N CO cn 73 © _Lh *C/3 © Q o i/'i o lAl o X, Oh PL 3 © E -LH _© 3 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-184 September 20 1 3 Flynn/Parman Allotment Key Management Areas AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES C/2 s s_ D w 3 o U s- © 3* s C/3 G Td d> +-> G T3 G G C/3 X | x (*> 72 „ d 0) . is 4T D H c/2 C/2 3 fcb C/2 C/2 72 3 3 X 72 03 C/2 “» 3 X — 72 2 D 73 -e « 3 3 •*— * •rd C/3 ^ g £ c Dh 13 J-H CD C/3 g ."s "S 3 d a? 3 73 3 O o d C/2 73 3 3 3 3 3 £ O 73 D 42 ■4—* i-T 0) > 0/ £ o 42 b - 3 U £ z D > o 42 3 CL) 42 4—* C/2 3 Id £ C/2 .O 3 ^ C/2 42 03 > *55 (D X 03 d> £ 3 42 O 4—* C/2 Lh 3 CD C2 £ 24 3 CD 3 (D C/2 3 73 CD 4-* 3 s_ .3 3 £ CD a £2 3 CD O 3 3 •e 23 CD 42 _3 '£ S3 CD Lh ID £2, 73 S3 3 C/2 42 73 CD I-. 'c/2 CD 73 X O 44 O 3 CD 42 4-4 CD 3 73 ’£4 3 CD 42 4-4 £ o J-c o bfl .s *c/d c/d d> 2P od G u £ cx (D > o X 03 c/3 c/3 (D C/3 d> C/3 C/3 03 bb C/3 X t-H c£ $2 3 X _o X S24 >4 23 C/2 __ 'co CD 73 a> 43 4—* C4— 1 o >4 £2 3 n ^ c 2 00 H o C/3 •4—* G G G £ o 73 CD 43 f— 1 C/2 CD C/2 C/2 3 bb 73 23 3 CD*' 23 O 4—* o 3 73 O o z cu £ o Id 42 4-4 3 43 4-4 3 ID c/2 CD C/2 _a> o CD £2- C/2 V-H c2 c/i #0) D X 1-4 X 4— > £ 0 bD G 72 J-H ro U«/ X #G c2 C/D C/D 72 t— ■ rO D X 4—* Dh C/D G ’ C Dh 72 3 aj •4—* C/D G t“H So D X 4—* Dh 4- X "g 3 r— H CN X t-H G d) d) _ G Vh G > d) _ £h C/D d> Td 4—* CO C/D d) C/D ’Th CO D CO CO 3 X 4— » £ 'g G 0) £h d) > d) _ u- 55 d> Td O X G G X H G d) fc) O st d) Dh 0 X G G C/2 3 73 (D 4—» 3 73 3 3 aT 2—4 X 2 1 3 >2 42 73 .s '£ 3 CD 1-4 CD Dh c/T X 73 CD 1-4 * C/2 CD 73 X O 44 O 3 CD bf) B "c/2 C/2 CD L- 3 C/1 D u ID £2- W2 3 3 3 73 D 1-4 ’c/2 D 73 D £ o C/2 bo 3 co c/2 D D X U z cu D > O X 3 c/2 X <2 3 o 3 C/2 x _o X 24 3 '5- C/2 c/T _D ’3 D 3- C/2 2 3 #o 4-< *C/2 O a. £ 1 O cx X 3 X (/) 3 3 *4 D V >0 V -a D "c/i O in 7f o m in (N 3 O C/2 O a ^ IS U x o u. 3 3 4— o 00 CO 7f X 73 D L- D Q «n 3 O C/2 O a. 3 3 D OO «n n in in >n X U *3 £ CN £24 CO &4 £4 7j- £24 (X 3 4) e- 3 4— _o 3 3 liars Project Draft lilS 3-185 September 20 1 3 Roberts Mountain Allotment Key Management Areas NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES t/i s ■— 4) O s o U 3 <4-4 O X o U X U 3 "O >4 3 CU 03 B o cO % cd CD C/5 cd fc 3 cr CO u •— 3 u u X 4—4 3 o "3 3 3 <2 C/5 CD C/5 C/5 cd kb d cd q E o "3 u x u X •4— » O 3 12 3 O X co >4 u X 4— * u x 3 u. CO U T3 U X co CO 3 H b/j u 3 Q C/5 W u X •4—* d o T3 CD C/5 cd 4b cd" ■4—* * C/5 C/5 2 <2 CO U 3 O T3 O t- 3. 4— ' 3 X u u 3 -a 3 3 <2 CD cd C/5 •e O Q CD cd o 3h C/5 C/5 C/5 cd J-H bo "cd cd .ib O C/5 Id - C/5 CD T3 "cd CD > CD CD CX C/5 (D d cd CD C/5 co CO X f— C/5 > 3 E 3 — 4— » x 3 c _o 4—* o 3 "0 O 4-. O X 3 cd 3 -3 3 3 'O 3 £ 2 3 CO 3 -4-4 cd co ra -a QJ 4-J 3 3 ■4—4 CO CO x f— cd "O C JJ X 3 l-H c 4—* Oh QJ O 4-* Q co 3 w 1-h QJ GO jg cd 3 3 QJ l-H 3 Q. T3 QJ l-H 'co QJ "0 3 O -a QJ CO QJ CO CO 3 H GO QJ (L> -3 •4-4 3 O "O 3 3 cS 3 3 3 £ o T3 QJ -3 H CO -3 _ •§ * 3 3 0 QJ > QJ GO QJ QJ X £ o 4—4 3 QJ co -3 3 QJ 3 a co C/3 52 UJ 3 1-4 QJ GO 3 T3 3 3 3 '2 3 QJ 1-4 QJ 3h T3 QJ l-H 'co QJ ■a 3 O T3 QJ T3 l-H 3 QJ X) co X £ 3 -3 r& QJ 4—4 QJ > X CO X) l-H GO O X Oh CO Qm 3 jy GO 3 O X QJ -5 QJ X Q> 3 X) >> 3 £ E Oh "cd Lh a> C/5 4—* o 3 T3 O l-H o T3 3 3 QJ QJ X T3 3 3 <£ CD Lh cd C/5 -e c2 *3 '£ 3 QJ ^H QJ o 4h o X o 3 QJ X QJ 3 T3 >4 3 E c o 3 I — QJ CO X ‘g CO 3 X3 QJ 4—4 2 QJ 4—* C^ C/5 IS H cd C/5 n >n •n «n «n c _o ’ © a _ E N® o - ■ CO CO 3 3 3 3 •w 3 < OS r- 0 ■a 3 4 *co 3 Q in 3- o in o in o >n o >n o in X 4* « x £ E KJi 3 Z 00 cd Os (N E on C8 1= 03 * s e 0 U m 1 m W -J CQ < H a/ * C cs 3 — 07 < -a a/ ■— "t/5 a/ « 3 ■a 0/ s- "t/5 0/ Q x o 3 cd 2 ’3 a . x r H 05 X ad 3 3 3 O o 9s o 3 O -t— * o 3 eg X ad 2 jg 3) 3 4—* o 3 ad O 1-4 CX ad 3 3 CD 3 at >n m o IT) X o 3 O 3 4 ‘C 3 >-H 34 u 3h CO 3 -a 3 4—4 3 t/5 X t-H c2 T3 5d a3 C/3 d) C/3 C/3 Ctf feb *73 J-H d) a, JL> 3 a3 > Vh 'Td u 73 o3 }-H d> C/3 d) •4— * 03 C/3 o3 T3 d) •*— * 03 d> '4— » C/3 C/3 2 H C/3 d) C/3 C/3 03 fcb is *2 a d> •— d> a, 4—* C3 03 q o 'td d> H C/3 d) C/3 C/3 03 feb "2 Td T3 03 a> 1 I "Td § i 2 23 © (U X CO w a> x 4—* sd o Td (U 4—* C/5 £ o c o • r—< 4—* O O Td o t-H cx a> ■4—* "55 a> C o Td sd 3 £ a> ca r- x «D ■at X ca ■a CD "44 C/5 cx 4-4 sd ca sd 4—4 ca S-H C/5 0> 4—* C/5 C/5 X H id sd ca C/5 C/5 ca kb 'S sd CD CA) CD CD X 4—* C/3 n x o X o ca CD X 2 3 CD t4 CD SX4 4 — < C ca 3 E o ad 4 X T. H S3 05 .S 2 ^ c2 C2: C/3 03 Td (D 4—* o3 4 X ^ H S3 05 3 X .3 t- *- o CD X o X CD 3 CD X 2 4— . 3 1 <17 <17 Oh 07 03 on 03 T3 07 4— » 03 07 4—* C^ C/3 12 T3 sd 03 C/3 07 C/3 C/3 03 H bD is *2 cd 07 07 C Ih T3 <37 J-H *2 07 0) dd 4—* sd o bi) 'J2 07 03 07 03 a GO UJ 07 4d 4—* 3 O ad CD 05 CD 05 05 3 2 o 3 _o 4— * CJ 3 ad o 5- c cx 3 X lT CD X a> H 3 05 X H "O kb C4 ON o m (N X o X u 4» S E 3 x 3 '3 u 3 O U !— O S’ . X •e H S co 3 O .3 4h fa (0 Oh X X 3 3 CO § E iad 3 z 3 CD 4h — 3 C/3 X co 0) CO CO 3 . . 4- O bJ5 X C/3 X o ■Tf oo 103 <03 <03 3 '5 3 0) I-h CD Oh 44 3 3 3 O 'fa X o X cd 3 CD X B o X >H X 5 CO .1 •£ 6 <2 C/5 ctf *c/5 C/5 'rB H d C/5 CD C/5 C/5 Ctf H bX) *d 2 CD Vh — 3 co co co _o 3 X H o bfi X (N 00 O t" <03 <03 CO <03 (N CN Q X o X o 3 CD x 3 H X X H S co | *£ 3h <2 5 o3 X3 44 CO CD 3— u CD X 3 CD X 44 3 O - 3 co •e <2 o X CD X H CO -2 <2 x 3 3 CO CD CO CO 3 fcb is ’3 3 CD l—i CD X X CD 14 • »-H C/5 (D X CD X CD 3 (h 0) £ CO X m x o 3- V CTl <0 Q X o x o .S CD X CD 3 X 3 1-c c La © o c o U La *e? d x 4-» (+H o X o d D 3 X CO CO 3 CO "3 D O- co D o ~ co X 2 X c/3 Td Q cd ^ C/3 d) C/3 C/3 cd s- r© CL Id J-H d) c/3 d> bo *2 '2 c d> *-< d> CL cd xJ d) C/3 5— cd X> cd _ i-. *c75 d) "cd H d> > d) C/3 -*— * 3 X tT d v- 'co D X 3 3 X X 0) 3 )-> CO D ■*— * CO CO X H D £ O D 4— » C/3 C/3 £ H C/3 X) Uh <2 c/f d) C/3 C/3 cd J— bX) "2 d) j-h d> Oh Td d) _ J-H *53 d> Td f W H D -3 3 O X D D D -3 4-> 3 O 3: d co D CO CO 3 >i o bO X 3 CO X) 3 ’£ 3 D — D 3h 3 D t. D O, co D D D &, CO X D X D D IO D _> -4—* 3 3 i 3 O 3 3 -3 D -3 £ c/T CO 3 bb 3 D x £ g_< o X o 3 D x D 3 X 3- 13 Ih D co 3 D 3 3 ■3 D 4— » 3 D 4—* CO CO X H 3 ’5 3 D 1- D cx ■4—* 3 3 3 co -e c2 3 o ■3 D X! ' co •fi cS "3 3 3 co D CO CO 3 bb "2 '3 3 D l-i D cx "3 D )-H "co D T3 D O 3 ■4—4 3 X 3 co D D D ”3 ^ 2 D ” .3 >4 D 3 D 3 3" D «ta •3 D 4—* CO D 3 b0 3 "5 3 T3 D 3 O bo 3 'J2 o 3 D 3 Q CO PQ D X 4-4 3 O T3 D CO D CO CO 3 CO _D •3 3 D X3 -3 3 3 D 1-4 D bb ^ 3 _o 4—4 o 3 "3 O 1- Cu bO _s •5 3 "3 Xh O M D JS D X D 3 T3 Z' 3 E ’£ 3h 13 — D CO D 4—4 3 <0 3 "3 D 4—4 3 D 4—4 co CO X H D X H CO X •3 3 3 co D co CO 3 fcb "3 'S D tH D CU T3 D i-4 'co D "3 <4-4 o 3 O 3 X D D X 4—4 3 O D 3 Q CO w D X 4—4 3 O X D D D X 4—4 b0 3 '£ 3 X X 3 3 5^* cS ■ x D X 3 O X 3 3 £ CO D co CO 3 bb D £ G/> X) J— < c2 .2 ’5 § D o ^ 3- O 1/2 co 3 X CO 3 X 4—4 3 co 3 £ 3 'S 3 D — D cx 4—4 3 3 3 X X Z s x 2 Z CO 3 O co u X a CO 3 O o 3 X 3 2 5 CX X o 3 X C D 3 O o . 3 >4 -Q 3 O i-4 X C4 a O 3h x o x o 3 D X D 3 X 3 V- D co 1 X ’3 CO 3 X D a co cd *2 2 d> C/3 C/3 cd fcb cd C/3 d> C/3 C/3 d) D .2 cx 3 CO X D CX o 'd 4—4 3 3 D D o. 4—4 3 3 3 s. -g D 3 X > 3 > • !b o co ' ' D <0 X 3 l_ D > D OO 3 O D 4— » * C/3 cd 1/3 d> C/3 C/3 cd Sx bD ^2 *2 c d> l-i d> Qh d) H C/3 d> T3 C d) o .ti C/3 d) 4— » dn O d) O Td Q cd cv C/3 4—* (L> 2 x 3 4-. X rH 2 5 3- X x e D X 4— * 3 O bO 3 X O 3 O 2 X GO D 4—4 D X 4—4 3 O X 3 3 Q CO Q w «a 3 <2 4—* O Q C/3 cd x C/3 2 x t— D c © U x- rO fO faj - — < H c *5 o CL E ? u w x 3 ■" X CO 3 3 4— D < O t-" OO CO t"- X D U "35 D o 10 o CO >0 o o >0 CO 3 © co © O. IS U X u © Pu 3 3 4-4 O < V m co X o c- *5 D Q m ir> co © — 3 3 — o < o CO X On CO 0 >0 ^ © S E “ I 3 © 00 Q ON Q o 5 E o» 6X eg = eg s >» 0/ * C < Q 1/3 c •- o> C-> s o U — o o 44 QJ eg QJ 45 qj T3 1-4 G i- Oh 13 m QJ 1/3 I 'O 1/3 G T3 OJ •*— * G t- Qj 4— » c/3 c/3 IS E— 1 OJ 45 H s o o T3 O qj 45 ■M c o bo c '-5 cj eg QJ s eg 3 -O qj Q GO Sh w § JS g o T3 Q> £ o qj > eg 45 •4—* G CD to 5 ^ 6 -§ qj £ H j5 G c/5 QJ -G g o £ o T3 c eg C/3 OJ C/3 C/3 eg feb 13 "3 g CJ s- OJ Oh -a CJ M C/3 CJ *t3 C/3 CJ C/3 C/3 eg bfl Is ’8 c CJ 1-4 CJ Oh 4—* G eg G O T3 ■*— * 03 S2 A ■*— » -O G C/3 C CD CO C/3 c« CJ 03 T3 kb Cm O 13 ^2 CJ CD M G Vh CD > Oh < C/3 -v C^H •4—* G O -4—* O G e/3 4-i QJ . — ' G O 1/3 o H O o . M o3 CD 03 CJ G G CJ QJ r— • ex c G o 03 n ' — 1 .O JS G CD ■4— » 03 CD X (D G Q C/5 G T3 C ■4— » CD G o M 04 Q CO •4— » G -O T3 4—i T3 o- w O T3 G w Qj"' M e/3 CD d o x> OJ -G CJ CJ t/3 QJ -G *c 03 s H CO bD G aj M *c 03 £ 1/3 -4—* G O CJ -G ‘C £ C/3 T3 •4—* G O QJ -G *c -e d> * 1/3 'G T3 ‘C C G G Oh cS 03 kb *2 CD 4U -4—* G O CO o3 o CO o3 "G CD •4—* bb G r ^ 2 ’2 G CD •4—* CJ Tj -4— » O 'c/3 CO G CD -4-^ kb 13 *2 G £ G "o G CJ 1-4 aj Oh 4-4 G eg b/j G 53 53 CJ 4—* CJ CJ 4—* CJ 53 £ aj C/3 -P .eg G CJ 1-4 CJ Oh o Z £ o G O 4—4 CJ G 53 O -O G O 45 GO C .o —4 a G -a o s 0 U -t ro 1 m U 03 H G .o "-M "c/3 o a. £ C® O 0s u w JQ s im — C/2 « 3 CJ < CO G" G" O m co 03 (N CJ in- 'S eu in ro m G" o G" m (N «r> «n G O C/3 O a. ^ IS u xi G. o b « 3 ■*4« CJ < r- 30 G" n '-Tj c o 1/3 o a E v© o ?" - d cm a V CM a T3 D 4— » a d P5 H to -O P0 EM T3 g a EM x> I- ,o d 4—4 EM EM 3 H EM D EM EM a 6b a '5 c d H 0) G. "O D H cm G O T3 G 3 2 4—* O G EM a ■3 "3 'Eh £ EM PC ED EM T3 •>, EM ED EM CM a H 00 "a 'c c ED S-h ED o- G a c o 3 . . T3 C O £ — O Gh T3 £ o CM po ■~ 2 <4-1 o G O O 3 T3 O a i-. EM D T3 3 G D > D CM CM D "O 3 _G T3 G a 3 op 3 CM EM •e 3 G D CM D i-4 G- D I- a EM P0 EM D <2 2 6 „ o Gh T3 G 4— < o 3 T3 O Ih Gh D* CM D T3 O Z EM _D O D Gh CM OO >n in <~Nl n IO <3N 5 c D E 4— o b; 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-193 September 20 1 3 Three Bars Allotment Key Management Areas NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES co s Ch- ou cu c o U s- © S’ CVH o M cu C3 au x CU G x Cd 0U Vh au X b 03 £ £ 'S H ^H a, 13 S-H CD c/3 o3 S-h <2 X C 03 CO 0U C/3 C/3 cd kb ."2 ■3 3 Vh 0U CL, X 0) v. 'c/3 03 S-H 'c/3 o >v X a <2 C/3 au 'cu 0U &, C/3 C/1 C/3 cd Vh bJ) G O 0U — 03 4-* G au c/3 0U Vh X, cd C/3 "§ X C/3 X G cd <4_ O X cu cd au X CU G X • f-H cd £ 'C c x x cd '£ G cu l_ au X b cd X C O cu cu C/3 X § b 03 £ C/3 cu G X O U Z x cu > o •3 X .2 £2 x G G O £ 03 o3 S-H 03 CD C/3 o3 (D 4— > 03 ^H % X X G -1 cd O cu Vh cd G CU C/3 > ' C 03 __ X Cd O '£ g £ 2 au X au 9 ^ X cu O X Cu X o >> G cd au au „ X au H cd u, cd au C/3 03 TD cd X au U z x au > o ■s G G au Vh cu X X cu 'co au X cd co _au o au X CO CO co cd CO X au X G O x 2 g J3 G co c2 x G 03 C/3 CD C/3 C/3 03 C/3 43 kb & c2 £ _o au x au G X 'G 03 S-H Oh 13 tx CD C/3 03 CD C/3 03 T3 CD 4-* 03 CD 43 H r, ON «n ON CO 3 o co O X , £ ^ o a_ U 3 4-4 < cud t"- m os CN OO X — o X X au L> ’co au 3 O co O X 3 3 cu < n X an or. ■H1 3U b -O ” E ^ 3 Z rd M OQ PQ H (N P3 f— 1 co CQ H 'd- PQ H 3 au E — - _o 3 n co ?u VH b cd H CQ 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-194 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES C/5 e Lb © © £ O U o S’ S CM £ it S- < — c it E it OX) C3 £ 3 s it * k- £ it E 1/3 im £ 02 it it u JS H x o © X © 3 -o — ~ CX k- (L) C/3 CC3 0) C/3 IS TD © 4— 4 ciS k- c/3 © -* — * S? C/3 2 '2 c p H © cx b as T3 £ O o ID C/3 T3 s b .1 C aj cd 4—* "5 E ’3 C/D Tb c 03 C/D C/D 03 & © _£ 02 it CD k- 4 © X ■4— * _© x £ T3 £ ccj > 'E o 2 CCS 4—4 £ (U CO 4 © X C/3 0) C/3 CO cij feb x ccS C/3 © T3 - £3 CX £ co 03 0) CO co _o co t; 2 c2 ox) -2 ° X £ s o (O 0) T3 © X H ai o £ T3 O £ £ O £ ccS CL X 4— > > Q ccS co 00 Tb 4 X r (— 1 rO E ■ *— i *— i 5-h O CX X co X ID X £ aj CO o n £ O 4-4 o £ T3 O Ih CX o„ b CD CO (S X £ £ O E CIS ‘ a> o ffi C/D c2 Tb sc 03 c/D 13 £ £ ID s- a> CX b CIS T3 £ O o ID CO "O £ (S b s -2 x £ T3 £ rt c^ co CCS fcb aj _£ X co co • 2 "cj aj _ Cx co CO CO CIS ID it X 4—4 £ O co CO co £ bt> 4—4 £ co £ ’g O a 0) x 4—4 aj x aj "co CO £ O £ jD O co CCS CO aj X 4—4 X o £ _o 4-» CJ £ -a o aj X 00 £ X CJ cO aj £ cO .£ ^ 3 o X co O c £ O O ~a ID X H CO .2 ’o aj cx -2 x cO k- ’co n 'O" m « 3 k- © < oo *o © "co © >n »n 3 © co O O- — E s© © b co co « S- « 3 © »n o n o >n o 3 T3 jn •q 3 X 13 j— 1 © c/3 1/3 3 -0 © 3 C/3 © 3: © H •- C/3 © > © £ o X C/D 2 xj 3 G C/D -3 3 3 ■q 3 £ 175 .3 © l— 1 C/3 CX £ © X 4—4 3 O 33 3 3 2 C/D CD *0 (D Oh C/D © © 2 C/3 .2 '© © X C/3 C/3 C/3 3 kb CX _3 3 £ 3 © C/3 3 © C/3 3 33 © 3 © 4— * 1/3 C/3 X H 3 kb 13 '2 3 © Ih © CX © X 4— » X o 3 O X © 3 33 o 4 1—4 CX c/3 3 "3 JB © H © C/3 © T3 3 75 3 © 3 3 3 o "3 3 3 © X © X 4—* o 3 2 3 o X 2 X 3 3 • H C/3 © 33 © 33 3 © CX O 3 4—* 3 3 3 "3 3 O © © C/3 © X H © © © X 4— » £ o 3 ’c/3 C{3 c cx © X f— 1 C/3 X X o X cx © X X 3 o 2 •*—* o 3 © •— © £ >4 X •2 x cx ^ <*> © C/3 3 © 3 3 O 33 3 © C/3 X 3 X C/3 2 2 © 3 - © >' X x o X © 3 © X © 3 33 © X 4— * GO 3 2 © 3 C/3 © 4—* C/3 C/3 • *-H X H C/3 X l— 2 >4 © X H © >4 in 03 > T3 3 3 C/3 © C/3 C/3 3 S-H GO © X 4—4 1— 2 Q c/o W © x 4—* 3 o T3 © © X 3 O X C/3 C* 3 T3 3 O © © C/3 © X C/3 2 X £ D. g X o ^■4 3 X C/3 X © X C/3 2 3 © 4, ^ 3 to © < r- 1 4-* G © O X C/3 X 2 X C/3 3 O T3 © -o 3 3 © ’c/3 C/3 >4 -3 3 3 P 3 © C/3 C/3 3 •o © 4-» 3 3- © X H 3 C/3 © C/3 C/J 3 kb 2 ’2 3 © Vh © X © X 4— » X o 3 O 4— > © 3 "3 O X co CO _© ’© © X co co co 3 J& 3 '2 3 © 1—4 © X 3 T3 3 O © © C/3 © X +— * 60 3 2 © 3 © o £ _0 © X o 4—* TD 3 3 2 co 3 © 3 T3 O 1-4 X 00 Q 00 w © x T3 © 4—4 © © © "O o 3 C/3 3 £ X 3 3 T3 3 O © © co © X 3 O CO O X E o G 3 CD < 00 (N (N fN r- X 3 © X C-0 ■a © 1- *co © Q <03 3" IP 3" CO) n x 3- a\ m m o U x — o X ■o © i- "eo © C o co o C - E N« o £ U C/5 C/5 G 5— O 3 3 © < m 3- >n m (N (N On m x in T3 © “co © Q m 3" in 3- x X in x X X i- S E ^ 3 z m H 0\ 3 f— 1 o H c cd c £ o T3 -O 4—* o G 2 3 o -G 2 3 cd i-. 'co -G -G £ T3 G cd co" CO cd kb 0) G 3 yr\ u c/3 G QJ in a c "c3 ^5 3 m 4-< 4*' C/3 o a. ^ < s £ O u ■o 0/ -O 5- *5 v> o at Uu a 3 "5 3 VO +■* 4— ' CJ m C/3 o < a. C v® o = U w •v QJ c/3 c/3 U o C3 c/3 ■o mm o a Q 0/ G (N 3 pq 3 H Z 4— 3 O s _o Three Bars < 3 liars Project Draft I IS 3-197 September 20 1 3 TABLE 3-36 NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES co a u o u a o U u o 4* o 03 43 73 o3 6 CD 43 O m CO 0) CO CO o3 S3 O •4— > 43 -t—T S=3 0) co CD 5-4 SX CD CD 43 ■4—* CD CO J2) CO .Si *o CD SX CO CO CO 03 s & ^ & o3 J-4 CD CO CO oj 7D CD •4— > 03 CD ■*— » 'co CO IS H 03 CD Um CD SX CD 43 -4— » <4-4 o S3 #o •4—* o 35 73 O }-H SX <4-H o CO CD CO CO 03 bb b o3 73 S3 O CD 4 eg Sdu 2 Vh CD C/3 I T3 £ CO o3 7b D •4— > 03 J-h D ^-4— * 'co CO 3 H D 43 D 3 7b t3 03 Oh lb J— 4 D co f^T* T3 03 D CO 03 7b D 4—* c3 7b 53 03 co D co CO 03 O 53 co 03 < & s fcb 3 CD O £3 3 CD 1-4 CD cu 43 CD 3 > w 3 £3 £m O £3 O cd 3 -a o C/3 C/3 CCS 2) 03 £ £3 O CO CO 03 5) b 03 7b S3 O o D CO D 43 -4—* 7b S3 03 D D 43 D •4—* CO CO S3 H SX D 04 r* <+4 o 44 CD 03 H CO •e 2 o T3 CD ■4—* o CD 4— > ID dd 2 2 '£ £3 (D (-4 CD CU CD £3 O £3 O 4—4 £3 CS O £ c3 03 £ C/3 CCS £3 £3 CD C/3 CD S-H CU a 33 O £ 3 CD da! Td £3 03 C/3 X I— 2 c/T CD C/3 C/3 3 fcb 2 '£ £3 ID I-h CD cu -4—4 03 £3 CD X 4—* c+h O 2 £3 u -2 CD CO ^ co 7b <4- O 44 o iS D 43 D 35 7b 13 ■— D co »-( 03 D co 03 7b D c3 O c 03 co 03 £ -4-4 CCS £3 X CD 2 ui » 3 S3 03 U4 •4—* 03 o3 co •fi c2 co S3 D co X) Uh 2 o C/3 =3 J33 4—4 c3 C/3 2 CCS o C/3 -a CCS ID CD CU X dS £3 jd c/i C/3 eg CD c 0/ 0/ ox eg >4 a/ 4 = a> s o e eg 2 o OC C/3 o Q. E o U -C 3 u. Ud (S> eg 3 -4-4 CD < o in m a* Q >n in cn «n "g- *n ■4" in VO 1/3 o o. E o U J0 ■— o u. 3 CD < m ov (N VO m T3 ai u. "c/3 a* a m >n in m £ 3 O !/) o a. o U C/3 C/1 3 — o 3 3 •4— CD < m m oo »n CN in o o T3 5 1/5 s 3- © © s o U Lb #© S’ C/3 © C/3 C/3 3 3 to •c cx "3 © © C/3 3 '5 c © i— © CX © -3 3 0) C/3 3 "P © © 3 © © X H 3 _o ■4— » o 3 •p O © cx Cm O X © 3 X) o ra b o .3 ■p b 3 <2 c/D cd C/3 C/3 cd kb b cd E 'C cx © x H C/3 2 X C/3 © x © £ o 3 © c/3 X 3 (D © X ■4—* b o "P 3 3 3 3 CX 3 © © X) ■4—4 •4-4 3 X © 3 X .2 2 C/3 P 3 g kb ^ - C/3 b 2 3 £ _o x> X 3 O '■4—4 o 3 > 4 P3 X O •p X) ■4—4 3 3 © CX P3 3 O o © C/3 © x -4-4 ■p 3 3 3 3 O E 3 © <2 E c/o o -a 3 .S2 3 3 X) S-H x> cx "3 © X) > © 00 © 3 o 3 3 a 3 2 « cx x 4-5 3 2 ■4— » © C/D •8 ^ I g s o C/3 o cx o U X 3 x. X C/3 £ 3 O C/3 o CX © U x © o Urn £ 3 © 1/3 © CX © U C/3 C/3 3 © o 3 3 © o < ■3 © x. "3? © « 3 © < •a © © "5 © O 3 3 — © < ■o © © "5 © Q ^ © — x S E *1 Os ro P- P" 0 o cd © 3 2 E o ’£ *-■ cx © © -2 x: -o •>- V.\J £ * H C/D 0d * % 3 kb "3 ’£ 3 © © © CX X o 3 O ■4—4 © 3 X O © CX X X c/i o .2 X X © H 2 ■C 3 © C/3 © 3 © CO 3 "P © -4—4 3 (-4 © 3 "P 3 O © © C/3 © X ■4—* © 3 X 3 3 O C/3 © ’© © CX C/3 C/3 C/3 3 t— < to •4—4 3 3 3 C 0 3 T3 P X) 3 X 3 [-H £ X C/D S 3 2 3 © C/3 © © CX C/3 o 3 C/3 3 £ C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 3 3 © © bo bo © X © © X © o 3 2 3 o X 2 X 3 © 'c/3 © T3 _© X £ P5 3 3 c/f C/3 3 kb © 3 © © © £ C/3 2 <2 _3 ’S 3 © © © CX o £ © © X ■4—* o C/D C/D cd kb © 3 3 3 o TO P3 3 3 <2 OO 10 wo P- WO ■4— » cd v-< 0d •4— * *C/D OO 2 H .2 *2 2 0) Lh -4— > C/D (D 0) x- cd C/D > t: cd 2 c D- "2 tH ad C/3 cd Od C/3 cd Td Od •4—* cd o H C/D X) C cd C/D Od C/D C/3 cd kb Is 3 © © © cx © X © ©H o 3 _o © © 3 "P O © CX Cm O X o 3 o 3 © © © £ C/3 © C/3 C/3 3 kb b 3 -p 3 o © © C/3 ■P 3 3 b 3 © X X © o CQ ■p 3 3 c/f C/3 3 kb © J3 X C/3 • M C/3 ad o Od CX C/D C/D C/3 cd bO © 3 3 _B E o -p © X t— -p 3 3 2 C/3 C/3 3 kb ■*— > 3 3 3 T3 3 3 u z cx o E 2 o •p o 3 C/3 3 X C/3 © X © © X © o 3 3 O X C/3 _© X 3 C/3 © ■P © X C/3 3 O X X 2 © © 3 •P O X C/3 X © bO 3 C/3 © CX JO © 3 x‘ b to 3 QQ © © X X £ © X ■p 5 © © C/3 © •P © © © © © © -P WO wo (N X CO Os p- wo X - ^ «o M— < c/f © C/3 C/3 3 3 bb ”3 CL '5 2T 3 3 © <5 u cn CX o3 CD c/5 o3 (D CL C/3 CD X f— ' C/3 X C/5 C/5 cd 03 4 3 X 'g O O C— X X © 4-» © © 4 — * © X 4-4 o 3 C/3 3 X C/3 3 X 4-4 "3 C/3 t30 c 3 X co x m 00 Os r~~ V) m >0 X © X © 3 X -4% •E 3 £ c Qh 13 o> C/5 T3 a ctf C/5 CD C/5 C/5 Ctf kb 13 jd 03 4-* CX © o X © 3" ■3" in m n x o m »n (75 03 "O (D 4-4 3 © x H x o 3 O 4-4 © 3 X O *- X X o X © 3 3 _o 4— * 'c/3 O X £ o © C/5 .Si CD QD Oh C/5 (D JC H C/5 2 w -5 © © r- rs in -3- in 3- m 00 (N O in ON U X u © 3 X 3 Mars Project Draft PIS 3-201 September 20 1 3 NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES 3.1 1.2.3.12 Willows Ranch Allotment The Potential Natural Communities for the Willows Ranch Allotment consist of Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of Indian rieegrass and nccdle-and-thread grass, salt desert scrub dominated by shadscalc, Indian rieegrass, and squirreltail, greasewood with alkali sacaton and salt grass, and grassland dominated by alkali sacaton, alkali cordgrass, Indian rieegrass and three-awn grasses at the lower elevations. Black sagebrush, with an understory of Indian rieegrass and nccdle-and-thread grass, is found at the mid-elevations. 3.1 1.2.4 Special Status Plant Species No focused special status plant surveys have been conducted in support of this project. The BLM Special Status Species list for the Battle Mountain District includes 40 plant species that have the potential to occur in the District. A USFWS species list (USDOI USFWS 201 1) by county was reviewed in support of this analysis. No federally listed plants are known to occur in Eureka County and none arc expected to occur on the project area. In addition, the BLM obtained data from the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (2012) on special status species occurrence on the 3 Bars Project area. Information on plant species that may occur within the 3 Bars Project area is provided in Table 3-38. Of the six species listed in the table, the Nevada Natural Heritage Program has records of three occurring within the 3 Bars Project area — Beatley buckwheat, least phacelia, and one-leaflet Torrey milkvetch. Beatley buckwheat, a BLM Sensitive Species, is known from Roberts Mountains, with an additional mapped occurrence immediately northwest of the project area. Least phacelia, a BLM Sensitive Species, is also known from Roberts Mountains. One-leaflet Torrey milk vetch is known from the southern end of the Kobeh Valley, near U.S. Highway 50. Lahontan beardtongue, a BLM Sensitive Species, has been documented from the area near the intersection of U.S. Highway 50 and Nevada State Route 278 near the southeastern comer of (but outside of) the project area. According to BLM resource specialists, the Monte Neva paintbrush (state listed as critically endangered) is only found in riparian areas associated with hot springs at low elevations within the greasewood-rabbitbrush-sand dropseed community. The only known location with this habitat type within the 3 Bars Project area is Hot Springs Hill north of U.S. Highway 50 in the Santa Fe Ferguson Allotment. Of the low elevational riparian treatment areas in Kobeh Valley, including Lone Mountain Spring, Mud Spring, and Treasure Well, none have the appropriate characteristics for the Monte Neva paintbrush. The USFWS has conducted surveys in the general area of Hot Spring Hill, including the three spring areas, and found no evidence of Monte Neva paintbrush (USDOI USFWS 1993). None of these special status plant species have been found within proposed 3 Bars treatment areas, although one mapped occurrence of Beatley buckwheat is within approximately 1 ,300 feet of the proposed Upper Vinini Creek riparian treatment area. Although not mapped within proposed project areas, sensitive species could still occur in these areas, since surveys for these species have not been conducted for the 3 Bars project. None of these species were found during any of the focused Mount Hope Project special status species plant surveys. 3.11.2.5 Special Woodland Products The BLM allows the harvest of Christmas trees and fuel wood from any location within the 3 Bars Project area. For commercial users, the BLM would issue a permit for the harvest of Christmas trees or fuel wood and would assign the user to a specific area where pinyon-juniper occurs. The public and commercial users may harvest pine nuts and native seeds within designated harvest areas, as identified in the Shoshone-Eurcka RMP, by permit. The locations of allowable harvest areas are shown in Figure 3-31. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-202 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TABLE 3-38 Special Status Plant Species that may Occur on the 3 Bars Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status' Beatley buckwheat Eriogonum beatleyae Rock outcrops BLM Sensitive and NNHP S2 Lahontan beardtongue Penstemon palmeri var. macranthus Moist washes, roadsides, and canyon floors BLM Sensitive and NNHP S2 Least phacelia Phacelia minutissima Wetlands (including riparian zones, aspen stands, and sagebrush swales) BLM Sensitive and NNHP S2 Monte Neva paintbrush Castilleja salsuginosa Wetlands; travertine hot spring mounds Nevada Critically Endangered and NNHP SI Nevada willowherb Epilobium nevadense Pinyon-juniper slopes with limestone outcrops or talus BLM Sensitive and NNHP S2 One-leaflet Torrey milkvetch Astragalus calycosus var. monophyllidius Sagebrush NNHP S2 1 Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) SI = critically imperiled and especially vulnerable to extinction or extirpation due to extreme rarity, imminent threats, or other factors (state rank indicator); NNHP S2 = Imperiled due to rarity or other demonstrable factors (state rank indicator). Sources: Nevada Natural Heritage Program (2001, 2010, 2012), USDOI BLM (2012c). 3.11.2.5.1 Woodland Products Harvested fuel wood includes deadwood (dead branches or wood) and greenwood (living branches or wood). Juniper trees are commonly harvested for use as fence posts. The public may harvest fuel wood (green or dead), posts, or Christmas trees anywhere on public lands within the 3 Bars Project area, except WSAs, while commercial harvest is handled on a case-by-case basis and requires site-specific NEPA documentation and a permit from the Mount Lewis Field Office. Juniper posts and other types of greenwood must be harvested within designated harvest units. Species approved for commercial and personal harvest include singleleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper, with permits for a limited amount of curl-leaf mountain mahogany also available. The vast majority of woodland product harvest is wood cutting by private individuals. Commercial wood harvest permits are fairly uncommon in the 3 Bars Project area. Based on data from 1996 through 2011, the Battle Mountain District issued only 1 1 commercial harvest permits for cutting within Eureka County. During this same period, only one permit for commercial harvest for posts was issued. 3.1 1. 2.5.2 Christmas Trees The public may harvest Christmas trees from most unrestricted public land through permit, while commercial harvest is handled on a site-specific basis with site-specific NEPA documentation and requires a permit from the Mount Lewis Field Office. The most common species allowed for harvest are singleleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper. Between 1997 and 2010, the Battle Mountain District issued permits to cut between 1 14 and 402 Christmas trees annually. In most years, between 100 and 200 trees were cut within the District. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-203 September 20 1 3 Elko Eureka County Trail .Canyon | Seed Harvest _v- , ^. A rr. r.) . Whistler^SSIfu Spnng|jpnej NutVtfrea [Northern pson HLPark Bine^ - Nut Area / ^Robertsi / M ^Mountain. 3in!o^kiff93R 0»MN /histlerppTlfu ^pmrra|Bme\i Nut Area \ ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management , Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd Battle Mountain. NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO * 08/14/13) f A ’ <5 * 1 O v* * •v O Y \ V J#** ” / 1 M 1 * Legend Private Fuelwood and Christmas Tree Harvest Area Seed Harvest Area Commercial Pine Nut Sale Area Wilderness Study Area 3 Bars Project Area Source: AECOM 2011a; BLM 2012i, 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-31 Forest Products (Private Fuelwood, Pine Nuts, Christmas Trees, and Seed Harvest) No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.11.2.5.3 Pine Nuts Pine nuts, which are produced by singleleaf pinyon pines, arc collected for personal use and commercial purposes. Families may collect up to 25 pounds of pine nuts per year without a permit; a permit is required for collection of additional nuts. AH woodland areas within the 3 Bars Project area are open to the public for harvest of pine nuts (Figure 3-31). All pine nuts intended for resale require a permit/contract. The three designated areas in the 3 Bars Project area for commercial pine nut harvest (North Simpson Park, Roberts Mountains, and Whistler/Sulphur Spring) total approximately 303,300 acres. The amount of commercial pine nut harvest is variable from year to year, depending on the yearly crop. The BLM does not have information about harvest of pine nuts by individuals, as a permit is not required. Based on data from 1996 through 2011, permits for commercial pine nut harvest were issued in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2010. A total of six permits were issued for Eureka County over this period. 3.11.2.5.4 Seed Harvest Commercial harvesters collect seed from plants within the 3 Bars Project area. The project area contains one designated harvest unit for commercial seed harvest. Trail Canyon, which is approximately 14,200 acres. Seed harvest typically occurs in the late summer to early fall months. The most commonly harvested seeds are from big sagebrush, shadscale, four-wing saltbush, Indian ricegrass, and forage kochia. The highest level of demand for native seed typically follows catastrophic wildfires in the region, when seed is needed for stabilization and/or restoration of impacted areas. 3.11.2.6 Historic Use of Pinyon-juniper Woodlands The production of charcoal and cord wood was one of the area’s most significant industries, and it resulted in substantial changes to the environment as it existed before 1850. The furnaces of the Eureka Mining District and other mines within the area required tremendous quantities of charcoal. In addition, cordwood and lumber were needed for other purposes such as construction. Pinyon-juniper cordwood was also used for fuel by the Eureka & Palisade Railroad until 1890, when the railroad switched to coal. Within the 3 Bars Project area, cordwood for the Eureka & Palisade Railroad was cut into 4-foot lengths and delivered by contractors to stations along the route (Zeier 1985). By far the largest consumer of charcoal was the Eureka mills. In 1 880, at the height of mining within the Eureka District, the mills consumed a total of 1 .25 million bushels of charcoal. These operations included the vast majority of the 3 Bars Project area. Young and Budy (1979:1 17 cited in Zeier 1985:18) stated that: . . .the demand for charcoal was so great that deforestation became a severe problem. From our estimates of wood yield, 4,000 to 5,000 acres of woodland had to be cut annually to supply the mills. By 1 874 the mountain slopes around Eureka were denuded of pinyon and juniper for a radius of twenty miles. By 1 878 the average hauling distance from (charcoal) pit to smelter was 35 miles. 3.11.3 Environmental Consequences 3.11.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Key issues of concern pertaining to native and non-invasive vegetation types were identified in the AECC and during scoping. These include the following: 3 Bars Project Draft I* IS 3-205 September 20 1 3 NATIVE AND NON-INVASIVE VEGETATION RESOURCES • Plant communities that are below their Potential Natural Community and desired vigor. • Decline of aspen, mountain mahogany, and other important plant community components resulting from a failure of these species to regenerate or establish in historic or new habitats. • The need to assess the success of rehabilitation projects after treatments. ' t • Too much loss of forested vegetation, based on the BLM’s interpretation of what desired conditions arc. • Reference is made to “phase class” and “fire regime condition,” but very little discussion was given to ecological condition classes within the concept of the range of natural variability, or the place of old- growth/persi stent pinyon-juniper on the landscape. • Loss of mature and old-growth pinyon-juniper in the project area. • Reducing stand density and distribution of Utah juniper to benefit pinyon pine. • The potential for mechanical disturbance and injury to pinyon pines to promote insects and pathogens. • Concerns regarding alteration of the sagebrush and pinyon-juniper communities, as these are suffering from past and ongoing disturbances. • Concerns regarding the recovery and viability of listed, rare, and imperiled species found on the 3 Bars Project area, including special-status plant species. • The potential for treatments to cause invasion of weedy species into woodlands, or juniper expansion. • Concern regarding the use of exotics, such as crested wheatgrass, to restore burned areas. • The need for scientific justification for the desired conditions for woodlands. • Concerns about the use of fire in native plant communities and success of past fire management activities. • Concern that the typical response to fire is to place a fence, which is often permanent, around the perimeter of a burned area. • Describe the success of past fire management activities. 3.11.3.2 Significance Criteria The following would have a significant adverse effect on native and non-invasive vegetation: • Take of a federally listed plant species or increased mortality of a proposed or candidate plant species. • Local extirpation of a rare or sensitive species not currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. • Long-term loss or degradation of a unique or high quality plant community. • A measurable long-term reduction in diversity within a high quality plant community. • An overall decline in woodland health. • A reduction in aspen regeneration or recruitment. • A long-term reduction in the amount of special woodland products such that harvest of these resources would be limited or precluded. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-206 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • A long-term loss of access to woodland resources. Analysis for vegetation communities was conducted by overlaying Geographic Information System shapefiles of the proposed treatment areas with the baseline data for vegetation types derived from project specific mapping or from the ecological site data (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012) as described above. Temporary and permanent impacts were identified and compared to the thresholds established above. 3.1 1.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.11.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Adverse Effects Vegetation removal treatments can create conditions that result in a temporary loss of some desirable or more mature vegetation through inadvertent removal of non-target vegetation. Removal of target and non-target vegetation could also cause soil disturbance that favors the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, to the detriment of native species. The BLM would implement vegetation treatments to thin and remove pinyon-juniper. Removal of pinyon-juniper could reduce the amount of pine nuts, wood, and other woodland products available for commercial and individual harvest. Thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper also would result in dead wood and slash material that, if not removed, mulched, or burned, could provide fuel for a wildfire. The locations of prime farmlands within the 3 Bars Project area are shown on Figure 3-32. There are no prime farmlands on BLM-administered land within the treatment areas because the BLM does not allow for irrigation on public land. Aspen treatments should not impact prime farmland because only a small area would be treated. Pinyon- juniper treatments could affect the prime farmland along Coils Creek from pinyon-juniper treatments in Dry Canyon and Cottonwood/Meadow Creek. Prime farmland along Denay Creek could be affected by the Tonkin North and South Units pinyon-juniper treatments. Prime farmland could also be affected by the Henderson 1 and Roberts Creek units riparian treatments, the Vinini Corridor, Upper Roberts, and Atlas Units pinyon-juniper treatments, and Table Mountain Unit sagebrush treatment. Effects of the treatments, if any, would primarily be related to short-term erosion and its effects on water quality that could result from upland and riparian zone treatments. Beneficial Effects All proposed treatments or combinations of treatments are designed to enhance native plant (re)establishment, and therefore would be expected to have a beneficial impact on native vegetation by increasing the extent of native plant communities in the project area. Treatments that benefit native plant communities could potentially provide habitat that is more suitable for rare and sensitive plant species. Treatments would result in improved health and vigor of riparian, aspen, and sagebrush communities. As treatments restore the functionality of the ecosystem, the system would become more resistant to invasion by noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, drought, and wildfire. As the health of the system improves, native species would make greater contributions to the health and recovery of the system and serve as an important seed source for areas adjacent to treatment sites. Over time, this would allow the 3 Bars Project area to recover from past disturbances. The degree of the benefit provided by project treatments would depend on how effective the treatment is at controlling the target species and/or enhancing desired vegetation. In some cases, a combination of methods (such as mechanical methods to remove the species followed by fire to reduce the seedbank) may be required to effectively control the target species and manage native vegetation over the long term. Temporary fencing may also be required. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-207 September 2013 County ~T3te,rw,:,h"f Eureka County Ni'vW [v ,y IMfei, s „ \ *\ 5^ r \ ;u Elko County y. '7/ , gjm*\ 91 / QjL 1 ) u f a ( . ^vSjjible Mtn > ^Eureka County i ft • ?• ' i u ' ■ fra c h. '■ ^s/ K T7v y V? /•. ^ 7 1 • S/4P * . K O 8 f | « 4 V A K f • M '*** * v ,v\ ■ MEureka J*c jv: loci rVri_ V ^ »(?* \> •- -JBW • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management t Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Fire Starts (1985 - 2008) □ • 0 - 10 ac. O • 10-100 ac. • 100- 1,000 ac. • > 1 ,000 ac. Large Fire Perimeter (1985-2012) 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2012f 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-34 Fire History and Occurence .9- 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 Kilometers 10 t No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice 3ras's Vfalje; k4n/H lRO|berts MH Three Bars NV 060-15 ' t lEureka / diamond Valley, V'NV.060-21 BifoSVrilokV iNMOSQSlh »*'U1 Elko County Eureka County — •3*« £v/ i\\ / .^fe 1 >7 'X 14h- Si ’ Reese. River, /*&.!& \ ■ ■./ ' , ■ V V f , w % ■ % I v £Egt- y-\ ' tk* ' — - '.•''I,- ^ \ \ ' 11 Vf- Jt 11*0 £ I v , ? 1 V ' •T?V' ■ . . R*x* ■X Eureka/ Diamond Valley NV 060-21 Q SL "* m|C* l ifiL> , * » , JF* r v WT'kT - *». >* W* W *>¥%> V , \ \ all f ■ .. . v • l LSM .vf ■• 4v ! \ ~j i#' . * ^Ibs,. , «• w - V ■ 150V \ •— S§V V ' .' skT V- V SMB «k»i'f f* &“/ ‘jSS&ss fewS United States Department of the Interior n£ ' Bureau of Land Management ^ * Mount Lewis Field Office Sk. _ .. i Battle Mountain, NV 89820 * 50 Bastian Rd, IB (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) Project Area mi ■ Elko Mountain Mount Lewis Field Office Battle Mountain District Vegas Legend Natural Fire Regimes ■■ Fire Regime Group III H ■■ Fire Regime Group V i Fire Regime Group IV Barren Sparsely Vegetated Indeterminate Fire Regime Characteristics Fire Management Unit 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 201 2g. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-35 Natural Fire Regimes Miles 5 Kilometers No warranty it made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards Th* product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County Eureka County 6 cur A - 'Robert's NViMO-i' Eureka/ Diarnond Valley NV 060-21 Three Bars NV 060-15 V ' > V , A ■ Eureka/' i - ipiamond.Valley, \ NV 060-21 ' .Big -Smoky NV 060'--1‘3W_ vjrcn ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Current Fire Regime Condition Classes Condition Class 1 Condition Class 2 ■■ Condition Class 3 Legend 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Agriculture Barren Sparsely Vegetated Fire Management Unit 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 201 2g. Figure 3-36 Current Fire Regime Condition Classes 0 1 2 3 4 5 ! 1 ' i ' ■i Kilometers 10 10 5 Mites t No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. Reese Riven/ Grass V'alley M 060-1# ,PeteiKja|igon Creel3SRASS >,RQDgntsf MBl f ItUwkar ’’ lejaTmjJnlftfl ley Big Smoky NV 060=1.3 Unur ureka Elko County Eureka County / / Tonkin ... Mine SRA , . fl. 5 I .v Eureka/ Diamond Valley NV 060-21 " • Q . v- . •T w. . , a. * v ' v .r l Uf vV ^ f ; Three Bars NV 060-15 gr~ * 4 *T ’ Cw® *41 .v L • i,sC«v,iJ A* 'Wtx? >. ‘ 1 United States Department of the Interior V ^ ' Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office v 50 Bastian Rd. (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Fire Risk ■■ Low to Moderate ■1 Moderate I Moderate to High High to Very High ■ Very High Very High to Extreme ■I Extreme □ Current Identified "Strategic Areas” Site/Risk Assessment I I Strategic Areas - Ongoing Assessments Fire Management Unit 3 Bars Project Area Source:BLM 2009a, f, 2012g 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-37 Current Risk of Catastrophic Fire and Threat to Resource Values No warranty w made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice WILDLAND FIRE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT TABLE 3-41 Fire Regime Descriptions (Historical Fire Regimes) Group Frequency Severity Severity Description Number of Acres in Project Area I 0-35 years Low/mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 25 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixed-severity fires that replace up to 75 percent of the overstory. 0 11 0-35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation. 0 III 35 - 200 years Mixed/low Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity fires. 102,000 IV 35 -200 years Replacement High-severity fires. 576,750 V 200+ years Replacement/any severity Generally replacement-severity; can include any severity type in this frequency range. 71,250 Estimated from LANDFIRE database. In the amendment, the BLM developed fire management categories, ranging from wildland fire not appropriate and full suppression with an aggressive initial attack is recommended (Category A), to wildland fire is appropriate and there are no constraints (Category D). Under the fire management plan, most of the 3 Bars Project area dominated by pinyon-juniper vegetation was categorized as Category C. Under Category C, wildland fire is appropriate, but there are constraints on its use. In Category C areas, prescribed fire use tends to be site-specific and is designed to accomplish protection or improvement goals, and the desired future condition is a healthy ecosystem characterized by a good distribution and proportion of successional stages that would occur over time under a natural fire regime. The remainder of the 3 Bars Project area was categorized as Category B. Under this category, unplanned fire is likely to cause negative effects, but these effects may be mitigated through fuels management. Prescribed fire has limited use and mechanical treatments are normally preferred (USDOI BLM 2002b: 10, 12). 3.13.2.5 Fire Management Plan The purpose of the 2004 Fire Management Plan is to identify and integrate all wildland fire management guidance, direction, and activities required to implement national fire policy, the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and the Healthy Forest Initiative. The Fire Management Plan also reflects and integrates fire management direction from the Shoshone-Eureka RMP, and the Shoshone-Eureka Fire Land Use Plan Amendment. Management direction allows for fire to be restored as an integral part of the ecosystem to meet resource management objectives on BLM-administered lands. The Fire Management Plan identifies and directs fire strategies to provide for firefighter safety, the protection of human life, and the safeguarding of private property through aggressive fire protection, reduction of hazardous fuels, and restoration of fire-damaged ecosystems. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-248 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TABLE 3-42 Fire Regime Condition Class Descriptions Condition Class Fire Regime Risk of Losing Key Ecosystem Components Vegetation Attributes Acres in 3 Bars Project Area I Fire regimes are within historical range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes are intact and function within an historical range. 45,000 II Fire regimes on the land have been moderately altered from historical ranges. Fire return intervals have increased or decreased from historical frequencies by 1 or more return intervals, resulting in moderate changes to: • The size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; or • Landscape patterns. There exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from the historical range of attributes. 625,000 III Fire regimes on the land have been significantly altered from historical ranges. Fire return intervals have increased or decreased from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to: • The size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; or • Landscape patterns. There exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from the historical range of attributes. 52,500 Estimated from LANDFIRE database. Fire Management Plan Objectives The Fire Management Plan identifies numerous objectives for managing fires in the project area. These include: • Protection of human life, safety of wildland firefighters, and protection of human safety and health. • Protection of private property and natural and cultural resources, including preventing the destruction of cultural properties from suppression actions. • Protection of communities and associated infrastructure. • Providing for vegetative and ecological diversity. • Protection of important wildlife habitat from devastating wildland fire effects. ■ Protection of all fisheries, including existing and historical Lahontan cutthroat trout habitats. • Protection of HM A foaling areas during foaling seasons. 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 3-249 September 2013 WILDLAND FIRE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT • Providing for vcgclalivc and ecological diversity. • Protection of important raptor nesting habitat • Protection of riparian zones from devastating wildland fire effects. • Restoring fire as an integral part of the ecosystem. • Utilize mechanical treatments to reduce wildfire fuel hazards. • Fire is considered a natural and desirable clement in WSAs. Interim guidance directs BLM to rely on methods least damaging to wilderness values, and to limit surface disturbance to the protection of life and private property. All WSAs are managed as Visual Resource Management Class I areas. • Rehabilitation and restoration of all wildfires 300 acres or larger. In addition, the Fire Management Plan identifies several objectives for managing prescribed fires in the project area. These are: • Utilize prescribed fire to mitigate hazardous fuels to acceptable levels. • Utilize prescribed fire to promote resource management to maintain the natural component of the ecosystem and restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem. • Utilize wildland fire for resource benefits to maintain important habitat and restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem as approved by site-specific activity level document. • Restore pinyon pine and juniper woodland density and coverage to the approximate values found under natural fire return intervals. 3.13.2.6 Fire Management Units As discussed in the Fire Management Plan, the BLM has divided the Battle Mountain District into Fire Management Units (FMUs). A FMU is a specific land management area that is defined by fire management objectives, management constraints, topographic features, access, values to be protected, political boundaries, fuel types, and/or major fire regime groups. The Battle Mountain FMUs are scaled to best define predominate fire management objectives, physical characteristics, resource values, and fire planning attributes, including for lands within the 3 Bars Project area (USDOI BLM 2004a). The 3 Bars Project area is part of five FMUs— Big Smoky (NV-060-13), Three Bars (NV-060-15), Roberts (NV-060- 17), Reese River/Grass Valley (NV-060-18), and Eureka/Diamond Valley (NV-060-21; Figure 3-36). The following summarizes information from the 2004 Fire Management Plan. 3.13.2.6.1 Big Smoky (NV-060-13) The Big Smoky FMU lies between the Toiyabc Mountain Range to the west, and the Toquima Mountain Range to the cast. The FMU is 407,715 acres, of which 96 percent of acres are administered by the BLM; 19,758 acres are within the project area. Most of the vegetation is salt-desert shrub, but some sagebrush pockets exist. During 1980 to 2003, the average wildfire size was less than an acre and nearly all wildfires were started by lighting, with a few fires started by humans. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-250 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Wildfires typically occur during May through October. Temperatures during the fire season typically range from the mid-80s to the upper 90s °F with relative humidity typically in the teens or single digits. Summer thunderstorms bring frequent lightning and can bring brief heavy rains. Occasionally, dry or isolated thunderstorms plague the District with multiple ignitions. Fire is an uncommon component of salt-desert shrub ecosystems as is abundant fine fuel loadings. Wind driven fires in the sagebrush can advance with high rates of spread and can cover vast distances quickly. Fires in the salt-desert shrub vary in intensity and arc highly dependent on the presence of fine fuels. The presence of cheatgrass can dramatically shorten fire return intervals in all vegetative communities and cause fires to spread very quickly, but very little cheatgrass has been seen in this FMU. Live fuel moisture, pathogens, relative humidity, wind, and slope will greatly influence fire behavior in these desert fuel types. The salt-desert scrub communities are Fire Regime IV and FRCC I. The sagebrush/grass communities are Fire Regime II and FRCC II. 3.13.2.6.2 Three Bars (NV-060-1 5) The Three Bars FMU is in Lander and Eureka Counties and is 880,852 acres; approximately 618,601 acres are within the project area. The FMU is bound on the west by Grass Valley, on the south by the U.S. Highway 50, on the east by Diamond Valley, and on the north by the District Boundary. U.S. Highway 50 and State Highway 278 provide the primary access to this FMU. Over 97 percent of this FMU is administered by the BLM. The unit is rated as having high value habitat, with over 85 percent of vegetation comprised of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush. During 1980 to 2003, the average wildfire size was about 300 acres and nearly all wildfires were started by lighting, with a few fires started by humans. Wildland fires typically occur during May through September. Maximum temperatures for this FMU rarely exceed 100 °F during this period. Frequent lightning storms bring moderate amounts of precipitation occur throughout the summer. Fire behavior differs in the three fuel types found in this FMU. Fires in sagebrush, which is the dominant fuel type, historically were medium sized and of mixed severity. Recent sagebrush fires in this FMU have been medium sized fires but of high severity. Fires in pinyon-juniper stands arc characterized by either single tree/small group fires or large, stand-replacing events. Salt-desert shrub fires typically only burn under severe conditions (i.e., high wind, low relative humidity, and with abundant fine fuel loading). Fire is a relatively uncommon component of salt-desert shrub fuel types. Living vegetation fuel moisture, pathogens, relative humidity, fine fuels, wind, and slope will greatly influence fire behavior in these fuel types. Fires in the sagebrush and salt-desert shrub types are generally easier to suppress than fires in the pinyon-juniper type. The pinyon-juniper and sagebrush types are in Fire Regime II and FRCC II. 3.13.2.6.3 Roberts (NV-060-1 7) The Roberts FMU consists of 39,192 acres in the Roberts Mountains of Eureka County, and these acres are within the project area. State Highway 278 and the Alpha Road provide the primary access to this FMU. One hundred percent of this FMU is administered by the BLM. The unit is rated as Special Management Area, with vegetation comprised mostly of pinyon-juniper, mountain shrub, and sagebrush. During 1980 to 2003, the average wildfire size was about 3 acres and nearly all wildfires were started by lighting. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-251 September 20 1 3 WILDLAND FIRE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT Wildfires typically occur during May through September. Maximum temperatures for this FMU rarely exceed 100 T during this period. Frequent lightning storms bring moderate amounts of precipitation during the summer. Fire behavior differs in two main fuel types. Fires in the pinyon-juniper type arc characterized by either single trec/small group fires or large stand replacing events. Fires in the sagebrush type arc historically characterized by medium-sized fires of mixed severity. Lately, the trend has been medium- to large-sized fires of moderate to high severity. Living vegetation fuel moisture, pathogens, relative humidity, fine fuels, wind, and slope will greatly influence fire behavior in these fuel types. Fires in sagebrush are generally easier to suppress than fires in the pinyon- juniper type. The pinyon-juniper type and sagebrush type are in Fire Regime II and FRCC II. 3.13.2.6.4 Reese River/Grass Valley (NV-060-18) The Reese River/Grass Valley FMU lies in the northern portion of the District and is 843,149 acres; only a portion of the FMU is in the project area (40,501 acres). The portion of the FMU in the project area is bordered by U.S. Highway 50 on the south and the Dry Hills and the Cortez Mountains on the cast. This FMU in the project area is administered by the BLM. Much of the unit contains chcatgrass. Fires are often quite large (greater than 1,000 acres) and are started by lighting and human causes. Wildfires typically occur during May through October. Wind driven fires in the sagebrush can advance with high rates of spread and can cover vast distances quickly. Fires in the salt-desert shrub vary in intensity and are highly dependent on the presence of fine fuels. Fire is an uncommon component of salt-desert shrub ecosystems as is abundant fine fuel loadings. Areas where chcatgrass have invaded are at the highest risk for fire. The presence of cheatgrass can dramatically shorten fire return intervals in all vegetative communities and cause fires to spread very quickly. Living vegetation fuel moisture, pathogens, relative humidity, wind, and slope will greatly influence fire behavior in these fuel types. The vast majority of the FMU occurs in valley locations. In these areas, diurnal winds and temperatures can vary greatly. These areas can experience 1 80-degree changes in slope and valley winds. Additionally, these locations are prone to intense heating (heat sinks) during the day and rapid cooling at night. Generally cool air flows to the lowest elevations at night, which are typically the valley locations. The mountains and valleys are aligned southwest to northeast, which is in concert with the typical prevailing wind direction. This FMU has a history of having large wildfires, most recently, the wildfires of 1999. The 1999 Antelope fire burned nearly 100,000 acres. Thunderstorms have been responsible for erratic and rapid fire spread during past fire events. The sagebrush type is in Fire Regime II and FRCC III, and the salt-desert shrub communities are in Fire Regime IV and FRCC III. 3.13.2.6.5 Eureka/Diamond Valley (INIV-060-21) The Eureka-Diamond Valley FMU is 243,330 acres in Eureka County in the southern end of Diamond Valley; 30,573 acres are within the project area. The FMU is bound on the east by the Diamond Mountain Range, on the west by the Mountain Boy Range, on the north by Alkali Flat, and the south by the Fish Creek Range. U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 278 provide the primary access to this FMU. Seventy-nine percent of this FMU is administered by the BLM, while 20 percent is privately owned. The unit is rated as Wildland Urban Interface, with 74 percent of vegetation 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-252 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES comprised of pinyon-juniper, mountain shrub, and sagebrush, and 20 percent not having significant vegetation. During 1 980 to 2003, the average wildfire size was about 500 acres and most wildfires were started by lighting. Wildfires typically occur May through September. Maximum temperatures for this FMU rarely exceed 90 °F during the same period. Frequent lightning storms bring moderate to heavy amounts of precipitation during the summer. Fires in the pinyon-juniper type arc characterized by either single trcc/small group fires or large stand replacing events. Fires in the sagebrush type arc historically characterized by medium-sized fires of mixed severity. Living vegetation fuel moisture, pathogens, relative humidity, fine fuels, wind, and slope will greatly influence fire behavior in both of these fuel types. Diamond Valley is a heat sink for this FMU and could significantly alter fire behavior. The pinyon-juniper type and sagebrush types are in Fire Regime II and FRCC II. 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences 3.13.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences The following fire management issues were identified by the public during scoping: • Concern that the BLM thinks it can impose fire and other treatments to restore the historical ranges of fire occurrence and achieve an artificially desired future condition. • Fuels reduction should only occur in the wildland-urban interface or where there is a threat of significant wildfire. • Assess whether seeding crested wheatgrass, grazing, and high stocking rates may result in more extensive and larger acreage fires. • The BLM should develop a methodology to prioritize any treatments of hazardous fuels. • The BLM needs to provide a full accounting of all fucls/fire/habitat projects conducted by the District in the past 1 0 years. 3.13.3.2 Significance Criteria Impacts from the alternatives would be considered significant if they caused 1) a change from a lower FRCC to a higher FRCC (e.g., from FRCC I to FRCC II or FRCC II to FRCC III), 2) an increase in risk of loss of life or property from wildland fire, or 3) an increase in the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. 3.13.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.13.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Adverse Effects In general, proposed treatments would have few adverse impacts on wildfire risk. It is possible that the use of vehicles to transport workers to the treatment site, or use of chainsaws or other gas-powered equipment could cause a spark that results in a wildfire. Vehicles could also transport noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation seeds 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-253 September 20 1 3 WILDLAND FIRE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT and vegetative parts from a treatment site to other 3 Bars Project areas, resulting in noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation spread and increased risk of wildfire. I lowcvcr, these risks would be minor as transport vehicles would contain fire extinguishers and other tire suppression equipment and would generally remain on roads. If slash or other woody material from woodland treatments were not disposed of properly, they could serve as an ignition source for a wildfire. To reduce this risk, felled trees would be disposed of by using trees for posts or as mulch, by selling trees for commercial biomass production, by placing logs in streams to slow water How, or by burning piles or slash. Beneficial Effects Treatments that remove hazardous fuels from public lands would be expected to benefit the health of plant communities in which natural fire cycles have been altered. Fire suppression leads to the buildup of unhealthy and dead plant materials (e.g., litter and dead woody materials), and often increases the density of flammable living fuels on a site (e.g., dead branches on living shrubs or live plants, especially during dry periods) that can lead to crown fires (Cochrane et al. 2012). The resultant fires bum hotter, spread more quickly, and consume more plant materials than historical wildfires that occurred under conditions of lower fuel loading. In addition, human-caused wildland fires occur with greater frequency than they historically did, resulting in altered plant community structure. Treatments that restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems, through the appropriate use of mechanical thinning, fire use, and other vegetation treatment methods, would decrease the effects from fire to communities and improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-53). Creating and maintaining fire and fuel breaks would be a common objective of many of the treatments proposed on the 3 Bars ecosystem. This includes creating green strips and shaded fuel breaks to compartmentalize wildland fire and reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. The BLM would use existing barriers/breaks to halt fire spread to the extent practicable, and use thinnings and plantings adjacent to barriers/breaks to enhance their effectiveness. Fire and fuel breaks would be created or enhanced under all alternatives, and would primarily be created using manual and mechanical methods. 3.13.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative A, the BLM would meet FMU objectives under the Fire Management Plan (USDOI BLM 2004a). The BLM would be able to reduce hazardous fuels, and create fire and fuel breaks to slow the spread of a wildfire. Because about 17 percent of the 3 Bars Project Area would be treated during the next 10 to 15 years, and nearly all proposed treatments would provide some benefit toward hazardous fuels reduction, the BLM estimates that the FRCC on about 95,000 acres would improve over the next 10 to 15 years under Alternative A. Riparian Treatments Adverse Effects Prescribed fire treatments could jump fire boundaries and bum a larger area than planned. If fuels are anticipated to be insufficient to carry a prescribed fire, livestock grazing would be deferred for the growing season prior to the treatment. In addition, seeding may be needed, and livestock would need to be kept off of treated areas for at least 2 growing seasons after a prescribed fire, to promote the development of native forage and give forage ample time to recover (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-96). 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-254 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Beneficial Effects Riparian treatments would help to reduce the risk of wildfire by reducing hazardous fuels and restoring natural fire regimes in riparian zones. Manual and mechanical treatments would help restore and enhance riparian function, and improve the ability of streams and associated riparian, wetland, and floodplain habitat to serve as a fuel break. At Hash Spring and several other springs, and at project sites where Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat improvements would occur, the BLM would improve riparian habitat by removing pinyon-juniper using manual and mechanical methods or prescribed fire. Most pinyon-juniper removal would occur adjacent to roads or other fire breaks, or to create or enhance fuel breaks adjacent to riparian zones. Fuel and fire breaks would help to control the spread of wildfires. Aspen Treatments Some slash from pinyon-juniper treatments would be left in place to promote aspen suckering and seedling establishment, or to act as deadfall to limit livestock, wild horse, and wild ungulate movement into treatment areas. This woody material could provide fuel for a wildfire until it decomposes. However, this risk would be minimized by gathering up excess material and selling it to the public, or pile/slash burning the material. Actions that stimulate or enhance aspen suckering and sucker survival should improve the health of aspen stands, and, long term, reduce the amount of dead and decaying vegetation in these stands that could provide fuel for a wildfire. Pinyon-juniper Treatments Adverse Effects On the Lone Mountain area of Kobeh Valley, trees would be thinned primarily by using chainsaws. Downed trees and other woody material could serve as fuel for a wildfire. Slash from chainsaw treatments in late Phase II and Phase III woodlands can create a fire hazard for at least 2 years, and may open sites for introduction of invasive plant species (Tausch et al. 2009). Woody material from shredding treatments can also contribute to available fuels and often creates favorable conditions for noxious weeds and invasive non-native species (Gottfried and Overby 2011). On the Atlas, Frazier, and several other units, pinyon-juniper would be removed using manual and mechanical treatments. If not disposed of properly, uprooted and downed trees and slash could provide fuels for a wildfire and serve as a conduit for carrying a wildfire between valley and mountain areas. To reduce this risk, felled trees would be used for posts or mulch, sold for commercial biomass utilization, placed in streams to slow water flow, or burned in piles or as slash. Fire treatments could expose bare soil and allow noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, such as chcatgrass, to establish and spread. The BLM has conducted monitoring at prescribed fire treatment areas, and has found that noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation may be found at treatment sites post-burn. At the Red Hills site, for example, very low to low densities of chcatgrass were seen at about half of the monitoring stations 1 year after the bum, especially in areas of high-severity burning (USDOI BLM 2008i). Noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation could serve as fuel for a wildfire. 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 3-255 September 2013 WILDLAND LI RE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT Beneficial Effects Manual, mechanical, and fire treatments in pinyon-juniper management areas would provide several benefits. Creating and enhancing fuel breaks in pinyon-juniper stands would break up the continuity of fuel, moderate fire behavior, and reduce the risk of loss of habitat and other resources from a catastrophic wildfire. The BLM would place downed logs into streams to slow water flow. Logs should help to expand the size of streams where gradients arc more gradual, and these stream features could also serve as fuel breaks to slow the spread of wildfire. On the Lower Pete Hanson, Cottonwood/Meadow Canyon, Dry Canyon, Three Bars Ranch, Tonkin North, and Whistler units, the focus of treatments would be on hazardous fuels reduction using manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire. Much of the west slope of Roberts Mountains has not experienced a large-scale wildfire in over 100 years. These units have been identified as having high to very high risk of catastrophic wildfire, or in the case of the Tonkin North, Lower Pete Hanson, and Whistler units, very high to extreme wildfire risk (Figure 3-36). These units have moderate amounts of standing dead and dead down wood, excessive surface litter, and a closed canopy that is conducive for a crown fire (USDOl BLM 2009a). By increasing canopy spacing among pinyon-juniper, the potential for a crown fire would be less, while residual trees would provide surface shading that lowers fuel temperatures (Tausch et al. 2009). Monitoring at the Red Hills hazardous fuels reduction project, which included prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, showed that treatments helped to reduce hazardous fuels and wildfire risk. The risk of wildfire was reduced from a “very high to extreme” risk to “low” risk at 35 monitoring sites, and “low to moderate” risk at 5 sites. The FRCC Rating was II before the bum, and was “low II” after the bum. A variety of desirable forbs, grasses, and shrubs were observed re-colonizing treatment areas, and fuel breaks were still viable (USDOl BLM 2008i). Pathogens and pests, including mistletoe, have led to unhealthy pinyon-juniper stands in the Tonkin North and South units and a build-up of hazardous fuels. The BLM proposes to remove up to half of the trees using manual and mechanical means and prescribed fire. These projects would enhance the health and resilience of pinyon-juniper woodlands and reduce the amount of hazardous fuels and wildfire risk. In recent years, the BLM has conducted hazardous fuels reduction treatments in the Tonkin Springs area using chainsaws, bull-hogs, and feller-bunchers, and created fuel breaks using a rotary mower (USDOl BLM 2005b). The BLM would restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem and reduce hazardous fuels on the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit by using wildland fire for resource benefit. Several wildfires have occurred in this area in recent years due to dense fuel accumulations and pinyon-juniper cover. In recent years, the BLM has used chainsaws, mowers/shredders, and prescribed fire to create fuel breaks and remove diseased pinyon-juniper (USDOl BLM 2009a). By reducing fuel accumulations and opening up the canopy cover, sagebrush and other shrub cover should increase, a more natural fire regime would be restored in the area, and the risk of future wildfires would be diminished. Regardless of the cause of the fires in pinyon-juniper habitat, some post-bum restoration and management may be needed. After broadcast burns, the BLM may need to reseed burned areas with forbs, grasses, and shrubs. Based on past reseeding treatments conducted for several wildfire bums in the District, seeding and planting of native and non- native vegetation may have limited success, especially during drought years, and native release of seeds may be the primary mechanism for site revegetation. However, in areas with sufficient moisture, scedings have been successful 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-256 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES and have resulted in an abundance and diversity offorbs, grasses, and shrubs (USDOl BLM 201 le). To ensure vegetation restoration success, the BLM may prohibit livestock access to the area through grazing closure decisions that are effective upon issuance. The BLM may also use temporary fencing, including electric fencing, which has been used effectively at wildfire restoration sites to improve revegetation success by excluding livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates (USDOl BLM 2009a, d, 2010e, f, g, h, i, j, 201 le, f). The BLM would carefully monitor prescribed fire treatment sites to ensure that chcatgrass and other invasive non- native vegetation docs not become established on these areas. In general, burns at lower elevations are more likely to have noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation issues than treatments at higher elevations. Monitoring for the Red Hills hazardous fuels reduction project 1 year after prescribed fire and mechanical treatments showed evidence of cheatgrass in areas where severe burning occurred, but no chcatgrass or other noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation in areas where burning was less severe (USDOl BLM 2008i). Chcatgrass and other noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation can be controlled on wildland fire sites using herbicides, but it may take several years before this vegetation is brought under control (USDOl BLM 201 le, f). Sagebrush Treatments Adverse Effects Where trees or sagebrush are left on the ground as slash, or piled, the potential for this material to serve as fuel for a wildfire exists. Pinyon-juniper trees would be disposed of by using trees for posts or mulch, selling trees, or placing them in streams. Treatments of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation would result in dead vegetation that could provide fuel for a hazardous wildfire until the site was restored using native vegetation or crested wheatgrass or forage kochia. Beneficial Effects Treatments should lead to improved sagebrush habitat and sagebrush resiliency to fire, and open up the sagebrush canopy to slow fire spread and promote the development of an herbaceous understory that is resistant to fire. In intact sagebrush communities, only 20 percent of the area would be treated and the BLM would create a mosaic of sagebrush and herbaceous vegetation that would retard the spread of wildfire and provide habitat for greater sage- grouse. At sites dominated by herbaceous or invasive species, such as the Rocky Hills, Table Mountain, West Simpson Park, and Whistler Sage units, the units could be treated using mechanical methods. The West Simpson Unit was burned during the 1999 Trail Canyon Fire, and has substantial chcatgrass cover and is in an area rated as high to very high for risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Cheatgrass is quite flammable during the summer, and efforts to eliminate it or slow its spread would help to reduce the risk of wildfire. Crested wheatgrass, forage kochia, and cheatgrass dominate the Rocky Hills unit, and the unit has little sagebrush habitat. The BLM would use mechanical methods (disking, chaining, and broadcast/drill seeding) to reduce herbaceous vegetation and promote the establishment of a native sagebrush community. 3.13.3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) The risk of treatments causing a wildfire that spreads beyond treatment boundaries would be less under this alternative than Alternative A. Miles traveled by vehicles, the number of acres treated using manual and mechanical equipment, the amount of downed trees and slash material created, and the miles of fire and fuel breaks created would 3 liars Project Draft BIS 3-257 September 2013 WILDLAND FIRE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT be similar between this alternative and Alternative A. Because the BLM would not use prescribed fire to treat vegetation under this alternative, there would be no risk of a prescribed fire spreading beyond treatment boundaries. Without the use of prescribed fire and fire for resource benefits, the BLM would be less likely to restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem, reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire, or reduce extreme, very high, and high wildfire risks to moderate risk or less than under Alternative A. About 8 percent of the 3 Bars Project area would be treated under this alternative. About 1 ,000 to 2,000 acres would be treated annually to reduce hazardous fuels, and the FRCC would be reduced on about 7,500 to 15,000 acres over the next 10 to 15 years. It is unlikely the trend toward large- sized fires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand-replacing fires in pinyon-juniper would slow or reverse in the long term, however, and the BLM would still need an aggressive wildland fire prevention and control program for the long term. Treatments would help to meet some of the FMU objectives under the Fire Management Plan (USDOI BLM 2004a), but not to the same extent as they would under Alternative A. Manual and mechanical treatments would help to reduce hazardous fuels, protect and improve fish and wildlife habitat, and create fire and fuel breaks to slow the spread of a wildfire. Prescribed fire and fire for resource benefit are identified as important treatment options under the Fire Management Plan for all FMUs, except the Big Smoky FMU, but would be unavailable to the BLM as a management tool under this alternative. 3.13.3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) This alternative focuses on the use of treatments that would have minimal ground disturbance. Recovery of vegetation through this more passive management approach is expected to take longer than under active management, where treatments such as seeding with native species, establishing intermediate vegetation to control erosion, and use of fire to reduce hazardous fuels, would be expected to promote faster recovery. Under this alternative, however, there would be no wildland fire risks associated with the use of prescribed fire. The BLM would not use mechanical equipment (other than vehicles to transport work crews to treatment sites), so there would be no risk of a wildland fire being started by tractors, mowers, and other mechanical treatment equipment. However, workers still would use chainsaws and other hand-held power equipment that could cause a spark and start a wildland fire. Large numbers of workers and their vehicles would be needed to accomplish proposed treatments under this alternative. Vehicle miles traveled would likely be greatest under this alternative. Downed trees and slash material from treatments would be difficult to remove without mechanical equipment or pile/slash burning. The number of miles of fire and fuel breaks created under this alternative would be less than for Alternatives A and B, as the BLM would not be able to use mechanical equipment, such as bulldozers, mowers, and mulchers, and prescribed fire to create fire and fuel breaks. Fire and fuel break treatments would primarily be limited to stream and aspen habitats, or near roads, where pinyon-juniper would be removed to enhance or create new breaks. Alternative C would not restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem, reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire, or reduce extreme, very high, and high wildfire risks to moderate risk or less. Only about 500 to 1 ,000 acres would be treated annually to reduce hazardous fuels, and the BLM estimates that the FRCC would be reduced on only about 3,750 to 7,500 acres over the next 10 to 15 years, fewer acres than under Alternatives A and B. The BLM would not meet FMU objectives under the Fire Management Plan (USDOI BLM 2004a). Manual treatments could be used to create a few miles of fuel breaks to slow the spread of a wildland fire. Although the BLM could treat acreage using manual methods as proposed for each FMU, the BLM would not be able to conduct fire 3 Bars Project Dral'l HIS 3-258 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES treatments as recommended in the Fire Management Plan to reduce hazardous fuels and the risk of a catastrophic wildfire in FMUs. 3.13.3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to wildland fire from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. Under this alternative, the BLM would not meet the fire.use purposes to 1) restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem, 2) reduce the risk of a large-scale wildland fire, 3) reduce extreme, very high, and high wildland fire risks to moderate risk or less, and 4) develop fuel breaks within treatment and adjacent areas. Threats to ecosystem health that could lead to catastrophic wildfire under this alternative would be associated with the ongoing expansion of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, continued decline of ecosystem health due to further decline in native understory species in the upland plant communities, further expansion of pinyon-juniper woodland into other communities, including sagebrush, riparian, and aspen habitats, and an increase of fuel loads. There would be no improvement in the FRCC on the 3 Bars Project area and the BLM would not meet FMU objectives. 3.13.3.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for wildland fire is approximately 1.84 million acres and includes those watersheds at the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 level that are all or partially within the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). Approximately 92 percent of the area is administered by the BLM, 6 percent is privately owned, and 2 percent is administered by the Forest Service. Past and present actions that have influenced wildland fire activity in the 3 Bars ecosystem are discussed in Section 3.2.2. 3. 3. 3.13.3.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Historic overgrazing, introduction of cheatgrass, large wildfires, and other natural and human-caused factors have contributed to the departure of the plant communities from the Potential Natural Community across the 3-Bars ecosystem. This has led to a decrease in the functionality of ecological processes, thus reducing the resilience and resistance of these ecosystems to disturbance. The treatments proposed in the 3-Bars ecosystem are designed to provide the means needed for these ecosystems to recover. In the short term, temporary fences may change the distribution of grazing by livestock, wild horses, and wildlife. As distribution patterns change, utilization would also change. Wildlife and wild horse utilization would decrease in treatment areas while temporary fences are in place, but would increase in other areas. Once the temporary fences arc removed, wild horses and wildlife may be attracted to the treatment areas resulting in potentially higher use of the area than before. Temporary fences would exclude livestock, although AUMs would be temporarily suspended to prevent overuse in other areas. The BLM would continue to use ground-based herbicide applications to remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and aerial-based application methods to remove cheatgrass, and would restore burned areas under the Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program, under existing authorizations on about 1 ,000 acres annually. These treatments could have a short-term adverse effect on non-target vegetation. These treatments would have long-term beneficial effects by helping to reduce hazardous fuels, improving native vegetation, slowing the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reducing surface runoff and erosion associated with bum sites on about 1 ,000 acres annually. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-259 September 2013 WILDLAND FIRE AND FIRE MANAGEMENT As discussed earlier, the BLM conducts fuel treatment projects under the direction of the Fire Management Plan. In addition to those areas identified under the proposed action, the BLM also proposes to treat hazardous fuels on an additional 8,300 acres in high to very high tire risk areas on and near the 3 Bars Project area. These include treatments in pinyon-juniper and sagebrush habitat using prescribed tire and manual and mechanical methods to remove pinyon- juniper, enhance wildlife habitat, and create fuel breaks. Recreational use of the 3 Bars Project area increases the risk of a wildland fire due to accidental or intentional ignition of vegetation from a campfire, cigarette, hot vehicle muffler, or other human-caused ignition source. In addition, recreational users can spread noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation that attaches to vehicles or to clothing or shoes, and can later cause new noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation infestations and provide fuels for a wildland fire. Land, mineral, oil, gas, geothermal, and other development would cause land disturbance and the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation within the 3 Bars Project and nearby areas. Development would lead to additional human activity in the area, and increase the potential for a human-caused wildland fire. The BLM and other fire-fighting agencies would have to contribute labor and equipment to protect developments from loss of human life and property from wildfire, instead of allowing these areas to bum naturally. Hazardous fuels treatments would occur on about 142,000 acres (9 percent) of lands within the CESA. Although this would still be a small portion of lands within the CESA, treatments would be targeted toward public lands with high to very high wildfire risk. Given that over 90 percent of acres impacted by future actions are focused on hazardous fuels reduction and resource management, treatments would reduce wildfire risk long term. At fire management treatment levels projected to occur in the CESA during the next 25 years under Alternative A, the BLM should meet the FMU objectives for most FMUs (USDOI BLM 2004a). The FRCC on about 142,000 acres would improve over the next 25 years. 3.13.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wildfire would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The BLM anticipates treating about half as many acres under Alternative B as under Alternative A. Because the BLM would not use fire to treat vegetation on the 3 Bars Project area, the risk of a prescribed fire spreading beyond treatment boundaries would be less under this alternative than under Alternative A. However, the BLM would less able to restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem, reduce the risk of a large-scale wildland fire, slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive and non-native vegetation, or reduce extreme, very high, and high wildfire risks to moderate risk or less under this alternative than under Alternative A on the 3 Bars Project area. About 78,000 acres of vegetation would be treated to reduce hazardous fuels and improve rangeland health within the CESA, or about 4 percent of the CESA. This would include about 63,000 acres treated annually by the BLM on the 3 Bars Project area, and about 1 5,000 acres treated by the BLM on other areas within the CESA. Acres treated to reduce the FRCC under this alternative would be half that of Alternative A, and it is also less likely that the BLM would meet FMU objectives under the Fire Management Plan under this alternative than under Alternative A on the 3 Bars Project area. 3 liars Project Draft lilS 3-260 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.13.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wildland fire would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The BLM anticipates treating about one-fourth as many acres under Alternative C as under Alternative A, mostly due to the higher costs associated with manual and classical biological control methods. The risk of treatments causing a wildland fire would be slightly less under this alternative than Alternative A. Because the BLM would not use tire to treat vegetation on the 3 Bars Project area, the risk of a prescribed fire spreading beyond treatment boundaries would also be less under this alternative than Alternatives A and B. By not being able to use mechanical methods, such as mowing, chopping, tilling, disking, harrowing, and drill seeding, the BLM would do little to reduce hazardous fuels, create fire and fuel breaks, treat areas with noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, or remove downed wood and slash. Under Alternative C, the BLM would conduct fire management treatments on only about 2 percent of the CESA. This would include about 32,000 acres treated by the BLM to reduce hazardous fuels and wildfire risk on the 3 Bars Project area, and about 15,000 acres treated by the BLM elsewhere within the CESA. Only one-fourth as many acres would be treated to reduce the FRCC under this alternative as under Alternative A. It is also less likely that the BLM would meet FMU objectives under the Fire Management Plan under this alternative than under Alternatives A and B on the 3 Bars Project area. 3.13.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wildland fire would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative effects on wildland fire from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM could create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; and reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire, but on only about 1,500 acres annually under existing and reasonably foreseeable future authorizations. Hazardous fuel levels would likely increase, and only a limited number of miles of fuel and fire breaks would be constructed under this alternative compared to the action alternatives. The trend toward large-sized fires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush, and large stand-replacing fires in pinyon-juniper, would likely increase. The BLM would do little to reduce the FRCC, and it is also less likely that the BLM would meet FMU objectives under the Fire Management Plan under this alternative than under the action alternatives on the 3 Bars Project area. Given the large number of utilities and infrastructure, mineral, oil, gas, geothermal, and other land developments that are reasonably foreseeable in the CESA, the need for an aggressive wildland fire prevention and control program to protect natural resources and public health and infrastructure could increase from current levels. 3.13.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects There is a risk, albeit small, of treatments causing a wildland fire. Although the BLM would implement SOPs to reduce this risk to near nil, it cannot be totally ignored. These risks include the potential for vehicles and manual and mechanical equipment to accidentally ignite a wildland fire. A prescribed fire or fire for resource benefit could expand beyond treatment boundaries and become a wildland fire that could adversely impact natural and social resources. Treatments would result in the production of downed trees and other woody material that could become hazardous fuels. Workers and their vehicles could transport noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation outside the 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-261 September 20 1 3 WILDLAND LIRE AND LIRE MANAGEMENT treatment area, and this vegetation could become a hazardous fuel. Noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation could also establish and spread in areas treated using prescribed fire and fire for resource benefit. 3.13.3.6 Relationship between the Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity As discussed throughout this E1S, all restoration treatments would likely result in short-term uses and adverse effects, but if treatments arc even modestly successful, they would benefit land productivity long term; wildland fire management treatments are no exception. Short-term uses have been discussed in other sections of this EIS, including the potential loss of vegetation, loss of use of woodland products, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, increase in noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, loss of rangeland for livestock and wild horse use, and loss of public use of lands for recreation, as a result of treatments to restore vegetation and other resources, reduce hazardous fuels, and reduce the risk of wildfire. Long term, treatments to reduce the risk of wildfire should enhance the resilience and health of the landscape and land productivity, and reduce the risk of future wildfire and resultant loss of natural and social resources. As discussed above, short-term uses and enhancement of long-term productivity would generally be in proportion to acres treated and methods used by the BLM. 3.13.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Fire management actions could result in an irretrievable loss of resources if they are lost for a period of time and cannot be replaced without reclamation. For example, prescribed fire could be used to treat unhealthy pinyon-juniper. If the bum is severe enough, native vegetation could be lost and replaced by chcatgrass. However, the site could be reclaimed with seedings and plantings of native vegetation. The fact that the BLM is proposing to restore a degraded landscape in the 3 Bars Project area suggests that the landscape is resilient, and that natural and man-made causes that have led to resource losses that can be corrected and retrieved over time. Prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits, and possibly manual and mechanical methods, used for hazardous fuels reduction and to reduce wildland fire risk could result in the loss of old-growth pinyon-juniper stands that could be considered by some to be irreversible, because it would take several hundred years before old growth stands would again occur on the site. 3.13.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives Treatment actions under all of the alternatives would not lead to a significant increase in wildland fire risk on the 3 Bars Project area and CESA. Treatments would help maintain or reduce the FRCC in treatment areas, reduce the risk of loss of life or property from wildland fire, and reduce the risk of a catastrophic fire. However, the alternatives would differ substantially in the magnitude of improvements, and whether restoration actions taken under an alternative would be effective in lowering overall wildland fire risks within the 3 Bars ecosystem. Substantially more acres within the CESA would be treated under Alternative A than the other alternatives, and over the next 1 0 to 15 years about 1 7 percent of the acreage on the 3 Bars Project area would be treated under this alternative. Thus, the potential for meaningful improvement in the landscape is greatest under this alternative. Under Alternative A, the potential for loss of life or property from wildland fire on the 3 Bars Project area would probably remain little changed from current conditions over the short term, but should decrease long term as fire return intervals in pinyon-juniper stands return to more natural cycles, hazardous fuels levels decrease, lire and fuel breaks are installed, and the landscape becomes more fire resilient. Although the change in overall FRCC would be slow. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-262 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES long term it is likely that there would be a general shift in acreage from a higher FRCC to a lower one. It is also assumed that the risks of a catastrophic wildfire would decrease as resource conditions improve within the CESA due to fire management and other treatments under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the BLM would be limited to the use of manual, mechanical, and biological control methods and would treat about half as many acres (about 7,800 acres annually) within the CESA compared to Alternative A. Under this alternative, the potential for loss of life or property from wildland Ere on the 3 Bars Project area would probably remain little changed from current conditions. The BLM would not be able to use prescribed fire and fire for resource benefits or herbicides to reduce hazardous fuels, but would be able to compartmentalize and slow the spread of wildland fire using manual and mechanical treatments to create fire and fuel breaks. Because fire would not be available to the BLM to help to restore nature fire cycles on the 3 Bars ecosystem, the ability of the BLM to improve ecosystem health and resiliency and reduce hazardous fuels would be limited. Under Alternative C, the BLM would be limited to use of manual and classical biological control methods and would treat only one-fourth the acreage treated under Alternative A. Treatments would primarily focus on riparian and aspen restoration, removal of pinyon-juniper in Phase I and II woodlands, and sagebrush habitat manipulation. Little hazardous fuels reduction or noxious weed and other invasive non-native vegetation control would occur, and fire and fuel break treatments would be limited to areas adjacent to roads and streams. The BLM would have limited ability to reduce the risk of a catastrophic fire and to control its spread, and risks of loss of life or property from wildfire within the CESA would likely increase long term. Prescribed fire and fire for resource benefits would not be available to the BLM to help to restore nature fire cycles over portions of the 3 Bars ecosystem, and mechanical treatments would not be available for use to control or eliminate noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, create fire and fuel breaks, thin and remove pinyon-juniper that is encroaching into sagebrush habitat or is unhealthy, and to reseed disturbed areas. Thus, the ability of the BLM to improve ecosystem health and resiliency and reduce hazardous fuels would be more limited under Alternative C than the other action alternatives. 3.13.4 Mitigation No mitigation measures are proposed for wildland fire risk. 3.14 Fish and Other Aquatic Resources 3.14.1 Regulatory Framework Several laws protect fish and other aquatic resources and their habitats. The Sikes Act of 1974 authorizes the USDOl to plan, develop, maintain, and coordinate programs with state agencies for the conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish, and game on public lands. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 encourages federal agencies to conserve and promote the conservation of non-game fish and wildlife species and their habitats. 3.14.1.1 Endangered Species Act In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species.” The purpose of the Act is to provide a means for conserving the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, and to provide a program for protecting these species. The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is in danger of 3 Bars Project Draft 1.IS 3-263 September 20 1 3 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES extinction throughout all or a major portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a major portion of its range. T his Act also addresses species that have been proposed for listing as cither threatened or endangered, but for which a final determination has not been made. Critical habitat is a specific area or type of area that is considered to be essential for the survival of a species, as designated by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act. The Lahontan cutthroat trout is the only federally listed (threatened) species that occurs in the 3 Bars Project area. 3. 1 4. 1 .2 Special Status Species BLM Sensitive Species arc defined as those plant and animal species for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: 1 ) significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or 2) a significant current or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce the species’ existing distribution. These species arc protected under provisions of the Endangered Species Act or under the Nevada BLM sensitive status (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management. ; USDOI BLM 2008h). In addition, there is a Nevada State Protected Animal List (Nevada Administrative Code 501.100 - 503.104) that the BLM has incorporated, in part, into the sensitive species list. No BLM sensitive aquatic species are known to occur within the project area. 3.14.1.3 BLM and Nevada Department of Wildlife Memorandum of Understanding Wildlife and fish resources and their habitat on public lands are managed cooperatively by the BLM and NDOW under a Memorandum of Understanding as established in 1971. The Memorandum of Understanding describes the BLM’s commitment to manage wildlife and fisheries resource habitat, and the NDOW’s role in managing populations. The ecological definition of a population is a group of organisms of one species that interbreed and live in the same place at the same time. The BLM meets its obligations by managing public lands to protect and enhance food, shelter, and breeding areas for wild animals. The NDOW assures healthy wildlife numbers through a variety of management tools including wildlife and fisheries stocking programs, hunting and fishing regulations, land purchases for fish and wildlife management, cooperative enhancement projects, and other activities. 3.14.1.4 Nevada Department of Wildlife Programs The NDOW is the state agency responsible for the restoration and management of fish and wildlife resources within the state. The NDOW administers state fish and wildlife management and protection programs as set forth in Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 501, Wildlife Administration and Enforcement, and Nevada Administrative Code § 503, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping; Miscellaneous Protective Measures. Nevada Revised Statute § 501.1 10 defines the various categories of fish and wildlife in Nevada, including protected categories. Nevada Administrative Code §§ 503.010-503.080, 503.1 10, and 503.140 list the fish and wildlife species currently placed in the state’s various legal categories, including protected species, game species, and pest species. 3.14.2 Affected Environment 3.14.2.1 Study Methods and Study Area Aquatic biological resources within the project area include fish and aquatic invertebrates and their habitat. Descriptions of fish and other aquatic resources were based on published and unpublished information regarding the types of aquatic habitat and their associated species or groups found in the 3 Bars Project area. Data sources used to identify habitat and aquatic species occurrences include the Mount Hope Project E1S and references cited therein 3 liars Project Draft PIS 3-264 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (USlX)l BLM 2012c), NDOW reports on fish populations and Lahontan cutthroat trout, the species management plan for the Lahontan cutthroat trout (Elliot 2004), and published reports of snails (SRK 2010). In addition, BLM and NDOW staff were contacted for information on fish and other aquatic resources on the 3 Bars Project area. The study area for direct and indirect effects to aquatic biological resources includes streams, springs, and wetlands within the project area. The CESA for cumulative impacts to aquatic biological resources includes the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 watersheds wholly, or partially within, the project area, as shown in Figure 3-1. 3.14.2.2 Aquatic Habitat The types of aquatic habitat that occur with the analysis area include perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, springs, and wetlands. Perennial waterbodies contain water continuously during an average water year. Intermittent waterbodies contain water or flow on a sporadic or periodic basis, while ephemeral waterbodies contain water on a short-term basis after precipitation events. The majority of the streams within the project area arc intermittent/cphcmeralT In terms of stream lengths, the Pine Valley Basin contains the greatest number of miles of streams with perennial reaches. These streams include Birch, Dcnay, Henderson, Kelley, North Fork Pete Hansen, Pete Hansen, Vinini, and Willow Creeks (Figure 3-23). Of these streams, Henderson and Vinini Creeks contain the most perennial lengths, with 1 8.3 and 9.5 miles, respectively. Roberts Creek, with 8.4 miles, is the only stream in the Kobeh Valley Basin that contains perennial reaches. McClusky Creek (7.1 miles of perennial stream length) is the only perennial stream in the Grass Valley Basin that is within the 3 Bars Project area. Springs and wet areas are scattered throughout the project area. The majority of springs are found at higher elevations in the Simpson Park Range, on Roberts Mountains, and in the Sulphur Spring Range. Aquatic habitat surveys were conducted in Birch and Pete Hanson Creeks as part of fish surveys in July 2009, and in 2011 in Willow Creek. These streams were selected for study due to the presence of Lahontan cutthroat trout, a federally listed threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Based on the Habitat Condition Index, NDOW rated the stream reaches from poor to good in Birch and Pete Hanson Creeks, and fair to excellent in Willow Creek (NDOW 2009a, 2011). The overall Habitat Condition Index rating was good in Birch and Willow Creeks and fair in Pete Hansen Creek. The Habitat Condition Index rating involved evaluating six parameters in the field, including pool abundance, pool structure, substrate stability, bank cover, soil stability, and bank vegetation stability. Downcutting of the stream channel exists in portions of Willow Creek (NDOW 2011), but the downcut sections were not part of the Willow Creek habitat survey sites. Habitat information for these streams is provided in Table 3-43. Stream assessments were conducted in Birch and Pete Hanson Creeks in 2001 for the purpose of evaluating the stream’s ability to dissipate energy, protect banks, and minimize erosion (USDOI BLM 2012c). The streams’ functioning condition was rated in qualitative terms using information about channel morphology, hydrology, soil, and vegetative parameters. Of the 5.4 miles of Birch Creek that were surveyed, conditions were rated as Proper Functioning Condition for 0.7 miles and Functional-at-risk Downward Trend for 0.4 miles. The remaining 4.3 miles were classified as an intermittent stream. Assessment results for 9.5 miles of Pete Hanson Creek were Functional-at- risk with the Trend Not Apparent (5.3 miles), Functional-at-risk Upward (1.6 miles) Functional-at-risk Trend Not 2 The USGS does not distinguish between intermittent and ephemeral streams. The majority of streams classified as intermittent on the 3 Bars Project area do not have seasonal water, but only have water occasionally and would be classified as ephemeral. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-265 September 20 1 3 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES Apparent ( 1 .3 miles) and Intermittent ( 1 .3 miles). Assessment results for 5.8 miles of Willow Creek were Proper Functioning Condition ( 1 .4 miles), Funetional-at-risk Upward ( 1 .6 miles), Funetional-at-risk Trend Not Apparent (0.8 miles), and Non-funetional (2.0 miles). Stream evaluations also were completed for other streams within the 3 Bars Project area. Several stream reaches did not meet the Proper Functioning Condition or Functional -at-risk Upward Trend including perennial streams such as Henderson, Vinini, Roberts, and McClusky Creeks. TABLE 3-43 Habitat Characteristics of Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks Stream Discharge (cfs)2 Average Depth (feet) Average Width (feet) Substrate (%) Bank Vegetative Cover (%) Gravel Rubble Trees Shrubs Grasses/Forbs Birch Creek 1. 0-4.3 0.4 4.4 18 38 47 31 22 Pete Hanson Creek 1. 0-4.3 0.4 4.4 44 28 19 36 45 Willow Creek 0. 1-1.3 0.2 2.5 53 28 6 31 61 Cfs = cubic feet per second. Source: NDOW (2009a), as cited in BLM (2012c), NDOW 2011. The NDOW conducted aquatic habitat surveys of Birch Creek and Pete Hanson Creek in 2009, and Willow Creek in 2011. Streambank stability, bank alteration, and erosion evaluations were completed for these streams in July 2010. The survey indicated that 73 percent of surveyed reaches had stable streambanks while 16 percent had active bank erosion, in Birch Creek. Similar results were observed in Pete Hanson Creek, where 74 percent of reaches surveyed had stable banks, while active bank erosion was observed on 15 percent of reaches. Bank alteration from livestock was estimated at 3 percent of the surveyed reach in Birch Creek and 4 percent of the surveyed reach in Pete Hanson Creek. Stable streambanks were found along 78 percent of surveyed reaches for Willow Creek (USDOI BLM 2013a). Based on public scoping comments, habitat conditions could be improved in project study area perennial streams that contain fish. The public recommended removal of fish barriers consisting of culvert and a large headcut on lower Roberts Creek, and habitat improvements on Birch, Pete Hanson, Vinini, Henderson, Roberts, and McClusky Creeks. 3.14.2.3 Aquatic Species 3.14.2.3.1 Invertebrates Permanent and temporary waterbodies provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates. These aquatic organisms are indicators of water quality conditions and they serve important roles in the dynamics of the aquatic food web. Based on surveys in Birch Creek, the most abundant invertebrate groups included mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddiflies (Trichoptera), stoneflies (Plccoptcra), flics (Diptcra), beetles (Colcoptcra), and leeches (Hirudinca; USDOI BLM 2012c). These same groups, as well as snails (Gastropoda) and true bugs (Hemiptera), were common in Pete Hanson Creek. Invertebrate groups collected in Willow Creek included mayflies, stoneflies, and beetles (NDOW 201 1). Invertebrates were considered to be abundant at all sites sampled in Willow Creek. 3 liars Project Draft I IS 3-266 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Five major invertebrate groups typically are present in all types of springs including nematodes, aquatic worms (Oligochaeta), water mites (Acari), caddisflies, and chironomid midges. Several groups such as flatworms and stoneflies are present only in springs with permanent water sources. A regional springsnail survey was conducted in selected springs within Antelope, Diamond, Huntington, Kobeh, Little Smokey, and Pine Valleys in 2007 by SRK (2010). Approximately 40 of the surveyed springs are within the 3 Bars Project area. Six of these springs contained snails, although species were-not identified (Figure 3-38). Snails also were observed at two sites within unnamed streams in Pine Valley. Some of these snails could be springsnails. This group of mollusks is considered important because of their restricted distribution and native origin. The BLM considers springsnails to be a sensitive group and manages public lands to protect these species and their habitats. 3.14.2.3.2 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Fish surveys in the project study area have focused on the occurrence of Lahontan cutthroat trout. The Lahontan cutthroat trout is an inland subspecies of cutthroat trout (family Salmonidae). The species may be either riverine or lacustrine and is endemic to the Lahontan Basin of northeast California, southeast Oregon, and northern Nevada. The range for Lahontan cutthroat trout in Nevada includes the Truckee, Carson, Walker, Quinn, and Humboldt River Basins, the Honey and Coyote Lake Basins, and Black Rock Desert Basin. Riverine, or stream-dwelling, Lahontan cutthroat trout usually live less than 5 years and may reach 10 to 15 inches in length. Females mature at 3 to 4 years of age and males at 2 to 3 years of age (Coffin and Cowan 1995). As with all cutthroat trout, the Lahontan cutthroat trout is an obligate riverine spawner. Spawning occurs from April to July, depending on stream discharge, elevation, and water temperature. Most remaining populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout in Nevada occupy higher elevation, low-order streams (Dunham et al. 1999). Spawning and nursery habitat is characterized by cool-water pools in close proximity to instream cover, velocity breaks, well-vegetated and stable streambanks, and relatively silt-free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas (Coffin and Cowan 1995). This species spawns in riffles over gravel substrate when water temperatures are between 41 to 60 °F. Intermittent tributaries are sometimes used as spawning sites during high-water years. Fry may develop in the tributary stream until flushed into the mainstream during high runoff (Coffin 1981, Trotter 1987). General characteristics of riverine cutthroat trout habitat include a relatively stable flow regime, a 1 : 1 pool to riffle ratio, well-vegetated stable streambanks, instream cover exceeding 25 percent, and relatively silt-free riffle-run areas. Cutthroat trout waters generally have a stable summer temperature regime with less than 39 °F fluctuation in water temperature and maximum water temperatures less than 72 °F (Hickman and Raleigh 1982). Lahontan cutthroat trout may have a higher thermal tolerance than other cutthroat trout and can tolerate temperatures exceeding 80 °F for short periods of time and 57 to 63 °F fluctuations of temperature (Coffin 1983, Dickerson and Vinyard 1999). Beaver ponds may provide thermal refuge for trout in the summer and winter. Habitat requirements may vary somewhat with life stage and season (Coffin and Cowan 1995). Lahontan cutthroat trout primarily feed on terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, although larger fish may be fish-eating. The decline of the Lahontan cutthroat trout has been primarily attributed to the loss and degradation of habitat. Agricultural and municipal uses of water from streams or lakes have reduced or altered the stream discharge in this species’ range. Livestock and wild horse grazing have altered the physical characteristics of stream channels and increased the sediment loads in many Lahontan cutthroat trout streams. Mining, urban development, logging, road construction, and dam building have also been associated with changes in stream channel morphology and water quality (Coffin and Cowan 1995, NDOW 2004). 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-267 September 2013 .PV018 PV023 Pine Valley Basin # 053 ' gy. 033 ‘PV034 % PV035 PV036 PV032 •- 1 KV01 5 \ Kobeh Valley Basin# 139 ureka No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Grass Valley | Basin #138 M §5l A r\i rtf’ it -a - Vv \VvV \ $ Elko County Eureka County |Diamond Valley Basin #153 9 ' 8 ^Tv k * . . ; , • ^ ftl I N l (JL! v L' \ ^ United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain. NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Elko 8attle Mountain /■•"I Project Area ( r7Vv,ount J Ulj Lewis f J Field Office Battle Mountain District Las Vegas Legend 3 Snail Observation LIU Hydrographic Basin 3 Bars Project Area Source: SRK 2010. 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-38 Snail Observations iii Kilometers 10 ^ t AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The Lahontan cutthroat trout competes with non-native trout species that were historically stocked for recreational fishing opportunities. Dunham and Vinyard (1996) found that the distribution of Lahontan cutthroat trout can be truncated when brook trout are present, although they noted that the results were variable. Furthermore, Lahontan cutthroat trout have hybridized with non-native rainbow trout in many areas (Coffin and Cowan 1995, NDOW 2004). Lahontan cutthroat trout conservation efforts are ongoing and involve fish transplants, population and habitat surveys, genetic evaluations, habitat improvement projects, new grazing practices, use of riparian fencing, and the creation of fishery management plans for several basins. The objective of these management efforts is the protection or restoration of habitats that sustain viable self-sustaining populations of this species. A self-sustaining population is defined as having been established 5 or more years and having three or more age classes (Coffin and Cowan 1995). Lahontan cutthroat trout populations occur in three streams within the project study area — Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks. The headwater areas of Birch and Pete Hanson Creeks originate at elevations of approximately 8,200 and 7,200 feet amsl, respectively. Genetic analyses have determined that pure strains (i.e., fish with unmixed lineage over many generations) exist in Pete Hanson Creek. Recent genetic analysis on the Birch Creek Lahontan cutthroat trout has shown a small degree of hybridization with rainbow trout. Of the 30 fish sampled, 8 had rainbow trout alleles at one locus that was the result of an historic hybridization event. Results for the genetic analysis on the Willow Creek population are pending. Pete Hanson Creek was stocked with Lahontan cutthroat trout from Shoshone and Santa Fe Creeks (Elliott 2013a). Surveys in 2009 indicated that Lahontan cutthroat trout occupy approximately 1 .9 miles in Birch Creek and 3.5 miles in Pete Hanson Creek (Figure 3-39). Population estimates during the 2009 surveys were 116 fish/mile in Birch Creek and 445 fish/mile in Pete Hanson Creek (NDOW 2009a). Comparison of 2009 Lahontan cutthroat trout densities with previous survey results indicated that population levels in Birch Creek are stable, while the Pete Hanson population estimates are more variable (Table 3-44). Lahontan cutthroat trout were surveyed in Willow Creek in September 201 1 (NDOW 2011). The estimated density for this species was 106 fish/mile in the lower portion of the creek. The fish collected in Willow Creek were considered healthy and representative of at least three different Lahontan cutthroat trout age classes. Lahontan cutthroat trout occupies approximately 0.5 mile in the middle portion of Willow Creek. In addition to occupied habitat in these perennial and intermittent streams, potential habitat has been identified by the NDOW surveys (Figure 3-39). Potential recovery streams for Lahontan cutthroat trout within the project area include Henderson and Vinini Creeks (Coffin and Cowan 1995); these streams have 15.6 miles of potential habitat (7 and 8.6 miles respectively). Management direction for Lahontan cutthroat trout is provided in the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin (Elliott 2004) and the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (Coffin and Cowan 1995). A portion of the project area falls within the Humboldt River basin, which supports the greatest number of riverine populations. Management objectives for this species focus on the protection and restoration of habitats that sustain viable self-sustaining populations. Threats to Lahontan cutthroat trout include habitat fragmentation due to physical and biological conditions, alteration of stream discharge, water quality degradation, and introduction of non-native fish species (Coffin and Cowan 2005, USDOI USFWS 2010a). 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-269 September 20 1 3 \ >Ti‘ ' Jiri'in 7 •He^de^°^Creo/^ - — -4 Cr ■ / * /yy i r y'- ' V* J / 1 t TiUx; • ay <' Av (« - foQlv./,fc«. ks m i &Wrf ^ IVp®-- -i , I \\l \ \ < u svj t-) Ti trl > p \ M'ti^ V!r!'^vK--j(,.f v *.V United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain. NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 09/11/13) Elko Area Detail Legend LCT Populated Creek LCT Potential Habitat Less than Optimal Conditions for LCT Perennial Stream Reach Intermittent Stream Reach Canal/Ditch 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2009f, 2012j; JBR 2009; NDOW 2012b: USGS 2012b 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-39 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT) Habitat No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I ABLE 3-44 Summary of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Surveys in Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks Stream Survey Years 1998 2003 2009 2011 Birch Creek Miles Occupied 1.5 1.5 _ 1.9 NS LCT/Strcam Mile 153 198 116 NS Pete Hanson Creek Miles Occupied 3.5 3.5 3.5 NS LCT/Strcam Mile 382 823 445 NS Willow Creek Miles Occupied NS NS NS 0.5 LCT/Stream Mile NS NS NS 106 NS = Not surveyed. LCT = Lahontan cutthroat trout. Source: NDOW (2009a) as cited in USDOI BLM (20 1 2c), NDOW (20 1 1 ). 3.14.2.3.3 Other Fish Other native fish species are also likely to occur in study area streams, based on historic occurrences. Speckled dace, redside shiner, Tahoe sucker, mountain sucker, and Lahontan tui chub have been reported in the Pine Creek Drainage (Elliott 2013b). Speckled dace also are known to occur in Coils Creek. Two additional streams, Roberts and McClusky Creeks, contain sport fish species including brook, brown, and rainbow trout (Petersen 2012). McClusky Creek has been stocked with brook trout, and Roberts Creek with rainbow trout, in the past (Elliott 2013b). 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 3.14.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on the AECC and public scoping comments, the following issues were identified for aquatic biological resources: • Habitat conditions for Lahontan cutthroat trout are less than optimal. • Limiting factors for Lahontan cutthroat trout include insufficient residual pool depth and cemented substrate. • There has been a decline in fisheries habitat complexity. • Address the need for habitat improvements in occupied Lahontan cutthroat trout streams (Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks), Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery streams (Vinini and Henderson Creeks), and sport fish streams (Roberts and McClusky). • Increase public awareness of Lahontan cutthroat trout in Willow Creek. • Consider historical and current population trends for Lahontan cutthroat trout in the 3 Bars Project area to determine recovery status. 3 Bars Project Draft LIS 3-271 September 20 1 3 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES • Identify known and potential conflicts with Lahontan cutthroat trout and livestock and wild horses and mitigation measures that could be implemented to minimize effects from these conflicts. • Concern regarding historical trout numbers in some drainages within the 3 Bars project study area. • Concern regarding fish barriers consisting of culverts and a headcut on Lower Roberts Creek. • Evaluate and consider the effect of wildland fire on special status species. 3.14.3.2 Significance Criteria Impacts to aquatic biological resources would be considered significant if the BLM actions resulted in the following: • Action results in long-term (greater than 3 year in duration) alteration or loss of habitat in streams or springs containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites), or other aquatic species. • Action causes long-term (greater than 3 year in duration) loss of riparian vegetation from prescribed fire treatment or surface disturbance activities in streams or springs containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites), or other aquatic species. • Action results in water quality effects and potential toxicity conditions involving spills or chemical use that last more than 1 month in streams or springs containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites), or other aquatic species. • Action causes a flow reduction lasting more than 1 month in streams containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites), or other aquatic species. • Action causes permanent barriers to fish movement in streams containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites), or other aquatic species. The following assumptions were used in the impact analysis for aquatic biological resources: • Surface disturbance activities within approximately 0.25 mile and upgradient of perennial streams could result in sediment or contaminant input to the streams. • Flow reductions of greater than 5 percent of baseline conditions on a continual basis could result in an adverse effect on aquatic habitat for Lahontan cutthroat or other trout, or native fish species. 3.14.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.14.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to AH Action Alternatives Habitat Alteration Proposed treatments would disturb aquatic habitat if equipment or vehicles enter streams or other waterbodies. The magnitude of the effect would vary depending on the area of disturbance and the duration of the activity. Instream disturbance would alter bottom substrates and possibly change the types of fish cover such as cobble, vegetation, or woody debris in the affected area, and the substrate alteration could adversely affect fish spawning habitat. Habitat alteration could affect Lahontan cutthroat trout, since restoration treatments arc proposed for streams occupied by this species including Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks. Final aspects of restoration treatment in Lahontan cutthroat 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-272 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES trout occupied streams would be determined through BLM consultation with the USFWS and input from NIX)W. These treatments would be designed in a manner that would minimize direct effects to Lahontan cutthroat trout. The USFWS, and to some extent NDOW, would determine what level of impact would be acceptable. The outcome of the restoration would ultimately benefit Lahontan cutthroat trout populations by expanding suitable habitat as a result of increased stream connectivity. Stream enhancements could involve the creation or expansion of pool habitat, improvements in the riffle to pool ratio, and the addition of instream cover for fish. Stream enhancements would also benefit other fish and macroinvertebrate species that inhabit the treated streams. Fencing and revegetation treatments would result in benefits to aquatic species. Protective fencing would restrict access to treated areas by domestic livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates. This action would prevent livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates from riparian treatment areas, resulting in reduced bank erosion and improved riparian vegetation cover. After treatment activities are completed, treated sites would be replanted. The addition of vegetation and riparian cover would be beneficial to water quality by reducing erosion in the drainage. In addition, the BLM would place logs and other woody debris from felled pinyon-juniper into streams to slow water flow and create fish habitat. Vegetation Modification Treatment activities would affect riparian vegetation through disturbance by vehicles or equipment. Removal of noxious weeds and invasive non-native plant species would cause a short-term loss of riparian vegetation, which could adversely affect aquatic habitat and ecological requirements for aquatic species, and cause a temporary increase in bank erosion. Proposed treatments would have beneficial effects on riparian vegetation depending on the activity. Riparian vegetation is an important habitat component for aquatic species, as plants provide overhanging cover, temperature control via shading, bank stability, a food source from insects on the vegetation, and nutrient input to the stream from loss of leaves and branches. Beneficial effects would result from riparian restoration actions that would improve riparian community health and resiliency. These include stream channel restoration and removal of pinyon-juniper from the riparian zone. Replacing invasive plant species with native vegetation can improve food availability to insectivorous fish species, as native plants typically support a more diverse native insect community. The removal of noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation and restoration of the streamside vegetation to include native plant species would be beneficial to the stream morphology and the ecological requirements for aquatic species long term (USDOl BLM 2007b:4-76). Water Quality Proposed treatments would result in short-term adverse effects on water quality. Surface disturbing activities within or near streams and springs could cause short-term increased sediment input. The extent of the area affected by sediment would depend on soil composition and the characteristics of the receiving stream or standing waterbody (e.g., flow conditions, channel or waterbody morphology, presence of aquatic vegetation, and gradient). Streams with firm substrates consisting of sand, gravel, or cobble would exhibit lower levels of sedimentation compared to soft substrates such as silt. Typically, the extent of downstream movement of sediment is less during low flow conditions and more extensive during high flow conditions. However, the suspended sediment levels would be more diluted under high flow conditions due to the higher water volumes. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-273 September 2013 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES Increases in sediment entering a stream could adversely affect fish health and stream quality. Suspended sediment can affect physiological functions such as oxygen uptake for aquatic species. Depending on the sediment level and sensitivity of the species, effects can range from reduced health to mortality (Waters 1995). Increased sediment levels can bury invertebrates and early life stages of fish. Sedimentation can affect fish habitat by covering spawning and rearing areas, thereby reducing the survival offish embryos and juvenile fish. Excessive sedimentation also can fill in pool habitats. Pool habitats provide important fish cover due to depth and overwintering habitat. Vehicles and equipment used within or adjacent to streams and waterbodies could also pose a risk to aquatic biota from fuel spills or lubricant leaks. If fuel reached a waterbody, aquatic species could be exposed to toxic conditions. Impacts could include direct mortality or reduced health of aquatic organisms. The magnitude of a potential spill would depend on the flow conditions, channel or waterbody morphology, and gradient, and the response time and effectiveness of containment and cleanup operations. To reduce these risks, refueling activities would not be allowed within 300 feet of a stream. Long term, treatments that restore channel morphology and stream function, remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, improve the health and resiliency of riparian vegetation, and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire would benefit water quality and aquatic organisms. Water Use Stream water could be used during restoration projects and for prescribed fire control and could result in temporary reductions in stream flows or water levels in ponds. The BLM occasionally withdraws water from streams or ponds during wildfire events as an emergency measure for fire suppression. The BLM works closely with resource advisors to make sure this option is authorized and does not impact other key resources including aquatic species. Water withdrawal would consider the presence of Lahontan cutthroat trout and game fish species and their habitats when selecting water sources. Flow regime is considered the primary determinant regarding the structure and function of aquatic and riparian ecosystems for streams and rivers (Poff et al. 2010). Based on a literature review by Poff and Zimmerman (2010), fish was the only aquatic biological group to consistently respond negatively to reductions in flow magnitude. Flow or water level reductions could adversely affect fish by decreasing the amount of aquatic habitat and affect critical life events such as spawning, early life development, growth, physiological functions, and competition (Bradford and Heinoncn 2008, Poff and Zimmerman 2010). The response of macroinvertebrate communities to reduced flow has been the subject of recent literature reviews by Dewson et al. (2007) and Poff and Zimmerman (2010). Based on a review of studies involving relatively large flow reductions (approximately 60 to 100 percent compared to base flow conditions), results showed that macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity declined in most cases due to reduced habitat diversity, loss of food sources, and changes in competition and predation. Increased water temperature and sedimentation and altered attached algae assemblages also can contribute to changes in aquatic community composition and taxonomic richness. 3.14.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Riparian Treatments Riparian area treatments would focus on restoring stream and habitat functionality in areas where both the morphology and structural integrity of the stream channel, and the plant species composition within the riparian zone, have been compromised by past actions. Examples of compromised stream channel integrity include: 1) areas where .3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-274 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the channel is eroded and incised; 2) areas where there is a sharp break in the slope of the channel due to erosion (knickpoint or headeut); and 3) areas where the channel has been diverted from its historic watercourse due to road construction or other factors. For example, in areas where water is collected for use by livestock using culverts, pipes, cisterns, or troughs, livestock have damaged stream channels and adjacent meadows by congregating near these features. Because of loss of structural integrity in compromised channels, stream velocities have increased over historic levels, nutrient-rich sediment is not being delivered to riparian vegetation, and there is less groundwater recharge within the floodplains, to the detriment of fish and other aquatic organisms. Treatments would primarily occur in upper and lower Henderson Creek (8.9 miles of perennial stream), Roberts Creek (7.6 miles), upper and lower Vinini Creek (5.9 miles), and Willow Creek (4.3 miles). Willow Creek supports Lahontan cutthroat trout along 0.5 mile of occupied perennial stream habitat, while Henderson and Vinini and unnamed creeks have known or potential Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat, including approximately 9.3 miles of potential perennial habitat and 3.6 miles of potential intermittent habitat. None of the springs are known to contain snails or springsnails. Adverse Effects Riparian vegetation removal could adversely affect ecological functions of riparian vegetation on a short-term basis, although the affected area would represent a relatively minor portion of the overall riparian zone. Streamside vegetation removal could decrease the amount of woody debris deposited in the stream, although the BLM proposes to place down logs and other wood from felled pinyon-juniper into streams to improve stream habitat. The adverse effects of mechanical treatments on water quality would be expected to be localized and of short-term in duration, with water quality returning to pre-disturbance conditions within several days or weeks after treatment is completed. Adverse effects for all proposed riparian zone projects could result from soil disturbance and erosion, and the spill of fuel or lubricants into water bodies. Habitat alteration or loss at a particular site would be considered relatively minor in relation to the overall habitat in the stream, especially since treatments would be focused on degraded stream habitat. Instream disturbance would occur in Lahontan cutthroat trout occupied (Willow Creek) or recovery (Henderson and Vinini Creeks) streams, and game fish streams (Roberts and McClusky Creeks), as part of habitat enhancement. The BLM would consult with the USFWS and NDOW regarding designing treatments in a manner that would minimize direct effects to Lahontan cutthroat trout. This approach would avoid significant impacts to Lahontan cutthroat trout. The adverse effects of mechanical treatments on water quality would be expected to be short-term in duration, with water quality returning to pre -disturbance conditions within several days or weeks after treatment is completed. Adverse effects for all proposed riparian zone projects could result from soil disturbance and erosion, and the spill of fuel or lubricants into water bodies. Habitat alteration or loss at a particular site would be considered relatively minor in relation to the overall habitat in the stream. Riparian treatments would be localized and targeted for areas that arc generally degraded in terms of riparian vegetation quality or characterized by the absence or limited number of riparian species. The BLM would consult with the USFWS and NDOW regarding designing treatments in a manner that would minimize direct effects to Lahontan cutthroat trout. This approach would avoid significant impacts to Lahontan cutthroat trout. Treatment methods used in Birch and Willow Creeks within the Roberts Mountains WSA would have to meet non-impairment criteria for WSAs, but would not include the use of vehicles or building of new roads. 3 Bars Project Brail I IS 3-275 September 20 1 3 MSI I AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES Prescribed fire would result in erosion and runoff from burned areas and sediment could enter streams if the disturbance area is within a few hundred feet of streams. The BLM has the option of using prescribed fire to the stream’s edge, if it would meet the restoration goals and objectives. However, the USLWS and NDOW would be consulted to determine whether a lire exclusion buffer should be maintained for Lahontan cutthroat trout occupied streams. Adverse effects on stream habitat and aquatic species would vary depending on the precipitation conditions. Under average and dry year precipitation conditions, measured effects of prescribed fire would be relatively small or undetectable due to less runoff and erosion input to drainages (Clifton ct al. 2006). Effects would be greater in wet years due to more frequent precipitation events and runoff. If large storm events occur within the first few years after prescribed fire, there could be substantial erosion that could adversely affect aquatic habitat. Beneficial Effects The BLM’s highest priority is to use vegetation treatments to restore high priority subbasins within key watersheds to benefit fish and other aquatic organisms. Over the short term, adverse effects to aquatic organisms from vegetation treatment activities proposed by the BLM could occur, but treatments would lead to improved conditions for aquatic species over the long term. The eventual growth of desirable vegetation in treated areas would moderate water temperatures, buffer the input of sediments from runoff, promote bank stability, and contribute woody debris to aquatic bodies. Ongoing efforts by the BLM to enhance riparian vegetation would also help to increase the number of miles of BLM-administered streams that are classified as Proper functioning Condition. Removing invasive vegetation such as pinyon-juniper could increase streamflow, while replacing noxious weeds and invasive non-native species with native vegetation would stabilize streambanks and moderate strcamflows. furthermore, replacing noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation with shrubs and trees would also increase the amount of woody debris in water bodies that can be used as habitat by fish (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-69). The beneficial effects of riparian treatments would include aquatic habitat enhancements. Various treatment methods would be used to improve issues involving headcuts and stream incisions. The treatment activities would include streambank bioengineering, grade stabilization, and vegetation plantings to initiate stream restoration. These treatment activities would enhance pool and riffle habitat by increasing depths and providing additional in-stream structure by adding cobble and boulder substrates and woody debris. After restoration is completed, aquatic habitat would occur on a more consistent basis as a result of increased stability of the channel banks and substrates. The habitat improvements also would be beneficial to macroinvertebrates by stabilizing bottom substrates and creating a diverse composition of substrate types. Macroinvertcbratcs represent an important food source for fish species. As a result of the stream restoration activities, habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout (in both occupied and recovery streams) and game fish species would be improved in terms of functionality and structure. Habitat improvements in the Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery streams may assist in the reintroduction of this species into habitats that were used historically, which would meet the goals and objectives of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery’ Plan (Coffin and Cowan 1 995). In addition, wet meadows and stream reaches could be created under this treatment, which would provide additional aquatic habitat for fish and invertebrates. Vegetation treatments to thin or remove pinyon-juniper from within floodplains and near streams would help to create fire breaks and would benefit aquatic animals by reducing the risk that a large, uncontrolled wildfire would destroy a large amount of high quality aquatic habitat. Fire can adversely affect aquatic organisms by degrading water quality and raising water temperature (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-70). 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-276 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND EN VIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES After restoration, treatment areas would be protected using temporary fencing to ensure that restored sites and plantings are not damaged by livestock, wild horse, and wild ungulate foraging or by trampling. Also, fencing would be used to protect riparian habitat at Dcnay Pond, Lone Spring, and Treasure Well. Aspen Treatments Adverse Effects Potential adverse impacts to fish and other aquatic resources from the three aspen treatments associated with stream habitat would be similar to those for riparian treatments. However, only about 15 acres of aspen would be treated annually under the proposed action, and only 4 miles of stream are associated with aspen treatments. Aspen treatments would occur in areas that arc occupied, or could be occupied, by Lahontan cutthroat trout. Treatments could result in erosion that could adversely impact nearby stream habitat and aquatic resources, including game and non-game fish. Beneficial Effects Restoration of aspen stands could benefit fish and other aquatic species, primarily through an improvement in water quality. Pinyon-juniper would be removed to reduce competition between aspens and pinyon-junipers for space and nutrients, and may occur near roads to improve their effectiveness as fuel breaks. Fuel breaks would help to slow the spread of wildfire, reducing the chances that a large, uncontrolled wildfire would destroy a large amount of high quality aquatic habitat. Downed trees and other large woody material from felled trees could be placed in streams as a source of woody debris for fish. The additional woody debris would provide improvements in the quantity and quality of fish cover and an additional source of organic material to the stream. The BLM would remove or bum slash and downed wood if there is the potential for the material to increase the risk of wildfire. If fencing is installed near streams, it would benefit aquatic habitat and species by restricting livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates from entering the stream. This would reduce direct alteration of aquatic habitat and minimize erosion from livestock, wild horse, and wild ungulate use. Fencing would also help to ensure that aspen restoration treatments are successful, as herbivory has been shown to adversely impact the development of new shoots in aspen stands. Pinyon-juniper Treatments Adverse Effects Approximately 5 miles of stream are associated with riparian management projects that occur within the larger pinyon-juniper management area. Seven miles of perennial stream treatments are associated exclusively with pinyon- juniper management projects, including the Birch Creek, Upper Pete Hanson, Tonkin South, Upper Roberts Creek, and Vinini treatment units. These pinyon-juniper project areas also overlap with Lahontan cutthroat trout and other fish habitat— Atlas (Roberts Creek), Birch Creek (Birch Creek), Lower Pete Hanson (Pete Hanson Creek), Pete Hanson (Pete Hanson Creek), and Vinini Unit (Henderson Creek). Habitat alteration could occur near streams that provide known or potential Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat (Birch, Pete Hanson, and Henderson Creeks). The types of impacts to these perennial and intermittent streams would be similar to those discussed earlier, including increased sediment loads into streams, spill of fuel or lubricants into streams, and flow reduction due to use of water for fire control. Approximately 30 percent of the treatment area for these units has moderate to high water erosion 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-277 September 20 1 3 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES risk, and mechanical treatments, in particular, could cause soil disturbance that could lead to erosion and sedimentation of streams. The effects of treatments on water quality would be short-term, with water quality returning to pre -disturbance conditions within several days or weeks after treatment is completed. However, this risk is negligible in areas where pinyon-juniper are felled using chainsaws, or pinyon-juniper are shredded, as the resultant woody debris would help to protect the soil. If large amounts of woody debris arc left on the ground, however, it could provide fuel for a wildfire. Fire treatment could result in increased turbidity in streams due to runoff from bum areas. Sediment input could adversely affect stream substrate composition due to increased silt deposition. The magnitude of sediment input would depend on gradient in the burned portion of the drainage area and the extent of vegetation growth between the bum area and the receiving streams. Densely vegetated areas could capture and reduce the sediment input to streams. Standard operating procedures would reduce the sediment input to downgradient streams, but would not eliminate all sediment input into drainages. Sediment input could adversely affect aquatic habitat and the health of fish and invertebrate species. High severity fires tend to bum much of the organic material on a site, exposing mineral soil, and sometimes creating hydrophobic soil layers. This hydrophobic condition increases the rate of water runoff and erosion. Nearly all of the treatment acreage associated with treatment units near perennial streams has soils with a moderate to high risk of fire degradation. The BLM would reduce this risk by conducting low severity prescribed bums. It is unlikely that burning would be conducted along streams with Lahontan cutthroat trout due to the potential for adverse impacts to stream water quality and loss of vegetative cover adjacent to streams. The BLM would consult with the USFWS before conducting treatments near streams occupied by Lahontan cutthroat trout. Water may be needed for fire control. If water sources include perennial streams or springs connected to surface flow, temporary flow reductions could occur in streams. The magnitude of the effect would depend on the water volume and timing of the withdrawal. Beneficial Effects The removal of pinyon-juniper vegetation in riparian zones could increase stream flows and improve aquatic habitat as a result of reduced water uptake by vegetation. Manual, mechanical, and fire treatments in pinyon-juniper management areas would improve aquatic habitat by placing woody debris at strategic locations to expand the size of the streams and result in the creation or expansion of pool habitats. These treatments would benefit Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat in Birch, Pete Hanson, and Willow Creeks. Habitat improvements near Henderson Creek could assist in the recovery of Lahontan cutthroat trout. The stream structures (i.e., logs and pools) could also serve as fuel breaks to slow the spread of wildland fire and reduce fire effects on aquatic habitat and species. Prescribed fire treatments could benefit aquatic species by reducing hazardous fuel loads, and therefore the risk of a destructive high-intensity wildfire. In many cases, pre-treatment fuels reductions (e.g., thinning and pile burning) would be necessary to reduce the severity of prescribed burns near or within riparian zones (USDOI BLM 2007b:4- 70). Removal of pinyon-juniper and shredding of sagebrush to create fuel breaks would help to contain and limit the spread of wildfire, to the benefit of aquatic resources. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-278 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Sagebrush Management Adverse Effects Four streams (Birch, Henderson, Pete Hanson, and Vinini Creeks) provide potential Lahontan cutthroat trout, with 1 .6 miles of potential perennial and 4.4 miles of intermittent habitat within sagebrush treatment areas. However, there is no occupied Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat in the sagebrush treatment areas. None of the springs are known to contain snails or springsnails. Most of the sagebrush projects (Alpha, Kobeh East, Nichols, Roberts Mountain Pasture, South Simpson, Three Comers, and Whistler Sage) overlap with intermittent/ephemeral, but not perennial streams. Potential habitat and water quality effects in these streams would mainly affect invertebrate communities, but fish could also be present during spring runoff. Approximately 5 miles of perennial stream are associated with riparian management projects within the larger sagebrush management area (Lower Henderson 1 and 3, and Lower Vinini Creek units). Only 1 .3 miles of perennial stream habitat are associated exclusively with sagcbmsh management projects — Table Mountain (Henderson and Vinini Creeks), and West Simpson Park (unnamed) units. Lahontan cutthroat trout potential habitat occurs in Henderson and Vinini Creeks, while native fish (speckled dace) have been reported in Coils Creek. Manual and mechanical treatments could result in increased water runoff and erosion, and spills of fuels and lubricants, to the possible detriment of water quality and aquatic habitat. Fire treatments could result in increased turbidity in streams due to runoff from burned areas. Adverse effects on stream habitat and aquatic species would vary depending on the precipitation conditions. Under average and dry year precipitation conditions, measured effects of prescribed fire would be relatively small or undetectable (Clifton et al. 2006). If large storm events occur within the first few years after prescribed fire, erosion could be substantial. Potential water use for prescribed fire treatment would be the same as discussed for riparian treatments. Biological control has been identified for use in the Table Mountain 1 and 2, Rocky Hills, and West Simpson Park units. Grazing using livestock as biological control could be used for short periods to remove undesirable vegetation before using other treatment methods. Grazing can contribute to the spread of noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation through preferential grazing of native vegetation over noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation, and by movement of undesirable vegetation into uninfested areas in livestock feces (USDOl BLM 2009b). Livestock could also degrade vegetation and soils, and deposit fecal material in or near streams, which would adversely affect water quality and habitat for aquatic species. Livestock grazing also could directly alter aquatic habitat if animals have access to the stream channels. Beneficial Effects The beneficial effects of sagebrush treatments would include improvements in aquatic and riparian habitats and a reduction in wildfire risk. Grade stabilization structures, streambank bioengineering, removal/ reconstruct ion of water development, and vegetation planting to initiate stream restoration would be used at the Henderson 1 and 2 units and Lower Vinini Unit that are within the sagebrush treatment area and would benefit aquatic species and habitat, frees that are removed as part of this treatment could be placed in streams to expand the stream width and help create or expand pool habitats. The woody structures also would provide additional in-stream cover for fish and organic material to the stream environment. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-279 September 20 1 3 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES Sagebrush treatments would result in improved sagebrush habitat and improved resilicney to wildfire, and would open up the sagebrush canopy to slow the spread of lire. The BLM would also use mowers and shredders to create fuel breaks. A decreased risk of wildfire would benefit aquatic habitat and species by reducing the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires and the associated adverse effects on habitat and species. 3.14.3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, the number of acres of riparian treatments (4,000 acres) and miles of stream improved to restore channel morphology and function (3 1 miles) would be similar to Alternative A. Because the BLM would have to rely more on mechanical treatments to reduce hazardous fuels and improve woodland health, improve the health of aspen stands, and control non-native vegetation, short-term soil disturbance and erosion would be similar to that under Alternative A even though fewer acres would be treated. However, fire- related effects on water quality and aquatic habitat would not occur under Alternative B. Although this would be beneficial to fish in the short term, in the long term there would be a higher risk of wildfire as a result of buildup of hazardous fuel materials that could have been removed through the use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit. Fire would also not be used to improve woodland health and for stand replacement treatments in Phase II and III pinyon-juniper stands. These stands would be highly susceptible to a wildfire. Adverse effects on aquatic habitat and species could result from wildfires near perennial streams and springs. Under Alternative B, the BLM would be able to demonstrate that it is restoring landscapes and addressing multiple resource issues. The BLM would also make gains toward meeting Proper Functioning Condition objectives on several streams in the project area. Treatment benefits to fish and other aquatic organisms under Alternative B would be less than under Alternative A, but not substantially less, as fire would be used sparingly to improve habitat for fish under Alternative A. However, risks to fish from wildfire would be greater under this alternative than for Alternative A. 3.14.3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under this alternative, the BLM would only treat vegetation using manual and classical biological control methods. Overall, only about one-fourth as many total acres, acres of wetland, floodplain, and riparian habitat, and miles of stream restoration would be treated under Alternative C than under Alternative A. Short-term soil disturbance and erosion would occur in watersheds as a result of manual and classical biological treatments, but effects would be substantially less under this alternative than under the other action alternatives because fewer acres would be treated, and because manual and biological treatments cause less soil disturbance compared to mechanical and fire treatments. The BLM would have limited success in restoring channel morphology and function in degraded streams to benefit Lahontan cutthroat trout and other aquatic organisms. The BLM would be able to hand place rocks, logs, and other material in streams to slow water flows, and may be able to make minor changes to the stream morphology using hand tools, but these improvements would be minor. Pinyon-juniper would be removed using chainsaws. Phase I woodlands and a limited acreage of Phase II woodlands would be targeted for treatments. Most treatments would occur near streams and roads to promote their use as fire breaks, to the benefit of aquatic resources. However, the BLM would not be able to conduct fire treatments to reduce hazardous fuels, or use mechanical equipment to create fire and fuel breaks, and thus the risks of wildfire and its effects on fish and other aquatic resources would be greater under this alternative than under the other action alternatives. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-280 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Under Alternative C, the BLM would do little to slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, including chcatgrass, or protect fish and wildlife habitat from devastating wildfire effects. Thus, benefits to fish and other aquatic organisms under Alternative C would be less than under Alternatives A and B. Although the BLM would make some gains toward meeting Proper Functioning Condition objectives on several streams in the project area, these gains would be less than for Alternatives A and B. 3.14.3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to fish or other aquatic resources from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon- juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; reconstruct stream channels and improve riparian habitat; thin and/or remove pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to encourage understory development; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; or reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire to the benefit of fish and other aquatic resources and their habitats. Alternative D poses the greatest threat to Lahontan cutthroat trout, through long-term habitat loss and degradation. 3.14.3.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for fish and other aquatic resources is approximately 1,841,698 acres and includes those watersheds at the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 level that are all or partially within the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3-1). Approximately 92 percent of the area is administered by the BLM, 6 percent is privately owned, and 2 percent is administered by the Forest Service. Past and present actions that have influenced fish and other aquatic resources in the 3 Bars ecosystem are discussed in Section 3.2. 2. 3. 3. 3.14.3.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) As discussed in Section 3.2.2. 3. 3, historic livestock use has contributed to soil erosion and water quality degradation, especially in riparian zones and near streams occupied, or potentially occupied, by Lahontan cutthroat trout and other fish. This degradation in habitat is a major reason why the BLM is conducting stream channel and habitat restoration along 3 1 miles of streams. The BLM also proposes to install fencing to limit livestock and wild horse access to riparian zone and aspen treatment areas. These actions should help to improve water quality in affected streams. In addition, the BLM would use fencing to restrict livestock access to upland treatment areas, as appropriate, and manage livestock and horse numbers to ensure they are appropriate to ensure healthy rangeland conditions. The BLM would continue to use ground-based herbicide applications to remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and aerial-based application methods to remove chcatgrass, and would restore burned areas under the Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program, under existing authorizations on about 1,000 acres annually. The BLM primarily uses 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, imazapic, metsulfuron methyl, and pieloram on the 3 Bars Project area. These herbicides have negligible to low risks to fish and other aquatic resources, except under accidental spill situations, which would be unlikely (USDOl BLM 2007b:4-80). These treatments could have a short-term adverse effect on non-target vegetation. These treatments would have long-term beneficial effects by helping to reduce hazardous fuels, improve native vegetation, slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reduce surface runoff and erosion associated with burn sites to the benefit of fish and other aquatic resources. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-281 September 2013 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES Recreation activities, primarily off-road vehicle travel, could impact stream habitat. Approximately 496 miles of road are within 500 feet of streams within the CESA. Those, approximately 16 miles arc within 500 feet of perennial streams including Birch, Denay, Henderson, Pete Hanson, Vinini, and Willow Creeks. Approximately 1 1 miles of known or potential Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat occurs near roads. In addition, 76 miles of off-highway vehicle routes arc within 500 feet of streams. Of those, approximately 1 1 miles of off-highway vehicle routes are within 500 feet of the same perennial streams that are near roads. Two miles of streams within 500 feet of off-highway vehicle routes contain known or potential Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat. Unpaved roads and off-highway vehicle routes near streams could contribute runoff and sediment to streams. Fishermen may also harvest Lahontan cutthroat trout and other game fish. As discussed in the Mount Hope Project E1S, there is concern that water withdrawals for future livestock and domestic uses, mine projects, and agricultural activities could reduce surface water flows in streams associated with the Diamond Mountains, Diamond Valley, Roberts Mountain, Kobch Valley, and Pine Valley. Water drawdown could adversely impact habitat used by Lahontan cutthroat trout, and could also impact habitat for other aquatic organisms and potential habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout on Henderson Creek (USDOI BLM 2012c:4-48 to 4-50). If deemed necessary by the BLM based on water monitoring, the Mount Hope Project proponent would augment water flows at several springs and at Henderson and Roberts Creeks (USDOI BLM 20 1 2c:3-93 to 3-105). Future mining activities within the CESA may create adverse impacts to surface water resources, mainly by altering drainage features, by dewatering springs or stream segments, and by water quality impacts from runoff from disturbed areas or escapes from processing facilities. Most of these potential impacts from mining activities would be avoided or reduced through state and federal mining regulations and related compliance programs. Surface water features within the CESA generally resemble those within the project area, consisting mainly of streams, springs, ponds, and playas in various conditions. In some locations, notably along Henderson and Pine Creeks and near the town of Eureka, irrigation return flows may have poorer water quality than rangeland streams and springs. These areas arc not used by Lahontan cutthroat trout, but could be used by other fish and aquatic resources. Land development, mineral development, and oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and development could affect about 10,000 acres in the reasonably foreseeable future, including about 8,335 acres of disturbance associated with the Mount Hope Project, and acreage associated with potential land sales (although it is unlikely that all of this land would be developed), roads, and rights-of-way for power and telephone lines. These projects would disturb soil, and could lead to soil erosion and water quality impacts in streams used by game fish and other aquatic resources. Land development and development of natural resources would involve the use of equipment and drilling of wells that could result in hydrocarbon and other spills of hazardous materials that could impact surface water and groundwater; a recent oil spill at the Blackburn oil well in Pine Valley impacted over 3 acres (USDOI BLM 2012c:4-47). Hazardous fuels reduction, habitat improvement, and noxious weed and invasive non-native vegetation control projects would occur on up to approximately 142,000 acres (about 127,000 for the 3 Bars Project and about 15,000 acres for other hazardous fuels projects in the CESA), or 8 percent of the CESA. As discussed under direct and indirect effects, these treatments would lead to short-term increases in soil erosion and surface water runoff, but long- term benefits to water quality and possibly water flows to the benefit of fish and other aquatic organisms. Fire treatments could cause the development of hydrophobic soils, increasing surface water runoff. Soils over much of the CESA arc susceptible to fire degradation. The disturbance effects resulting from restoration activities are predicted to have less impact and be less severe than fire effects and erosion caused by wildfire. Based on historic numbers, approximately 140,000 acres could bum during the next 20 years within the CESA. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-282 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3 Bars Project treatments would have short-term adverse effects on about 4,000 acres of riparian habitat, 9 miles of occupied Lahontan cutthroat trout streams, and 68 miles of potential Lahontan cutthroat trout streams. In addition, treatments under Alternative A could affect aquatic organisms found in almost 1,000 miles of perennial and intermittent/ephemeral streams on the 3 Bars Project area. Adverse effects from treatments would generally be short term, while benefits would be long term and would accumulate with fish and other aquatic resources habitat effects that occur on other portions of the CESA. Because stream restoration and enhancement treatments on the 3 Bars Project area under Alternative A would affect less than 0.2 percent of the acreage on the CESA, these effects would be negligible. About 1 7 percent of the 3 Bars Project Area and 8 percent of the CESA would be treated to reduce hazardous fuels, and slow the trend toward large-sized fires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand- replacing fires in pinyon-juniper. A reduction in wildfire risk on the CESA would benefit aquatic organisms, and would be greatest under Alternative A. 3.14.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on fish and other aquatic resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Acres and types of wetland and riparian habitat treated under this alternative would be similar to Alternative B. However, less effort would be spent by the BLM on treatments to reduce wildfire risk and its associated impacts to aquatic habitat from soil erosion, including use of fire to restore natural fire regimes. Adverse effects to fish and other aquatic resources would generally be the same as described for Alternative A. However, by not using fire, there would be no risks to fish and other aquatic resources or their habitat from fire on up to several thousand acres annually within the 3 Bars Project area. However, the use of fire could occur on several hundred acres annually on other portions of the CESA. Because of the large number of acres treated, water quantity and quality should improve within the 3 Bars Project area and provide a benefit to fish and other aquatic resources within the CESA, although not to the extent as would occur under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, restoration projects would occur along about 31 miles of streams, including about 9 miles of streams with occupied by Lahontan cutthroat trout, and on about 2,000 acres of wetland and riparian habitat. Hazardous fuels reduction and habitat improvement projects could occur on about 63,000 acres within the 3 Bars Project area, and on an additional 1 5,000 acres within the CESA, or about 4 percent of the acreage within the CESA The trend toward large-sized wildfires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand-replacing fires in pinyon-juniper should slow, but treatments to reduce this risk on the CESA would be less under Alternative B than under Alternative A. 3.14.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on fish and other aquatic resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Adverse, short-term effects to fish and other aquatic resources associated with the use of fire and mechanized equipment would not occur under Alternative C. However, fire use and mechanized equipment would be used on other portions of the CESA to improve habitat, remove hazardous fuels, and reduce the risk of wildfire. Treatments in the CESA would affect about 47,000 acres, or about 2 percent of the CESA; less than 0.2 percent of acreage on the CESA would be affected annually. 3 Bars Project restoration treatments would have short-term adverse and long-term beneficial effects on fish and other 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-283 September 2013 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES aquatic resources, but these effects would be negligible in the context of the acreage within the CESA and other types of activities that have effects on water resources, such as the Mount Hope Project. By not being able to use mechanical methods and fire to reduce hazardous fuels, treat vegetation to make it more fire resilient, create fire and fuel breaks, and remove downed wood and slash, however, the risk of wildfire and its impacts on water resources would likely increase on the 3 Bars Project area, to the potential detriment of fish and other resources that depend upon water in the CESA. 3.14.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on fish and other aquatic resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative effects on fish and other aquatic organisms from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM could create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation using ground-based and aerial application methods of herbicides, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; and reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire under current and reasonably foreseeable future authorized actions, but on a very limited acreage. Based on historic treatments in the 3 Bars Project area, only about 1,500 acres would be treated annually in the CESA to reduce hazardous fuel levels and improve ecosystem health. Hazardous fuel levels would likely increase, and only a limited number of miles of fuel and fire breaks would be constructed under this alternative compared to the action alternatives. The BLM would conduct stream bioengineering and riparian habitat enhancements only on a limited acreage and these projects would have to be authorized through separate decisions. Stream channels and riparian habitat would likely remain degraded and contribute to water quality concerns. Thus, riparian habitat used by Lahontan cutthroat trout and other aquatic organisms would remain degraded and contribute to water quality concerns. The trend toward large-sized fires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush, and large stand-replacing fires in pinyon-juniper, would likely increase. Of note, large regional wildfires have contributed to runoff, erosion, and water quality issues within the CESA, particularly outside treatment areas in the eastern mountainous parts of Grass Valley and Pine Valley. It is likely that wildfire incidence and severity would remain high under Alternative D. These effects would be detrimental to fish and other aquatic organisms. 3.14.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects Unavoidable adverse effects on aquatic biological resources include treatments that disturb soil and increase sedimentation, which could result in short-term adverse effects on water quality and aquatic species. In addition, removal of pinyon-juniper in riparian treatment areas could reduce stream shading, which could increase stream temperatures and adversely affect aquatic species. These adverse impacts generally would be short-term in duration (several months to several years) and would be addressed by resource protection measures implemented during and after the project treatment activities. 3.14.3.6 Relationship between the Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity As discussed under direct and indirect effects, treatments could lead to short-term habitat loss, and possibly loss of aquatic organisms, due to removal of vegetation and erosion. Long term, control of aquatic and riparian vegetation would improve habitat quality for fish and other aquatic resources, improve hydrologic function, and reduce soil erosion. Vegetation treatments that reduce hazardous fuels would benefit aquatic organisms by reducing the chances 3 Bars Project Draft MS 3-284 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES of a large, uncontrolled wildfire, which could result in the destruction of a large amount of high quality wetland and riparian habitat, especially if followed by heavy rainfall. Hazardous fuels reduction would also decrease the likelihood that wildfire suppression activities would occur in or near aquatic habitats. Treatments that restore natural fire regimes and native vegetation near streams should ensure a steady supply of large woody debris that would provide habitat for aquatic organisms in the long term (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-248). 3.14.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Loss of control over a prescribed fire could also harm aquatic habitat and cause mortality or injury to aquatic organisms. Treatments would likely result in short-term habitat degradation and some reduction in populations of fish and other aquatic organisms. These effects, however, would be reversible, as habitats would improve and aquatic organism populations would likely increase as a result (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-252). 3.14.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives 3 Bars Project restoration treatments and other actions in the CESA should not have a significant adverse impact on fish and other aquatic resources. One of the goals of the 3 Bars Project is to improve habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout and other fish and wildlife by restoring stream and habitat functionality through in-channel activities such as re- contouring and installing grade-control structures and plantings. Treatments could occur on several miles of streams annually and could lead to short-tenn stream channel instability and degradation. The BLM would also remove encroaching pinyon-juniper and noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation on about 3,900 acres of riparian habitat, and re vegetate treatment areas with native vegetation. The BLM would work with the USFWS and NDOW to ensure that treatments would not result in a long-term (greater than 3 year in duration) alteration or loss of habitat in streams or springs containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites). The BLM also would limit livestock, wild horse, and wild ungulate access to treated areas until site-specific treatment goals and objectives were met. These treatments are expected to improve stream habitat within 2 to 3 years. Stream restoration is not planned on other portions of the CESA, but could occur in the future should funding become available. Nearly all 3 Bars Project restoration treatments would cause short-term erosion that leads to increased sedimentation in streams or ponds that could harm aquatic species, and which could last for several years. These risks would be greatest in restoration areas with moderate to severe water or wind erosion potential, or where soils are susceptible to fire degradation. Treatments that disturb the soil or remove large amounts of vegetation, including use of mechanical treatments such as disking and plowing, and prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits, would also lead to short-term erosion and sedimentation. Long term, restoration treatments would lead to conditions that should reduce the risk of erosion, including revegetation of treatment sites with native vegetation and conducting treatments to stimulate growth of the understory. Treatments that reduce the risk of wildfire, including hazardous fuels treatments, control non-native vegetation, and create fire and fuel breaks would also reduce the risk of fire-associated erosion and its effects on water quality. Thus, none of the alternatives would result in a significant long-term (greater than 3 years) increase in erosion and the associated increased sedimentation in streams or ponds. Under all alternatives, there is potential for short-term releases of fuels and lubricants from equipment into water bodies that could affect Lahontan cutthroat trout or other aquatic species, although this risk would be negligible. The BLM would prevent or minimize the movement of fuels and lubricants into water bodies by fueling and servicing equipment off-site at least 300 feet from streams. Operators would also carry absorbent material and other spill clean- up materials to use should a spill occur in a water body. By retaining buffers between treatment areas and water 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-285 September 20 1 3 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES bodies where feasible, and following other SOPs that protcet water quality, it is unlikely that there would be a ehangc in water quality that would often or regularly exeeed Nevada water quality standards. Prescribed fire could be used near streams and cause a long-term (greater than 3 year in duration) loss of riparian vegetation in streams or springs containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites), or other aquatic species. As discussed below under Mitigation, the BLM would avoid conducting treatments in streams during spawning periods, and removing vegetation near streams using prescribed fire or other methods if it could be detrimental to Lahontan cutthroat trout. The BLM would consult with the USFWS and NDOW before conducting treatments near streams occupied by Lahontan cutthroat trout. Treatments under all alternatives would not cause a flow reduction lasting more than 1 month in streams containing Lahontan cutthroat trout (current populations or recovery sites), or other aquatic species. The BLM could divert water while reconstructing streams and use water to manage prescribed fires and wildland fires for resource uses. The BLM would prevent livestock, wild horse, and wild ungulate access to treatment sites near water in riparian and aspen treatment areas until these areas were restored and able to accommodate use by these animals. It is anticipated that access restrictions would be 2 to 3 years, while use of water for fire control would last only a few days. If access is restricted, the BLM would provide water gaps to allow livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates to access portions of the stream within treatment areas. Thus, there should be no significant long-term diversion, access restriction, or consumptive use of surface water that substantially reduces water availability and the uses recognized by Nevada Department of Water Resources in the analysis area or immediately adjacent to it under all alternatives. This would include flows and seasons of use in springs or streams where existing beneficial water uses, as defined by Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and recorded by Nevada Department of Water Resources, may be affected. Poorly designed, installed, or maintained culverts have impacted stream flows and fish movement on several streams on the 3 Bars Project area (AECOM 2010). The BLM would work to replace these culverts, and would ensure that any future culverts used in stream reconstruction would not cause permanent barriers to fish movement in streams. 3.14.4 Mitigation The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce or avoid impacts to fish and other aquatic biological resources: 1 . If instream disturbance is required as part of treatment, activities would be scheduled to avoid spawning periods of game fish species or Lahontan cutthroat trout. The measure would be effective in protecting spawning periods of game or special status fish species. 2. If water is required for fire control, perennial streams with game or special status species or springs with connections to these perennial streams would not be used as water sources. This measure would be effective in avoiding flow reductions in streams with important aquatic species by restricting their use as water sources for fire control. 3. The BLM would consult with the NDOW before conducting prescribed fire and other treatments that could adversely impact Lahontan cutthroat trout when working near Lahontan cutthroat trout occupied or potential habitat. The measure would be effective in protecting stream habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout. In addition, fish and other aquatic resources would benefit from mitigation measures identified in Section 3.17.4 (Livestock Grazing Mitigation). 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-286 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.15 Wildlife Resources 3.15.1 Regulatory Framework 3. 1 5. 1 . 1 Endangered Species Act In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies fnust “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species.” The purpose of the Act is to provide a means for conserving the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, and to provide a program for protecting these species. The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a major portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a major portion of its range. This Act also addresses species that have been proposed for listing as either threatened or endangered, but for which a final determination has not been made. These so-called “candidate” species are those for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Act, but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other, higher priority listing activities. Critical habitat is a specific area or type of area that is considered to be essential for the survival of a species, as designated by the USFWS under the Act. There are no federally listed wildlife species on the 3 Bars ecosystem; the Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, and yellow-billed cuckoo are candidates for listing. 3.15.1.2 BLM Special Status Species BLM Special Status Species are defined as those plant and animal species for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or a significant current or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce the species’ existing distribution. These animals are protected under provisions of the Act or under BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management (USDOI BLM 2008h). In addition, there is a Nevada State Protected Animal List (Nevada Administrative Code §§ 501.100 - 503.104) that BLM has incorporated, in part, into the Special Status Species list. 3.15.1.3 BLM and Nevada Department of Wildlife Memorandum of Understanding Wildlife and fish resources and their habitat on public lands are managed cooperatively by the BLM and NDOW under a Memorandum of Understanding as established in 1971. The Memorandum of Understanding describes the BLM’s commitment to manage wildlife and fisheries resource habitat, and the N DOW’s role in managing populations. The BLM meets its obligations by managing public lands to protect and enhance food, shelter, and breeding areas for wild animals. The NDOW assures healthy wildlife numbers through a variety of management tools including wildlife and fisheries stocking programs, hunting and fishing regulations, land purchases for wildlife management, cooperative enhancement projects, and other activities. 3.15.1.4 Nevada Department of Wildlife Programs The NDOW is responsible for the restoration and management of fish and wildlife resources within the state. The NDOW administers state wildlife management and protection programs as set forth in Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 501, Wildlife Administration and Enforcement, and Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 503, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping; Miscellaneous Protective Measures. Nevada Revised Statute § 501.1 10 defines the various 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-287 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES categories of wildlife in Nevada, including protected categories. Nevada Administrative Code §§ 503.010 to 503.0X0, 503.1 10, and 503.140 list the wildlife species currently placed in the state’s various legal categories, including protected species, game species, and pest species. 3.15.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act Migratory birds, with the exception of native resident game birds, arc protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Under this act, nests with eggs or the young of migratory birds may not be harmed, nor may any migratory birds be killed. Measures to prevent bird mortality must be incorporated into the project’s design. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended, makes it unlawful to directly or indirectly harm migratory birds. If the USFWS determines that migratory birds could be harmed by BLM vegetation treatment actions, the two agencies would develop a site-specific assessment and mitigation to prevent harm to these birds. Per the BLM Nevada Wildlife Surveys protocol, the BLM is required to conduct migratory bird surveys in and adjacent to (within 100 meters; 328 feet) a project area prior to disturbance. These surveys are adequate for up to 14 days. Additional surveys must be conducted after 14 days have elapsed if the project has not been implemented (USDOIBLM 20 1 3j). 3.15.1.6 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC § 668) applies primarily to taking, hunting, and trading activities that involve any bald or golden eagle. The Act prohibits the direct or indirect take of an eagle, eagle part or product, nest, or egg. The term “take” includes “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” Disturb is defined as to “agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: 1 ) injury to an eagle, or 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” Golden eagles are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, both of which prohibit take. Prior to conducting a treatment, the BLM would survey for eagles as per guidance in the BLM Nevada Wildlife Surveys protocol (USDOI BLM 2013j). 3.15.1.7 Other Regulations The Sikes Act is federal legislation that authorizes the USDOI to plan, develop, maintain, and coordinate programs with state agencies for the conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish, and game on public lands. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 encourages federal agencies to conserve and promote the conservation of non- game fish and wildlife species and their habitats. 3.15.2 Affected Environment 3.15.2.1 Study Methods and Analysis Area The NDOW provided a list of wildlife species that have been observed within the project area, or which NDOW biologists believe have a strong potential to occur within the project area, based on knowledge of the species’ habitat preference and conditions. BLM biologists reviewed these lists prior to their incorporation into this document. The NDOW Wildlife Action Plan and the NDOW Draft Nevada Wildlife Action Plan Public Review provided information 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-288 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES about key habitats and the species that depend on them, including species descriptions, range maps, and habitat needs (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006, 2012). The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan provided in-depth analysis of Nevada’s bat species, habitat and conservation needs, and distribution (Bradley ct al. 2006). The Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan was used as a supplemental resource for information about bird life history and habitats, especially for those species not covered in either the 2006 or 2012 Wildlife Action Plans (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2010). Several previous studies in or near the project area provided useful reference and analysis relevant to the proposed project. The most significant of these was the Mount Hope Project E1S (USDOI BLM 2012c). The Mount Hope Project is in the southeast comer of the 3 Bars Project area, and the study area for some aspects of the Mount Hope E1S included much the 3 Bars Project area. Finally, numerous Geographic Information System data files for wildlife species presence and seasonal habitat range were consulted in conjunction with the above referenced documents. The project area for analysis of direct and indirect effects to wildlife resources is the 3 Bars Project area. The cumulative effects analysis area includes the 3 Bars Project area, and areas within 10 miles of the project area boundary, as shown in Figure 3-1. 3.15.2.2 Wildlife Habitat Important wildlife habitat in the area includes big sagebrush (mountain, basin, and Wyoming big sagebrush), low sagebmsh, pinyon-juniper woodlands, aspen, riparian, and salt desert scrub vegetation types. The components of these habitats are described in Section 3.1 1, Native and Non-native Vegetation Resources, while wetland, floodplain, and riparian habitats within the project area are described in Section 3.10, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Zones. 3.15.2.2.1 Sagebrush Sagebmsh communities in Nevada provide habitat for approximately 100 bird species and 70 mammal species, including at least 28 rodent species (Braun et al. 1976). Big sagebrush provides important habitat for many sagebrush obligate and facultative wildlife species. “Obligate” species are those that live only within a particular habitat type, while “facultative” species prefer a particular habitat, but are not restricted to it. Sagebrush lizard, greater sage-grouse, sage thrasher, sage sparrow. Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush vole, pygmy rabbit, and pronghorn antelope are sagebrush obligate species (Paige and Ritter 1999, Knick ct al. 2003). Low sagebrush areas provide seasonal habitat for some species and year-round habitat for smaller animal species. Sagebrush provides important nesting and foraging habitat, and protection from predators and from the weather. The deep, often sandy or loose soils arc easy to dig, and burrowing and denning species arc common. Sagebrush range in good condition typically supports a lush undergrowth of bunchgrasses and forbs. This highly productive understory is critical to the needs of wildlife species, including sagebrush vole and several species of shrew that depend on the productivity of the grass component for both prey production and cover (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Wildfire, spread of noxious weeds and invasive non-native species, and pinyon-juniper encroachment are major threats to sagebrush habitat and associated wildlife (Connelly ct al. 2004). The decline in sagebrush habitat in the western U.S. has resulted in the greater sage-grouse being petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered, and shrubland birds are declining faster than any other group of species in North America (Knick et al. 2003). The Brewer’s sparrow population has declined by over 50 percent since 1966, and the loggerhead shrike population continues to decline across its range (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-289 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES 3.15.2.2.2 Pinyon- juniper Woodland Pinyon-juniper woodlands provide a variety of sheltering functions for wildlife that range from hiding cover to cavities and nest sites for birds, bats, and small mammals. Numerous wildlife species frequent pinyon-juniper habitats in the western United States. At least 70 species of birds and 48 species of mammals have been associated with these woodlands (Gottfried et al. 1995). Over the past 150 years, pinyon-juniper has expanded into sagebrush, riparian, and aspen habitats, to the detriment of species that use these habitats. Ironically, despite the increase in amount of pinyon- juniper habitat on the landscape, resident seed and fruit eating bird species such as pinyon jay, western scrub jay, and mountain chickadee arc undergoing substantial population declines in the pinyon-juniper biome, while migratory insectivorc populations arc little changed (Sauer et al. 2008 in Great Basin Bird Observatory 2011). The pinyon-juniper woodlands provide important thermal protection for wildlife during winter, and shelter from the intense sun during the summer. For birds and bats in particular, pinyon-juniper woodlands provide structure for nesting and roosting and locations for foraging that would otherwise be missing from the mid-elevation cold desert. The pinyon nut crop is an important food source for a number of species, including pinyon jay and a variety of small mammals. The juniper berry crop is also an important food resource for birds and small mammals (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Pinyon-juniper at different successional stages offers different benefits for different species, and pinyon-juniper communities can range from open stands with a diverse understory of shrubs and grasses to closed woodlands with little understory vegetation. Open pinyon-juniper/big sagebrush/bunchgrass stands are mid- successional and characterized by herbaceous, shrub, and tree layers, and often host a high diversity of wildlife species. As western juniper dominance increases, structural diversity declines. Old growth stands also differ structurally from post-settlement woodlands, including having a greater density of cavities, which benefits cavity nesting species (Miller et al. 2005). 3.15.2.2.3 Aspen and Riparian Wildlife use riparian zones disproportionately more than any other type of habitat in the Great Basin (see review in Thomas et al. 1979, Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Riparian habitat in the Great Basin supports a rich diversity of wildlife, including more than one-half of the bird species that breed regularly in the Great Basin (Wildlife Habitat Council 2005). Riparian areas provide important habitat for numerous wildlife species on the 3 Bars Project area, but several species, including northern leopard frog, Lewis’ woodpecker, northern goshawk, mountain quail, willow flycatcher, Cassin’s finch, montane shrew, and numerous species of bats preferentially use riparian zones (USDOI BLM 2003b, Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Biological diversity is higher in aspen stands than in any other upland forest type in the West (Finch and Ruggiero 1993 in Kay 2003). Numerous wildlife species use aspen areas and aspen stands typically have high bird abundance and richness, but several species, including Lewis’ woodpecker, northern goshawk, Cassin’s finch, mountain quail, mule deer, and numerous species of bats preferentially use aspen habitats on the 3 Bars Project area (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Aspen arc found on scattered tracts on the 3 Bars Project area, but their future is uncertain. Studies in California, Oregon, and Nevada have shown that 12 percent of aspen stands have been completely replaced by pinyon-juniper, and pinyon-juniper was dominant or co-dominant in another 65 percent of stands (Kerr and Salvo 2007). Studies in Nevada and on the 3 Bars Project area have shown that unless protected by fencing, aspen stands are degraded by livestock. In areas where aspen were protected from grazing, they successfully regenerated and formed multi-aged stands. Aspen have also declined from fire suppression, but even if burned, will not regenerate if ungulate herbivory is excessive (Kay 2001, 2003, USDOI BLM 20 1 Od). 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-290 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Aspen communities are particularly important to cavity nesting species in Nevada because stems attain sizes over 10 inches diameter at breast height and the wood is soft and easy to excavate. Because large diameter aspen occur more frequently in riparian aspen stands, these areas tend to be preferred by eavity nesting species. In addition to cavities and peeling bark, mature aspen communities provide larger diameter trees utilized by wildlife as forage substrate or nesting. For example, northern goshawks ean live in and utilize high-clcvation shrub-steppe habitats because stringers of large-diameter aspen trees with closed canopies in the riparian zones will support their nesting needs. Birds and small mammals utilize mid-story structure and hcrbaccous/shrub understory of aspen communities for forage, nesting, and protective cover. Downed trees in aspen habitat can create slow moving water conditions favorable to Columbia spotted frog, a federal candidate species and BLM Special Status Species. 3.15.2.2.4 Salt Desert Scrub The intermountain cold desert shrub, including salt desert scrub, is the most important habitat in Nevada for several BLM Special Status Species, including pale kangaroo mouse and loggerhead shrike. The shrub habitat provides nesting structure and protection from predators and the weather. This habitat is important to loggerhead shrike, which can attain high breeding densities in valley bottoms where individual shrubs can be quite large and provide good cover and nest protection. Soils tend to be loose and either sandy or gravelly and are often easy to dig, providing important denning and burrowing habitat. Small and medium mammals including rabbits, jackrabbits, and various rodents that forage in the brush serve as prey for raptors. Washes provide unique habitat for certain terrestrial species including amphibians. By retaining higher soil moisture than surrounding upland areas, they can serve as enhanced movement and migration pathways for these species and facilitate their distribution across the landscape, perhaps serving an important role in amphibian metapopulation maintenance. As a result of the limited water availability associated with salt desert scrub, the habitat is used seasonally by larger animals and provides a lower abundance of smaller animals than found in the more mesic plant communities (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). 3.15.2.3 Wildlife Species Wildlife species and habitats occurring in the project area are typical of the central Basin and Range region, and arc relatively abundant within and adjacent to the project area. Wildlife species that are not special status species are discussed below; a discussion of special status species, such as those listed as federally threatened or endangered, or BLM Special Status Species, follows. These discussions only address a portion of the wildlife species that occur within the 3 Bars Project area, and focus on those species where the BLM has the most information. 3.15.2.3.1 Reptiles and Amphibians Records for amphibian occurrence within the project study area are lacking. Based on amphibian records in areas adjacent to the project study area, species occurrence could include the Great Basin spadefoot toad, western toad, northern leopard frog, and Columbia spotted frog (Petersen 2012). The Columbia spotted frog is discussed under BLM Special Status Species. Potential habitat for amphibians within the project study area includes springs, wet areas, and streams. Many of the toad species, such as Great Basin spadefoot, utilize terrestrial habitats throughout most of the year, but they move to aquatic habitats for breeding in the spring or early summer. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-291 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES The northern leopard frog was petitioned for listing, hut the status review and 12-month finding eoneludcd that listing the western population is not warranted at this time (USDOl USFWS 201 I ). Habitat for northern leopard frog typically includes springs and wet areas. Breeding typically occurs in the spring or early summer for leopard frogs. There are a variety of snakes and lizards that are known either to occur or have the potential to occur within the project area, in almost every habitat type. Likely species include rubber boa and ringncck snake, which can occupy a variety of grassland and woodland habitats including aspen woodlands, and often occur near riparian zones. The greater short-homed lizard also uses a variety of habitats including sagebrush, open pinyon-juniper, and spruce-fir forests, and prefers areas where substrate is stony, sandy, or firm, but usually where there is some fine loose soil. Desert homed lizard and long-nosed leopard lizard tend to prefer arid shrublands, and may occur in the project area, and the great basin rattlesnake is likely to occur in the broken rocks and brush habitats within the project area. Other reptiles known or likely to occur in the project area include coachwhip, common sagebrush lizard, great basin collared lizard, western fence lizard, long-nosed snake, and striped whipsnakc (NDOW 2008a, 2009b, Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). 3.15.2.3.2 Birds Waterfowl Waterfowl and wading birds occur in shallow lakes, marshes, grassy meadows, and wetlands. These birds may use the project area for breeding, as a wintering ground, as year-round habitat, or during migration. Snow geese, tundra swans, and other waterfowl overwinter within the project area, while mallards and Canada geese overwinter and breed here. Great blue heron forage in shallow water and marshy areas year-round, while populations of American bittern, black-crowned night heron, and sora use these habitat areas during the breeding season. Other species of waterfowl, including several species of teal as well as egret, rails, and coots, are known to occur in the project area. Migratory and breeding populations of sandhill crane use the wet meadows, riparian zones, and agricultural lands for foraging, and often congregate in large numbers in eastern Nevada, including all of Eureka County (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006, 2012, Great Basin Bird Observatory 2010, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2011). Doves and Quail Mourning dove and chukar are small game birds that occur on the project area. Mourning doves primarily inhabit open country, areas with scattered trees, and woodland edges, and forage for seeds on the ground. They are frequently found along unimproved roads where they obtain gravel for food digestion, or near springs and artificial sources of water (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 201 1, USDOl BLM 2012c). Mourning doves arc a year-round resident in Nevada (Otis ct al. 2008). Chukar partridge were introduced to Nevada in the 1940s and are now widely distributed. Optimum habitat for chukar partridge consists of steep rugged canyons with numerous talus slopes and rocky outcrops; the species typically inhabits rock outcrops and ledges adjoining grassy and sagebrush hillsides. Chukar partridge eat a variety of leafy green food, weed seeds, fruits, berries, insects, and beetles. Chukar partridge are common in the Roberts Mountains, Whistler Mountain, and Sulphur Spring Range. Occupation of seasonal habitat varies with moisture and snow levels. The birds typically move to lower elevations and south-facing slopes during heavy snow events, and concentrate around water sources during the summer months (USDOl BLM 2012c). Raptors A variety of raptors arc known to use the project area for roosting, nesting, and/or hunting. Golden eagle, northern harrier, prairie falcon. Cooper’s hawk, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-292 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES American kestrel, and western burrowing owl have been known to nest in the area. Nesting data since 2006 indicates active use of the area by prairie falcons, and kestrels. Northern goshawk, a BLM Special Status Species, occurs in riparian habitat in the Roberts Mountains area. There are also numerous historic nesting records for ferruginous hawk, another BLM Special Status Species, within open habitat areas of the 3 Bars project area, including a site in the southeastern section of the project area that has been used within the past 10 years, Flammulated owls may occur in woodland areas in the north-central part of the project area. Additional raptors sighted in the area include merlin and rough-legged hawk (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006 and 2012, NDOW 2009c, 2010a, USDOI BLM 2012c). Migratory Birds Neo-tropical migrant birds are bird species that migrate from the temperate portions of the continent to winter in the tropics of North and South America. Neo-tropical migrants are most commonly associated with habitats having a strong vertical component of woody shrubs and trees. A number of migratory birds that breed in North America and winter in the neotropical region of South America also breed in the project area and vicinity. Species commonly occurring in pinyon-juniper habitats and that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the project area include the pinyon jay, western bluebird, Virginia’s warbler, black-throated gray warbler, and Scott’s oriole. Sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage sparrow use sagebrush habitats within the project area, while loggerhead shrike and green-tailed towhee also have potential to occur in the sagebrush habitats in the project area. Gray flycatcher is known to occur within the project area and may use pinyon-juniper, tall sagebrush, or riparian habitats (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2010, USDOI BLM 2012c, Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Other migratory species known to occur within the project area include common nighthawk, common raven, mountain bluebird, black-throated sparrow, lark sparrow, and western meadowlark. 3.15.2.3.3 Mammals Large Game Mule deer use a variety of vegetation types and habitats seasonally within the project area in their pursuit of forage, thermal cover, and escape cover for seasonal needs. Vegetation important for mule deer includes serviceberry, snowberry, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, aspen, cottonwood, willow, chokecherry, wild rose, singleleaf pinyon pine, Utah juniper, eriogonum, arrowleaf balsamroot, penstemon, phlox, sorrel, hawksbeard, lupine, and numerous forbs. Riparian vegetation along streams, meadow areas, and aspen stands are important fawn-rearing areas (USDOI BLM 2007g). Six mule deer herds have all or a portion of their range within the project area, including the Sulphur Spring herd, Whistler herd, Fish Creek herd, Roberts Mountain herd, Simpson Park herd, and Cortez Mountains herd (Figure 3-40). Mule deer habitat is concentrated primarily in the eastern half of the project area, including the Roberts Mountains area, and in the Simpson Park area. Habitat for mule deer over much of the 3 Bars Project Area is in decline, and proposed treatments are designed to slow or reverse this trend (Figure 3-41). Factors contributing to this decline include pinyon-juniper encroachment into shrublands, decadent and unhealthy pinyon-juniper stands, high levels of hazardous fuels that could lead to a catastrophic wildfire and loss of deer habitat, livestock grazing, noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and human-related disturbance. The mule deer population in NDOW hunt units 141 through 145 has been stable to slightly increasing from 2009 to 2011, with a December 201 1 population estimate of nearly 1,500 animals (NDOW 2012b, c). The Roberts Mountains deer are migratory in nature. Mule deer leave Roberts Mountains in October or November and migrate south into the 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-293 September 2013 Elko County rxGTTwn Eureka County »»» ureka Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) Legend 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Mule Deer Habitat Summer Range Crucial Summer Range Winter Range Crucial Winter Range Hi Transition Range Year-round Range Agricultural Lands/ Unique Habitat | 3 Bars Project Area Source: NDOW 2009d. Figure 3-40 Mule Deer Habitat 0 1 2 3 4 5 ii Kilometers 10 10 ii Miles No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. Elko County Eureka County ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. \ -Jl/ Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ B*,tle Eko Mountain • /"•" | Project Area { hi Mount J LJ I Lewis l J Field YTVaT omce Battle Mountain District as Vagas Legend Degraded Habitat 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-41 Areas with Degraded Habitat Conditions U'j warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards hl* product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice WILDLIFE RESOURCES Mountain Boy and Fish Creek Ranges south of U.S. Highway 50. The migration pattern includes moving south from Roberts Creek Ranch to Lone Mountain and from Henderson Summit along Whistler Mountain to Devils Gate (USDOl BLM 2012c). Pronghorn occupy the lowlands and the foothills of the project area and are mostly absent from the Roberts Mountains area (Figure 3-42; NDOW 2008b). Pronghorn numbers have increased throughout the area in recent years, partially in response to vegetation changes resulting from past range fires. Wyoming big sagebrush habitat is particularly important to pronghorn (Tsukamoto 2003). Important vegetation species for pronghorn include low sage, black sage, serviceberry, shadscale, winterfat, rabbitbrush, greasewood, ricegrass, needlegrasses, lupine, spurge, balsamroot, several eriogonum species, scarlet globe-mallow, phlox, locoweed, and other perennial forbs. Ten antelope herds have all or a portion of their range within the project area. The 2006 population estimate for the NDOW hunt units was 450 animals, up from 240 in 2002, and population growth was observed in 201 1 (NDOW 2012c). The pronghorn antelope population in Kobeh Valley is low and variable with most of the antelope observed in the southern part of the valley near Lone Mountain and U.S. Highway 50 (USDOl BLM 2012c). Habitat for pronghorn antelope over much of the 3 Bars Project Area is in decline, and proposed treatments are designed to slow or reverse this trend (Figure 3-41). Factors contributing to this decline include pinyon-juniper encroachment into shrublands, high levels of hazardous fuels that could lead to a catastrophic wildfire and loss of pronghorn antelope habitat, livestock grazing, noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation that displace native forbs and grasses, dense stands of Wyoming big sagebrush, and human-related disturbance. Bighorn sheep occur in mesic to dry grasslands or shrub-steppe in mountains, foothills, or river canyons, in areas with access to steep, rugged terrain for escape from predators. While historic populations of bighorn sheep were in most mountain ranges within Nevada, there are no known bighorn sheep populations with the 3 Bars Project area. The most recent NDOW sighting for bighorn sheep in the project area was in 1983, on the east side of the Roberts Mountains (NDOW 2008a, 2010b). Potential habitat for bighorn sheep exists in the Roberts Mountains area, the Whistler Range, Lone Mountain, the Simpson Park Mountains, and the Cortez Mountains (NDOW 2010b). Other Mammals Cougars are found primarily in the mountainous portions of the 3 Bars Project area, and bobcats have been seen throughout the 3 Bars Project area, including near Table Mountain in the Sulphur Spring Range, along Vinini Creek on the Roberts Mountains, and in the central area south of Roberts Mountains. Coyotes occupy almost all habitat types and have been observed in the southern part of the project area (NDOW 201 2d). One of the most diverse groups represented in the project area is rodents, with species of chipmunks, mice, ground squirrels, jumping mice, kangaroo rats, and voles present throughout. Members of the rabbit family, including pygmy rabbit, black-tailed jackrabbit, and mountain cottontail, also occur in the project area (USDOl BLM 2012c). Pika could be found on Roberts Mountains. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan and NDOW data show several records for bat occurrences within the project area. Bats inhabit or utilize many niches across the 3 Bars landscape. These include caves, abandoned mines, cliffs, springs, riparian, aspen, pinyon-juniper, subalpine coniferous forest, and desert shrub habitats. The only documented bat occurrences in the project area are for long-eared myotis, which has been recorded on the eastern edge of the project area and in the Roberts Mountains. Townsend’s big-eared bat and western small footed myotis may occur on the southeastern edge of the project area (Bradley et al. 2006, NDWO 2008a). Bat species are discussed in greater detail in the Special Status Species section. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-296 September 20 1 3 County Elko Eureka County *r?H_ Mi ' ' —*<*!#> United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office rilBIlUtfr 50 Bastian Rd. V . 4/ Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ Legend Pronghorn Habitat V/A Summer Range Winter Range Crucial Winter Range Year-round Range Crucial Year-round Range 3 Bars Project Area Source: NDOW 2008b 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-42 Pronghorn Habitat I Kilometers District Las No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice WILDLIFE RESOURCES 3.15.2.3.4 Special Status Species The following discussion of BLM Special Status Species is based on two lists: the BLM’s Special Status Species list for the Battle Mountain District, and the NDOW list of species known to occur within the 3 Bars Project area or which NDOW biologists believe have the potential to occur within the project area, based on habitat needs and habitat conditions (NDOW 20 1 2d). The lists were cross-referenced with each other to obtain a list of Special Status Species known to occur or with potential to occur within the 3 Bars Project area. NDOW Geographic Information System data were used to verify whether there are current or historic occurrences of a species within the project area, but because absence of a Geographic Information System record does not necessarily indicate that the species is absent, only that no record has been made of its presence in a particular location, the following section considers all BLM Special Status Species suspected or known to occur within the 3 Bars Project area. There are 25 BLM Sensitive Species wildlife in the planning area, including 13 birds, 1 1 mammals, and 1 amphibian (Table 3-45). Of these, none are federally listed as threatened or endangered. Three species, greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Columbia spotted frog, are federal candidate species. Amphibians Columbia Spotted Frog Columbia spotted frogs are closely associated with clear, slow-moving or ponded surface waters, with little shade, and relatively constant water temperatures. Breeding and egg-laying occurs in waters with floating vegetation and larger ponds such as oxbows, lakes, stock ponds, and beaver-created ponds; in some areas, this species is critically tied to beaver ponds. Adults are opportunistic feeders, and eat insects, mollusks, crustaceans, and spiders. Tadpoles eat decomposed plants and live green algae. Columbia spotted frogs occur in three geographically separated subpopulations in the Jarbidge and Independence Mountains, the Ruby Mountains, and in the Toiyabe Mountains. There are no recorded occurrences in the project area. Birds Greater Sage-grouse Greater sage-grouse are largely dependent on sagebrush for nesting and brood rearing and feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves during the winter. Greater sage-grouse are known to occur in foothills, plains, and mountain slopes where sagebrush meadows and aspen are in close proximity. A dense sagebrush overstory and an herbaceous understory of grasses are important to provide shade and security, and both new herbaceous growth and residual cover are important in the understory. Greater sage-grouse have specific habitat requirements to carry out their life cycle functions. Early spring habitats or breeding sites called “leks” are usually situated on ridge tops or grassy areas surrounded by a substantial brush and herbaceous component (USDOI BLM 2012c). Leks have less herbaceous and shrub cover than the surrounding areas. In early spring, males gather in leks where they strut to attract females. Nests are located in thick cover in sagebrush habitat and consist of a shallow depression on the ground. Habitat for brood-rearing in early spring is critical to brood survival. Important habitat components for brood rearing include a sagebrush overstory, an herbaceous understory, and the presence of plentiful insects, especially wasps, bees, ants and beetles, which provide a high-protein diet for 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-298 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TABLE 3-45 Special Status Species Known or with Potential to Occur on the 3 Bars Project Area Common Name/Croup Scientific Name Status Habitat REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris Federal Candidate Clear, open, slow moving or still water with consistent temperature. BIRDS Bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus BLM Sensitive Large conifers for roosting. Black rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata BLM Sensitive Barren, rocky, or grassy areas and cliffs among glaciers or above timberline. Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BLM Sensitive Sagebrush and large openings in pinyon-juniper. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BLM Sensitive Pinyon-juniper edges, sagebrush, and other open areas and wooded edges. Golden eagle AquiJa chrysaetos BLM Sensitive Open or sparsely wooded habitats in mountainous areas. Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Federal Candidate Sagebrush. Lewis’ woodpecker Melcmerpes lewis BLM Sensitive Aspen and riparian. Loggerhead shrike Lanins ludovicianus BLM Sensitive Desert scrub, especially creosote bush. Nests in sagebrush. Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis BLM Sensitive Aspen and riparian. Peregrine falcon Falco perigrinus BLM Sensitive Desert scrub, including sage and steppe habitat near cliffs. Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocepha/us BLM Sensitive Pinyon-juniper. Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus BLM Sensitive Sagebrush. Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni BLM Sensitive Wooded riparian near sage and brushland. Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BLM Sensitive Sagebrush. Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Federal Candidate Riparian obligate and dense riparian cottonwood-willow stands. MAMMALS Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacepha/us BLM Sensitive Sagebrush. Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis BLM Sensitive Sagebrush. California myotis Myotis californicus BLM Sensitive Desert to forest. Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BLM Sensitive Desert to forest. Hoary myotis Lasiurus cinereus BLM Sensitive Forests/woodlands, including pinyon-juniper and forested riparian zones. Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus BLM Sensitive Associated with coniferous forest with a nearby water source. Long-cared myotis Myotis evotis BLM Sensitive Coniferous forests. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-299 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES TABLE 3-45 (Cont.) Special Status Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the 3 Bars Project Area Common Name/Group Scientific Name Status Habitat MAMMALS (Cont.) Long-legged myotis Myotis volans BLM Sensitive Pinyon-juniper woodland and montane coniferous forests. May use shrub habitat including sagebrush. Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris nocti vagans BLM Sensitive Forests and wooded areas near water, including pinyon-juniper forests and wooded riparian corridors. Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus tomisendii BLM Sensitive Caves and mines in a variety of habitats, including pinyon-juniper and mahogany woodlands. Western pipistrelle Parastrelluss hesperus BLM Sensitive Desert habitats including sagebrush, and occasionally in pinyon-juniper habitat with rock outcrops and canyons. Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum BLM Sensitive Various, including grasslands, shrubland, coniferous forest, and urban settings. Sources: Bradley et al. (2006), Great Basin Bird Observatory (2010), and Wildlife Action Plan Team (2012). broods. Insects are especially important in the diet of newly hatched broods. Over the fall, birds shift from consuming large amounts of forbs to eating mostly sagebrush. Access to sagebrush for food and cover in winter is critical to their survival. Greater sage-grouse habitat is found over most of the 3 Bars Project area. The distribution of greater sage-grouse on the project area is closely tied to the sagebrush ecosystem that provides nesting, brood-rearing, and fall/winter cover as well as forage throughout the year. Summer habitat consists of sagebrush mixed with areas of wet meadows, riparian, and irrigated agricultural fields. Fall habitat consists of a mosaic of low-growing sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush. Winter habitat is contingent on the severity of winter weather, topography, and vegetative cover, but access to sagebrush for food and cover in winter is critical to greater sage-grouse survival. Late spring habitat and nesting sites are in thick cover in sagebrush habitat beneath sagebrush or other shrubs. Individual greater sage-grouse move seasonally between habitat types throughout the year (USDOI BLM 2012c). With the exception of a few of the higher elevation areas, all of the 3 Bars project area is within the summer distribution range for greater sage-grouse. Nearly all of the foothills and lowland areas arc within the winter range of the species, and Kobch Valley and Denay Valley are within nesting range. The NDOW defines lek status as active, inactive, historic, or unknown. An active lek is defined as a lek that had two or more birds present during at least one of three or more surveys in a given breeding season. For a strutting ground to attain this status, it must also have had two or more birds present during at least 2 years in a 5-year period. An inactive lek is a lek that has been surveyed three or more times during one breeding season with no birds detected during the surveys and no sign observed on the lek. If a lek is only surveyed once during a breeding season and was surveyed 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-300 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES under adequate conditions and no birds were observed at the location during the current and the previous year and no sign was observed at the lek, then an inactive status can be applied to the lek. An unknown lek is a lek that may not have had birds present during the last survey, but could be considered viable due to the presence of sign at the lek. This designation could be especially useful when weather conditions or observer arrival at a lek could be considered unsuitable to observe strutting behavior. The presence of a single strutting male would invoke the classification of the lek as unknown. A lek that was active in the previous year, but was inadequately sampled (as stated above) in the current year with no birds observed could also be classified as unknown. An historic lek is a lek that has not had bird activity for 20 years or more and has been checked according to protocol at least intermittently. Another means of classifying a lek as historic is to photograph a lek location and determine if the habitat is suitable for normal courtship displays. For example, if a lek location lies in a monotypic stand of sagebrush that is 3 to 4 feet tall, then conditions are no longer suitable for leking activity. The BLM and Forest Service are developing a National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy for identifying important sage-grouse habitat. Currently agencies are utilizing two interim habitat classifications to guide land use decisions — Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat. Areas of Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat indicate where land-use changes could result in an expected negative impact to sage- grouse population health and are shown on Figure 3-43 for the 3 Bars Project area. These classifications are a conglomeration of NDOW seasonal sage-grouse data. Preliminary Priority Habitat consists of a combination of essential and irreplaceable (Category 1 ) and important (Category 2) habitats. These areas include breeding habitat (lek sites and nesting habitat), brood-rearing habitat, winter range, and important movement corridors. Preliminary Priority Habitat primarily consists of sagebrush, but may also include riparian communities, perennial grasslands, agriculturally-developed land, and restored habitat, including recovering burned areas. The BLM and the Forest Service define Preliminary Priority Habitat as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations. Preliminary General Habitat consists of habitat types of moderate importance (Category 3), however, Preliminary General Habitat may also include areas of higher quality habitat that lacks bird survey and inventory data to support a priority habitat ranking. Preliminary General Habitat provides some benefit to greater sage-grouse populations but, in many instances, lacks a key component, such as adequate shrub height or density or sufficient herbaceous understory, which prevents it from meeting its full ecological potential. Preliminary General Habitat also may include areas burned recently that have not sufficiently recovered or sagebrush communities with pinyon-juniper encroachment. Preliminary General Habitat has the potential to be reclassified as Preliminary Priority Habitat if restoration efforts enhance the habitat quality or ongoing field efforts document greater sage-grouse use. The greater sage-grouse population trends are tracked based on the number of males per lek (Sage and Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Technical Committee 2008). Individual greater sage-grouse counts can vary year to year and approximately 10 years of data are required to establish population trends. Populations in Eureka County showed a 25 percent increase between 201 1 and 2012, but are only 55 percent of the highest recorded levels in 1986. The peak male attendance at ten comparable leks surveyed in 2012 was 259, for an average of 25.9 males per lek. In 201 1, 207 males were counted for an average of 20.7 males per lek. The average in 2006 was 41 males, which is the highest average since the 1986 average of 47 males. In addition to trend counts there were additional leks monitored by the NDOW, BLM, and University ofNevada-Reno graduate students in 2012. The 18 leks monitored in 2012 had 346 males in attendance for an average of 19.2 males per lek. In 201 1, these same leks had 307 males yielding an average of 1 7. 1 males per lek for a 12 percent increase from 2011 to 2012. Within the 3 Bars project area, there were 2 1 active 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-301 September 20 1 3 Elko County Eureka County ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management _ Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 09/11/13) ■’■O® A _j \ (7) \ ) 3 , W x /s. r**i - v 1 M V V- V / - V Legend Greater Sage-grouse Leks and Habitat Active Lek I .....I Historic Lek Unknown Lek Status Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) ES3 O Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) Pinyon-juniper Treatment Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-43 Sage Treatment Area Aspen Treatment Area Riparian Treatment Area 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2012g,k. Greater Sage-grouse Leks and Habitat 1 2 3 4 5 3 Kilometers to No warranty is mad© by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES leks surveyed in 20 1 2; 339 males were counted, for an average of 1 6. 1 males per lek. An additional 27 leks have a status of unknown, and there are 10 historic lek sites (Figure 3-43; Podborny 2012). Habitat for greater sage-grouse over much of the 3 Bars Project Area is in decline, and proposed treatments are designed to slow or reverse this trend (Figure 3-41). The most significant threats to greater sage-grouse in Nevada are natural system modifications due to wildfire and the subsequent loss of habitat as well as impacts of invasive species (eheatgrass) and pinyon-juniper encroachment. Other threats include habitat fragmentation and disturbance, particularly roads and utility service lines as a result of both renewable and non-renewable energy resources, and degradation caused by overgrazing, mining, and recreational activities. Bald Eagles Bald eagles are found throughout Nevada as part of the species winter range and arc known to occur within the project area, with most occurrences along the northeastern edge of the project area boundary. Bald eagles roost preferentially in large conifers or other sheltered sites in winter and typically select the larger, more accessible trees. There are no known bald eagle nesting sites within the project area (NDOW 2009c). Golden Eagle Golden eagles are found throughout Nevada and the project area. Golden eagles are generally found in a variety of open to semi-open landscapes, especially in hilly or mountainous regions, and avoid heavily forested areas. This species typically nests on rock ledge on cliffs or occasionally in large trees. Pairs may have several nests, and may use the same nest in consecutive years or shift to using an alternate nest in different years. Nests have been recently found in the project area (USDOI BLM 2012c). Golden eagles feed mainly on small mammals (e.g., rabbits, marmots, ground squirrels), although they are opportunistic and may also eat insects, snakes, birds, young deer or pronghorn, and carrion. Northern Goshawk Northern goshawks breed and winter throughout the state. Northern goshawks rely on open sagebrush adjacent to riparian and aspen stands for foraging, and aspens are a key habitat feature. Nests are generally constructed in the largest trees in dense, large tracts of mature or old growth aspen stands with high canopy closure (60 to 95 percent) and sparse ground cover, near the bottom of moderate slopes, and near water or dry openings. Prey items include tree squirrels, ground squirrels, rabbits, and various bird species, depending on availability. Within the project area, northern goshawks are known from aspen and riparian habitat in the west-central Roberts Mountains (NDOW 2009c). Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons use various open environments including steppe, over open water, and desert shrub habitats including sagebrush, usually in close association with suitable nesting cliffs. They can also be found in mountainous, open forested regions, and human population centers. Peregrine falcons often nest on ledges or in holes on rocky cliff faces, commonly in sites sheltered by an overhang. There is an historic NDOW record for peregrine falcons in the Roberts Mountains (NDOW 2009c). Peregrine falcons feed primarily on birds, ranging in size from medium songbirds up to small waterfowl. They may also hunt small mammals, such as bats, or lizards, fishes, and insects. 3 liars Project Draft KIS 3-303 September 2013 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Swainson’s Hawk Swainson’s hawks arc a spring and summer resident of Nevada, including the project area. Open riparian woodlands including aspen woodlands, with significant expanses of pasture, agricultural fields, wet meadow, or open shrublands with grass cover in immediate vicinity, provide an ideal landscape for the Swainson’s hawk. The preferred nesting site is in large riparian trees. Small mammals are typical prey (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2010). Ferruginous Hawk Ferruginous hawks arc year-round and breeding residents in central Nevada, including the 3 Bars Project area. Habitat includes open country, sagebrush, saltbush-grcascwood shrubland, and the periphery of pinyon-juniper and other woodland and desert communities. In Nevada, ferruginous hawks nest primarily in live juniper trees. Mammals are the primary prey during the breeding season, although birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects are also taken. Ferruginous hawk sightings in the 3 Bars Project area have occurred around the perimeter of the project area in relatively level, open terrain. There are over 50 records for nesting sites within the project area, although only one of these, in the southeastern comer of the project area, has been observed active within the past 1 0 years (NDOW 2009c). Small mammals are the primary prey during the breeding season, although birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects also are taken. Western Burrowing Owl Western burrowing owls are mostly migratory in northern Nevada, although some individuals may overwinter. Preferred habitat is characterized by short vegetation and the presence of fresh small mammal burrows, indicating an abundance of the deer mice and meadow voles that are preferred food. Western burrowing owls typically nest and roost in burrows abandoned by grounds squirrels, badgers, fox, and tortoise, although they occasionally excavate fresh burrows (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). Within the project area, there are records for western burrowing owl from the open lands surrounding the Roberts Mountains. The most recent record is for two owls sighted at a burrow in 2006, in the southwestern quadrant of the project area. (NDOW 2009c). Yellow-billed Cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo is a federal candidate species, with listing status “warranted” (USDOI USFWS 201 1). Historically, the species was found state-wide areas of large, contiguous, densely wooded cottonwood-willow riparian habitat. The species nests in willows and forages for large insects, its primary food source, in cottonwood trees. The last sighting of yellow-billed cuckoo in or near the project area was in 1976, just outside of the southeast comer of the project area boundary (Nevada Natural Heritage Program 2006). Lewis’ Woodpecker Lewis’ woodpecker is a year-round resident within the project area. Important habitat features include an open tree canopy, a brushy understory with ground cover, dead trees for nest cavities, dead or downed woody debris, perching sites, and abundant insects. In Nevada, this species is most strongly associated with deciduous riparian woodlands dominated by aspen or cottonwood (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2010). The species is a weak excavator, and as such it is dependent on dead trees, and tends to nest in existing tree cavities. Key habitat factors include the presence 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-304 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES of large, partly decayed snags, an open forest structure for aerial foraging, and a well-developed shrub or native herbaceous layer that promotes healthy populations of llying insects. Lewis’ woodpecker feeds on insects including ants, beetles. Hies, grasshoppers, tent caterpillars, and mayflies during the summer, and ripe fruit and nuts in the fall and winter. Unlike other woodpeckers, Lewis’ woodpecker docs not bore for insects but will catch them in flight, glean insects from tree branches or trunks, and forage on the ground. Lewis’ woodpecker arc suspected, but not documented, within the project area(Grcat Basin Bird Observatory 2010). Loggerhead Shrike Loggerhead shrike is a year-round resident throughout the state. This species breeds in open country with scattered trees and shrubs, savanna, desert scrub, and, occasionally in open woodlands. Loggerhead shrikes often perch on poles, wires, or fence posts and suitable hunting perches are an important part of the habitat. Nesting habitat includes shrubs and small trees, including cholla cactus and sagebrush. Loggerhead shrike feed primarily on large insects, small birds, lizards, frogs, and rodents, and will occasionally scavenge. While there are no records for loggerhead shrike within the project area, there are occurrence records near the southeastern edge of the project area. Sage Thrasher Sage thrasher occupies the Great Basin region of Nevada including the project area. Sage thrasher breeds and forages in sagebrush, juniper, mountain mahogany, and aspen communities, and has a preference for patchy habitat with adequate shrub cover. The species occasionally nests on the ground but more typically nests in low shrubs, typically sagebrush. Sage thrasher feeds on a wide variety of insects, including grasshoppers, beetles, weevils, ants, and bees, as well as fruits and berries. There are extant sage thrasher records for the southeastern comer of the project area (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2010). Black Rosy-finch Black rosy-finch winters in central Nevada, including the project area (Ellsworth 2013). This species uses barren, rocky, or grassy areas and cliffs among glaciers or beyond timberline as habitat. During migration and winter this species also occurs in open fields, cultivated lands, brushy areas, and around human habitation. Black rosy-finch usually nests in rock crevices or in holes in cliffs above snow fields, although it may nest in old abandoned buildings, mine shafts, or other protected sites. The black rosy-finch forages on the ground for seeds. In the spring, it gleans wind-blown insects from the snow, and later in the season it may glean insects from vegetation or may chase flying insects and catch them in the air. Brewer’s Sparrow Brewer’s sparrow breeds in northern Nevada, including the project area, but docs not overwinter in the project area. The species is strongly associated with healthy sagebrush habitats, and prefers areas with patchy cover by scattered tall shrubs and short grasses. Brewer’s sparrow can be found to lesser extent in mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush habitats, bunchgrass grasslands with shrubs, bitterbrush, ccanothus, and manzanita, and in large openings in pinyon- juniper stands. Sagebrush is the preferred nesting habitat. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-305 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Brewer’s sparrow is primarily a ground forager, and during the summer eats a variety of inseets, and in the fall and winter transitions to a diet of seeds. Brewer’s sparrow nest throughout in sagebrush throughout the 3 Bars Project area (Ellsworth 2013). Pinyon Jay Pinyon jay is a year-round resident anywhere in Nevada where pinyon pine occurs, including appropriate habitats in the project area. Pinyon jays have a strong preference for pinyon-juniper woodlands, and occur less frequently in pine habitats. During the non-breeding season, this species may also occur in scrub oak and sagebrush. Pinyon jays nest in shrubs or trees when adequate numbers of pine seeds are available. The pinyon jay diet consists of pinyon nuts and other pine seeds, berries, small seeds, and grain, as well as insects including beetles, grasshoppers, caterpillars, and ants. Pinyon jays may also cat bird eggs and hatchlings. Pinyon jay has been observed on Roberts Mountains and Sulphur Spring Range (Ellsworth 2013). Mammals Dark Kangaroo Mouse The dark kangaroo mouse inhabits stabilized dunes and other sandy soils in valley bottoms and alluvial fans dominated by big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and horsebrush. These nocturnal rodents typically occur in sandy habitats below the elevation where pinyon-juniper occur and above elevations where greasewood and saltbush predominate. Although restricted to sand, it displays a broad tolerance for soils with varying amounts of gravel. Seeds are the primary food source although it will also eat some insects. It does not appear to use free-standing water and probably gets moisture from its food sources. It is believed to store food in seed caches within the burrow system. There is one extant record for dark kangaroo mouse within the project area. This record is from 2005, in the southeast Kobeh Valley near Whistler Mountain (NDOW 2008a). The potential range of the species includes appropriate habitat throughout the project area. Pygmy Rabbit The pygmy rabbit is a diminutive native species that is found primarily on plains dominated by big sagebrush and on alluvial fans where plants occur in tall, dense clumps. Deep, loose soils are required for burrow excavation, although they will occasionally occupy burrows dug by other animals in harder soils. Big sagebrush is the primary food and may comprise up to 99 percent of food taken in winter and 5 1 percent in the summer. Whcatgrass and blucgrass arc highly preferred foods in the summer. Cheatgrass invasion is detrimental to pygmy rabbits. Shrub cover is necessary for protection during dispersal and cheatgrass monocultures may provide a barrier to dispersal. Pinyon-juniper encroachment decreases understory species and, in turn, decreases suitable pygmy rabbit habitat. Pygmy rabbits spend the majority of their lives within 40 feet of their burrows (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2003), although occasionally males will venture more than 2 miles during the breeding season (Katzncr and Parker 1998). Pygmy rabbits are found in several locations in the project area, including along the east side of the Kobeh Valley, several locations along riparian systems in the central and southern portion of Roberts Mountains, and in the Parks Mountains north of Cottonwood Canyon. Surveys conducted in the southeast portion of the project area as part of the Mount Hope Project EIS found 19 burrows and 10 pygmy rabbits. The majority of the sightings and burrows were along the old railroad grade to the west of and paralleling State Route 278, and numerous sightings and burrow complexes were also along the alluvial fan cast of Mount Hope Spring (NDOW 2009c, e, USDOI BLM 2012c). 3 Bars Project Draft I i I S 3-306 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES California Myotis California myotis is found throughout Nevada, primarily at elevations below 6,000 feet amsl. The speeies is somewhat of a habitat generalist, and is found in habitats ranging from desert serub to forested areas. This bat roosts in crevices, including those found in mines, eaves, buildings, rocks, hollow trees, and under bark. California myotis forages in the open for a variety of small insects such as moths, flies, and beetles. Most records for the species arc from southern Nevada, but the species has the potential to occur in the projcctarea (NDOW 2008a). Fringed Mvotis Fringed myotis is found throughout central and southern Nevada in a wide range of appropriate habitat, from low desert scrub to high elevation coniferous forests, including white fir forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands. This species roosts in mines, caves, trees, and buildings, and may also use rock crevices, tree hollows, and rock crevices in cliff faces. Nurseries and hibcmacula are generally mines or caves. Foraging occurs in and among vegetation, with some gleaning activity. In some areas, there is evidence that fringed myotis use forest edges as well as areas above the forest canopy for foraging. The fringed myotis eats a variety of insects but seems to preferentially select beetles. There are no records for fringed myotis within the project area (NDOW 2008a). Hoary Bat Hoary bat is a tree-roosting species, found primarily in forested/woodland upland habitats such as pinyon-juniper and conifers, as well as in gallery forest riparian zones. Hoary bats day roost 10 to 18 feet above ground in trees that offer good protective leaf cover, but that are open below to facilitate flying in and out of the roost. Hoary bats may migrate for the winter or hibernate on tree trunks, in a tree cavity, or in a squirrel’s nest. Food items include a variety of insects but moths, dragonflies, and beetles feature prominently. Foraging is generally over the tree canopy. In the open, rapid descending arcs are exhibited. Hoary bats will follow watercourses for foraging and drinking. The nearest records for hoary bat are southwest of the project area although their range includes the project area (NDOW 2008a). Little Brown Bat Little brown bat is found primarily at higher elevations, and is often associated with coniferous forest and with larger bodies of water or rivers. Often, roost sites arc associated with these aquatic features. Little brown bats have adapted to using human-made structures for resting and maternity sites, but will also use caves, hollow trees, and rock outcrops. These bats feed heavily on aquatic insects such as caddisflies, midges, and mayflies, although a variety of other terrestrial insects may be eaten. Foraging occurs in open areas among vegetation, along water margins, and sometimes a few feet above the water surface. In the eastern U.S., little brown bats suffer from white-nose syndrome, with over 5 percent mortality in some areas, Should the disease spread to the west, white nose syndrome would be a significant threat to the overall viability of the species. Little brown bat is more common in the northern part of Nevada. There arc no records for little brown bat in the project area (NDOW 2008a). Long-eared Myotis Long-eared myotis is usually associated with coniferous forests. Individuals roost under exfoliating tree bark, and in hollow trees, and occasionally in caves, mines, cliff crevices, sink-holes, and rocky outcrops on the ground. It is often described as a hovering gleaner that feeds by eating prey off foliage, tree trunks, rocks, and from the ground. The 3 Bars Project Drali BIS 3-307 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES species is found throughout the state and its range includes the project area; there arc species records for long-cared myotis in the Roberts Mountains (Nl)OW 2008a). Long-legged Myotis Long-legged myotis is found in piny on-juniper woodland and montane coniferous forest habitats, and is occasionally found in salt desert scrub, blackbrush, mountain shrub, and sagebrush habitats. This species roosts primarily in hollow trees, particularly large-diameter snags or live trees with lightning scars, and may use rock crevices, eaves, mines, and buildings when available. Long-legged myotis feeds primarily on moths, but also feeds on beetles, flies, and termites. The species is found throughout the state and its range includes the project area. There are no species records for long- eared myotis in the project area (NDOW 2008a). Silver-haired Bat Silver-haired bat is a forest-associated species and is more commonly found in mature forests. These bats are found primarily at higher latitudes and altitudes in coniferous and mixed deciduous and coniferous forests/woodlands of pinyon-juniper, limber pine, aspen, cottonwood, and, willow. These bats forage for a wide variety of insects above the forest canopy or along wooded edges, roadsides, and the edges of streams and waterbodies. Moths appear to be a major portion of their diet. Loss of foraging habitat in riparian zones is a threat. The species is found throughout the state and its range includes the project area. There are no species records for silver-haired bats in the project area (NDOW 2008a). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Townsend’s big-eared bat roosts in mines, caves, and cave-like spaces in pinyon, curl-leaf mountain mahogany, blackbrush, sagebrush, salt desert scrub, agricultural, and occasionally urban habitats. Foraging associations include the edge of habitats along streams that are adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats. Townsend’s big-eared bats are moth specialists, with nearly all of their diet consisting of moths. The species’ range includes the entire state including the project area. The nearest records to the project area for Townsend’s big-eared bat are immediately north and northwest of the project area and southeast of the project area (NDOW 2008a). Western Pipistrelle Western pipistrelle can be found in Sonoran desert habitats of blackbrush, creosote, salt desert shrub, and sagebrush, with occasional occurrence in pinyon-juniper woodlands, usually in association with rock features such as granite boulders and canyons. The species typically roosts in rock crevices, but may use mines, or, less frequently, buildings and vegetation. Food includes small moths, leafhoppers, mosquitoes, and flying ants. Foraging occurs in the open. The species is found throughout most of the state, primarily in the southern and western portions. The species has the potential to occur in the project area although there are no records for western pipistrelle in the project area (NDOW 2008a). 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-308 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES W estern Small-footed Myotis Western small-footed myotis is found in a variety of habitats including desert scrub, grasslands, sagebrush steppe, blackbrush, greasewood, pinyon-juniper woodlands, pine-fir forests, agricultural, and urban areas. This species is a crevice rooster and uses mines, eaves, buildings, rock crevices, hollow trees, and exfoliating bark on trees. Western small-footed myotis forages early in the evening on a variety of insects including small moths, flies, ants, and beetles that occur in open areas. The species is found throughout Nevada except for the far southeastern comer of the state. The species has been observ ed near the southeast comer of the project area (NDOW 2008a). 3.15.3 Environmental Consequences 3.15.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on the AECC and public scoping comments, a number of concerns specific to wildlife and 3 Bars ecosystem restoration were identified and are discussed in this section. These include: • Reduction in the amount of key wildlife habitat because of degraded range conditions due to past rangeland management practices and past range disturbances. • Project actions could have large-scale effects ranging from increased sedimentation of streams to major fragmentation of pinyon jay, Virginia’s warbler, greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, and other sensitive species’ habitat. • Encroachment and expansion of pinyon-juniper into important habitat for greater sage-grouse or other wildlife species. • Proposed treatments in pinyon pine woodlands and any resulting impacts to pine nuts could impact several species of birds and mammals, including pinyon jay and mule deer. • There is a need to thin pinyon and juniper along drainages to improve water flows in streams and to open up corridors for animal movement on the south and cast side of drainages. • There is a need to assess treatment impacts on wildlife species that are dependent on old growth pinyon- juniper as well as on other species that may nest in the area or migrate through it. • There is a need to assess how sagebrush treatments would impact habitat for pygmy rabbit, sage sparrow, and other sagebrush species. • The potential to fragment remaining patches of sagebrush by mowing and chopping could hasten the decline of the greater sage-grouse population. • That all factors affecting greater sage-grouse (including predators and hunters) be considered, not just loss of habitat. • Need to address movements of greater sage-grouse hens with broods from valley nesting and early brood rearing sites to upper elevation sagebrush and riparian communities on Roberts Mountains. 3 Mars Project Draft I .IS 3-309 September 2013 WILDLIFE RESOURCES • Thinning of the pinyon-juniper woodlands along creek bottoms may be beneficial to the survival of greater sage-grouse. • The effects of invasion of undesirable plant species into greater sage-grouse and other wildlife habitats. • The high, very high, or extreme risk of catastrophic wildfire in important greater sage-grouse habitats. • Fences can cause avian mortality from collisions, including significant greater sage-grouse mortality, and can serve as perches for predators or observation posts for the brown-headed cowbird. • Proper size, shape, and design of vegetation treatments to create an edge effect would be critical in the success of the project for wildlife. • Whether greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, pinyon jay, loggerhead shrike, and other species in the 3 Bars ecosystem are present at levels that provide viable populations in the short, mid, and long term, especially under continued livestock degradation of habitats, utility corridor developments, mining and energy developments, and the spread of chcatgrass and noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation that would be promoted by the various vegetation and woodland removal plans the BLM may be contemplating. • Whether there is an opportunity for the reintroduction of bighorn sheep into the 3 Bars Ecosystem if domestic sheep operations voluntarily relinquish their pennits, a change of livestock occurs, or further research is conducted into bighorn sheep diseases. 3.15.3.2 Significance Criteria Impacts to wildlife would be considered significant if BLM actions resulted in: • A substantial, long-term (greater than 10 years) reduction in the quantity or quality of habitat critical to the survival of local populations of common wildlife species. • Injury or mortality to common wildlife species, such that species populations would not recover within 5 years. • Mortality to a listed species or species proposed for listing that could result in a “take” under the Endangered Species Act. • A reduction in the population, habitat, or viability of a species of concern or sensitive species that would result in a trend toward endangerment or the need for federal listing. • Any loss of birds, eggs, or nesting habitat critical to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, in the project area. 3.15.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.15.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Adverse Impacts Adverse effects to wildlife common to all treatments include injury and loss of life, noise and other disruptions associated with treatment applications, and temporary and long-term habitat effects. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-310 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I he use of vehicles and treatment equipment for restoration poses a risk of injury or death by crushing animals or their nests or roosts, and vehicle weight may collapse burrows or compact soils. Soil compaction may also make burrow or den excavation difficult. Fuel spills could have negative effects to wildlife species on land if fuel is ingested, and could negatively impact water quality. The likelihood of such an impact is negligible, though, as refueling would generally occur off-site or away from treatment areas. Hand-held equipment, including chainsaws, and transport vehicles create noise that can disturb animals and cause them to flee or alter their behavior or habitat use. Most researchers agree that noise can affect an animal’s physiology and behavior, and if it becomes a chronic stress, noise can be injurious to an animal’s energy budget, reproductive success and long-term survival (Radle 2007). The loudness of normal conversation is about 65 decibels, while the loudness of a chainsaw is about 1 10 decibels. These effects would be short term and occur within a relatively small area, however, and would not likely to have much effect on the long-term health and habitat use of wildlife in the treatment area. Over the short term, treatments could make habitats less suitable for some wildlife species, requiring displaced wildlife to find suitable habitat elsewhere. If these habitats were already near or at capacity in the number of wildlife they could support, displaced animals might perish or suffer lower productivity. In many cases, the treatments would return all or a portion of the treated area to an early successional stage, favoring early successional wildlife species. In areas where fire suppression has historically occurred, vegetation treatments could benefit native plant communities by mimicking a natural disturbance component that has been missing from these communities. Treatments would also restore native vegetation in areas where noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation have displaced native plant species. Wildlife that occurred historically in these areas would likely increase in numbers, while species that have adapted to the disturbed conditions, such as chukar partridge, would decline (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-75). Species that are mobile or that are not dependent on a specific habitat type can relocate during treatment activities and adapt to a new environment. Species that require very specific habitat conditions or that cannot relocate easily may be more vulnerable to impacts. Treatments that cover a large area have more potential to affect species, because there may be less opportunity for an animal in the interior of a treatment area to vacate, and because the number of individual animals affected is likely to be greater for a large area (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-74). Fencing would be used to protect treatment sites. Although fencing would benefit wildlife habitat, it can also modify wildlife movements and wildlife may collide with fences. Stevens (201 1) found that sage-grouse collisions with fences were fairly common in Idaho, especially in areas near leks. Beneficial Impacts Proposed treatments would occur across the 3 Bars Project landscape, would target areas with declining habitat quantity and quality, and would facilitate wildlife movement across the landscape. There has been a loss of habitat diversity and complexity due to pinyon-juniper encroachment into riparian, woodlands, and sagebrush habitats, and decrease in the abundance and diversity of animals that can be supported in areas with pinyon-juniper encroachment. Loss of habitat at the landscape level would be addressed by reducing levels of pinyon-juniper encroachment into other habitats, reducing the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Treatments that slow or reverse pinyon-juniper encroachment and promote the development of native vegetation would improve habitat structure and species composition (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-85). 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-31 1 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Chcatgrass and other noxious weeds and invasive non-native plants provide few wildlife benefits, often oecur in monocultures across the landscape, and alter wildfire cycles to the detriment of native vegetation and wildlife. By slowing or reversing the spread and occurrence of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation on the landscape, greater numbers and types of wildlife would be supported by the area, and risks to special status species and other species found in low numbers in treated ecosystems would be reduced. Treatments that reduce hazardous fuel loads, slow the spread of pinyon-juniper, reduce woodland densities, reduce the incidence of disease within pinyon-juniper communities, reduce the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non- native vegetation, and create fuel and fire breaks would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire hanning wildlife or their habitat. Treatments aimed at restoring natural fire cycles would improve vegetation resilience and increase plant diversity across the landscape, to the benefit of wildlife (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-85). Improvements in habitat quality would increase the carrying capacity of the landscape and allow it to support larger and healthier wildlife populations. In particular, treatments would benefit mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and greater sage-grouse by removing pinyon-juniper that reduces habitat quality or thinning vegetation (pinyon-juniper and sagebrush) to allow more desirable vegetation, such as forbs and grasses, to better compete and thrive. Thinning and removing vegetation would also benefit local and seasonal movements of wildlife, including mule deer and greater sage-grouse. Removing pinyon-juniper could benefit greater sage-grouse because they are thought to avoid trees and other tall vegetation during migration and local movements. Because water is scarce on the 3 Bars Project area, the BLM would implement stream and riparian restoration projects to improve water availability for wildlife. In addition, slash piles left from thinning pinyon-juniper or selective thinning in sagebrush would be used provide microhabitat and cover for reptiles, rabbits and other small mammals, and songbirds. Wildfire, spread of invasive plants, and other factors have caused habitat fragmentation and the loss of connectivity between blocks of habitat, especially in lower elevation riparian zones, woodlands, and sagebrush. Fragmentation has isolated some animal populations and reduced the ability of populations to disperse across the landscape by increasing the distance that wildlife must travel between suitable habitat patches. Treatments that restore native vegetation in disturbed areas should reduce fragmentation and restore connectivity among blocks of similar habitat, allowing wildlife to move more easily across the landscape (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-85). 3.15.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Because of the increase in the amount of habitat treated, both short-term impacts and long-term benefits to wildlife would be greatest under this alternative. Species would benefit through the slowing of pinyon-juniper encroachment; removal of crested wheatgrass, forage kochia, and chcatgrass; creation of a matrix of habitat types; reseeding and replanting of native shrubs, forbs, and grasses to restore habitat; a reduction in the threat of a catastrophic wildfire; and increase in edge habitat. Species that would benefit from edge habitat would include greater sage-grouse that might forage in meadows and near streams, but seek shrub cover for shelter; raptors that perch in pinyon-juniper trees but forage in adjacent grassland and sagebrush habitats; and mule deer that forage in meadows but seek shelter and thermal cover in adjacent pinyon-juniper woodlands. 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-312 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Riparian Treatments Adverse Effects Treatment activities may result in a permanent or temporary loss of cover along riparian zones, potentially exposing animals to predators and causing the loss of thermal cover during temperature extremes. Loss of wooded areas adjacent to streams may make the habitat unsuitable for species that prefer wooded riparian zones. Treatment work at several streams, ponds, wells, and springs would involve using heavy equipment to reconstruct streams and improve riparian habitat. Heavy equipment and placement of rock and other structures in streams pose a risk of injury or death by crushing animals or their breeding sites; amphibians would be most susceptible to harm or injury from use of heavy equipment near streams. If not done properly, stream reconstruction could worsen stream channel morphology, alter water depths and flows, and cause the loss of additional riparian habitat. Changes in water availability and flow rates would be especially harmful to amphibians that lay their eggs in water and require relatively stable water conditions for their eggs and hatchlets. Loss of riparian vegetation would contribute to sedimentation via increased runoff and erosion, affecting in-stream habitat for aquatic species including amphibians that forage, breed, or hide in stream gravel or spaces between stones (Pilliod et al. 2003). Manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire would be used at Hash Spring and several other springs, as well as at sites where Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat improvements are planned. About half of the pinyon-juniper treatments would occur in Phase I stands, and the remaining treatments would be split nearly evenly between Phase II and 111 stands. Most of the Phase II and III treatments would occur along Roberts Creek. This would reduce the amount of habitat available to pinyon-juniper dependent species, including pinyon jay, gray flycatcher, juniper titmouse, Bewick’s wrens, blue-gray gnatcatchers, black-throated gray warblers, and ferruginous hawks (Miller et al. 2005). Removal of Phase III trees and decayed and malformed trees could eliminate habit for cavity-nesting birds, such as woodpeckers and owls, and nesting and roosting habitat for small mammals, such as bats, squirrels, and mice. Removal of pinyon-juniper, particularly large trees, would also reduce the capacity of woodlands to intercept snow and provide snow-intercept thermal cover during winter (Hunter 1990). Loss of winter cover may negatively affect mule deer that use pinyon-juniper areas during the winter (Miller et al. 2005). Fire and fuel breaks could serve as a barrier to small mammal and amphibian movement. Prescribed fire treatments pose a risk of death to animals, especially smaller mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that may not be able to flee the area or enter burrows during a bum (Lyon et al. 2000a). Large animals would likely not be affected unless the fire is large, fast-moving, and produces copious smoke. Impacts to wildlife from fire would vary depending upon the time of year. Spring burning is more likely to adversely affect wildlife with offspring, including mule deer with fawns, antelopes with kids, and bird nests and chicks, compared to a late season bum (USDA Forest Service 2000, USDOI BLM 2007c:4-76). Fall prescribed burning and late-summer wildland fires may harm amphibians that are migrating to water or settling under leaf litter to overwinter. Fire effects on habitat could be a greater risk than that of direct mortality, as fire can remove vegetative cover, reduce wildlife food availability and hunting success, and make animals more vulnerable to predation (USDA Forest Service 2000). Fires may locally extirpate some insect groups, and the immediate loss of this important prey could affect growth and survival for some animals, including amphibians (Komarek 1969, Folk and Bales 1982 in Pilliod et al. 2003). 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-3 1 3 September 2013 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Hxclosurc fences erected at riparian treatment sites could have an adverse effect on some small mammals, birds, and reptile populations because fences may provide perches for raptors and ravens that predate on small mammals such as mice, bats, and squirrels. Fences could also provide scanning perches for brown-headed eowbirds, thereby helping them to locate and parasitize bird nests and small mammals, such as bats, squirrels, and mice. Beneficial Effects Riparian treatments arc designed to enhance water quality and quantity for wildlife, while also promoting improved habitat conditions that lead to higher quality forage and cover. Approximately 85 percent of riparian treatment acreage is within mule deer summer or winter range habitat, while over 80 percent of the riparian treatment acreage is within the summer or winter range for greater sage-grouse (Figures 3-40 and 3-43; NDOW 2008a, 2009d). Proposed treatments would focus on restoring degraded riparian habitat, including restoring about 1,250 acres of mule deer habitat, 177 acres of pronghorn antelope habitat, and 1,993 acres of greater sage-grouse preliminary priority habitat (Figure 3-43). A key feature of healthy riparian habitat is a high diversity of microhabitats. However, riparian habitat systems on the 3 Bars Project area have been altered through actions such as stream channelization, construction of water diversions for livestock, construction of roads, introduction of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and pinyon-juniper encroachment. For many wildlife species, these alterations often mean a loss of habitat (Tsukamoto 1983, Wasley 2004, Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Manual and mechanical treatments are often more effective than other treatment methods, especially in sensitive areas, such as wetland and riparian habitat, or near habitats of plant and animal species of concern, where greater control over treatment effects is required or effects to non-target species are a concern (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-88). Stream restoration using manual and mechanical methods would reduce stream erosion and episodes of bank failure, improving both water quality and stream access for wildlife, while fencing and plantings would improve cover, shoreline stability, and wildlife habitat value. Treatments in riparian zones would create wet meadows and meandering streams and reduce water loss associated with stream downcutting; this would benefit amphibians and provide improved forage and habitat for birds and mammals. Riparian zones in rangelands typically produce more edge habitat in a small area than other habitat types. Mule deer spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian habitats, including use as fawning habitat (Thomas et al. 1979), and would see an increase in habitat area and quality as a result of treatments. Riparian zones also produce large quantities of insects, which in turn provide food for wildlife, including greater sage-grouse and bats. Reducing the cover of pinyon-juniper on up to 900 acres in riparian treatment areas could improve water flows, allow more desirable riparian, woodland, and sage-brush vegetation to thrive, and open up movement corridors for greater sage-grouse and other wildlife (sec review in Miller et al. 2005:35). Use of felled trees in streams to slow water would create pools that provide breeding habitat for amphibians and open-water drinking areas for bats and other wildlife. By mulching or piling trees, cover and thermal habitat would be created that would provide protection and warmth to amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Removal of pinyon-juniper should also improve flows in nearby creeks as water uptake by trees is lessened. For example, Buckhousc (2008) found that in areas where all juniper were cut from a watershed in Oregon, that late season spring flow, days of recorded ground flow, and late season soil moisture increased compared to pretreatment conditions. Fire would enhance the regeneration of native grasses and forbs and encourage new growth on woody species. Since fire causes a plant community to revert to an earlier sueeessional stage, the use of tire can benefit wildlife that prefer 3 Bars Project Drall HIS 3-314 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES early suceessional communities, which are typically characterized by herbaceous species (NDOW 2006, USDOI BLM, 2007c:4-85). Replacement of fire-adapted vegetation by fire-intolerant associations generally leads to overall declines in herpetofauna abundance and diversity. Prescribed fire is an appropriate management tool that can be used with other tools to benefit herpetofauna by restoring a historical mosaic of suceessional stages, habitat structures, and plant species composition (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-85). Greater sage-grouse would benefit from riparian treatments that remove pinyon -juniper within those corridors used by sage-grouse for seasonal movements, and improve habitat quality within brood-rearing areas. Pinyon-juniper treatments within riparian corridors on the Roberts Mountains would be particularly beneficial because dense woodlands likely contribute to a high mortality rate for female greater sage-grouse and their young as they move from nest sites in the surrounding valleys to higher elevation meadows. It is likely that the removal of pinyon-juniper and regeneration of a riparian and shrub community would facilitate movements and improve greater sage-grouse survival. Wet meadow and other riparian restoration treatments would increase the availability of insects and other food items needed by greater sage-grouse chicks and adults. Forbs and insects comprise the bulk of greater sage- grouse chick diets until they are about 12 weeks old (Crawford et al. 2004), and are important to greater sage-grouse chick survival (Drut et al. 1994). Atamian et al. (2010) found that greater sage-grouse and their broods preferred higher elevation, moist sites with riparian shrubs or sagebrush during late brood rearing, and lack of this habitat could be a limiting factor for greater sage-grouse chick survival (Dru et al. 1994). Aspen Treatments Adverse Effects The primary impact to wildlife from treatments would be from noise, which could cause wildlife to leave the treatment area for a short period of time. There is concern that noise and other disturbance could cause wildlife, including northern goshawk, to abandon nests, however treatment areas would be surveyed for nesting birds prior to treatment and if nests are found, treatments would be delayed until young have fledged. There also would be loss of pinyon-juniper habitat where trees are felled to slow pinyon-juniper encroachment into aspen stands, and to create fire and fuel breaks. About 10 acres of pinyon-juniper would be treated annually near aspen stands. The BLM may also bum a few acres annually to stimulate aspen stand suckcring. Effects to wildlife and their habitat from pinyon-juniper removal and prescribed fire would be similar to those described under Riparian Management. Beneficial Effects Aspen treatments would benefit a variety of wildlife. All of the aspen treatment sites are within mule deer summer or winter range, and 60 percent of the sites are within pronghorn summer or winter range (Figures 3-40 and 3-42; NDOW 2008b, 2009d). Of the 151 acres of proposed aspen treatments, about 146 acres are within areas where the BLM has determined that mule deer habitat is degraded and 88 acres arc within degraded pronghorn antelope habitat; treatments could improve habitat conditions for these species (Figure 3-41). Lewis’ woodpecker, northern goshawk, and several species of bats are special status species that have been observed using aspen habitats on the 3 Bars Project area. Northern goshawk preferentially use mature aspen communities for nesting, foraging, and roosting, and Lewis’s woodpecker and several species of bats use cavities and peeling bark in aspen stands (Wildlife Action Plan 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-315 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Team 2012). Northern goshawk use mature aspen almost exclusively for nesting in the Great Basin (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012), and their apparent decline in Nevada has been attributed to the loss of mature aspen stands that provide structural support for goshawk nests (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2010). DcBylc (1985) noted that stimulation of suekering substantially increased the number of shrub-nesting birds associated with the stand. Aspen areas provide important habitat for a variety of wildlife, and arc being lost to pinyon-juniper encroachment. Mule deer use stream corridors within aspen habitat for fawning and as movement corridors, and treatments would improve both mule deer access and habitat quality. About half of the cavity-nesting birds in the western U.S nest in aspen stands (DeByle 1985). Bird species richness and diversity in sagebrush communities are strongly and positively correlated with the presence of nearby aspen stands, while encroachment of pinyon-juniper into aspen stands negatively impacts bird species diversity and richness. Manual and manual treatments to remove encroaching pinyon- juniper would help to ensure the long-term health and longevity of aspen and other woodlands by removing competing pinyon-juniper and encouraging aspen stand regeneration via seeds and suekering. Historically, fire was an important factor in preventing the conversion of aspen stands to pinyon-juniper woodlands (Miller et al. 2005). Beneficial effects from fire include promoting aspen regeneration. By killing overstory trees and injuring roots, fire creates a hormonal stimulation for rooting. This, combined with the nutrient boost from fire and increased solar warming of the blackened soil, can result in rapidly growing aspen shoots. In stands of pure aspen, fire tends to bum around the perimeter and stimulates new growth around the perimeter. This can result in a mixed-age stand that benefits both species that nest or excavate cavities in mature trees, as well as browsers such as mule deer that prefer younger shoots. In mixed aspen-conifer stands, prescribed crown fire can be used to increase understory vegetation diversity, forage production, and water yield, and improve habitat for many wildlife species (Sheppard 2008). The BLM would remove pinyon-juniper within 200 feet of aspen stands to improve their effectiveness as fire breaks. Fire breaks would help to protect mature aspen stands from fire and slow or compartmentalize wildland fire, to the benefit of wildlife and their habitat. Proposed prescribed fire treatments and protective fencing in aspen stands would help to slow or reverse the loss of aspen habitat. Pinyon-juniper Treatments Adverse Effects Treatments proposed by the BLM that remove or reduce pinyon-juniper habitat could adversely impact wildlife that use these woodlands. The types and magnitude of adverse effects would differ according to the pinyon-juniper phase that treatments are conducted in. In general, adverse effects to wildlife habitat would be less in Phase I than Phase 11 or III woodlands. Adverse effects from Phase I treatments to wildlife habitat would primarily be related to loss of woodland edge habitat. For example, ferruginous hawks use pinyon-juniper/sagcbrush/grassland edge habitat for nesting and foraging. Treatments in Phase I woodlands would not impact species that use the understory vegetation because chainsaws would be the primary treatment tool. Phase I treatments would not target old growth pinyon- juniper, so bats and birds that use old growth stands would not be impacted. Chainsaw thinning in Phase 1 stands would cause only a slight increase of fuels and wildfire risk. Treatments in Phase II and III habitat would open up pinyon-juniper woodland to stimulate understory vegetation to the benefit of some species, but would also remove old trees that provide winter cover and trees with rough bark used by roosting bats. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-316 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Over 70 species of birds nest in pinyon-juniper, and removal of pinyon-juniper could adversely impact migratory birds that use pinyon-juniper, including gray flycatcher, juniper titmouse, Bewick’s wrens, and black-throated gray warbler (Miller et al. 2005). Populations of several of these species arc in decline despite the increase in pinyon- juniper on the landscape. These species generally favor stands that have an open canopy with a significant shrub understory, and the interface between pinyon-juniper and sagebrush; densely wooded interior locations and Phase III stands arc generally bird poor (Noson 2002 in Miller ct al. 2005, Great Basin Bird Observatory 2011). Pinyon-juniper stands provide important winter habitat for wildlife. In Oregon, higher winter bird densities occur in open juniper woodlands than in any other plant community (Miller 2001 ). Mule deer are also an important inhabitant. Dense stands of pinyon-juniper provide habitat for mule deer during severe winter weather because of the reduced snow cover and increased thermal cover in these areas. Bats favor old growth trees that have rough bark and crevasses. Removal of pinyon-juniper in Phase II and III stands could mean a loss of this wildlife benefit. Pinyon- juniper woodlands also provide habitat structure that would be lost if woodlands were converted to grasslands (Maser and Gashwilcr 1978). Downed trees and other woody material left on the ground from thinnings and tree removal could serve as fuel for a wildfire. Slash from shredding and other treatments in late Phase II and Phase III woodlands can create a fire hazard for at least 2 years, and may leave sites vulnerable to the introduction of invasive plant species (Tausch et al. 2009, Gottfried and Overby 2011). Slash piles can aid in the establishment of new vegetation or seedlings and pose a long- term benefit for wildlife species that prefer more herbaceous and shrub cover. A delayed understory response to treatments is common, and it may be several years before a treated site regains full habitat value (USGS 2009). In the interim, the treated area may run the risk of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation colonization and associated decline in habitat value for wildlife species, or be at higher risk of erosion and associated declines in aquatic habitat quality if streams are nearby. The BLM does not plan to conduct bums in Phase 1 stands, but would conduct stand-replacement bums that could several thousand acres annually in Phase II and III stands. As noted earlier, about 60 percent of treatments would occur in Phase II and III stands. These bums could have adverse and beneficial effects on pinyon jays and other wildlife. Prescribed fires would open up pinyon-juniper stands and stimulate the growth of native forbs and grasses. However, given that prescribed fire bums would be less selective in controlling vegetation than manual or mechanical methods, and several thousand acres (but no more than 70 percent of the area) per treatment area could be burned annually, there could be a loss of mountain and Wyoming big sagebrush and other shrubs that are desirable for pronghorn antelope and mule deer. Numerous studies have shown that it can take decades for Wyoming big sagebrush to recover from fire, and that sage-grouse avoid burn areas (Sage- and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee 2008). Treated areas must then be reseeded to ensure that burned areas do not become infested with noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, to the detriment of wildlife. It is likely that large, older pinyon-juniper trees that provide juniper berries and pinyon nuts for pinyon jay and mule deer would also be lost (Baida and Masters 1980). Removal of mature and decadent and diseased trees would eliminate habitat used by cavity-nesting birds, roosting bats, and small mammals. In addition, large burns create more homogenous conditions that are less favored by wildlife, and remove thermal and hiding cover needed by mule deer (USDOI BLM 1991c). The large size of a treatment area that may make it difficult for animals to flee during disturbance, especially fire, and may increase lire mortality. Species that arc small or not very mobile may find it difficult to relocate into new, appropriate habitat in the wake of treatment activities, if the treated area is not immediately suitable for use. Greater sage-grouse chicks and roosting bats would likely not be able to escape fire. To minimize or avoid loss to greater 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-317 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES sage-grouse chieks, the BLM would not conduct treatments in brood-rearing areas, including the Atlas, Frazier, Gable, Henderson, Upper Roberts, and Vinini units, between May 15 and August 15. Wildland tires for resource benefit in the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit would be allowed during the summer, and could be more intense than prescribed fires and could lead to noxious weeds and other invasive non- native vegetation problems. At a minimum, it could take longer for native forbs and grasses to establish on sites burned by wildfire than on sites burned with prescribed fire because wildfires tend to bum hotter and are more intense. Because of the large treatment area and the inability to anticipate when or where a wildfire would occur, there would be limited opportunities to control which areas burn in order to minimize the loss of Wyoming sagebrush or other more desirable vegetation, to survey for sensitive species, or to mitigate for impacts to sensitive wildlife species within the time frames described in the SOPs (Appendix C). Large-scale fires could also increase habitat fragmentation, to the detriment of birds including Brewer’s sparrow, pinyon jay, and Virginia’s warbler, and to less mobile species, such as reptiles and small mammals. Use of bulldozers and other firefighting equipment, and possibly aerial retardants, to protect private property could disturb wildlife and their habitats and cause harm or injury to less mobile species. Beneficial Effects Although one of the primary objectives of pinyon-juniper management is to improve woodland health and reduce the risk of high-intensity crown fires in dense woodland stands, treatments would also benefit wildlife by 1) removing pinyon-juniper to develop and enhance movement corridors for greater sage-grouse; 2) removing pinyon-junipers to slow encroachment into greater sage-grouse leking and nesting areas; 3) removing and thinning pinyon-juniper to break up the continuity of fuels and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire; and 4) improving wildlife habitat on the Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit using wildland fire for resource benefit. Most land managers target Phase 1 and II stands, which are often the most valuable to pinyon-juniper dwelling birds. Approximately 40 percent of treatments would be in Phase I stands and primarily involve the use of chainsaws to remove scattered trees. The BLM proposes to treat Phase II and III stands by opening up the canopy to stimulate growth in the shrub and herbaceous layers, and to reduce wildfire risk. About 40 percent of treatments would be in Phase II, and 20 percent, in Phase 111 stands, using mostly mechanical methods, prescribed fire, and wildland fire for resource benefit (Sulphur Spring Wildfire Management Unit). While Phase 1 treatments may benefit greater sage- grouse habitat, there may also be limited benefit to resident bird species that favor pinyon-juniper/sagebrush woodland edge habitat. By targeting Phase II and 111 stands, however, the BLM may enhance habitat for some pinyon-juniper dwelling species by opening up dense pinyon-juniper stands and creating more edge habitat (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2011). As observed throughout the Great Basin, as pinyon-juniper cover has increased, the cover of shrubs and herbaceous understory species has declined, to the detriment of wildlife (Willis and Miller 1999 in Miller ct al. 2005). The overall goal is to manage pinyon-juniper for wildlife by restoring the balance between pinyon-juniper and understory plants such as shrubs, grasses, and forbs (Miller 2001 ). All of the pinyon-juniper treatment sites arc within mule deer summer or winter range, 60 percent of sites arc within pronghorn summer or winter range, while about half of the treatment area is within Preliminary Priority Habitat for greater sage-grouse (see Figures 3-40, 3-42, and 3-43; NDOW 2008b, 2009d). Manual and mechanical treatments would be used to control the encroachment of pinyon and juniper into sagebrush, riparian, and aspen sites. The most common method to remove pinyon-juniper is with chainsaws. These treatments 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-318 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would generally occur in Phase 1 stands. With chainsaws, pinyon-juniper can be removed or thinned, while still retaining some patches for wildlife. Chainsaws offer flexibility in the timing of application and the ability to precisely control treatment boundaries or target specific trees, including selective cutting of diseased trees or leaving habitat trees. Some cut trees, slash, or chips would be left on site to control erosion, aid in seedling establishment, and provide wildlife habitat (USGS 2009). Miller et al. (1999) found that avian species diversity was greater on plots where juniper was removed and slash remained than on closed woodlands. Pronghorn and mule deer benefit from mechanical treatments by foraging on strips of grasses and forbs that would bcrcreated for fuel breaks. Much of the focus of treatments would be on thinning or removing pinyon-juniper from sagebrush habitat to benefit greater sage-grouse and other wildlife using mechanical methods, such as chaining, in Phase 11 and 111 stands. This would improve food and cover for small mammals by increasing shrub and herbaceous recruitment and seed production. Opening dense stands of pinyon-juniper benefits edge species, ground-feeding and ground-nesting birds, and small mammals. Openings of 250 acres or less created by mechanical means benefit deer, small mammals, and birds. Studies have shown that breeding bird densities increase as pinyon-juniper stands are opened up and treatments that create patches of treated and untreated pinyon and juniper promote species diversity (Scott and Boeker 1977, O’Meara et al. 1981, Payne and Bryant 1998). In addition to removing the downed trees, the BLM would place larger wood into streams to slow water flow and provide habitat for amphibians and other wildlife. In pinyon-juniper woodlands, female cone production declines as woods close in and the competition between trees increases; thinning or removing Utah juniper using manual and mechanical methods should enhance cone and seed production and improve food and cover for small mammals by increasing shrub and herbaceous recruitment and seed production. Juniper cones are consumed by deer mice, golden-mantled ground squirrel, Lewis’ woodpecker, scrub jay, mountain bluebird, and cedar waxwing, and the berries are the primary winter food for American robin and Townsend’s solitaire. Mule deer, mountain cottontail, and coyote also consume juniper cones, and woodrats, cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, and porcupine forage on juniper foliage at certain times of the year. There are reports of twice as many species and up to a 60 percent increase in deer mice, pinon mice, and Ord’s kangaroo rat in thinned versus unthinned pinyon-juniper stands, and small mammal numbers generally increase when pinyon-juniper is thinned or completely cut, as long as slash remains (Miller et al. 2007). Treatments on the Atlas, Frazier, Gable, Henderson, Upper Roberts, and Vinini units would help to open up greater sage-grouse travel corridors between lower elevation winter and leking habitats and upper elevation nesting and brood-rearing habitats, by removing pinyon-juniper that are encroaching into these drainages. Treatments would also provide forage for greater sage-grouse and other wildlife by promoting development of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs through removal of pinyon-juniper. Several studies have shown that greater sage-grouse avoid pinyon-juniper stands and that the number of greater sage-grouse using an area increases after pinyon-juniper removal (see review in USDOI USFWS 2008:60-61). In general, adult survival is high, but is offset by low juvenile survival (Crawford et al. 2004). Removal and thinning of pinyon-juniper in drainages should improve brood survivorship during movements from between breeding areas in the valleys and brood-rearing areas on Roberts Mountains, while these treatments in conjunction with riparian treatments should improve brood habitat and survivorship. Treatments could also benefit pinyon jay by opening up closed-canopy woodlands, while protecting old-growth pinyon-juniper habitat, should ensure that roosting habitat is maintained for bats. However, some chaining may be done in Phase III stands to break up fuel continuity on Roberts Mountains, which may be detrimental to bat habitat. The Atlas and Henderson units also provide habitat for pygmy rabbits. Pygmy rabbits forage primarily on sagebrush, so treatments that remove pinyon-juniper and stimulate the growth of sagebrush and herbaceous vegetation would 3 Bars Project Draft tilS 3-319 September 2013 WILDLIFE RESOURCES benefit pygmy rabbits long-term. Pinyon-juniper encroachment has adversely impacted pygmy rabbit populations (Grayson 2006), and has shifted pygmy rabbit habitat to lower elevation in the western U.S. (Larrucca and Brussard 2008). Although pygmy rabbits would use areas with limited pinyon-juniper cover, stands with 40 percent or greater cover provide only marginal habitat for pygmy rabbits (Miller et al. 2005). Treatments to thin or remove younger pinyon-juniper trees, while retaining more mature trees for nesting habitat, would provide habitat favored by raptors, while treatments that promote development of sagebrush, other shrubs, and herbaceous species would benefit pygmy rabbits. Prescribed fire, in addition to manual and mechanical treatments, would be used to enhance habitats. Fire almost always reduces pinyon-juniper canopy or density, but is most effective when used in conjunction with mechanical treatments, such as chaining, that first reduce juniper competition and increase herbaceous growth that fuels the fire (Ansley and Rasmussen 2005). The BLM would reduce hazardous fuels on up to 10,000 acres annually on the Cottonwood/Meadow Canyon, Dry Canyon, Three Bars Ranch, Tonkin North, and Whistler units. Proposed treatment areas provide important year-round habitat for greater sage-grouse and pronghorn antelope, and crucial summer range for mule deer. In addition to reducing hazardous fuels and risk of loss of wildlife and their habitat from a catastrophic wildfire, treatments would improve shrub and herbaceous diversity, improve wildlife habitat, and improve hydrologic function. Treatments would kill most of the pinyon-juniper overstory and set back plant development and succession, and would increase forage for wildlife. When conditions are favorable for a stand-replacing fire, burning kills most of the pinyon-juniper overstory and increases plant diversity and patchiness. While loss of pinyon-juniper can reduce thermal and hiding cover for ungulates, an increase in plant species diversity after fire can benefit deer as well as ground-nesting birds (Lyon et al. 2000b). In 2010 and 2011, the BLM mapped pinyon-juniper phases and areas with old growth trees on the 3 Bars Project Area (AECOM 2011a). There are several old-growth pinyon-juniper stands on Roberts Mountains; these stands would be left untreated. Protection of old growth pinyon-juniper favors wildlife species that preferentially use pinyon-juniper old growth. Old growth juniper have more cavities than young trees, and offer significant habitat benefit to cavity nesting species including red-breasted nuthatches, mountain bluebirds, mountain chickadees, and northern flicker (Miller et al. 2005). Bushy-tailed woodrat is also common in old-growth pinyon-juniper, where it nests in cavities. Sagebrush Treatments Adverse Effects Alpha, Coils Creek, Kobch East, Nichols, Roberts Mountain Pasture, South Simpson, Three Comers, and Whistler Sage units are heavily used by greater sage-grouse, and greater sage-grouse leks are found near the Alpha, Coils Creek, Kobeh East, Roberts Mountain Pasture, and South Simpson units. Sagebrush in these areas is dominated by mature monocultures of Wyoming big sagebrush that have little grass or forb cover. The BLM would use a roller chopper, rangeland mower, or smooth chain to open up sagebrush stands on about 1,000 acres annually. While these treatments would open up sagebrush stands, they would lead to the fragmentation and loss of habitat for species that favor large expanses of sagebrush cover, such as sage sparrow and Brewer’s sparrow (Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee 2002, McAdoo et al. 2004). It may take a decade or more for treated sites to meet the habitat requirements of breeding sage-grouse. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-320 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I he BLM proposes to use prescribed lire on a few acres annually in the Three Corners Unit to open up the big mountain sagebrush canopy, slow the spread of pinyon-juniper, and create a mosaic of treated and untreated areas to benefit wildlife edge species. Risks to wildlife from prescribed lire include the risk of death or injury to small or slow moving species and the loss of nests for species that nest on the ground or in sagebrush. In mountain big sagebrush, Nclle et al. (2000 in Connelly et al. 2000) found that prescribed burning had long-term negative impacts on sage- grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats. They also found that canopy cover did not provide appropriate nesting habitat 14 years after burning, in addition, cheatgrass will often occupy sites after burning. With any tire, there is a risk that the fire could escape controls and become an unplanned wildland fire, and bum more habitat than originally planned. This can be especially damaging in sagebrush, due to the decades-long recovery time from fire. Fire treatments could also lead to infestations of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation in treated areas, to the detriment of wildlife habitat. Domestic livestock could be used to remove cheatgrass. Livestock can directly harm wildlife by trampling on animals or their nests, and grazing can alter grassland structure, to the detriment of birds and small mammals (Wiens and Dyer 1975). Given that grazing would be limited to areas dominated by cheatgrass, which has low habitat value for wildlife, these risks to wildlife would be low. In several treatment areas, the BLM would plant sagebrush seedlings and reseed with native grasses and forbs to encourage establishment of sagebrush and herbaceous vegetation near historic leks (Rocky Hills Unit), and to restore areas degraded by cheatgrass (Table Mountain, West Simpson Park, and Whistler Sage units). The BLM would use native seeds and plants whenever possible, but could also use non-native grasses such as crested wheatgrass and forage kochia. Crested wheatgrass and forage kochia have limited value for most wildlife, including greater sage- grouse. However, they do provide forage for livestock, wild horses, and wild ungulates, help to stabilize soils and reduce erosion in areas burned by wildfire, and exclude cheatgrass. Crested wheatgrass and forage kochia plantings would be limited to those areas where there is a cheatgrass monoculture, and where the site could be restored in the future with native vegetation. The only unit where crested wheatgrass and forage kochia are proposed for use is Table Mountain (Foree 2012a). Crested wheatgrass and forage kochia can establish with minimal seedbed preparation, can survive periods of drought, and can compete with noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation species. These species, however, are prolific seed producers that can dominate a site and exclude native vegetation, including the native bunchgrasses and big sagebrush that offer better wildlife value (Kettle and Davison 1998, Monson 2002, Braun 2006). Beneficial Effects The 3 Bars Project area provides important habitat for greater sage-grouse, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife. Approximately 98 percent of proposed treatment acres are within pronghorn antelope summer or winter range, 65 percent are within summer or winter range for greater sage-grouse, and 55 percent are within mule deer summer or winter range (see Figures 3-40, 3-42, and 3-43; NDOW 2008b, 2009d, 201 2d, e). An estimated 50 percent of the original sagebrush habitat in the Great Basin has been lost in the past century, with increasing occurrence of wildfire being a major contributor to this loss (Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee 2009). Loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat has also occurred on the 3 Bars Project area, and proposed treatments would focus on restoring sagebrush habitat. Over 85 percent of the acres treated would occur where the BLM has determined that pronghorn antelope habitat is declining, nearly half of the acres treated would 3 Bars Project Draft E1S 3-321 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES occur where greater sage-grouse habitat is declining, and 45 percent of the acres treated would occur where mule deer habitat is declining (Figures 3-41). Pinyon-juniper treatments to enhance sagebrush habitat would benefit sage obligate species, including greater sage- grouse, sage sparrow. Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, pygmy rabbit, sagebrush vole, pronghorn antelope, and sagebrush lizard. Several shrub-steppe birds show population decreases when pinyon-juniper density and total area of cover increase. Sage thrasher in particular is very sensitive to pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush, and one study found a 90 percent decline in a population with a 6 percent increase in pinyon-juniper cover. Brewer’s sparrow and vesper sparrow are also sensitive to pinyon-juniper encroachment (Miller et al. 2005). Removing or thinning pinyon-juniper creates openings for raptors to use while hunting. Ferruginous hawks prefer more open country, sagebrush, and the periphery of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush. They nest in pinyon-juniper trees (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Thus, treatments to create mosaic of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush habitat on the Whistler Unit, and to restore sagebrush on the Rocky Hills and Table Mountain units, should benefit ferruginous hawks by making it easier for hawks to find prey, while creating new sagebrush habitat for prey species. Removing pinyon-juniper from sagebrush habitat improves fawning habitat for mule deer, and improves browse resources (Wasley 2004). It also benefits pronghorn antelope, which preferentially use open, shrub-steppe communities (such as sagebrush) rather than stands with scattered trees or woodlands (Tsukamoto 2003, Wasley 2004). Pinyon-juniper encroachment has also impacted pygmy rabbit populations (Grayson 2006), especially when pinyon-juniper cover exceeds 40 percent. Pinyon-juniper removal projects on the Three Comers and Whistler Sage units could benefit pygmy rabbits, although treatments would occur in Phase I stands where pinyon-juniper cover is less than 40 percent. Because pinyon-juniper can uptake large amounts of water, removal of pinyon-juniper may also improve water supply and flow in creeks, which would benefit wildlife. Chainsaws would be used to thin and remove pinyon-juniper in Phase I stands that have encroached into sagebrush habitat. The effects to wildlife and their habitat from pinyon-juniper removal and thinning in Phase I stands are discussed under Pinyon-juniper Treatments. The BLM would use manual and mechanical methods to thin low-elevation Wyoming big sagebrush. Lek attendance, nesting, and early brood rearing occur in habitat dominated by sagebrush with a healthy herbaceous understory. Studies have shown that forb production may be 30 to 50 percent greater where the sagebrush cover is 20 percent than where it is 35 to 40 percent (Blaisdell 1953, Goodrich and Huber 2001 in Wambolt ct al. 2002). Ideal breeding habitat has a sagebrush cover of 20 percent or greater and a total shrub cover of 40 percent or greater (Kolada ct al. 2009). The BLM may use chaining to thin sagebrush stands. Chaining is often favored because it does not kill all of the sagebrush and retains native grasses and forbs important to wildlife and their young. Chaining can further benefit wildlife if chaining is done in strips, rather than blocks, and by using natural terrain features to maximize edge effect (Autenrieth et al. 1982). In Utah, one-way chained sites had 43 percent less sagebrush cover and 140 percent more browse than unchained sites (Walker 2002). Multiple mechanical treatments, over many years, could be used in large, even-aged, homogeneous sagebrush to create different age classes of sagebrush in large areas to improve greater sage- grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat. Chaining or other treatments that thin sagebrush would be followed by seedings with native species. These treatments would increase understory vegetation in sagebrush-dominated areas, to the benefit of greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, pygmy rabbit, sagebrush vole, western burrowing owl, vesper sparrows, meadowlarks, and other wildlife. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-322 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1 he BLM would also use manual and mechanical methods, such as chainsaws, smooth chain, or roller chopper, and prescribed tire to thin mountain big sagebrush, remove pinyon-juniper, and create a mosaic of habitat types. In some areas, dense cover of sagebrush is crowding out native forbs and grasses. In others at higher elevations, extensive areas of mountain big sagebrush have been invaded, and in some places replaced, by pinyon-juniper. By opening up dense stands of sagebrush and removing pinyon-juniper to promote the reestablishment of grasses, forbs, and sagebrush, summer habitat for greater sage-grouse and their broods should improve (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-86). Treatments that thin the sagebrush canopy to enhance forb and grass production would also benefit pygmy rabbits, however large-scale habitat conversion of dense sagebrush cover to more open cover could harm pygmy rabbits. The BLM proposes to treat no more that 20 percent of units, which would reduce this risk to pygmy rabbits, while still providing benefits to greater sage-grouse. After opening up stands, the BLM would reseed the treatment area to re- establish a native herbaceous component. Some neotropical migratory birds have been harmed by the loss of sagebrush habitat to wildfire and invasive species, and conversion to agriculture and other uses. Because these species have different habitat needs, ranging from a closed canopy to a more open canopy, the BLM would attempt to meet the species’ needs by conducting treatments that would create openings in dense stands of sagebrush, but limit the area treated to no more than 20 percent of units. By creating a mosaic of habitats, species that use edge habitat would benefit. Prescribed fire would be avoided in habitats dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush, but prescribed fire treatments could be used to control pinyon-juniper and to increase forb and grass components in mountain big sagebrush communities. Prescribed fire within mountain big sagebrush communities would be small and patchy in size, and designed to create a mosaic of sagebrush and grasslands. Mosaics of grass and sagebrush are suitable for greater sage- grouse as long as key sagebrush habitats are protected (e.g., greater sage-grouse nesting and brooding habitat), and native grasses and forbs are present (Connelly and Braun 1997, Crawford et al. 2004, Sage and Columbian Sharp- tailed Grouse Technical Committee 2009, Rhodes et al. 2010). Likewise, small burns are favored because they create a greater variety of food and cover conditions than do larger burned or unburned areas, and the risk of a prescribed fire becoming a wildland fire is much less (Short and McCulloch 1977, USDOI BLM 2007c:4-86). Fire has been shown to increase grass production, which benefits mule deer and bighorn sheep (Lauer and Peek 1976, Willms et al. 1981, Payne and Bryant 1998). Goodrich et al. (2008), found that mountain big sagebrush cover was greater than 15 percent at most burned sites 1 5 years post bum and that the ground cover was greater than 80 percent at most sites 5 years post burn. They felt that habitat sustainability for sage-grouse in mountain big sagebrush stands could be met with a fire interval of 25 to 30 years and by treating no more than 3 to 4 percent of the landscape per year. Small bums are favored because they create a greater variety of food and cover conditions than do larger burned or unbumed areas, and the risk of a prescribed fire becoming a wildfire is much less (Short and McCulloch 1977, USDOI BLM 2007c:4-86). Several leks were found on the Rocky Hills Unit before the 1999 Trail Canyon Fire. West Simpson Park, which provides mule deer winter range, was also burned by the 1999 Trail Fire and is now dominated by chcatgrass. Table Mountain has been burned by several wildfires in the past few decades. It also has chcatgrass issues, and provides only marginal habitat for greater sage-grouse, although several leks are nearby. Plowing and disking, and prescribed fire, could be used to reduce the reproduction of chcatgrass and crested wheatgrass. Treatments that break the fire- cheatgrass-fire cycle and risk of future wildfire on treated and nearby sagebrush habitat, should improve wildlife habitat by increasing the cover of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs that provide better habitat value for wildlife, and possibly encourage greater sage-grouse to again nest in these units. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-323 September 2013 WILDLIFE RESOURCES The BLM may use livestoek and pathogens to control chcatgrass and other non-native vegetation, as livestock can reduce chcatgrass dominance, while a naturally-occurring pathogens such as Ustilago hullata can cause head smut in chcatgrass (Pellant 2002). On the West Simpson Park Unit, the BLM may use livestock to remove some chcatgrass before the unit is seeded. These treatments would be used to restore degraded rangeland that provides few wildlife benefits. Noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation can hinder pygmy rabbit movement and increases a predators’ ability to detect the rabbits. Treatments to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation at West Simpson Park could encourage nearby pygmy rabbits to use this unit. The BLM would use mechanical methods to create fuel breaks within homogeneous stands of sagebrush. In addition to providing openings for grasses and forbs to develop, and creating edge habitat and travel lanes for wildlife, treatments would also slow the spread of wildfire. To further protect greater sage-grouse habitat, wildfires would be suppressed in all breeding habitats, as protecting sagebrush communities from invasive species is easier than restoring communities already degraded by chcatgrass (Wambolt ct al. 2002). 3.15.3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) The types and magnitude of effects for manual, mechanical, and biological control treatments would be similar between Alternatives A and B. Because the BLM would not be able to use fire, there would be no harm to or loss of wildlife from prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit. The few wildlife that use dense stands of pinyon- juniper would not experience habitat loss under this alternative, and may even see habitat gains as more pinyon- juniper habitat shows Phase II or III characteristics. Acres and types of wetland and riparian habitat and miles of streams treated would be similar to Alternative A. However, less effort would be spent by the BLM on slowing pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush and riparian communities, reducing the amount of Phase II and III pinyon-juniper treated using stand-replacement fires, restoring habitat where sagebrush should occur based on ecological site description reference, desired state, or management objective, and reducing the acres of priority habitat treated to improve species diversity, especially through cheatgrass control. Under Alternative B, the BLM would be limited to disking, plowing, and chaining sagebrush and replanting/reseeding to promote the growth of native forbs and grasses. It would also be difficult and costly to conduct follow-up treatments without adversely harming planted species. As a result, the likelihood of restoring sagebrush habitat on these units would be less than under Alternative A. Because fire would not be available to reduce hazardous fuel loads, Alternative B may pose a greater long-term risk for wildfire due to the accumulation of fuels. The BLM would also be less able to promote more fire resilient and diverse habitat on the 3 Bars Project area. The inability to use prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits would probably have few short-term adverse effects. Longer term, however, mule deer, greater sage-grouse, migratory birds, and other wildlife would experience fewer of the benefits associated both with creating openings in dense pinyon-juniper habitat and with creating a mosaic of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush habitat. Prescribed fire to treat non-native vegetation on the Rocky Hills, Table Mountain, West Simpson Park, and Whistler Sage units also would not be available under this alternative. 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 3-324 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.15.3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, the BLM would only be able to use manual and classical biological control methods to treat vegetation. The BLM has not identified areas where it would use classical biological control, but if nematodes, insects, or fungi arc used on the 3 Bars Project area, treatments would generally be small in size and effects would be localized, or if used on chcatgrass, could cover large areas of habitat that arc little used by wildlife. Thus, the effects on wildlife from classical biological control would be minor and primarily restricted to those species using vegetation treated by these methods. The BLM would not be able to use livestock to remove chcatgrass on the Table Mountain, West Simpson Park, and Whistler Sage units under Alternative C nor reduce the competitiveness of exotic species such as crested wheatgrass and forage kochia on the Rocky Hills Unit. Most of the treatments under this alternative would be to thin and remove pinyon-juniper using chainsaws where it is encroaching into riparian, aspen, and sagebrush habitats. There would be fewer direct impacts to wildlife from treatments under this alternative than the other alternatives, because adverse impacts, such as harm to or death of wildlife, and noise and other disturbances, would be much less with manual methods than the other methods. Since fewer acres would be treated, there would be fewer benefits to wildlife under this alternative than under Alternatives A and B. Manual treatments would be small in scale and mostly targeted to pinyon-juniper stands. Benefits to special status species and migratory birds would primarily be limited to those species that use the pinyon-juniper and sagebrush interface, while greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and other sagebrush dependent wildlife would see few benefits. 3.15.3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to wildlife resources from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; thin and/or remove pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to encourage understory development; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; or reduce the risk of a large-scale wildland fire to the benefit of wildlife and their habitats. Because no habitat would be restored. Alternative D also poses the greatest threat to special status species, including migratory birds, through long-term habitat loss and degradation. Species at greatest risk from habitat degradation are greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, northern goshawk, cavity nesting birds, and migratory birds through densification of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush, loss of aspen habitat, and pinyon-juniper encroachment. 3.15.3.4 Cumulative Effects The wildlife CESA is approximately 1,883,729 acres and extends 10 miles beyond the 3 Bars Project area (Figure 3- 1). Approximately 92 percent of the area is administered by the BLM, 6 percent is privately owned, and 2 percent is administered by the Forest Service. Past and present actions that have influenced wildlife resources in the 3 Bars ecosystem arc discussed in Section 3. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3.15.3.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) The BLM would continue ongoing management reviews to determine if livestock grazing management is resulting in utilization levels that are moderate to severe and adversely impact wildlife habitat and other resources, and if needed, would determine if changes in the current terms and conditions of the grazing permit would be required to maintain the long-term success of the proposed treatments through subsequent decisions separate from the 3 Bars Project 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-325 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES process. Wild horse management activities would include wild horse gathers. Appropriate Management Level reviews and adjustments, and implementation of habitat projects that keep herd numbers near sustainable levels and help to distribute wild horses more evenly across the rangeland. The BLM also proposes to install temporary fencing to limit livestock and wild horse access to riparian and aspen treatment areas. These actions should help to improve water quality in affected streams, restore streams to Proper Functioning Condition, and improve riparian habitat to the benefit of amphibians, greater sage-grouse, and other wildlife. In addition, the BLM would use temporary clcetrie fencing to restrict livestock access to upland treatment areas, as appropriate, and manage livestock and wild horse numbers to ensure they are appropriate to ensure healthy rangeland conditions. The BLM would also manage livestock to meet greater sage-grouse habitat objectives. These objectives include having suitable sagebrush cover and utilization levels to ensure that adequate habitat would be available for greater sage-grouse during all life stages (sec further discussion in Section 3. 2.2. 3. 3; USDOI BLM 201 3g). The BLM would continue to treat noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation in areas with known infestations, including areas burned by wildfire or prescribed fire, and in new areas under the Early Detection and Rapid Response program. Noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation would typically be found in newly burned or disturbed areas, along roads, near mining and energy developments, and in areas where livestock and wild horses congregate. These treatments would benefit wildlife and their habitat, except for those few species that use cheatgrass and other noxious and invasive species. Chcatgrass is usually most prevalent in areas that have been burned by wildfire. Five herbicides are typically used on the 3 Bars Project area — 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, and picloram. For the 3 Bars Project, it is likely that the BLM would also use imazapic to treat cheatgrass. Based on analysis done for the 17-States PEIS, formulations of 2,4-D could have moderate to high risks, while risks from the other herbicides to wildlife would have low to negligible risks to wildlife. A detailed analysis of the risks to wildlife and their habitat from the use of herbicides is provided in the 17-States PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-96). Recreational use of the 3 Bars Project area would adversely impact wildlife by disturbing animals and possibly from fuel or other petroleum product spills from recreation vehicles that could impact drinking water. Wildlife could be injured or killed by recreational vehicles, or from illegal hunting. Visitor use of the CESA would result in increased risk of a wildland fire due to accidental or intentional ignition of vegetation from a campfire, cigarette, hot vehicle muffler, or other human-caused ignition source. Recreational users can spread noxious weeds and other invasive non- native vegetation that attaches itself to vehicles or to clothing or shoes, and can later cause new noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation infestations and degrade wildlife habitat. Garbage and other debris left behind by recreational users could be ingested by wildlife and harm or kill animals, or attract ravens and other scavengers. As the local population increases, there would be increased hunting pressure on greater sage-grouse and other wildlife. However, there arc no studies that have demonstrated that regulated hunting is the cause of the decline of greater sage-grouse in recent time (Connelly et al. 2004). Pine nut harvesting would cause a loss of pine nuts as food for wildlife. Utility and infrastructure projects could kill, injure, or disturb wildlife, cause loss and fragmentation of habitat, and possibly alter wildlife migration patterns and movements. Wildlife can strike fences and be injured or killed, be killed by vehicles on roads, and powcrlincs and communication sites may be used as perches by raptors, to the detriment of their prey. During a 10-ycar study of the effects of the Faleon-Gonder transmission line, which is in the eastern 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-326 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES portion of the 3 Bars Project area, researchers found that counts of common ravens along the transmission corridor, and raven-associated disturbances of greater sage-grouse leks, increased substantially during the 10-year period after construction of the transmission line. However, researchers did not find a meaningful impact of the transmission line on greater sage-grouse nest survival (Collopy and Lammers 2005, Nonnc ct al. 2011). Several studies have shown that mining and energy development can have a substantial impact on greater sage-grouse habitat use and breeding success, and because of their large footprints, can fragment habitat (Braun et al. 2002, Lyon and Anderson 2003, Hollaran and Anderson 2004, Braun 2006, Great Basin Bird Observatory 2011; also see review in USFWS 2008), although habitat loss and fragmentation can be reduced over time as developments arc reclaimed. Construction and operation of the Mount Hope Project would directly affect wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, primarily in the big sagebrush vegetation community. Approximately 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat would be directly removed. Upon completion, approximately 7,656 acres would be reclaimed by revegetating disturbed areas with shrubs, forbs and grasses (USDOI BLM 2012c). The mine project would also cause death and injury to wildlife, disturb wildlife, and fragment wildlife habitat. Mule deer, greater sage-grouse, and other wildlife migrations and movements would be impacted by the mine project. Mule deer migrate along routes from Pine Valley south around the Roberts Mountains into Kobch Valley and Diamond Valley and could be affected by the Mount Hope Project. Core breeding, brood-rearing, and winter habitat for greater sage-grouse is within the mine project area. The mine project could impact the movement of greater sage-grouse between Kobch Valley and Roberts Mountains. Other impacts to greater sage-grouse from the mine project include increased raptor or scavenger predation from elevated equipment and power poles; visual encroachment or interruptions created by elevated equipment, power poles, vehicular travel and dust; interruption of “bird foot traffic” created by above-ground pipes, extended elevated berms, or other linear features that may block passage; noise created by pumps, vehicles, and equipment; collision with fences and other structures; habitat fragmentation; and unreclaimed surface disturbance resulting in habitat loss (USDOI BLM 2012c). The mine project waste rock stockpile would be constructed over burrows and areas where pygmy rabbits have been sighted. In addition, the mine project access road and growth media stockpiles may also cover burrows and areas where pygmy rabbits have been sighted. These impacts would be limited to selected burrows and a limited number of individuals may be extirpated; these impacts are not expected to result in a population-level effect that would affect the potential listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act. The BLM has calculated that approximately 475 acres of pygmy rabbit habitat would be disturbed by the mine project. Of those 475 acres, 21 1 acres are occupied by pygmy rabbits and 264 acres are considered potential pygmy rabbit habitat. One commenter during public scoping asked about the potential for reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep into the 3 Bars Project area. The NDOW does have plans to reintroduce bighorn sheep into the Cortez Range, which is immediately northwest of the 3 Bars Project area. These plans have been met with some resistance from local ranching interests, and the plan is currently on hold. There are no plans to reintroduce bighorn sheep on Roberts Mountains, as permittees are authorized to graze sheep on the mountain. Should sheep pennits be retired or changed to cattle permits in the future, it is possible that NDOW could reintroduce bighorn sheep on Roberts Mountains (Foree 2012b). - It is estimated that approximately 140,000 acres would be burned by wildfires over the next 20 years, and in some years wildfires may bum substantial acreage, based on acreage burned since 1985 in the CESA. About 75,000 acres 3 Mars Project Draft FIS 3-327 September 2013 WILDL IFE RESOURCES burned in the 3 Liars Project area, and nearly 56,000 within remaining areas of the CESA, in 1999. In addition to eoneerns about how wildland fires may result in establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non- native vegetation, sueh as ehcatgrass, there is eoncern that as wildland lire intervals dcercasc, the likelihood of vegetation reaching late successional stages would be reduced, to the detriment of species that favor late successional habitat, sueh as sage thrasher and gray flycatcher (Great Liasin Bird Observatory 2010). In addition to treatments under the proposed action, the BLM also proposes to treat hazardous fuels on approximately 1 ,500 acres annually in high to very high lire risk areas on and near the 3 Bars Project area and within the CESA. These include treatments of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush using prescribed fire and manual and mechanical methods, to remove pinyon-juniper, enhance wildlife habitat, and create fuel breaks. In addition to improving wildlife habitat by creating a mosaic of habitats and opening up pinyon-juniper stands to promote development of shrubs, grasses, and forbs to the benefit of greater sage-grouse and other wildlife, these treatments would also reduce the risk of wildfire and loss of wildlife habitat. Under Alternative A, adverse effects from treatments would generally be short term, while benefits would be long term and would accumulate with wildlife habitat effects that occur on other portions of the CESA. Proposed BLM restoration projects would have short-term adverse and long-term beneficial effects on about 142,000 acres of wildlife habitat within the CESA during the life of the project. About 1 7 percent of the 3 Bars Project Area and 8 percent of the CESA would be treated to reduce hazardous fuels and improve ecosystem health and resiliency. Habitat improvement and a reduction in wildfire risk on the CESA would benefit wildlife and help offset some of the adverse effects to wildlife from other reasonably foreseeable future actions in the CESA, and would be greatest under Alternative A. 3.15.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wildlife resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The BLM anticipates treating about half as many acres (63,500) on the 3 Bars Project area under Alternative B than under Alternative A. The types and magnitude of adverse impacts to wildlife from prescribed fire treatments, including loss of life and injury, loss of habitat, and habitat fragmentation, would not occur within the 3 Bars Project area, but could occur on several hundred acres annually within other portions of the CESA under current and reasonably foreseeable future authorization. Long term benefits from prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit, including improving pinyon-juniper health, stimulating aspen suckering, creating a mosaic of habitat, slowing pinyon-juniper encroachment, making vegetation more fire resilient, creating openings in pinyon-juniper and mountain big sagebrush habitat to promote shrub, forb, and grass development, and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, would occur on only a few hundred acres annually under this alternative, under previous and reasonably foreseeable future authorizations, and would provide few benefits for wildlife. Adverse and beneficial effects of 3 Bars Project treatments on wildlife resources would accumulate with those from other actions in the CESA. About 8 percent of the 3 Bars Project Area and 4 percent of the CESA would be treated to reduce hazardous fuels and improve ecosystem health and resiliency. The trend toward large-sized wildfires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand-replacing wildfires in pinyon-juniper should remain near current levels. Treatments to reduce this risk on the CESA would benefit wildlife and their habitats, but not to the extent as would occur under Alternative A. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-328 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.14.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wildlife resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Because fire and mechanical treatments would not be used, the BLM would not be able to use these methods stimulate aspen suckcring on about 450 acres. There is concern that unless the BLM protects aspen stands from livestock, wild horses, and ungulates, and is successful in stimulating aspen suckcring using manual methods, that aspen stands could be lost on the 3 Bars Project area. The BLM would be less able to reduce the risk of pinyon-juniper encroachment into aspen stands, and thin and remove pinyon-juniper to create and enhance fire and fuel breaks to reduce the risk of wildfire destroying aspens. There would be no risk of injury or death to wildlife, noise and other disturbances, fuel spills, and short-term habitat loss associated with use of mechanical equipment. The BLM would have less success in opening up pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to promote development of shrubs, grasses and forbs; reducing hazardous fuels; removing cheatgrass and other non-native species; creating a mosaic of habitats; creating fire and fuel breaks; restoring stream habitat; and reseeding and replanting vegetation to restore wildlife habitat compared to Alternatives A and B. The BLM would be able to use mechanical methods on several hundred acres annually for other projects in the CESA under Alternative C under current and reasonably foreseeable future authorizations, but the total amount of acreage treated using mechanical methods would be about 90 percent less than under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, proposed restoration projects would have adverse and beneficial effects to about 47,000 acres of wildlife habitat within the CESA during the life of the project. Treatments would primarily restore pinyon-juniper and sagebrush habitat through thinnings and removal of pinyon-juniper. Wildfire risk to wildlife and their habitats would increase in the CESA. Wildlife species diversity and numbers, and habitat quality, would show little improvement under Alternative C, primarily because only about 2 percent of the CESA would be treated to improve wildlife habitat, and the BLM would be limited in the types of treatments it could conduct to reduce the risk of wildfire and improve wildlife habitat. 3.14.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wildlife resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative effects on wildlife resources from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM could create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation using ground-based and aerial application methods of herbicides, especially cheatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; and reduce the risk of a large-scale wildland fire under current and reasonably foreseeable future authorized actions, but on a very limited acreage. Based on historic treatments in the 3 Bars Project area, only about 1,500 acres would be treated annually in the CESA to reduce hazardous fuel levels and improve ecosystem health. Hazardous fuel levels would likely increase, and only a limited number of miles of fuel and fire breaks would be constructed under this alternative compared to the action alternatives. The BLM would conduct stream bioengineering and riparian habitat enhancements only on a limited acreage and these projects would have to be authorized through separate decisions. Thus, stream channels and riparian habitat would remain degraded and contribute to water quality concerns. The trend toward large-sized wildfires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand-replacing wildfires in pinyon-juniper would likely increase. 3 liars Project Draft PIS 3-329 September 20 1 3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES 3.15.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects The proposed vegetation treatments could kill or harm wildlife, and cause unavoidable short-term adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat use. The extent of these disturbances would vary by the extent and type of treatment. In general, greatest risks would be associated with the use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits. These effects would be of special concern when they impact BLM Special Status Species, including greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, raptors, and bats. 3.15.3.6 Relationship between the Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long term Productivity All treatments would have short-term adverse impacts to wildlife and their habitats. Treatments that improve habitat would provide long-term benefits to wildlife. Treatments that remove hazardous fuels from public lands and reduce the risk of a large, catastrophic wildfire would reduce the potential for future death and injury of wildlife and lead to improved habitat. Treatments that slow pinyon-juniper encroachment and control populations of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species on public lands would be expected to benefit most wildlife over the long term by aiding in the reestablishment of native vegetation and restoring wildlife habitat to near historical conditions. 3.15.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Wildlife habitat lost as a result of treatments would be irretrievable until native plant communities were reestablished, usually within several growing seasons. Treatments that improve rangeland and woodland ecosystem health, including removal of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, slowing of pinyon-juniper encroachment, and enhancement of riparian, aspen, and sagebrush habitat, would translate into benefits for wildlife. 3.15.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives Under all alternatives, there would be a short-term (less than 10 years) loss of habitat due to proposed treatments, in particular pinyon-juniper, and cheatgrass and other noxious weeds and invasive non-native species. However, pinyon- juniper is common throughout Nevada and the western U.S., and cheatgrass is an invasive weed with few wildlife values. Treatments would improve habitat on much of the 3 Bars Project area and CESA. Thus, there would be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative long-term impacts to the quantity or quality of habitat critical to the survival of local populations from 3 Bars Project treatments within the 3 Bars Project area or CESA. Under all alternatives, there would be injury or mortality to common wildlife species, primarily from use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits, and from mechanical treatments. Less mobile species, such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals, would be most susceptible. Injury or mortality to wildlife would be in proportion to acres treated (greatest risk under Alternative A) and treatment methods (least risk under Alternative C). BLM Special Status Species, whose populations would be at most risk of not recovering in 5 years, are either mobile, could retreat to burrows, or use aquatic habitats to avoid fire and most mechanical treatments. Thus, populations of species that could be impacted by treatments should recover within 5 years, or should not suffer losses that would affect population viability. Thus, there would be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative long-term impacts to local wildlife populations from 3 Bars Project treatments within the 3 Bars Project area or CESA. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-330 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES No wildlife are listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Spceics Aet on the CESA. Thus, proposed treatments on the 3 Bars Project area or CESA would not result in the “take” of a listed species, or species proposed for listing. Under all alternatives, there could be a short-term reduction in the population, habitat, or viability of a species of concern or sensitive species. However, these losses would not result in a trend toward endangennent or the need for federal listing. Species of greatest concern are the greater sage-grouse, northern goshawk, pygmy rabbit, and several species of bats. Under all alternatives, the BLM would conduct treatments that would restore habitat for these species. The BLM would remove pinyon-juniper in Phase II and 111 stands, potentially to the detriment of bats that roost under the bark of these trees. However, pinyon-juniper is common in Nevada, the BLM would protect old-growth pinyon- juniper and conduct most treatments outside the period when bats would be using trees for roosts, and bats use other habitats for roosting and breeding in addition to pinyon-juniper. Thus bat populations should not be imperiled from treatments in the CESA. The BLM would avoid treatments near pygmy rabbit burrows, where feasible, on the 3 Bars Project area. In addition, most of the treatments on the 3 Bars Project area and CESA would benefit the sagebrush habitat used by greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and other wildlife. The BLM would also improve aspen habitat to benefit northern goshawk. Thus, there should be a long-term gain in habitat value to species of concern on the CESA. Under all alternatives, there could be a loss of birds, eggs, or nesting habitat critical to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and should this loss occur, it could be significant. As discussed in Appendix C, the BLM would conduct nest surveys prior to any surface-disturbing activities that would occur during the avian breeding season. If nests are found within the treatment area, or if other evidence of nesting is observed, treatment activities may be postponed until after the completion of nesting; a protective buffer will be delineated and the buffer area will be avoided to prevent destruction or disturbance to nests and birds until they are no longer active; or the area will be removed from project consideration. The BLM will also avoid raptor and greater sage-grouse nesting areas. However, there is no guarantee that all nests would be found, and it is possible that migratory birds or their nests or young could be impacted by resource and other development in the CESA. The BLM would work with the USFWS to minimize or mitigate these losses. 3.15.4 Mitigation Wildlife resources would benefit from mitigation and monitoring measures identified in Section 3.17.4 (Livestock Grazing Mitigation). No mitigation or monitoring measures have been identified specifically for wildlife resources. 3.16 Wild Horses 3.16.1 Regulatory Framework Management of wild horses on BLM-administrated lands is regulated under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 and the multiple use objectives of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. There are wild horses, but no wild burros, managed on the 3 Bars Project area. The Act requires that wild horse and burro populations be managed at levels that allow for the preservation and maintenance of a thriving natural ecological balance. Methods used to control wild horse and burro populations primarily involve gathers to remove excess animals, and fertility control through injections of immunocontraccptives to reduce population growth rates. The BLM is also guided by the Nevada Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council to promote healthy rangelands through implementation of standards and guidelines for maintaining healthy wild horse and burro herds on 3 Pars Project Draft I IS 3-33 1 September 20 1 3 WILD HORSES I IMAs (USIX)I 2007b). These inelude managing wild horses in DMAs based on the eapability of the I IMA to provide suitable feed, water, eover, and living spaec; and eontrol of population levels to ensure the long-term health of wild horse populations. 3.16.2 Affected Environment 3.16.2.1 Study Methods and Study Area BLM wild horse gather reports, monitoring data, and inventories were used to assess conditions of wild horses and their associated HMAs, including overall herd health, population compared to Appropriate Management Level (AML), and available water sources. The 2007 Roberts Mountain Complex Wild Horse Gather Environmental Assessment, the Roberts Mountain Complex Final Gather and Removal Report of January 2008, the 2008 Roberts Mountain HMA Genetic Report, the 2008 Callaghan Complex Wild Horse Gather Environmental Assessment, the Callaghan Complex Gather Report of February 2009, and the Callaghan Complex Genetic Report of 2009 provided much of the information for this assessment (USDOl BLM 2007h, 2008k, 1, 2009g, h). The Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook H-4700-1 (USDOl BLM 20101) was also consulted for information on wild horse management. The study area for assessment of direct and indirect impacts to wild horses includes the HMAs within the 3 Bars Project area as shown on Figure 3-44. Herd Management Areas are for long-term management of wild horses and are designated “Special Management Areas” on public lands. Establishment of HMAs must take into consideration the AML for the herd, the habitat requirements of the animals, and the relationships with other uses of public land. The objective of the management of wild horses is to limit the animals’ distribution to the Herd Areas, which are areas of public lands identified as being habitat used by wild horses at the time of the passage of the Wild Free- Roaming Horses and Burros Act (43 CFR § 47000-5[d]). A herd is defined as one or more stallions and his mares and foals. The CESA area for assessment of cumulative effects includes all of the HMAs that are contained within or partially overlap the 3 Bars Project area boundary. 3.16.2.2 General Herd and Herd Management Area Characteristics The 3 Bars Project area contains four HMAs — Fish Creek North3, Rocky Hills, Roberts Mountain, and Whistler Mountain, totaling 246,536 acres. The HMAs are grouped into two different complexes. The Callaghan Complex consists of the Rocky Hills HMA and others not overlapped by the project area. The Roberts Mountain Complex contains the Roberts Mountain, Whistler Mountain, and Fish Creek North HMAs. Highway 50 divides Fish Creek North from Fish Creek South and precludes movement of the wild horses in the northern portion with the portion of the HMA south of U.S. Highway 50. As a result, the northern portion of the Fish Creek HMA is managed as a Complex with the Roberts Mountain and Whistler Mountain HMAs. Also included in this Complex is the Kobeh Valley Herd Area which is not currently designated as an HMA. The Kobeh Valley Herd Area surrounds the Fish Creek North HMA and wild horses pass through the Herd Area between the HMAs. ' The Fish Creek HMA exists on both the north and south sides of U.S. Highway 50, and is crossed by two rights-of-way fences. The portion of the HMA north of U. S. Highway 50 is referred to as Fish Creek North, though the HMA name has not yet been officially changed. 3 Bars Project Draft FIS 3-332 September 20 1 3 Elko Co ureka County Roberts * Mountain Whistler Mountain ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ Legend Wild Horse Herd Management Area Areas Where Habitat Improvement is Needed 3 Bars Project Area Source: BLM 2010m, 2012g 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-44 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas and Habitat Improvement Areas 10 mi Miles ^ Kilometers 10 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were COf OUt sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. WILD HORSES Limited year-round water sources, coupled with wild horse overpopulation, have resulted in wild horse concentrations in portions of the Roberts Mountain and Rocky Hills HMAs. Herd populations frequently exceed the desired AML due to inadequate gather frequency. As a result of populations over the AML, and limited forage and water during drought years, wild horse body scores declined and emergency gathers were required in portions of the Roberts Mountain Complex in 2001 and 2008. Permanent and temporary fences throughout the Rocky Hills and Roberts Mountain HMA hinder free-roaming abilities of wild horses in these HMAs. Sampling of both the Rocky Hills and the Roberts Mountain Complex for genetic health indicates that the genetic variability of wild horses in these herds is high due to the population sizes and mixing between herds. The history of these herds is traced back to the early settlers of the area and the saddle horses used for ranch work. Some of the horses within the Rocky Hills HMA share traits with those of curly horses introduced into Nevada in the mid- 1800s. The BLM is required to maintain an inventory of wild horses or burros on public lands. Inventories are typically conducted using aircraft, and mostly by helicopter. A systematic grid is flown of the HMA using experienced observers. A direct count is obtained along with other monitoring data such as wild horse distribution, animal health, resource condition, and availability. Inventories are conducted every 2 to 3 years. During years when an inventory is not conducted, the Mount Lewis Field Office uses an average rate of increase derived from historical herd growth across the District, which is 17.5 to 19 percent annually, although the herd growth can fluctuate from year to year and among HMAs. 3.16.2.3 Individual HMA Characteristics Table 3-46 displays the HMAs that are within the project area, their approximate size, the established AML, and the estimated 2013 population following the spring 2013 foaling season. The most recent inventory for the Roberts Mountain Complex was completed in November 2012, with Rocky Hills completed in conjunction with the Callaghan Complex in August 20 124. 3.16.2.3.1 Rocky Hills HMA The Rocky Hills HMA is 50 miles southwest from Carlin, Nevada, in Eureka County. It is approximately 15 miles east to west and 13 miles north to south. The elevation ranges from 5,500 to 8,100 feet amsl. In 1999, the Trail Canyon Fire burned approximately 50 percent of the Rocky Hills HMA and forced a gather that resulted in the removal of 98 percent of the wild horse population. Three years later, 74 horses were released into the HMA, most over 9 years of age. The most recent gather in this HMA occurred in 201 1 as part of the Callaghan and New Pass/Ravenswood Complex gather (USDOI BLM 201 On). The Rocky Hills HMA (in conjunction with the Callaghan Complex) has been part of a program to reduce population growth through limited removals and the application of fertility control since 2008. The objective is to return to these areas every few years to gather wild horses, re-treat the females with fertility control and remove only a few animals (primarily young animals), and release most of the population back to the range. During the most recent inventory in August 2012, it was noted that the population 4 Annual average rate of increase used to compute the 2013 estimated population for Roberts Mountain Complex is 19 percent. The annual rate of increase used for Rocky Hills for 2013 was 12 percent. Fertility control applications are being used on the Rocky Hills HMA to reduce foaling rates. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-334 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES consisted of approximately 7 percent foals, which was markedly lower than untreated populations exhibiting composition of foals ranging from 16 to 20 percent. The Rocky Hills HMA wild horses are large horses and display a variety of colorations including paint, buckskin, grulla, appaloosa, roan, and dun. Horses may reach 16 hands (a hand is 4 inches) or taller, and may reflect some draft horse traits such as heavy muscling and large bone structure. The wild horses in the Rocky Hills HMA arc descendants of the saddle horses raised by the Demale Family at the JD Ranch-prior to the passage of the Wild Free- Roaming Horses and Burros Act, and may include Morgan, Saddlcbred, Quarterhorse, Thoroughbred, Appaloosa, and heavier draft breeds. TABLE 3-46 Herd Management Areas HMA Acreage Appropriate Management Levels 2013 Population (estimated) Rocky Hills 83,997 86-143 109 Fish Creek North1 19,300 6-10 6 Roberts Mountain 99,992 150 363 Whistler Mountain 43,247 14-24 20 1 The portion of the Fish Creek HMA north of U.S. Highway 50 is shown in the table. The entire HMA, which extends south of U.S. Highway 50, exceeds 252,000 acres. Wild horses within the Rocky Hills HMA have generally exhibited good health and body condition, and no issues with disease or genetic defects are known. Sex ratios and age structures are expected to be within normal ranges for wild horse herds. The southern portion of the HMA tends to be under-utilized, with horses congregating in the northeastern portion. This is likely due to areas of thick pinyon-juniper cover and fencing that precludes wild horse access to water sources and movement in the southern portion of the HMA. Perennial streams, which may not flow year-round within the HMA, provide variable amounts of water to wild horses. Other intermittent or ephemeral drainages may provide water during periods of spring run-off or during wet years. Many areas in the northern three-quarters of the HMA have been identified as lacking or having poor water availability and quality. 3.16.2.3.2 Fish Creek North HMA The Fish Creek HMA is located west of Eureka, Nevada. Approximately 92 percent of the HMA is located south of U.S. Highway 50 and is cut off from the north portion by highway rights-of-way fences that preclude wild horse movement. The north portion of the Fish Creek HMA, referred to as Fish Creek North HMA, was once part of the Kobeh Herd Area of which portions were designated as a part of the Fish Creek HMA and the Whistler Mountain HMA. The Fish Creek North HMA is associated with the Roberts Mountain Complex. The portion south of U.S. Highway 50 is not associated with the 3-Bars project and is not discussed further. The Fish Creek North HMA is approximately 6 miles from east to west and 5 miles from north to south. The elevation ranges from approximately 6,030 to 7,900 feet amsl. The habitat consists of pinyon-juniper, black sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, and sodic bottom vegetation types that are not highly productive. Horses from this HMA were last gathered with the Roberts Mountain Complex gather in 2008. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-335 September 20 1 3 WILD HORSES Wild horses make intermittent use of the Fish Creek North I IMA, moving through Kobeh Valley and between the Roberts Mountain, Whistler Mountain, and Fish Creek North IIMAs. Despite fences, wild horses have found places to cross into the Roberts Mountain HMA (USDOI BLM 2007h). It is suspected that the Whistler Mountain and Fish Creek North herds travel into the Roberts Mountain HMA for water and to seek higher elevations in the summer months, and Whistler Mountain and Fish Creek North HMAs during winter months when deeper snow covers higher elevations. Due to the proximity of the HMA to the Roberts Mountain and Whistler Mountain HMAs, and documented movement of these horses, wild horses most closely resemble the horses within the Roberts Mountain HMA. 3.16.2.3.3 Roberts Mountain HMA The Roberts Mountain HMA is 30 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada, and west of Highway 278. It is approximately 10 miles east to west and 17 miles north to south. The elevation ranges from 5,500 to 7,500 feet amsl. In January 2008, a gather was conducted and 308 wild horses were removed leaving 1 1 8 to 123 in the HMA. The 2013 estimate is 363 horses, or about 210 horses above the established AML. Perennial streams, which may not flow year-round within the HMA, provide variable amounts of water to wild horses. Other intermittent or ephemeral drainages may provide water during periods of spring run-off or during wet years. Few water sources exist in the southern and southwestern portion of the HMA. Forage in the low elevations that provides important winter range is also limited and is in a degraded state. As a result, concentrations of wild horses have been documented in portions of the HMA near available water sources, especially when the population exceeds the established AML. Additionally, wild horses move into higher elevations and into areas outside of the HMA to access water and forage. Wild horses are generally familiar with the location of fences and gates and arc able to move within and outside of the HMA through gates and around drift fences (USDOI BLM 2007h). A large portion of the population exists outside of the HMA where use by wild horses has not been allocated. During the most recent inventory in November 2012, 56 percent of the wild horses were observed outside of the HMA boundary. Wild horses of the Roberts Mountain HMA arc known to have desirable traits. Size of the horses is typically larger than other wild horses, averaging 15 hands. Conformation of the animals is very good, with well-muscled shoulders and hindquarters typical of working stock ancestry. The wild horses include desirable colors including palomino, buckskin, and roan in addition to traditional colors of bay, brown, sorrel, and black. Health and body condition scoring of the Roberts Mountain HMA wild horses is typically adequate; however during drought or periods of overpopulation, forage in the lower elevation winter range becomes limited in relation to that needed to support a healthy population. This has resulted in emergency conditions in the past, specifically during the 2008 winter gather. 3.16.2.3.4 Whistler Mountain HMA The Whistler Mountain HMA is located 10 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada, and west of Highway 278. It is approximately 7 miles from east to west and 16 miles from north to south. The elevation ranges from 5,900 to 8,225 feet amsl. This HMA was gathered with the Roberts Mountain Complex in 2008. Intermittent and ephemeral channels provide negligible amounts of water, and areas in the central portion of the HMA lack or have poor water quality and availability. The western portion of the HMA has been under-utilized by wild horses in the past, partially due to lack of water sources. Wild horses commonly move from the Whistler Mountain HMA into the Roberts Mountain HMA or Kobeh Valley Herd Area. Lone Mountain Spring and Treasure Well in the 3 Bars Project Draft IilS 3-336 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Kobch Valley (outside ot the Whistler Mountain I IMA boundary), arc frequently utilized by wild horses from the Whistler Mountain and Fish Creek North HMAs. No fences separate the Fish Creek North and Whistler Mountain HMAs, and horses move freely between them. Despite allotment boundary fences, wild horses have found places to cross into the Roberts Mountain HMA. It is suspected that the Whistler Mountain and Fish Creek North herds travel into the Roberts Mountain HMA for water and to seek higher elevations in the summer months, and use the lower elevations of Whistler Mountain HMA and Kobch Valley during the winter months (USDOl BLM 2007h). 3.16.2.4 Conflicts among Wild Horses, Livestock, and Wildlife Herd Management Areas within the project area overlap with grazing allotments (Table 3-47). The allocation of forage vegetation has to be adequate to support livestock, wild horses, and wildlife in a sustainable manner, otherwise forage for livestock, wild horses, and wildlife becomes degraded, as has occurred over much of the project area (Figure 3-29). Typically, horses are treated very similar to livestock in terms of calculating Animal Unit Months (AUMs), and dietary overlap between wild horses and cattle is very similar. Forage vegetation and water resources are also shared with wildlife. 3.16.2.5 Population Management and Control Wild horses have relatively few natural predators, which allow their population rates to grow at an average rate of 1 8 to 25 percent per year (USGS 2012c). When unchecked, this rate of increase is greater than the rangeland can provide for and will begin to negatively affect the health of wild horses as well as wildlife. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act requires that wild horse and burro populations be managed at levels that allow for the preservation and maintenance of a thriving natural ecological balance. Methods used to control wild horse populations include gathers and removals, adoption, and an immunocontraceptive. TABLE 3-47 Allotments within Herd Management Areas Herd Management Area Allotment Acreages Percent of HMA Percent of Forage Allotted to Wild Horses (estimated) Rocky Hills Grass Valley 33,321 40 11 JD 50,676 60 10-17 Fish Creek North Lucky C 19,300 100 17 Roberts Mountain Roberts Mountain 63,995 64 10 Three Bars 35,997 36 Whistler Mountain Lucky C 12,109 28 17 Romano 31,138 72 8 USDOl BLM (2007h, 2010m). Several contraceptive methods have been explored since 1990, but most have proven to be ineffective. One method that has been effective is the injection of an immunocontraceptive known as Porcine Zona Pelludica (PZP), which is injected into mares during horse gathers. Porcine Zona Pelludica is a desirable method of fertility control for the following reasons (USGS 2012c): 3 Bars Project Draft LIS 3-337 September 2013 WILD HORSES • effects passively wear off and normal fertility can resume in 3 to 4 years; • there is no harm if injected into marcs that arc already pregnant; • research suggests that PZP docs not affect ovarian function or hormonal health; • life span seems to increase (5 to 10 years) with improved health of treated marcs, apparently due to the absence of stresses from pregnancy and lactation; and • PZP may be 90 percent effective in blocking fertility in marcs for up to 3 years. 3.16.3 Environmental Consequences 3.16.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on information in the AECC and public scoping comments, the following concerns regarding wild horses were identified and are discussed in the effects analysis. • Competition among wild horses, livestock, and wildlife for forage and water. • Poor health scores recorded during horse gathers. • Effects of project actions in and around foaling areas during foaling season. • Appropriate development of water sources to help disperse wild horses. • The effect wild horses would have on project reclamation areas and the ability to achieve the desired goals. • Injury or death of wild horses due to project activities. 3.16.3.2 Significance Criteria Impacts to wild horses would be considered significant if BLM actions resulted in: • Loss of habitat, forage, or water that results in adverse effects to the overall health of wild horses for more than 3 years after treatments. • Interference with the historical distribution and movement patterns of wild horses within the affected HMAs. 3.16.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.16.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to AH Action Alternatives Restoration activities could have short-term effects on wild horses by exposing them to treatments that could harm their health, interfere with their movements, cause changes in vegetation that could alter the carrying capacity of the HMAs, or limit their access to water, which could ultimately affect their genetic health. Long term, vegetation management activities would improve the amount and quality of forage, potentially increasing the carrying capacity of the HMAs. About half of the proposed treatments would occur within HMAs, but because wild horses range outside of their HMAs, all restoration treatments in the 3 Bars Project area have the potential to benefit wild horses. The lack of high quality forage and water on the 3 Bars Project area arc concerns for wild horses, thus the reader is encouraged to also read the Water Resources, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Zones, and Native and Non- 3 liars Project I>af't I . IS 3-338 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES invasive Vegetation sections (Sections 3.9 to 3. 1 1 ) of this EIS for more information on the adverse and beneficial effects of proposed treatments on these resources. Adverse Effects Forage Vegetation Most treatment methods could result in a temporary loss of forage for wild horses. Even when vegetation is not physically damaged or removed, treated areas would require a minimum of 2 growing seasons of rest before they would be available to grazing animals and clectrie or other temporary fencing may be used to exclude wild horses from treatment areas, if necessary. The 2 year closure would be for areas where seeding or planting occurs. During this period, horses would have to utilize other portions of the HMA, which could increase competition with livestock and wildlife for forage. Movement Patterns Under the proposed action, the BLM would use temporary (usually less than 3 years) exclosurc fencing to protect treatments in riparian and aspen management units. Temporary fencing generally would not impact wild horses if there is reliable water outside of the exclosure or a water gap, and interference with the movement patterns of wild horses would be negligible due to the small size of the exclosures. Temporary electric fencing could be used to protect treatment areas in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper areas for us to 2 years following treatment. Electric fencing may be used during critical times of the year or year-round if necessary. Beneficial Effects With increased abundance of perennial, desirable forage species, the overall quality of wild horse habitat would increase. Forage resources would be more abundant throughout the year, including during the winter months. Healthy, perennial forage species are better able to withstand drought, and would provide more abundant forage during drought. It is anticipated that treatments would reduce the risk of wildfire and resultant loss of habitat for wild horses, and move riparian vegetation communities closer to their Proper Functioning Condition and Potential Natural Community. Improved habitat would result in improved health of wild horses through heavier body weights, larger and healthier foals, and increased ability to survive during harsh winters and drought. Forage Vegetation Treatments that improve the quality and abundance of native forbs and grasses and reduce the cover of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation would benefit wild horses by increasing the acreage available for grazing and the quantity and quality of forage. Treatments that reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction and construction of fire and fuel breaks would also benefit wild horses, as wildfires would cause in the loss of forage and could lead to infestations of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation in burned areas. Health Treatments that improve habitat quantity and quality for wild horses should result in healthier horses, reduce the need for emergency removals, increase movement patterns, and maintain and improve genetic diversity, while preserving wild horse historic traits long term. 3 Bars F’roject Draft HIS 3-339 September 2013 WILD HORSES Water Resources Riparian treatments of springs and streams should help several streams achieve Proper Functioning Condition in the long term and improve water flows and quality. Reduced stream velocities would improve riparian vegetation health, groundwater recharge, and water quality. Streams would be stabilized and more resilient. Removal of pinyon-juniper near streams could increase stream flows. Treatments to reduce hazardous fuels, remove noxious weeds and other non-native vegetation, and restore native, fire resilient vegetation would reduce the risk of wildfire and its adverse impacts on water quantity and quality and peak flows. 3.16.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative A, the BLM would make substantial gains in improving forage and water quantity and quality, which would help to distribute wild horses more evenly over the 3 Bars Project area, and would improve the health of these animals. Riparian Treatments About 286 acres of riparian treatments would occur within HMAs, with most treatments in the Rocky Hills HMA (Table 3-48). The majority of the proposed projects occur outside of the HMAs (to the north of Roberts Mountain HMA), but these treatments would also benefit wild horses as wild horses are commonly seen outside of HMAs, including on Roberts Mountains. TABLE 3-48 Surface Disturbance by Herd Management Area for Treatment Types HMA Name Management Type (acres) Total Riparian Aspen Pinyon-juniper Sagebrush Fish Creek North 0 0 1,359 1 1,360 Roberts Mountain 25 0 18,572 4,352 22,950 Rocky Hills 229 0 5,611 9,175 15,014 Whistler Mountain 32 0 18,879 1,421 20,332 Total 286 0 44,421 14,949 59,656 Adverse Effects Manual and mechanical treatments could temporarily reduce the amount of forage on the treatment site, and wild horses could experience short-term disturbances associated with mechanical noise and the presence of humans. However, since animals could leave the area during treatments, effects would be minor (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-100). Noise and other disturbances may require wild horses to find other water sources to avoid treatment activities. This could cause an increased use of other water sources and increased competition between other wild horses, livestock, and wildlife. Prescribed fire could be used for treatments associated with the Black Spring Unit group on the Roberts Mountain and Whistler Mountains HMAs. Direct effects to horses from fires would be unlikely, as they would move out of the treatment area due to human presence and activities. Any burned areas, whether intentional or unintentional, would 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-340 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES result in a temporary loss of forage. Additional risks associated with the use of fire include erosion and invasion of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation. If riparian burn areas experience erosion, this could compromise water quality in associated streams. This risks would be minor, however, as only a few acres would be burned annually, if at all. Temporary fencing would be used to exclude wild horses from riparian treatment sites, although water gaps in the fencing would allow wild horses to access water within portions of the treatment area. The BLM would also use exclosure fencing at Denay Pond to prevent wild horses from entering most of this area and allow the site to restore naturally. A gap would be provided in the fencing to allow wild horses and livestock to access a small portion of the pond. Beneficial Effects By stabilizing channels, revegetating treatment sites, and creating appropriate access to water sources, the BLM would reduce erosion and return riparian systems to a Proper Functioning Condition for the benefit of wild horses. Through these treatments, water quality, quantity, and duration would be improved within HM As, with water availability improved during times of drought, including at Cadet Spring, which is an important water source for wild horses. In areas where pinyon-juniper is removed, stream flows could increase due to reduced water uptake by pinyon- juniper; this would be beneficial to wild horses, especially during drought conditions. Downed trees could be cut into logs and logs placed into streams, slowing water flow and creating pools for use by wild horses. Aspen Treatments Treatments are proposed in the Simpson Park Northeast Unit, which is part of the Rocky Hills HMA. Adverse and beneficial effects from manual, mechanical, and prescribed fire treatment methods, and from the use of fencing, would be similar to those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives, and under Riparian Treatments. Pinyon-juniper Treatments About half (44,421 acres) of the pinyon-juniper treatment acres would be within HMAs (Tabic 3-48). As with other management types, treatments outside the HMAs could also benefit wild horses, as wild horses range widely within the 3 Bars Project area. Manual and mechanical methods and prescribed fire would be used to treat vegetation on all treatment areas within the Roberts Mountain, Rocky Hills, and Whistler Mountain HMAs; only manual and mechanical methods would be used within the Fish Creek North HMA. All HMAs would receive pinyon-juniper treatments, but majority of pinyon- juniper treatment projects would occur north of the Roberts Mountain and Whistler Mountain HMAs. Adverse Effects Manual and mechanical treatments could temporarily reduce the amount of forage on the treatment site, and wild horses could experience short-term disturbances associated with mechanical noise and the presence of humans. Prescribed fire could reduce the ability of the treatment area to support wild horses by removing native forbs and grasses, leading to the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation and loss of forage (USDOl BLM 2007c:4-100). Wild horses are accustomed to migrating in search of food and shelter in response to climatic 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-341 September 2013 WILD HORSES variation and natural disturbances that alter food supplies, however, and the amount of area treated annually would comprise only a small portion of the I IMAs. Treatments could result in increased sediment loads into streams, and flow reduction due to use of water for fire control. The effects of treatments on water quality, and possibly on wild horse use, would be short-term in duration, with water quality returning to pre-disturbance conditions within several days or weeks after treatment is completed. Beneficial Effects Wild horses would benefit from treatments that encourage growth of the native forbs and grasses. Treatments would also help to move the associated ecological sites toward their Potential Natural Community, since most of the acreage within the HMAs is early- to mid-scral status. If the forage amount was increased within a given HMA, horses would likely be better distributed within the HMA (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-101 ). Treatments could also improve winter forage and year-round access to water, and the ability of horses to move throughout the HMAs, which should result in improved genetic health. The BLM proposes to remove pinyon-juniper in several drainages on Roberts Mountains that serve as travel corridors for greater sage-grouse. By removing pinyon-juniper in these drainages and encouraging the establishment of grasses and forbs, the BLM would also provide forage for wild horses in these areas, and may assist wild horse movements between valley and mountain use areas. Treatments that remove hazardous fuels and create fire and fuel breaks would also benefit wild horses by opening up additional habitat and foraging areas, as well as protecting habitat from future loss by reducing the risk of a large- scale catastrophic wildfire. Sagebrush Treatments About half of sagebrush treatments would occur within HMAs (Table 3-48). Over 90 percent of sagebrush treatment projects within HMAs would occur on the Rocky Hills (Rocky Hills Unit) and Roberts Mountains (Coils Creek, Nichols, and Roberts Mountain Pasture units) HMAs. Adverse Effects The types of adverse effects from manual and mechanical treatment methods would be similar to those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives, and under Pinyon-juniper Treatments. These include short-term loss of forage and effects on wild horses from noise and disturbance. The sagebrush treatment area overlaps with 6 miles of perennial streams and 16 springs (Figure 3-23; Table 3-15). Treatments near these streams and springs could impact water quality and flows and the BLM may exclude wild horses from portions of streams using temporary fencing. Prescribed fire could be used on a few acres of mountain big sagebrush within Three Comers Unit to help create a mosaic of habitat types. This area is outside the HMAs but is used by wild horses. Due to the small area treated, the treatment should not impact wild horses. The BLM would plant sagebrush seedlings and reseed with native grasses and forbs to encourage the establishment of sagebrush and herbaceous vegetation that would provide forage for wild horses. The BLM would use native seeds and plants whenever possible, but could also use non-native grasses such as crested wheatgrass. Crested wheatgrass provides forage for livestock and wild horses, especially during winter (Ogle 2006). However, the BLM could remove 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-342 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES crested wheatgrass and forage kochia at the Rocky Hills Unit to enhance sagebrush cover, to the potential detriment of wild horses. While only up to 50 percent of the unit would be treated, crested wheatgrass provides more forage for wild horses than does native vegetation. Beneficial Effects The overabundance of sagebrush in some treatment areas is one of the dominant factors responsible for ecological sites failing to meet their Potential Natural Community state. Within these sites, key grass species are often limiting or missing from the understory resulting in low quantity of forage available to wild horses, especially during winter months. Encroachment of pinyon-juniper and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation are also factors contributing to the degraded condition of sagebrush habitats. By thinning sagebrush and pinyon-juniper, removing noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation, and seeding and planting with native vegetation, perennial forbs and grasses would be able to achieve proper abundance, and distribution, and provide greater quantity and quality forage vegetation for wild horses. These improvements should help to facilitate wild horse movement and better distribute wild horses throughout the HMAs. Sagebrush treatments would increase understory cover of grasses and forbs that would provide forage for wild horses. Manual and mechanical treatments could result in increased water runoff and erosion, to the possible detriment of water quality and aquatic habitat. Long term, treatments should improve water flows and water quality to the benefit of wild horses. Treatments that reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction, including removal of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, would benefit wild horses. Uncontrolled, high intensity wildfires can damage large tracts of rangeland, reducing its suitability for grazing Treatments that restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems, such as the appropriate use of mechanical thinning and fire, would decrease the effects from wildfire to rangeland plant communities and improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability. 3.16.3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) The types and magnitude of effects for manual, mechanical, and biological control treatments would be similar between Alternatives A and B. Because the BLM would not use fire, however, there would be none of the adverse effects associated with prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits. In particular, prescribed fire would not contribute to degradation of wild horse habitat that could result from soil erosion, loss of forage, and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation in burned areas. However, with greater reliance on mechanical methods, there may be greater disturbance to wild horses from use of mechanical equipment than would occur under Alternative A. Acres and types of wetland and riparian habitat treated would be similar to Alternative A, and the BLM would use temporary exclosure fencing to protect treatment areas. However, fewer acres would be treated to slow pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush and riparian communities, and fewer acres of habitat where sagebrush should occur based on ecological site description reference, desired state, or management objective would be restored. Thus, there would be fewer gains in habitat improvement and forage production outside of riparian zones. Because fire would not be available to reduce hazardous fuel loads, Alternative B may pose a greater long-term risk for catastrophic wildfire due to the accumulation of fuels. The BLM would be limited in promoting more fire resilient and diverse vegetation on the 3 Bars Project area. Prescribed fire would not be used to remove downed wood and other hazardous fuels associated with thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper, thus increasing the risk of wildfire in pinyon-juniper treatment areas. These effects would not be beneficial to wild horses. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-343 September 20 1 3 WILD HORSES 3.16.3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, the BLM would use manual and classical biological control methods to treat vegetation, and would treat about one-fourth as many acres as would occur under Alternative A. The types and magnitude of effects for manual treatments would be similar to those for the other alternatives. The consequences of not using fire under Alternative C would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B. The BLM has not identified areas where it would use classical biological control, but if nematodes, insects, or fungi are used on the 3 Bars Project area, treatments would generally be small in size and effects would be localized, or if used on cheatgrass, could cover large areas of habitat that arc little used by wild horses. Thus, the effects on wild horses from biological control would be minor and primarily restricted to those species using vegetation treated by these methods. The BLM would not use livestock to remove cheatgrass on Table Mountain, West Simpson Park, and Whistler Sage under Alternative C or to reduce competition from crested wheatgrass and forage kochia in the Rocky Hills Unit. Most of the treatments under this alternative would be to thin and remove pinyon-juniper using chainsaws where it is encroaching into riparian, aspen, and sagebrush habitats. Noise and other disturbance would be less with manual methods than the other methods. Manual and biological control methods result in less land disturbance than mechanical methods and as a result, short-term adverse effects to water quality from soil erosion, and loss of non- target vegetation, would be least under this alternative. Without the use of mechanical equipment, the BLM would not conduct stream engineering and restoration, except on a limited basis on only a few stream miles. Fewer acres of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation would be controlled and fewer acres of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush thinning and removal would be conducted to promote understory development, except on very small areas where this vegetation can be hand pulled or controlled using hand tools. Reseeding and replanting of restoration sites would be limited to small areas where shrubs and other vegetation would be planted by hand; and fire and fuel breaks to reduce the risk of fire spread would only be created near existing roads or aspen stands, or along a few miles of stream. There would be little reduction in the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Under Alternative C, the BLM would not substantially improve the native vegetation community nor stop the loss of important ecosystem components. Wild horse movements and distribution, and availability and quality of forage and water, would be less under this alternative than the other action alternatives. These effects would be most noticeable during drought periods, harsh winters, or during periods of overpopulation. Thus, there would be negligible improvement in wild horse genetic diversity. 3.16.3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to wild horses from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; thin and remove sagebrush to promote growth of forbs and grasses; or restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem. Without treatments to reduce fuel loading or to control cheatgrass establishment and spread, the risk of catastrophic wildfires would continue to increase; such fires could potentially lead to a catastrophic loss of wild horse habitat and create additional opportunities for invasive species to invade newly burned areas. The BLM would not conduct stream engineering and riparian habitat enhancement, and thus would do little to improve 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-344 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES water availability and quality for wild horses. Thus, this alternative would do little to return the 3 Bars ecosystem to its Potential Natural Community and improve the genetic health of wild horses. 3.16.3.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for wild horses is approximately 320,579 acres and includes the area encompassed by all of the HMAs that are contained within and partially overlap the 3 Bars Project area boundary (Figure 3-1). Approximately 98 percent of the CESA is administered by the BLM and 2 percent is privately owned. Past and present actions that have influenced wild horses in the 3 Bars ecosystem arc discussed in Section 3.2. 2. 3. 3. 3.16.3.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Historic overgrazing and other natural- and human-caused factors have contributed to an increase in wildfire occurrence and intensity and to a decrease in native plant diversity, specifically in the understory of the sagebrush community. This has caused many sagebrush habitats to be far below their Potential Natural Community. These actions have led to the loss of native forage to the detriment of wild horses, livestock, and wildlife. In addition, livestock congregation and concentrated use by overpopulations of wild horses near streams, springs, and wetlands, have contributed to the loss of riparian habitat and forage, and degradation of stream channels and their ability to function properly and provide abundant and high quality water for wild horses. The BLM would continue ongoing management reviews to determine if livestock grazing management is resulting in utilization levels that are moderate to severe and adversely impact wild horse forage, and if needed, would determine if changes in the current terms and conditions of the grazing permit would be required to maintain the long-tenn success of the proposed treatments. Long term, wild horse management activities would include wild horse gathers, AML reviews and adjustments, removal of excess animals, fertility control, adjusting HMA boundaries, fence removal, water developments improvements, and implementation of habitat restoration projects. These management methods would help to reduce land disturbance and restore degraded habitats, and discourage establishment and expansion of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, to the benefit of wild horses. The BLM also proposes to install fencing to limit livestock and wild horse access to treatment areas, although water gaps would be incorporated into fencing along streams to allow livestock, wild horses, and wildlife to access water. These actions should help to improve water quality in affected streams, restore streams to Proper Functioning Condition, and improve riparian habitat. The BLM would continue to use ground-based herbicide applications to remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and may use aerial-based herbicide applications to remove cheatgrass. The BLM would also use herbicides and other treatment methods to restore burned areas under the Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program, under existing authorizations. These treatments would occur on about 1,000 acres annually and would improve rangeland health and resiliency, improve forage and water for wild horses, move vegetation communities in areas that have been disturbed by past natural and human-caused action toward their Potential Natural Communities, and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Five herbicides are typically used on the 3 Bars Project area — 2,4-D, glyphosatc, imazapyr, mctsulfuron methyl, and picloram. For the 3 Bars Project, it is likely that the BLM would also use imazapic to treat cheatgrass. These herbicides, along with 13 other herbicides that could be used by the BLM, generally have negligible to low risks to 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-345 September 20 1 3 WILD HORSES wild horses at typical and maximum application rates. A more detailed discussion of the effects of herbicides on wild horses is in the 17-States PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007b:4- 1 43). Land development, mineral development, and oil, gas, and hydrothermal exploration and development could affect about 15,000 acres in the CESA in the reasonably foreseeable future, including about 14,200 acres of disturbance associated with the Mount Hope Project, and acreage associated with potential land sales (although it is unlikely that all of this land would be developed), materials sites, roads, and rights-of-way for roads, pipelines, and power and telephone lines. The Mount Hope Project would have a significant impact on wild horses in the CESA, as discussed in the Mount Hope Project EIS (USDOI BLM 2012c:4-438 to 4-443). A perimeter fence would be constructed around the mine site to minimize direct impacts to wild horses from mining activities, including collisions with equipment. This fence would directly remove approximately 14,200 acres of wild horse habitat. The fenced area includes approximately 13,998 acres of designated HMAs, including portions of the Roberts Mountain HMA and the Whistler Mountain HMA. Roberts Mountain HMA wild horses would be excluded from about 7,836 acres, while Whistler Mountain HMA wild horses would be excluded from about 6,162 acres, as a result of the construction of the boundary fence. Project-related surface disturbance could also result in limiting wild horse access to developed and natural water sources in the mining area, and direct impacts could occur as a result of vehicular collisions along mine access roads. Mine-related activities would result in direct impacts to the movement patterns of wild horses. The perimeter fence would exclude wild horses during mine operation and reclamation for approximately 70 years. Construction of the fence would result in wild horses moving to other parts of the HMA and potentially increasing the use of forage and water resources that may be already limited. Noise disturbance, human presence, and increased vehicular traffic would be continuous for approximately 44 years during the mine project. Sudden loud noises, such as blasts, could cause wild horses to disperse in directions away from the sound. This behavior could send wild horses into unfamiliar terrain. Some wild horses may avoid the area while others may tolerate the noise and continue foraging and breeding activities in the vicinity of the mine. Distribution changes could result in concentrations of wild horses using vegetation resources in certain areas and increased utilization levels. For example, increased human disturbance and unavailable land in the Whistler Mountain HMA and east portion of the Roberts Mountain HMA could result in the population shifting to the west portion of the Roberts Mountain HMA, resulting in larger numbers of wild horses using smaller land areas. As a result, upland forage species could be heavily utilized. Some impacts could occur to wild horses during the peak foaling season if widespread human activity disturbs the population. As a result, new foals could be orphaned or abandoned. In addition to the loss of vegetation associated with the Mount Hope Project, of particular concern is the potential drawdown of groundwater near the proposed Mount Hope Project. The mine project could have a significant impact on groundwater resources and could result in diminished surface water flows on Roberts Mountains, to the detriment of wild horses (USDOI BLM 2012c:3-438 to 3-439). In addition, the mine’s perimeter fence would prohibit wild horse access to natural watering sources and forage, and this is considered a significant impact to wild horses. As part of mitigation for the mine project, staff with the Mount Hope Project worked with the BLM to identify alternative water sources. Six locations within the Whistler Mountain and Roberts Mountain HMAs have been identified for development as water sources for wild horses and could also be used by wildlife and livestock. These sites consist of existing stock wells that are not currently functioning or do not have pumps or troughs and two new 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-346 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES sources tapped from production wells associated with the Mount Hope Project. These sources would provide water where it has not been available previously or where availability has been limited (USDOl BLM 2012e:3-439). These measures would help to offset potential impacts to wild horse movement, distribution, and habitat loss by providing additional water sources and improving habitat that has been underused in the past. Upon mine closure and reclamation, the perimeter fence would be removed. The reclaimed land should have more grass and forb forage and less mature shrub forage than presently occurs. However, there would be no other actions taken to provide alternative forage for wild horses during the 70 year development, operation, and reclamation period. Catastrophic wildfire can bum extensive acreage, particularly during drought conditions when soil and vegetation are dry. An estimated 85,000 acres would bum in the CESA during the next 20 years. To reduce this risk, hazardous fuels reduction, habitat improvement, and noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation control projects would occur on about 66,000 acres within the HM As, or about 26 percent of HM As within the CESA (about 3 percent of the CESA annually). Treatments include stream channel restoration, removal of encroaching pinyon-juniper, thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to stimulate development of grasses and forbs and reduce tree and shrub density, and creation of fire and fuel breaks. Although the cumulative effects of human disturbance, mining and other development, and wildfire in the CESA would impact wild horse forage and water quality and quantity, treatments to improve forage and water quantity and quality, livestock adjustments, wild horse gathers, and reduction of hazardous fuels would help offset the effects, and improve wild horse habitat quantity and quality. Treatments also would improve the physical and genetic health of wild horse populations long term, and lead to a better distribution of wild horses across the HM As within the CESA. Long-term benefits from treatments would be greater under this alternative than the other alternatives. 3.16.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wild horses would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the BLM anticipates treating about half as many acres as under Alternative A. Fewer acres would be treated to reduce wildfire risk and its impacts on wild horse forage and water quality, including use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit to restore natural fire regimes. Adverse effects to vegetation within the CESA would generally be the same as described for Alternative A. However, by not using fire on the 3 Bars Project area, there would be no risks to vegetation and wild horse forage from fire on several thousand acres annually within the CESA. However, long-term benefits that could be derived from prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit would not occur under this alternative, including improving pinyon-juniper health, creating a mosaic of habitats, slowing pinyon-juniper encroachment, making vegetation more fire resilient, creating openings in pinyon-juniper and mountain big sagebrush habitat to promote shrub, forb, and grass development, and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire to benefit wild horse habitat. Hazardous fuels reduction and habitat improvement projects and other land uses would occur on about 37,000 acres within HMAs, or about 18 percent of HMA acreage within the CESA (1 percent annually). Short-term adverse and long-term beneficial effects from 3 Bars Project treatments would accumulate with those outside the project area, but not to the same extent as would occur with Alternative A. Restoration treatments would benefit vegetation long term, and should help to offset affects from land-use actions that arc detrimental to vegetation. Thus, there would be minor 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-347 September 20 1 3 WILD HORSES short-term adverse effects, and long-term beneficial effects, from 3 Bars Project actions. Although 3 Bars Project treatments would improve the physical and genetic health of wild horses and help to better distribute wild horses across the 3 Bars Project area, these benefits would be less than for Alternative A, particularly in light of the cumulative impacts to wild horse habitat loss that could be realized from implementation of the Mount I lope Project. 3.16.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wild horses would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM would only use manual and classical biological control methods to treat vegetation. As a result, the BLM anticipates treating about one-fourth as many acres under this alternative than under Alternative A. Adverse, short-term effects to vegetation associated with the use of fire and mechanized equipment would not occur under Alternative C. The risk of wildfire and its impacts on the water and vegetation used by wild horses would likely increase on the 3 Bars Project area under this alternative. The BLM would not be able to use mechanical methods and fire to reduce hazardous fuels, create fire and fuel breaks, thin and remove pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to promote more fire resilient vegetation, and remove downed wood and slash. Under current and future authorizations, fire and mechanized equipment would be used on about 7,500 acres within other portions of the HMAs in the CESA to improve habitat, remove hazardous fuels, and reduce the risk of wildfire. Thus, restoration treatments would impact about 22,000 acres within HMAs, or about 9 percent of the HMAs in the CESA; less than 1 percent of the acreage on the CESA would be affected annually. These treatments would help to restore plant communities back to their Potential Natural Community and would improve the physical and genetic health of wild horses, but not to the extent that would occur under Alternatives A and B. 3.16.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on wild horses would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative effects on wild horses from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM could create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation using ground-based and aerial application methods of herbicides, especially chcatgrass; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; and reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire under current and reasonably foreseeable future authorized actions, but on a very limited acreage. Based on historic treatments in the 3 Bars Project area, only about 1,500 acres would be treated annually in the CESA to reduce hazardous fuel levels and improve ecosystem health, and only about a third of these treatments would occur in HMAs. Hazardous fuel levels would likely increase, and only a limited number of miles of fuel and fire breaks would be constructed under this alternative compared to the action alternatives. The BLM would restore little riparian habitat. Thus, water quality would remain degraded and water availability could be limiting, especially during droughts, for wild horses. The trend toward large-sized wildfires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand-replacing wildfires in pinyon-juniper would likely increase. There would be few benefits to wild horse habitat, and their physical and genetic health, and comprehensive improvement to habitat components or movement patterns would not occur in the long term. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-348 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.16.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects The proposed restoration treatments would disturb wild horses and alter wild horse movements and habitat use, and cause the short-term loss of forage used by wild horses. 3.16.3.6 Relationship between the Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity The proposed treatments would affect the availability and quality of vegetation and water. These impacts would begin to disappear within one to two growing seasons after treatment. Because only a small percentage of HMAs would be treated annually, effects would be isolated, minor, and short term. All treatments that successfully reduce the cover of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, thin pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to encourage growth of understory vegetation, and restore native vegetation on grazed lands would benefit wild horses by increasing the number of acres available for foraging and the quality of forage and resilience of vegetation to drought and harsh winters. Horses would also benefit from riparian treatments to increase water flows and improve water quality. Treatments that reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction would also benefit wild horses. Uncontrolled, high intensity wildfires can remove forage from large tracts of rangeland, reducing its suitability for wild horses. Treatments that restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems through the appropriate use of mechanical thinning, fire, and other vegetation treatment methods would decrease the effects of wildfire on rangeland plant communities and improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability. 3.16.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3 Bars Project treatments are not expected to result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources for wild horses. 3.16.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives None of the treatments under all alternatives should result in a significant long-term (greater than 5 years) loss of critical habitat, forage, or water that results in adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the overall health of wild horses, or interference with the normal distribution and movement patterns of wild horses within the affected HMAs. As discussed above, BLM treatments could have short-term effects on resources needed by wild horses, but would occur on less than 3 percent of the CESA annually. Exclosure fencing associated with this and other projects would restrict wild horse access to portions of the CESA, but most of the area that is fenced would be the 14,000 acres of sagebrush and other habitat associated with the Mount Hope Project. Under all alternatives there would be long-term improvements in forage and water resources from BLM restoration treatments, the BLM would continue to provide wild horses access to water in or near riparian zones, and exclosurc fencing would be removed as soon as treatment sites arc satisfactorily restored. 3.16.4 Mitigation Wildlife resources would benefit from mitigation and monitoring measures identified in Section 3.1 7.4 (Livestock Grazing Mitigation). No mitigation or monitoring measures have been identified specifically for wild horses. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-349 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 3.17 Livestock Grazing 3.17.1 Regulatory Framework The 3 Bars Project area is utilized by livestock on 12 grazing allotments administered by the BLM under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended, the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 Grazing Regulations, and Public Land Orders. The BLM revised their grazing regulations in 1995 in order to ensure that livestock grazing practices are conducted in a manner that sustains or improves the ecological health of public rangelands. The revised regulations led to the development of the Northeastern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines (Standards and Guidelines), which established standards of rangeland health and livestock grazing. The intention of the Standards and Guidelines is to create a balance between sustainable development and multiple use while progressing towards desired rangeland conditions. The standards developed to achieve these conditions are as follows (USDOI 2007b): Standard 1 . Upland Sites: Upland soils exhibit infdtration and permeability rates that are appropriate to soil type, climate, and land form. Standard 2. Riparian and Wetland Sites: Riparian and wetland areas exhibit a properly functioning condition and achieve state water quality criteria. Standard 3. Habitat: Habitats exhibit a healthy, productive, and diverse population of native and/or desirable plant species, appropriate to the site characteristics, to provide suitable feed, water, cover and living space for animal species and maintain ecological processes. Habitat conditions meet the life cycle requirements of threatened and endangered species. Standard 4. Cultural Resources: Land use plans would recognize cultural resources within the context of multiple use. Standard 5. Healthy Wild Horse and Burro Populations: Wild horses and burros exhibit characteristics of a healthy, productive, and diverse population. Age structure and sex ratios are appropriate to maintain the long-term viability of the population as a distinct group. Herd management areas are able to provide suitable feed, water, cover and living space for wild horses and burros and maintain historic patterns of habitat use. 3.17.2 Affected Environment 3.17.2.1 Study Methods and Study Area Allotment acreage, AUMs, and livestock information (number, type, and season of use), were from the BLM. The study area for assessment of direct and indirect impacts to livestock and rangeland conditions is the 3 Bars Project area. The CESA for assessment of cumulative effects includes any allotment or portion of an allotment that is within the 3 Bars Project area. 3.17.2.2 Grazing Allotments The 3 Bars Project area is made up of 12 grazing allotments on BLM-administercd land (Figure 3-45). Table 3-49 lists the allotments, total acreage, active AUMs, average acres per AUM, type of livestock, and season of use on the 3 Bars Project area. One AUM is the amount of forage required by an animal unit (AU) for 1 month, or the tenure of 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-350 September 20 1 3 Eureka County FLYNN/ PARMAN GRASS VALLEY ; NORfljH ipMdsiD ROMANO ROBERTS] MOUNTAIN SANTA FE / FERGUSON LUCKY C SHANNON sVation ureka WILLOWS RANCH WILLOWS CREEK RANCH Project Area Battle Mountain Elko Mount Lewis Field Office Reno Battle Mountain District Legend Moderate to Severe Range Use Allotment Boundary 3 Bars Project Area \=$ Pinyon-juniper Treatment Area Sage Treatment Area Aspen Treatment Area bySSI Riparian Treatment Area Source: BLM 2011g, 2013i 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-45 Range Use and Treatment Areas V I i 'vltflt; •at. "\| *mJ H a / H Elko County PRIVATE . United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/30/13) No warranty m made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice LIVESTOCK GRAZING one AU for a I -month period. If one AU grazes on an area of rangeland for 6 months, that tenure is equal to 6 AUs for 1 month or 6 AUMs. In general, the number of animal units, multiplied by the number of months they are on the range, equals the number of AUMs used (Ruyle and Ogden 1993). TABLE 3-49 Grazing Allotments within the 3 Bars Ecosystem Allotment Name - Number 3 Bars Project1 All Public Lands2 Total Acres Total Acres Active AUMs Average Acres/AUM Livestock Type Season of Use Three Bars - 00064 76,893 76,893 5,840 13 Cattle and Sheep 3/1-2/28 Dry Creek -10036 24,402 94,580 5,702 26 Cattle and Horse 3/1-1/31 Flynn/Parman - 10039 28,841 28,841 1,357 22 Cattle 3/15-11/30 Grass Valley - 10006 70,118 268,149 17,700 16 Cattle and Horse 1/1-1/31,3/1-11/30 JD- 10041 140,740 140,740 7,921 12 Cattle 5/1-1/31 Lucky C- 10043 62,082 113,844 3,051 28 Cattle 4/15-2/28 North Diamond - 10034 22,846 76,950 3,579 22 Cattle 5/1-1/31 Roberts Mountain - 10046 164,079 164,079 9,624 16 Cattle and Sheep 1/1-12/31 Romano - 1 0047 47,829 75,847 2,887 26 Cattle 5/1-12/31 Santa Fe/Ferguson - 10049 76,504 83,480 5,202 16 Cattle and Sheep 3/1-12/1 Shannon Station - 10051 4,173 31,518 2,520 10 Cattle 4/1-2/28 Willows Ranch - 00062 10,678 51,421 3,621 18 Cattle 5/1-1/14 1 Data reflect only the portion of the allotments on public land and do not include private lands within the 3 Bars Project area. 2 Includes public and private lands within the 3 Bars Project area, and lands outside the project area. 3.17.2.3 Grazing Management Systems Grazing management systems determine how long livestock are allowed to graze in a given pasture or area. The lack of a management system can lead to the over use of areas that are more desirable to livestock (near water sources, riparian zones, preferred vegetation types, etc.) and ultimately degrade the area and its ability to produce quality forage. The use of various grazing rotation systems can achieve a more even use of rangelands and ensure a healthier rangeland with an increased ability to produce quality forage. Factors that are typically considered when developing a grazing rotation management system include grazing intensity, frequency, season of use, plant vigor and timing of growth, re-growth, seed production, and soil susceptibility to compaction. Fencing, salt and mineral supplements, and artificial water sources can all be used to encourage livestock to utilize different areas or pastures. Table 3-50 presents the management system for each grazing allotment within the project area. A description of grazing management systems follows (Wyman et al. 2006). Rotation System - Scheduled movement of grazing animals from one pasture to another. Rest-rotation System - Any grazing system that provides for the rotation of rest among pastures. The period of rest can be for a full year or more, or a portion of the growing season. The time and length of rest generally changes each successive year. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-352 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Voluntary Rotation System - Movement of grazing animals in which the permittee volunteers to a more conservative grazing management approach that is given in the grazing management plan. This approach is developed in cooperation with the BLM to provide benefits to the permittee and to resources managed by the BLM. TABLE 3-50 Allotment Grazing Management System and Category Allotment Management System Number of Pastures Management Category 3 Bars - 00064 Rest Rotation System 5 Improve Dry Creek -10036 Rotation System 10 Improve Flynn/Parman - 10039 Rest Rotation System 3 Improve Grass Valley - 10006 Rotation System 24 Improve JD- 10041 Rotation System 8 Maintain Lucky C- 10043 Rotation System 4 Custodial North Diamond - 1 0034 Rotation System 7 Custodial Roberts Mountain - 10046 Rest Rotation System 19 Improve Romano - 10047 Rotation System 10 Improve Santa Fe/Ferguson - 10049 Voluntary Rotation System 1 Improve Shannon Station - 10051 Rest Rotation System 8 Improve Willow Ranch - 00062 Rest Rotation System 9 Maintain 3.17.2.4 Grazing Management Categories In allotments where use areas have not been established, there is not a requirement for the cattle to move through the allotment according to specific dates. It is up to the permittee to voluntarily rotate his cattle through the allotment in order to maintain appropriate distribution and utilization rates. Criteria used to assign each of these management approaches are as follows: Improve - Allotments generally have the potential for increasing resource production or conditions but arc not producing at that potential. There may be conflicts or controversy involving resource conditions and uses, but there are realistic opportunities to improve resource conditions. Maintain - Allotments are in satisfactory resource condition and are producing near their potential under existing management strategies. There are little or no known resource use conflicts or controversies. Custodial - Allotments usually consist of relatively small acreages or parcels of public land. Acreages often intermingled with larger amounts of non-fedcral lands. There should be no known resource conflicts involving use or resource conditions. Typically, opportunities for positive economic returns from public investments are limited on these lands. 3 liars Project Draft PIS 3-353 September 2013 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 3.17.2.5 Range Improvements I he range improvements constructed within the project area include fencing, corrals, gates, cattle guards, and water improvement/supply projects. Tabic 3-51 summarizes the improvements that occur in the affected allotments within the 3 Bars project area. 3.17.2.6 Allotment Evaluation Status Rangeland health studies were conducted on six allotments between December 2010 and September 201 1 . As discussed in Section 3.1 1.2.3, Seventy Key Management Areas (KM As) within these allotments were assessed for their ecological status. These areas were selected because they met the following criteria: • representative of larger areas of interest; • contained within a single ecological site and plant community; • contain key species; and • capable of responding to management action that would be indicative of a response on a larger scale. TABLE 3-51 Rangeland Improvements by Allotment Allotment Cattle Guard Fencing (miles) Corral Gate Spring Man-made Water Supply' Dry Creek 1 25 4 Flynn/Parman 37 Grass Valley 4 126 1 4 36 8 JD 6 143 4 4 4 4 Lucky C 29 North Diamond 42 Roberts Mountain 2 159 Romano 14 Santa Fe / Ferguson 50 2 3 Shannon Station <1 Three Bars 6 67 13 1 Willows Ranch 21 1 1 Includes reservoir, stock tank, and troughs. The results of these studies were released in the Final 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Rangeland Health Report (Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and AECOM 2012) and are summarized below. The analysis focused on the assessment of individual KMAs within each allotment and the condition of the KM A was extrapolated to the area within an allotment for which it represents. Within these KMAs, three parameters were used to measure overall rangeland health — production, desired dominant species, and Potential Natural Community for grass, forb, and shrub species. This report provides an overview assessment of rangeland health in the 3 Bars ecosystem as well as a more detailed analysis of six allotments that span the project area from the northern to southern 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 3-354 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES extent. Current rangeland conditions are shown in Figure 3-45, and arc in part based on this assessment and show that about 6 percent of the 3 Bars Project area has moderate to severe range use. 3.17.2.6.1 Flynn/Parman Allotment The current grazing decision for the Flynn/Parman/Jiggs allotments was made on September 21, 1993. Approximately 28,860 acres of the allotment within the 3 Bars Project area are administered by-the BLM. Six KMAs were studied within this allotment (Tabic 3-32). FP2 and FJ2 are within bum areas, the remaining four are not. Grass production and the desired dominant species were low or absent on five sites. Shrub production was low on five sites and the presence of desired dominant species was low or absent on five sites. 3.17.2.6.2 Roberts Mountain Allotment The current grazing decision for the Roberts Mountain Allotment was made on October 20, 1 994. Approximately 164,079 acres of the allotment are within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Sixteen KMAs were studied within this allotment (Table 3-33). RM9 and RM 108 are within crested wheatgrass seeding areas and RM 1 1 is within an herbicide treatment area. Grass production and/or Potential Natural Community were low in every KMA. 3.17.2.6.3 JD Allotment The current grazing decision for the JD Allotment was made on September 24, 1994. A Transfer of Grazing Preference occurred on November 16, 2012. Approximately 140,749 acres of the allotment are within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Nineteen KMAs were studied within this allotment (Table 3-34). JD2, JD9, JD10, and JD15 are in burned areas. JD4 and JD5 are in the Willow Creek and Gabel Canyon seeding areas (1961 and 1964, respectively). The allotment has low grass production and lacks desired dominant grass species. Several areas lack desired dominant forb or shrub species. 3.17.2.6.4 Three Bars Allotment The current grazing decision for the Three Bars Allotment was made on October 20, 1994. Approximately 76,900 acres of the allotment are within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Fifteen KMAs were studied within this allotment (Table 3-35). Key Management Area TB19 is within the Trail Canyon Fire bum area. The allotment has low grass production and desired dominant species are low or absent. Some areas are below the Potential Natural Community for forbs and shrubs and lacks the desired dominant species. 3.17.2.6.5 Romano Allotment The current grazing decision for the Romano Allotment was made on September 27, 2004. Approximately 50 percent of the allotment (47,828 acres) is within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Nine KMAs were studied (Table 3-36) within the project area. Within this area, four seeding efforts have occurred. KMA R07 and R04B are within seeding areas. The allotment has low grass production and desired dominant species are low or absent. Several areas lack the desired forb species. 3.17.2.6.6 Lucky C Allotment The current grazing decision for the Lucky C Allotment was made on September 27, 2004. Approximately 55 percent (62,082 acres) of the allotment is within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Of that portion, 1,078 acres arc private land. Five KMAs were studied (Table 3-37). All are on the portion of the allotment that is within the 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-355 September 2013 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Overall, the allotment has low grass production and various KMAs were rated low to absent for forb or shrub species. 3.17.2.6.7 Dry Creek Allotment The grazing permit renewal for the Dry Creek Allotment was made on October 10, 2007. Approximately 24,403 acres of the allotment arc within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Upland vegetation field observations indicate that appropriate perennial grass understory is lacking at all elevations. In the lower elevations, the perennial grass understory is typically limited to Sandberg’s bluegrass. 3.17.2.6.8 Grass Valley Allotment The current grazing decision for the Grass Valley Allotment was made on June 21, 2002. Approximately 74,469 acres of the allotment is within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Field surveys conducted in 1 998 indicated that overall production of perennial grasses was below the site potential. Shadscale production was below site potential on the majority of sites surveyed. Additionally, Wyoming big sagebrush was experiencing die-off and cheatgrass was present to varying degrees in the lower- and mid-elevation ranges. A portion of the Grass Valley Allotment burned in the 1999 Trail Canyon Fire and some burn areas are infested with cheatgrass. 3.17.2.6.9 North Diamond Allotment The current grazing decision for the North Diamond Allotment was made on January 5, 2000. Approximately 22,846 acres of the allotment are within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Surveys conducted in 1998 found that over 80 percent of the desired dominant grass species were below the Potential Natural Communities for the site, however, they were present on three of the five sites surveyed. These species included Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread, bluebunch wheatgrass, and basin wildrye. On one area, 100 percent of the antelope bitterbrush was mature or decadent and there was no recruitment. Additionally, cheatgrass was prevalent in the lower elevation understory. 3.17.2.6.10 Santa Fe/Ferguson Allotment The current grazing decision for the Santa Fe/Ferguson Allotment was implemented by the Shoshone-Eureka RMP on November 6, 1987 and the Shoshone-Eureka Rangeland Program Summary in 1988. Approximately 76,514 acres of the allotment are within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. This allotment has not been evaluated by the BLM. 3.17.2.6.1 1 Shannon Station Allotment The current grazing decision for the Shannon Station and Spanish Gulch Allotment was made on January 5, 2000. Approximately 4,173 acres of the allotment arc within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. Surveys conducted in 1998 indicated that desired dominant grass species were present at six of nine sites surveyed. These species included Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread, and bluebunch wheatgrass. Cheatgrass comprised approximately 25 percent of the understory community. 3.17.2.6.12 Willow Ranch Allotment The current grazing decision for the Willow Ranch Allotment was made on May 18, 1994. Approximately 10,678 acres of the allotment are within the 3 Bars Project area and administered by the BLM. An allotment evaluation hasn't 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-356 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES been conducted for the Willow Ranch Allotment since 1994. At that time, it was determined that overgrazing was compromising the health of the allotment. The Final Multiple Use Decision that followed the evaluation reduced the permitted AUMs by 1 ,749 to 3,62 1 . 3.17.3 Environmental Consequences 3.17.3.1 Key Issues of Concern Considered during Evaluation of the Environmental Consequences Based on information in the AECC and public scoping comments, the following concerns regarding livestock grazing and rangeland conditions were identified and arc discussed in this impact analysis: • Impacts on ranching operations as a result of livestock exclusion areas. • Effects of livestock on project reclamation areas and the ability to achieve desired goals. 3.17.3.2 Significance Criteria Impacts to livestock would be considered significant if BLM actions resulted in: • Long-term (greater than 10 years) change in forage availability that measurably affects livestock grazing. • Long-term (greater than 5 years) change in access to water that measurably affects livestock grazing. 3.17.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.17.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Vegetation management activities could affect livestock by exposing them to treatments that could harm their health, interfere with their movements, cause changes in vegetation that could positively or negatively alter the carrying capacity of the allotments, or limit their access to water. Alternately, vegetation management activities could improve the amount and quality of forage, potentially increasing the carrying capacity of the allotments. Lack of high quality forage and water on the 3 Bars Project area are concerns for livestock, thus the reader is encouraged to also read the Water Resources, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Zones, and Vegetation sections (Section 3.9 to 3.1 1) of this EIS for more information on the adverse and beneficial effects of proposed treatments on these resources. Adverse Effects Forage Vegetation Most treatment methods would result in a temporary loss of forage available to livestock. Even when vegetation is not physically damaged or removed, treatment areas would require a minimum of 2 growing seasons of rest if they are reseeded or replanted before they would be available to livestock (see Section 3.17.4 for mitigation measures related to livestock closures). This period could be extended if the project area experiences prolonged drought conditions. During this period ranch operators would have to utilize other portions of the affected allotments. This could have the potential to temporarily reduce the number of livestock that an allotment could carry or necessitate providing salt and mineral supplements. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 3-357 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING Health Livestock injury or death could occur as a result of project activities, most likely from a vehicle-livestock collision. It is also possible that exclusion fencing around treatment areas could cause injury to livestock if they run into the fence or try to breach the fence. Livestock could be excluded from treatment areas during the treatment to reduce risk of harm from prescribed fire and other treatments. Equipment operators would be required to travel at speeds less than 25 miles per hour while traveling to and from work sites on the 3 Bars Project area to reduce the risk of accidental collision with livestock. Movement Patterns Under the proposed action, the BLM could use temporary (less than 3 years) exclosure fencing to protect treatments in riparian and aspen management units. Temporary fencing generally does not harm livestock if there is reliable water outside of the exclosure or if gaps are created in the exclosure to allow livestock to access portions of the water source. Temporary exclosure fencing could interfere with livestock use of treatment areas and could interfere with the movement patterns of livestock. Other treatment areas could be closed to livestock for at least 2 growing seasons after treatment. Water Resources Treatments would result in short-term water quality degradation from soil erosion and sedimentation of streams. Exclosure fencing would be used to restrict livestock access to riparian treatment areas for at least 2 years to allow treatment areas to stabilize and to encourage growth of native vegetation. Efforts would be made to ensure that livestock have access to stream water by providing water gaps, or by providing livestock access to the stream downstream from the treatment area. Beneficial Effects Forage Vegetation Treatments that successfully improve the quality and abundance of native forbs and grasses, and reduce the cover of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation on rangelands, would benefit livestock. In addition, some noxious weeds are poisonous to livestock. The success of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation removal would determine the level of benefit of the treatments over the long term. Treatments that reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction and construction of fire and fuel breaks would also benefit livestock. Wildfires would result in the loss of forage and could lead to infestations of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation in burned areas. Health and Movement Patterns Treatments that improve woodland, rangeland, and riparian health, productivity, and functionality would benefit livestock. Risks to livestock health and movement from temporary fencing could be reduced by removing temporary fencing from treatment areas as soon as areas have stabilized and native vegetation has reestablished on the site. Water Resources The Grass Valley, JD, Lucky C, Roberts Mountain, and Romano allotments could all receive riparian treatments. Riparian treatments should help several streams achieve Proper Functioning Condition and improve water flows and 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-358 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES quality to the benefit of livestock. Removal of pinyon-juniper near streams could increase stream Hows. Treatments to reduce hazardous fuels, remove noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and restore native, fire resilient vegetation, would reduce the risk of wildfire and its adverse impacts on forage and water quality and quantity to the benefit of livestock. 3.17.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Riparian Treatments The BLM has identified about 3,885 acres of riparian zone treatments. Of these, about 2,731 acres of treatment would occur on the Roberts Mountain Allotment, 547 acres on the JD Allotment, and 3 1 9 acres on the Grass Valley Allotment (Table 3-52). Adverse effects from manual treatments would be similar to those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives. Use of mechanical treatments could negatively affect plants by compacting soils, creating bare ground, and uprooting desirable species, and could temporarily reduce the amount of forage on the treatment site. Prescribed fire could be used for treatments associated with the Black Spring Unit, Henderson above Vinini Confluence Unit, and Frazier Creek Unit groups, although it would be primarily used on units that are 100 acres or larger. Over the short term, prescribed fire would likely reduce the cover of grass and forb species available to livestock. Livestock would be relocated during the treatment, even though the disturbance associated with treatment actions would typically cause livestock to leave the area. If fuels are anticipated to be insufficient to carry a prescribed fire, livestock grazing would be deferred for the growing season prior to the treatment. In addition, livestock would need to be kept off of treated areas for at least 2 growing seasons after a prescribed fire, and seeding if needed, to give forage ample time to recover (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-96). Direct effects to animals from fires would be unlikely, as they would be relocated from the treatment area. Prescribed fire treatments present the risk of the bum spreading to unintended areas and potentially harming livestock. Additional risks associated with the use of fire include erosion and invasion of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation. If riparian bum areas experience issues with erosion, the treatment area would likely compromise water quality in associated streams. Invasion of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation would require additional treatment for eradication. These risks would be minor, however, as only a few acres of riparian habitat would be burned annually, if at all. Fencing would be used to exclude livestock from riparian treatment sites for a minimum of 2 years to allow riparian conditions to stabilize. The BLM would provide water gaps within the fencing to allow livestock to access portions of the stream within the treatment area. Beneficial Effects Beneficial effects from manual treatments and fencing would be similar to those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives. All treatments would help to improve riparian habitat and forage and drinking water for livestock. Treatments would also reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction, removal of pinyon-juniper, and creation of fire and fuel breaks to the benefit of livestock. Because of these actions, it is anticipated that riparian vegetation communities would move closer to the Potential Natural Community. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-359 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING TABLE 3-52 Acreage Affected by Treatment Types for each Allotment under Alternative A Allotment Name Treatment Type Total Riparian Aspen Pinyon-juniper Sagebrush Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Three Bars 0 0 10,909 996 11,905 Dry Creek 0 0 0 0 0 Flynn/Parman 0 0 5,361 1,538 6,899 Grass Valley 319 0 0 7,435 7,754 JD 547 62 10,009 6,091 16,709 Lucky C 4 0 8,624 1,519 10,147 North Diamond 0 0 7,157 0 7,157 Roberts Mountain 2,731 77 30,153 9,699 42,660 Romano 32 0 16,394 1,341 17,767 Santa Fe/Ferguson 8 8 0 2,680 2,696 Shannon Station 0 0 2,880 16 2,896 Willow Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3,641 145 91,489 31,315 122,948 Manual and mechanical treatments would occur on areas where historic livestock use has damaged stream channels and adjacent meadows. Because of the loss of structural integrity in some stream channels, stream velocities have increased over historic levels, nutrient-rich sediment is not being delivered to riparian vegetation, and there is less groundwater recharge within the floodplains. By stabilizing channels and revegetating treatment sites, the BLM would reduce erosion, return riparian systems to a Proper Functioning Condition, and create appropriate access to water sources by providing water gaps within the fencing. In areas where pinyon-juniper is removed, stream flows could increase due to reduced water uptake and capture of rainfall by pinyon-juniper. This would be beneficial to livestock, especially during drought conditions. Downed trees could be cut into logs and logs placed into streams, slowing water flow and creating pools for use by livestock. Stream channel restoration, removal of pinyon-juniper, and removal of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation would allow riparian zones to function as fire breaks, helping to reduce the risk of wildfire to riparian zones and loss of forage and degradation of water quality, all of which would benefit livestock. Aspen Treatments Adverse and beneficial effects from manual, mechanical, and prescribed fire treatment methods, and from the use of fencing, would be similar to those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives, and under Riparian Treatments. Treatments would occur in the JD, Roberts Mountain, and Santa-Fe Ferguson allotments. Pinyon-juniper would be removed near aspen stands and nearby roads. These clearings would function as fire breaks, helping to reduce the risk of wildfire to aspens and nearby habitats and degradation of water quality and loss of forage to the benefit of livestock. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-360 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Pinyon-juniper Treatments Treatments would occur on most allotments, with largest treatment acreages on the Roberts Mountain, Romano, JD, and Three Bars allotments (Tabic 3-52). Adverse Effects Effects from manual and mechanical treatments would be associated with loss of forage and disturbance. About 57 percent of treatments where the objective is to improve sagebrush habitat by thinning pinyon-juniper, and 37 percent of the treatments where the objective is to reduce hazardous fuels, would occur in Phase I stands. For the entire 3 Bars Project area, about 40 percent of treatments would be in Phase I stands. These treatments would have minimal impact on livestock as there would be little loss of forage that is of value to livestock, and disturbance would be localized. The remainder of treatments would occur in Phase II and III stands. Livestock use pinyon-juniper for shelter and cover, but generally avoid Phase III stands because of the limited forage and dense cover of pinyon-juniper. Several thousand acres could be treated annually in Phase II and III stands, primarily by using prescribed fire. Prescribed fire could reduce the suitability of the treatment site to support livestock by removing native forbs and grasses. Fires could also lead to the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation and loss of forage (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-100). Treatment areas would be closed to livestock for a minimum of 2 years. Based on past monitoring of prescribed fire treatment sites on the 3 Bars Project area, native vegetation should recover within a few years and establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation should be minimal (USDOI BLM 201 le, f). Thirteen miles of perennial stream treatments are associated with pinyon-juniper management projects. Treatments could result in increased sediment loads into streams and flow reduction due to use of water for fire control. The effects of treatments on water quality, and possibly on livestock use, would be short-term in duration, with water quality returning to pre -disturbance conditions within several days or weeks after treatment is completed. Beneficial Effects Manual and mechanical treatments would improve forage availability and quality for livestock. In pinyon-juniper treatment areas, livestock would benefit from the thinning and burning of pinyon-juniper and thinning of sagebrush, as these treatments would encourage growth of the native forbs and grasses favored by livestock and help to move the associated ecological sites toward their Potential Natural Community. Most of the acreage within the allotments is early- (5 1 percent) or mid-seral (3 1 percent) status. The BLM proposes to remove pinyon-juniper in several drainages on Roberts Mountains that serve as travel corridors for greater sage-grouse. By removing pinyon-juniper in these drainages and encouraging the establishment of grasses and forbs, the BLM would provide forage for livestock in areas once dominated by pinyon-juniper, and may facilitate livestock movements between valley and mountain use areas. Removal of pinyon-juniper near streams and springs could lead to increased flows and improved water supply for livestock. In many cases, prescribed fire would benefit livestock by reducing the cover of shrub and tree species, such as sagebrush and pinyon-juniper, which can form dense stands that preclude the establishment of desirable forage species and create physical obstructions to forage. The effect of fire on forage would vary by site. Fires conducted during the dormant season, under moist conditions, would be likely to stimulate forage production (c.g., through 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-361 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING increasing soil temperature and nutrient availability) and favor perennial grasses with greater palatability (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-96). Treatments that reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction would also benefit livestock. Uncontrolled, high intensity wildfires can damage large tracts of rangeland, reducing its suitability for livestock grazing. Wildfires typically occur during drought conditions, when burning rangeland magnifies the drought stress of forage species and hampers their recovery. Treatments that restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems, such as the appropriate use of mechanical thinning and fire, would decrease the effects of wildfire on rangeland plant communities and improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-96). Manual and mechanical treatments would also be used to create many miles of fire and fuel breaks in all management types to help compartmentalize wildfire effects and limit the spread of wildfire. Sagebrush Treatments About two-thirds of treatments would occur in the Roberts Mountain, Grass Valley, and JD allotments (Table 3-52). Sagebrush communities over most of the area are not meeting their Potential Natural Community objectives primarily due to an inadequate perennial grass and forb understory. On about a third of sagebrush management acres (Alpha group), the BLM would thin sagebrush to open up the canopy to promote the development of forbs and grasses in the understory using manual and mechanical methods. These treatments would be associated with the Roberts Mountain (3,976 acres), Santa Fe/Ferguson (2,680 acres), JD (2,189 acres), and Lucky C (1,519 acres) allotments. These treatments arc also associated with areas where key species composition or production is below the Potential Natural Community. The Lucky C and Santa Fe/Ferguson allotments, in particular, are dominated (over 80 percent) by early serai state vegetation. The BLM would thin pinyon-juniper in sagebrush communities at the Table Mountain 1 (Roberts Mountain Allotment), Three Comers (JD and Roberts Mountain allotments), and Whistler Sage (Romano Allotment) units. These treatments would remove encroaching pinyon-juniper and promote sagebrush development. The remainder of treatments would be associated with treatments to remove non-native vegetation, including cheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, and forage kochia, using all treatment methods on the Rocky Hills, Table Mountain, West Simpson, and Whistler Sage units. Rocky Hills Unit treatments would be associated with the Grass Valley (5,477 acres) and JD (3,698 acres) allotments. Table Mountain treatments would be associated with the Roberts Mountain (5,682 acres) and Flynn/Parman allotments (1,538 acres). Whistler Sage treatments would mostly be associated with the Romano Allotment; a few acres would be associated with the Shannon Station Allotment. All but about 5 of the 1 ,958 acres of treatments associated with West Simpson Park would be on the Grass Valley Allotment. Because of the predominance of non-native vegetation over this acreage, early serai stage vegetation occurs on more than 80 percent of the Flynn/Parman Allotment; and more than 80 percent of the acreage is in early- and mid-seral state on the Grass Valley and JD allotments. Adverse Effects Effects from manual and mechanical treatments would be associated with loss of forage and disturbance. Prescribed fire could be used on a few acres of mountain big sagebrush within the Three Corners Unit to help create a mosaic of habitat types. This area is in the JD, Roberts Mountain, and 3 Bars allotments. Due to the small area treated, the loss of forage for livestock would be negligible. Prescribed fire could also be used to remove cheatgrass on the Table Mountain and West Simpson Park units. Livestock would be removed from these units prior to treatment, and would 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 3-362 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES be kept off of the site for 2 or more years following treatment. If not earcfully monitored, it is possible that noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation could reinvadc sites, to the detriment of livestock. On the Rocky Hills Unit, the BLM would remove crested wheatgrass and re-seed or re -plant the area with sagebrush. This would result in the loss of forage for livestock, and would require that the BLM temporarily suspend AUMs during the treatment. Beneficial Effects The overabundance of sagebrush is one of the dominant factors responsible for ecological sites failing to meet their Potential Natural Community objectives. Encroachment of pinyon-juniper and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation arc also factors contributing to the early- to mid-seral state of sagebrush habitats. By thinning sagebrush and pinyon-juniper, and removing non-native vegetation and seeding and planting with native vegetation, perennial forbs and grasses would be able to achieve proper abundance, distribution, and diversity and ecological sites would begin moving towards their Potential Natural Community state. This would improve overall rangeland health and provide greater quantity and quality forage vegetation for livestock. Approximately 5 miles of perennial stream are associated with riparian management projects that occur within the larger sagebrush management area (Lower Henderson 1 and 3 and Lower Vinini Creek units). These treatments would improve water availability and quality for livestock; treatments in riparian zones are discussed under Riparian Treatments. Another 1.3 miles of perennial stream habitat are associated exclusively with sagebrush management projects — Rocky Hills (Coils Creek), Table Mountain (Henderson and Vinini creeks), and West Simpson Park (unnamed) units. The primary treatment objectives for these units are to open up the sagebrush canopy to promote understory development, using manual and mechanical methods, and to remove non-native vegetation, using all treatment methods. Manual and mechanical treatments would help to improve water flows and water quality to the benefit of livestock. Noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation infestations can greatly reduce the land’s carrying capacity for livestock, which tend to avoid noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation that have low palatability as a result of defenses such as spines and/or distasteful compounds (e.g., thistles; Olson 1999). Grazing alone can help to manage invasive plants, but would have to be used in combination with other methods, such as disking and plowing, to control noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation and to return vegetation to a more desirable composition (USDOI BLM 2007c:4-101). In treatment areas, the BLM would plant sagebrush seedlings and reseed with native grasses and forbs to encourage the establishment of sagebrush and herbaceous vegetation that would provide forage for livestock. The BLM would use native seeds and plants whenever possible, but could also use non-native grasses such as crested wheatgrass. Crested wheatgrass provides forage for livestock, especially during winter (Ogle 2006). Crested wheatgrass plantings would be limited to those areas where there is a cheatgrass monoculture, and where the site could be restored in the future with native vegetation. Table Mountain is the only site where crested wheatgrass is proposed for use. Treatments that reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction, including removal of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, would benefit livestock. Uncontrolled, high intensity wildfires can damage large tracts of rangeland, reducing its suitability for grazing. Treatments that restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems, such as the appropriate use of mechanical thinning and fire, would decrease the effects of wildfire on rangeland plant communities and improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability. Manual and mechanical treatments would also be used to create many miles of fire and fuel breaks in all management types to help compartmentalize wildfire effects and limit the spread of wildfire. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-363 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 3.17.3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, the BLM would not be able to use prescribed fire or wildland fire for resource benefit. As a result, the BLM anticipates treating about half as many acres under Alternative B as under Alternative A. The types and magnitude of effects for manual, mechanical, and biological control treatments would be similar between Alternatives A and B. Because the BLM would not be able to use fire, however, there would be none of the adverse effects associated with fire. In particular, there would be no loss of forage, degradation of water quality from soil erosion, and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation in burned areas. By not using fire, permittees would likely have more flexibility in managing their herds as treatment areas would generally be smaller. Many treatments would take longer to complete, such as those where pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, and noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species are controlled using mechanical or manual treatments instead of fire, or where stream channel and riparian habitat restoration are proposed. The BLM would closely coordinate activities with permittees and permittees may have to adjust their livestock stocking levels or pasture use. Because some treatments may take longer to complete, such as those where invasive species are controlled using mechanical treatments, the time that permittees would have to adjust their grazing plans could be longer than under Alternative A. Acres and types of wetland and riparian habitat treated would be similar to Alternative A, and the BLM could use temporary fencing to protect treatment areas. However, less effort would be spent by the BLM on slowing pinyon- juniper encroachment into sagebrush and riparian communities, reducing the amount of Phase II and III pinyon- juniper treated using stand-replacement fires, reducing the amount of habitat restored where sagebrush should occur based on ecological site description reference, desired state, or management objective, and reducing the acres of priority habitat treated to improve species diversity, especially through cheatgrass control. Thus, there would be fewer gains in forage production outside of riparian zones, and greater risk of habitat loss from catastrophic wildfire, under this alternative than under Alternative A. Because of the remoteness and terrain associated with the Table Mountain and West Simpson Park units, the BLM may not be able to effectively control cheatgrass and other non-native vegetation on these units without fire used in conjunction with other treatment methods, such as disking and seeding. As a result, the likelihood of restoring sagebrush habitat and its associated forbs and grasses, and moving these areas toward their Potential Natural Community, would be less than under Alternative A. Because fire would not be available to reduce hazardous fuel loads, Alternative B may pose a greater long-tenn risk for wildfire due to the accumulation of fuels. The BLM would not be able to promote more fire resilient and diverse habitat on the 3 Bars Project area. The BLM would also not be able to use prescribed fire to remove downed wood and other hazardous fuels associated with thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper, thus increasing the risk of wildfire in pinyon-juniper treatment areas. By not using fire, however, permittees would likely have more flexibility in management of their herds as treatment areas would generally be smaller under this alternative than under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the BLM would improve forage and water quantity and quality and the health and resiliency of vegetation. The BLM would also make substantial gains in improving forage and water quantity and quality in riparian zones. The BLM would only treat a limited acreage to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Thus, overall benefits to livestock from treatment actions would be less under this alternative than under Alternative A. 3 Bars Project Draft lilS 3-364 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.17.3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, the BLM would only be able to use manual and classieal biological control methods to treat vegetation. As a result, the BLM anticipates treating about fourth of the acreage that would be treated under Alternative A. The types and magnitude of effects for manual treatments would be similar to those for the other action alternatives. The consequences of not using fire under Alternative C would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, many treatments would take longer to complete, such as those where pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, and noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species are controlled using manual treatments instead of fire and mechanical methods, or where stream channel and riparian habitat restoration are proposed. Thus, the time that permittees would have to adjust their grazing plans could be longer than under Alternative A. Although fewer acres would be treated, the BLM would still have to closely coordinate activities with permittees and pennittees may have to adjust their livestock stocking levels or pasture use. The BLM has not identified areas where it would use classical biological control, but if nematodes, insects, or fungi are used on the 3 Bars Project area, treatments would generally be small in size and effects would be localized, or if used on cheatgrass, could cover large areas of habitat. The BLM would not be able to use livestock to remove cheatgrass on Table Mountain, West Simpson Park, and Whistler Sage under Alternative C. Most of the treatments under this alternative would be to thin and remove pinyon-juniper using chainsaws where it is encroaching into riparian, aspen, and sagebrush habitats. Noise and other disturbance would be less with manual methods than the other methods. Because land disturbance would be greater using mechanical methods and fire than it would be with manual and classical biological control methods, adverse effects to livestock drinking water quality from soil erosion, and loss of non-target vegetation, would be loss under this alternative than under Alternatives A andB. By not being able to use mechanical equipment, however, the BLM would also not be able to conduct stream engineering and restoration, except on a limited basis on only a few stream miles; control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, except on very small areas where this vegetation can be hand pulled or controlled using hand tools; reseed and replant restoration sites, except for small areas where shrubs and other vegetation would be planted by hand; mow or chain vegetation to stimulate production of desirable forbs and grasses; or create fire and fuel breaks to reduce the risk of fire spread, except near existing roads or aspen stands, or along a few miles of stream. As a result, there would be less improvement in forage and water quantity and quality, and more risk of catastrophic wildfire than under the other action alternatives. Overall benefits to livestock from treatment actions would be less under this alternative than under Alternatives A and B. By not using fire and mechanical methods, however, permittees would likely have more flexibility in management of their herds as treatment areas would generally be smaller under this alternative than under Alternative A. 3.17.3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) There would be no direct effects to livestock from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM would not create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; thin and remove pinyon-juniper and sagebrush to promote growth of forbs and grasses; or restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem. Without treatments to reduce fuel loading or to control cheatgrass establishment and spread, the risk of catastrophic wildfires would continue to increase and such fires could potentially 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 3-365 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING lead to a catastrophic loss of livestock forage and create additional opportunities for noxious weeds and other invasive non-native spceics to invade newly burned areas. The BLM would not conduct stream engineering and riparian habitat enhancement, and thus would do little to improve water availability and quality for livestock. Thus, this alternative would do little to return the 3 Bars ecosystem to its Potential Natural Community and improve rangeland conditions for livestock. 3.17.3.4 Cumulative Effects The CESA for livestock and rangeland management is approximately 1,312,942 acres and includes the area encompassed by all of the allotments that arc contained within or partially overlap the 3 Bars Project area boundary (Figure 3-1)). Approximately 94 percent of the area is administered by the BLM and 6 percent is privately owned. Past and present actions that have influenced livestock in the 3 Bars ecosystem are discussed in Section 3. 2.2. 3. 3. 3.17.3.4.1 Cumulative Effects under Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Rangeland health studies have shown that early- to mid-seral vegetation dominates each allotment, indicating a need to improve the quantity and quality of forage within allotments. According to utilization data, about 6 percent of the 3 Bars Project area is experiencing moderate to severe forage utilization (see Section 3.17.2.3). However, about 35 percent of proposed riparian zone treatment areas, 25 percent of piny on-juniper treatment areas, and 48 percent of sagebrush treatment areas are experiencing moderate to severe forage utilization. In addition, about 1 ,600 acres within the Simpson Park Northeast Unit are experiencing moderate to severe forage utilization, although only about 150 acres would be treated within this unit. In addition, livestock often congregate near streams, springs, and wetlands, causing the loss of riparian habitat and forage, and degradation of stream channels and their ability to function properly and provide abundant and high quality water for livestock. The BLM would continue ongoing management reviews to determine if livestock grazing management is resulting in utilization levels that are moderate to severe and adversely impacting forage and other rangeland resources. If so, the BLM would determine if changes in the current tenns and conditions of the grazing pennit would be required to maintain the long term success of the proposed treatments. The BLM would also conduct wild horse gathers, conduct AML reviews and adjustments, remove excess animals and use fertility control, adjust HMA boundaries, remove fencing that hinders wild horse movement, and implement habitat projects that keep herd numbers near sustainable levels and help to distribute wild horses more evenly across the rangeland. The BLM may install fencing to limit livestock and wild horse access to treatment areas, although water gaps would be incorporated into fencing along streams to allow livestock, wild horses, and wildlife to access water. These actions should help to improve water quality in affected streams, restore streams to Proper Functioning Condition, and improve riparian habitat. Land development, mineral development, and oil, gas, and hydrothermal exploration and development could affect about 15,000 acres in the CESA in the reasonably foreseeable future, including the Mount Hope Project, and acreage associated with potential land sales (although it is unlikely that all of this land would be developed), materials sites, roads, and rights-of-way for roads, pipelines, and power and telephone lines. Disturbance associated with these activities could alter livestock behavior and habitat use, and loss of native plant communities in the affected areas 3 liars Project Draft PIS 3-366 September 2013 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES could reduce forage tor livestock and facilitate the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non- native vegetation. A total of 32 AUMs in the Romano and Roberts Mountain allotments would be lost in perpetuity as a result of the 734-acre Mount Hope Project open pit. In addition, 490 AUMs in the Roberts Mountain Allotment, and 291 AUMs in the Romano Allotment, would be lost for approximately 70 years as a result of an exclusionary perimeter fence that would enclose 14,206 acres of the Mount Hope Project. The loss of AUMs represents 5 percent of the active grazing preference in the Roberts Mountain Allotment and 10 percent of the active grazing preference in the Romano Allotment. As described in the Mount Hope Project EIS, when an area of BLM-administcrcd land is devoted to a single public purpose, such as mineral production, AUMs are adjusted to reflect the area withdrawn from multiple uses. These AUMs are lost until such time that mining has ceased and reclamation has been successfully completed. At that time, the area would be evaluated to determine if the AUMs can be returned (USDOl BLM 20 1 2c:3-42 1 to 3-422). In addition to the loss of access to forage for the Mount Hope Project, mine project activities could result in direct impacts to the movement patterns of livestock. Noise disturbance, human presence, and increased vehicular traffic would be continuous for approximately 44 years during implementation and execution of the mine project. Sudden loud noises such as blasts could cause livestock to disperse in directions away from the sound. Of particular concern is the potential drawdown of groundwater near the proposed Mount Hope Project and its effects on forage, particularly phreatophytes, and on water resources on Roberts Mountains and in the Kobeh Valley. The mine project could have a significant impact on groundwater resources and could result in diminished surface water flows on Roberts Mountains, to the detriment of livestock grazing (USDOl BLM 2012c:3-423 to 3-424). As part of mitigation for the mine project, the mine proponent will work with the BLM to develop alternative water sources. Six locations have been identified in coordination with the BLM and would be developed as water sources for wild horses and could also be used by wildlife and livestock in areas historically used by wild horses. These sites consist of existing stock wells that are not currently functioning or do not have pumps or troughs and two new sources tapped from Mount Hope Project production wells. These sources would provide water where it has not been available previously or where availability has been limited (USDOl BLM 20 1 2c:3-439). The mine proponent would reclaim disturbed areas during and after mining, and remove the fence after reclamation is completed. The reclaimed land would have more grass and forb forage and less shrub and pinyon-juniper cover than presently occurs. The BLM would also monitor vegetation conditions in areas that could be impacted by lower groundwater levels, and conduct seeding, with possible grazing closures, to minimize the loss of forage (USDOl BLM 2012c:3-424). The BLM felt that these actions would mitigate impacts from the mine project to less than significant. There would be no actions taken to provide alternative forage for livestock during the 70 year development, operation, and reclamation period. Although herbicides are not proposed for use as part of the 3 Bars Project, the BLM could use herbicides applied aerially and using ground-based methods under existing authorizations. Thus, there could be risks to livestock in the CESA from being accidentally sprayed, or ingesting, herbicides that could adversely impact livestock health, although only a few hundred acres would be treated annually. Given the amount of acreage treated, noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation would continue to spread to the detriment of livestock forage. Five herbicides arc typically used on the 3 Bars Project area — 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, and picloram. For the 3 Bars Project, it is likely that the BLM would also use imazapic to treat chcatgrass. These herbicides, along with 12 other herbicides that could be used by the BLM, generally have negligible to low risks to livestock at typical and 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-367 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING maximum application rates. A more detailed discussion of the effects of herbicides on livestock is in the 17-States PEIS (USDOl BLM 2007b:4-125). Catastrophic wildfire can burn extensive vegetation, partieularly during drought conditions when soil and vegetation arc dry. Treatments should reduce the incidence and severity of wildfires. An estimated 84,000 would burn within the 3 Bars Project area within the next 20 years, and would result in loss of livestock forage and degradation of water quality. The BLM would treat about 127,000 acres in the 3 Bars Project area, and an additional 15,000 acres under existing and reasonably foreseeable future authorizations, over the next 10 to 15 years within the CESA, or about 1 1 percent of the CESA. Short term, there would be disturbance to and loss of vegetation, particularly pinyon-juniper and non- native vegetation, and there could be an increase in noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, from treatments. Long term, these treatments should result in vegetation that is healthier, more fire resilient, abundant, and diverse, and that is similar to the Potential Natural Community. The BLM would conduct stream bioengineering and plantings on about 3 1 miles of stream to slow stream flow and create pools and wet meadows, to improve wetland and riparian vegetation and water flows and quality. In addition, the BLM would thin and remove pinyon-juniper and noxious weed and other invasive non-native vegetation, and create fire and fuel breaks to reduce this risk of catastrophic wildfire and its spread. These beneficial effects would help to offset some of the adverse effects to livestock from other reasonably foreseeable future actions in the CESA. 3.17.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects under Alternative B (No Fire Use Alternative) Under Alternative B, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on livestock would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, less effort would be spent by the BLM on treatments to reduce wildfire risk and its impacts on livestock forage and water quality, including use of fire to restore natural fire regimes, within the 3 Bars Project area. However, by not using fire on the 3 Bars Project area, there would be no risks to vegetation from fire on several thousand acres annually within the 3 Bars Project area. However, fire would be used on other portions of the CESA outside the 3 Bars Project treatment areas. Under this alternative, the BLM would be limited to hand pulling, disking, plowing, seeding, and using livestock to control noxious weeds and invasive non-native vegetation on several hundred acres annually on the 3 Bars Project area. These methods could result in more soil disturbance and erosion than would fire, but would also give the BLM greater control on the types and amount of vegetation that are removed. The Table Mountain and West Simpson Park units are on rugged terrain, and use of mechanical equipment to control cheatgrass would be difficult; these areas arc outside of HMAs. Hazardous fuels reduction and habitat improvement projects could occur on about 63,000 acres within the 3 Bars Project area, and on an additional 1 5,000 acres within the CESA, or about 6 percent of the CESA. Overall, there would be a net beneficial accumulation of effects from BLM treatments long term that would help to offset adverse effects to livestock from other reasonably foreseeable future actions, but not to the same extent as would occur under Alternative A. 3 Bars Project Draft lilS 3-368 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.17.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects under Alternative C (Minimal Land Disturbance Alternative) Under Alternative C, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on livestock would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM would only be able to use manual and classical biological control methods to treat vegetation, and would treat only a fourth of the acreage that could be treated under Alternative A, within the 3 Bars Project area. However, fire and mechanized equipment would be used in other portions of the CESA to improve habitat, remove hazardous fuels, and reduce the risk of wildfire. By not being able to use mechanical methods, fire, and livestock to reduce hazardous fuels, create fire and fuel breaks, and remove downed wood and slash, however, the risk of wildfire and its impacts on vegetation and water used by livestock would likely increase on the 3 Bars Project area. Hazardous fuels reduction and habitat improvement projects would occur on about 32,000 acres within the 3 Bars Project area, and on an additional 15,000 acres within the CESA, or about 4 percent of the acreage within the CESA. Overall, there would be a net beneficial accumulation of effects from BLM treatments long term that would help to offset adverse effects to livestock from other reasonably foreseeable future actions, but not to the extent as would occur under Alternatives A and B. 3.17.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects under Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Under Alternative D, effects from non-3 Bars Project reasonably foreseeable future actions on livestock would be similar to those described under Alternative A. There would be no cumulative effects on livestock from 3 Bars Project treatments as no treatments would be authorized under this alternative. The BLM could create fire and fuel breaks; thin and remove pinyon-juniper to promote healthy, diverse stands; slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation using ground-based and aerial herbicide application methods; restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem; and reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire under current and reasonably foreseeable future authorized actions, but on a limited acreage through existing and subsequent separate decisions. Based on historic treatments in the 3 Bars Project area, only about 1,500 acres would be treated annually in the CESA to reduce hazardous fuel levels and improve ecosystem health,. Hazardous fuel levels would likely increase, and only a limited number of miles of fuel and fire breaks would be constructed under this alternative compared to the action alternatives. The BLM would conduct stream bioengineering and riparian habitat enhancements on only a limited area. Thus, water quality would remain degraded and water availability could be limited, especially during droughts, for livestock. The trend toward large-sized wildfires of moderate to high severity in sagebrush and large stand- replacing wildfires in pinyon-juniper would likely increase. BLM treatments would help to offset some of the effects to livestock from non-3 Bars Project actions, but not to the extent as would occur under the action alternatives. 3.17.3.5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects The proposed treatments could temporarily affect non-target vegetation that might provide forage, shelter, or other life requisites for livestock. 3.17.3.6 Relationship between the Local Short-term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity The proposed vegetation treatments would affect the availability and palatability of vegetation over the short term. These impacts would begin to disappear within 1 to 2 growing seasons after treatment. 3 Bars Project Draft I'IS 3-369 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING All treatments that successfully reduce the cover of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation and restore native vegetation on grazed lands would benefit livestock by increasing the quality of forage. In addition, treatments would remove some noxious weeds (e.g., tansy ragwort, houndstonguc, Russian knapweed, and common St. Johnswort) that are harmful to livestock. The success of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation removal, and restoration of native habitats, would determine the level of benefit of the treatments over the long term. Treatments that reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction would also benefit livestock. Uncontrolled, high intensity wildfires can remove forage from large tracts of rangeland, reducing its suitability for livestock in the short term. Treatments that restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems through the appropriate use of mechanical thinning, fire, and other vegetation treatment methods would decrease the effects of wildfire on rangeland plant communities and improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-249). 3.17.3.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Short-term loss in vegetation function and quality from treatments would have a short-term impact on livestock productivity. Although some livestock could be displaced from public lands, forage could be found elsewhere, although possibly at a higher cost. As rangelands improved, their ability to support livestock use levels at or near current levels should also improve. Although this impact would represent an irreversible loss of the individual animal, the impacts to the livestock operation and industry would be reversible (USDOI BLM 2007b:4-252). 3.17.3.8 Significance of the Effects under the Alternatives None of the 3 Bars Project alternatives should result in significant direct or indirect long-term loss of critical habitat, forage, or water, and these effects would not result in a significant cumulati ve effect. Treatments would have short- term effects on these forage and water resources needed by livestock. However, there would be long-term improvement in forage and water resources under all alternatives from the treatments. 3.17.4 Mitigation According to utilization data, 33 percent of proposed treatment areas are experiencing moderate to severe forage utilization. Those areas are discussed in Section 3.17.3. Utilization data were collected on the Flynn Patman, Roberts Mountain, JD, Three Bars, Romano, and Lucky C allotments during October to December 2010 and May to July 2011, encompassing about 7 1 percent of the 3 Bars Project area. Data for other allotments, however, were collected during the 1990’s and early 2000’s, so current forage utilization may differ from past forage utilization, especially for areas that have not been surveyed for several decades. In addition, forage utilization accounts for both livestock and wild horse use. In order to ensure treatment success, the following measures would be implemented. In addition, additional monitoring would be conducted to assess current use patterns prior to changes to grazing use permits. Since treatments may be conducted several years from now, the BLM would not only use rangeland health data collected to date, but would also evaluate rangeland conditions at the time of treatment before conducting treatments to ensure treatment success. 3.17.4.1 Riparian Treatments Monitoring and Mitigation Measures 1 . Prior to implementation of a treatment, BLM will review the current livestock grazing management and resource conditions, such as the season of use and Proper Functioning Condition rating, and determine if 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 3-370 September 20 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES changes in the current terms and conditions of the grazing permit will be required to maintain the long-term success of the proposed treatment. Changes to the permitted use will be completed through the issuance of subsequent grazing decisions in accordance with 43 CFR §§41 10.3, 4130.3-3, and 4160. 2. To ensure treatment success, the following may be added to the Terms and Conditions of the grazing permit. a. Timing and Duration of Grazing: The season of use may shifted to avoid hot season grazing (July - September) or the duration of grazing may be shortened to give the riparian vegetation time to recover. b. Average stubble height of at least 4 to 6 inches will be maintained for herbaceous riparian vegetation with consideration for habitat. If stubble height limits are reached, the permittee will have 5 days to move livestock to the next pasture in the rotation or from the allotment entirely. c. Streambank alteration rates would be set to a level appropriate to the particular stream in accordance with Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Levels of Streambank Alteration (Cowley 2002). Based on the characteristics of the streams and the presence of Lahontan cutthroat trout, the streambank alteration rates would range from 10 to 20 percent. If designated streambank alteration rates are reached, the permittee will have 5 days to move livestock to the next pasture in the rotation or from the allotment entirely. d. Utilization rates will not exceed 35 percent for woody species. If utilization rates are reached, the permittee will have 5 days to move livestock to the next pasture in the rotation or from the allotment entirely (Wyman et al. 2006). e. Existing non-functioning water developments and fences may be required to be repaired prior to implementation of the treatment if contributing to unacceptable use patterns by livestock. 3. Season of use may be modified to exclude hot season grazing from July 1 to September 30 annually. 3.17.4.2 Aspen Treatments Monitoring and Mitigation Measures 1 . Temporary fences will be used to exclude wildlife and livestock grazing with in the treatment area until the following criteria are met, and then they will be removed. a. A mean sucker height of 7 feet with a minimum of 1 0,000 stems per acre within the treatment area (Kay 2002). 2. Livestock grazing will not resume in aspen treatments until grazing management is modified through subsequent grazing decisions to achieve proper utilization rates and/or appropriate season of use. To ensure proposed treatment success, the following stipulations may be added to the Terms and Conditions of the grazing permit. a. The season of use may be shifted to late season (beginning of September; Jones 2010). b. If the season of use is not shifted to late season, then utilization of terminal leader browse on branches and suckers will be less than or equal to 20 percent. If utilization rates are reached, the permittee will have 5 days to move livestock to the next pasture in the rotation or from the allotment entirely. 3 liars Project Draft BIS 3-37 1 September 20 1 3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING c. Existing non-functioning water developments and fences may be required to be repaired prior to implementation of the treatment if contributing to unacceptable use patterns by livestock. 3.17.4.3 Pinyon-juniper and Sagebrush Treatments Monitoring and Mitigation Measures 1 . Prior to implementation of a treatment that has an objective to release the understory or reseed native species, the BLM will monitor treatment areas to determine and document resource conditions and current livestock grazing management (i.e., season of use, utilization levels). 2. If it is determined that livestock grazing management is resulting in utilization levels that are moderate to severe, then BLM will document resource conditions and current utilization levels in a monitoring report which will be used to determine if changes in the current terms and conditions of the grazing permit will be required to maintain the long term success of the proposed treatment. Changes to the permitted use will be completed through the issuance of subsequent grazing decisions in accordance with 43 CFR §§ 41 10.3, 4130.3-3, and 4160. 3. Sagebrush and pinyon-juniper treatments would not be conducted until grazing management is modified through subsequent grazing decisions to achieve proper utilization rates. To ensure treatment success, the following stipulations may be added to the Terms and Conditions of the grazing permit. a. Timing and Duration of Grazing: The season of use may be shifted or the duration of grazing may be shortened to give the vegetation time to recover from grazing. b. In mountain big sagebrush communities, utilization rates will not exceed 45 percent for upland herbaceous species and 35 percent for upland shrub species. If utilization rates are reached, the pennittee will have 5 days to move livestock to the next pasture in the rotation or from the allotment entirely as outlined in Range Management, Principles and Practices (Holechek et al. 1998). c. In Wyoming and basin big sagebrush communities, utilization rates will not exceed 35 percent for upland herbaceous species and 35 percent for upland shrub species. If utilization rates are reached, the pennittee will have 5 days to move livestock to the next pasture in the rotation or from the allotment entirely as outlined in Holechek et al. (1998). d. In black sagebrush communities, utilization rates will not exceed 45 percent for upland herbaceous species and 35 percent for upland shrub species. If utilization rates are reached, the permittee will have 5 days to move livestock to the next pasture in the rotation or from the allotment entirely as outlined in Holechek et al. (1998). e. Existing non-functioning water developments and fences may be required to be repaired prior to implementation of the treatment if contributing to unacceptable use patterns by livestock. 4. Season of grazing use may be modified to provide growing season deferment and donnant season grazing. 3 Bars Project Draft PIS 3-372 September 20 ! 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.18 Visual Resources 3.18.1 Regulatory Framework Scenic quality is the measure of the visual appeal of a unit of land. Section 102 (a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ( 1 976), states that “...the public lands are to be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values.” Section 103(c) identifies “scenic values” as one of the resources for which public land should be managed. Section 201(a) states that “the Secretary shall prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values (including scenic values)...” Section 505(a) requires that “each ROW [rights-of-way] shall contain terms and conditions which will... minimize damage to the scenic and esthetic values...” Section 101 (b) of the NEPA requires that measures be taken to ensure that aesthetically pleasing surroundings be retained for all Americans. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM developed a standard visual assessment methodology, known as the Visual Resource Management (VRM) System, to inventory and manage scenic values on lands under its jurisdiction. Guidelines for applying the VRM system on BLM lands are described in the BLM Manual 8400, Visual Resource Manual (USDOI BLM 1984) and BLM Handbook H-8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory’ (USDOI BLM 1986b). 3.18.2 Affected Environment Visual resources consist of land, water, vegetation, wildlife, and other natural or built features visible to recreation visitors, adjacent landowners, and travelers on public lands. In addition, roads, streams, and trails pass through a variety of characteristic landscapes where natural attractions can be seen and where cultural modifications are apparent. Of particular importance to visual resources in this region is the visual appeal (health and spatial diversity) of streams and ponds, and riparian, wetland, aspen, and sagebrush landscapes. 3.18.2.1 Study Methods and Study Area The assessment of visual resources on the project area was based on a 201 1 visual resource inventory (VR1) conducted for the Battle Mountain District, including the 3 Bars Project area (OTAK 201 1). A follow-up site visit was made to the 3 Bars Project area to confirm their findings. The analysis area for the assessment of direct and indirect effects to visual resources is the 3 Bars Project area, while the cumulative effects study area includes the 3 Bars Project area and the BLM visual resource management background distance zone (15 miles; Figure 3-1). 3.18.2.2 Visual Resource Inventory and Management The characteristic landscape of the project area is contained within a variety of landforms in the central Great Basin of the Basin and Range physiographic province. Visual resources within the project area are influenced by topographic, vegetative, geologic, hydrologic, and land use characteristics. The topography ranges from relatively flat terrain and low rolling or flat-topped and cone-shaped hills to steep mountain ranges. Vegetation is comprised of grasses, greasewood, rabbitbrush, and sagebrush at lower elevations, and trees and shrubs including aspen, mountain mahogany, limber pine, and pinyon-juniper at higher elevations. Vegetation patterns affect color, form, line, and contrast, which shape the basis for the analysis of visual resources in the project area. Land use in the area is 3 liars Project Draft HIS 3-373 September 20 1 3 VISUAL RESOURCES predominantly grazing and recreation. There is little surface water in the area except for a few perennial and intermittent streams and a few small ponds. The excellent air quality in the region promotes expansive views. The success and appeal of recreational activities such as hiking, collecting, photography, wildlife viewing, and picnicking arc dependent on the settings and scenic views. The BLM identifies and evaluates visual resource values through the VRI system (USDOI BLM 1986b). Visual resource inventory classes are based on scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zone criteria and indicate the overall value of landscapes. A VRI was conducted to determine the visual values of the Battle Mountain District, including the 3 Bars Project area. The components of a VRI include: scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, visibility, and distance zones. For the scenic quality evaluation, lands arc rated as Class A (19 points or more), Class B (12 to 18 points), or Class C (1 1 points or less). Lands are rated using seven key factors: landforms, vegetation, water, color, influence of adjacent scenery, scarcity and cultural modifications. Approximately 37 percent of the 3 Bars Project area is rated as Class A, and includes the mountainous areas of the project area, and 60 percent as Class B (Table 3-53). Figure 3-46 illustrates the scenic quality classifications in the project area. The sensitivity level analysis measures public concern for visual resources. Lands are assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity levels based on consideration of the following factors: types of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. Approximately 45 percent of the 3 Bars Project area is rated High, and includes much of the southern half of the project area, 30 percent is rated Moderate, and 22 percent is rated Low (Tabic 3-53). Figure 3-47 illustrates the sensitivity levels for the sensitivity level rating units in the project area. Distance zones are delineated to subdivide the landscape based on relative visibility from travel routes, use areas, or vantage points. The three distance zones include: • Foreground-middleground Zone: this is the area visible within 3 to 5 miles of the viewing location. • Background Zone: this is the visible area beyond the foreground-middleground zone but usually within 1 5 miles of the viewing location. • Seldom Seen Zone: These are areas that are rarely visible within the foreground-middleground or background zones. Approximately 88 percent of the 3 Bars Project area is visible in the foreground-middleground, and 9 percent is seldom seen (Table 3-53; Figure 3-48). Seldom seen areas include much of Roberts Mountains, and portions of West Simpson Park and Sulphur Spring Range. The scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and delineation of distance zones are combined to develop VRI classes (Figure 3-49), which represent the relative value of the visual resources. Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV represents the least value. Approximately 64 percent of the 3 Bars Project area is rated Class II and includes most mountainous areas, and the flatter portions of the southern half of the project area, 1 1 percent is rated Class III, and 23 percent is rated Class IV; there arc no Class I areas on the project area (Tabic 3-53). Visual resource inventory classes are informational in nature and provide the baseline data for considering visual values in the RMP process. Visual resource inventory classes do not establish management direction and arc not used as a basis for constraining or encouraging surface-disturbing activities. 3 liars Project Draft EIS 3-374 September 20 1 3 Elko County Eureka County ureka 1 ^ *5®$^ • Hk 4 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office y MBBPWy 50 Bastian Rd. \ i / Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ jt' (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Visual Resource Inventory Scenic Quality Rating Class A Class B Not Inventoried 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-46 Visual Resource Inventory Scenic Quality Rating Source: OTAK2011. 10 iS Miles No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards Th« product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County Eureka County m£k ureka United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 \ (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Visual Resource Inventory Sensitivity Level Rating High Moderate Low Not Inventoried 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Figure 3-47 Source: OTAK 2011. Visual Resource Inventory Sensitivity Level Rating JO , m Miles ( M 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 10 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice. ureka fei- A>-W>wf* «*- r *.'V Elko County ^ Eureka County ■■■■■PHI O V rtsjnitt : 4 ac *■ u V’T : m MffS -A* * " sv - n . United States Department of the Interior \\ -J Bureau of Land Management ^ Mount Lewis Field Office . 50 Bastian Rd. Battle Mountain, NV 89820 (Prepared by MLFO - 08/14/13) Legend Visual Resource Inventory Visual Distance Zones Foreground-Middleground Seldom Seen Not Inventoried 3 Bars Project Area 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Source: OTAK 2011. Figure 3-48 Visual Resource Inventory Visual Distance Zones U't warranty * made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data Original data were compiled from various sources This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notice Elko County Eureka County V. i MWfOW : - 83. Numic Religion: An Overview of Power in the Great Basin of Native North America. Anthropos 78:337-354. Miller, R.F. 2001. Managing Western Juniper for Wildlife. In Woodland Fish and Wildlife. Washington State University Cooperative Extension and the USDA, Pullman. Available at URL: http://www.dfw.statc.or.us/ODFWhtml/woodland/woodland.html. Miller, R.F., and R.J. Tausch. 2000. The Role of Fire in Pinyon and Juniper Woodlands: A Descriptive Analysis. Pages 15-30 in Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire, Ecology, Prevention and Management (K. Galley and T. Wilson, Editors). Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. USDA Forest Service Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. Miller, R.F., M. Willis, J.A. Rose, D. Rickensmyer, and B. Anthony. 1999. The Affects of Juniper Woodlands on Avian Populations. Pages 106-1 1 1 in History, Ecology, and Management of Juniper Woodlands. Range Filed Day Annual Report. Oregon State Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 1022. Corvallis. Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Western Juniper ( Juniperus occidentalism. Oregon State University Technical Bulletin 152. Corvallis, Oregon. Available at URL: extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/tb/tb 1 52/tb 1 52.pdf. Miller, R.F., R.J. Tausch, E.D. McArthur, D.D. Johnson, and S.C. Sanderson. 2008. Age Structure and Expansion of Pinon-juniper Woodlands: A Regional Perspective in the Intermountain West. Research Paper Report RMRS-RP-69. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Moench, R., and J. Fusaro. 2012. Soil Erosion Control after Wildfire. Colorado State University Extension. Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at URL: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/natres/06308.html. Monson, S.B. 2002. Restoration and Management of Sagebrush/Grass Communities Workshop. Elko, Nevada. Available at URL: www.rangenet.org/trader/2002 Elko Sagebrush Conf.pdf. Montgomery and Associates. 2010. Hydrogeology and Numerical Flow Modeling, Volume 1, Text and Tables, Mount Hope Project, Eureka County, Nevada, with Appendices. July 2010. Prepared for Eureka Moly, Elko, Nevada. Prepared by Montgomery and Associates, Interflow Hydrology, Inc. and Barranca Group LLC. Tucson, Arizona. Muir, J. 1894. The Mountains of California. The Century Company, New York, New York. Myrick, D.F. 1992. Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California, Volume I. University of Nevada Press, Reno. National Academy of Sciences. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. The National Acadamics Press, Washington, D.C. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2008. Climate Change Nevada from National Association of State Legislatures. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.cicr.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Climate%20changc--NEVADA.pdf 3 Pars Project Draft I*,IS 5-19 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES National Interagency Coordination Center. 201 1. Wildlife Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report 201 I . Available at URL: http://www.predietiveserviees.nife.Rov/intelliuenee/201 1 statssumm/201 I Stats&Summ.html. Boise, Idaho. National Interagency Fire Center. 2012. Prescribed Fires and Burns by Agency by Acre 10 year, 1998-201 1 . Boise, Idaho. Available at URL: http://www.nifc.gov/firclnfo/firelnfo stats prcscribcd.html. National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Management Plan for Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge. Washington, D.C. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2010. NWCG Wildland Firefighter Fatalities by Cause 1999 - 2009. Available at URL: http://www.wildlandfirc.com/hotlist/showthread.php?p=66861 . Neary, D.G., C.C. KJopatek, L.F. DeBano, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire Effects on Belowground Sustainability: A Review and Synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management 122:51-71. Neilson, R.P. 1993. Transient Ecotone Response to Climatic Change: Some Conceptual and Modeling Approaches. Ecological Applications 3(3):385-395. Available at URL: http://www.istor.org/stable/1947907. Neilson, R.P. and D. Marks. 1994. A Global Perspective of Regional Vegetation and Hydrologic Sensitivities from Climatic Change. Journal of Vegetation Science 5(5):7 1 5-730. Available at URL: http://www.jstro.org/ stable/3235855. Nelle, P., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 2000. Long-term Effects of Fire on Sage Grouse Habitat. Journal of Range Management 53:586-591. Nevada Climate Change Advisory Committee. 2008. Pages 3-143 in Climate Change Nevada from National Association of State Legislatures. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.cier.umd.edu/climatcadaptation/Climate%20change— NEVADA.pdf. Nevada Department of Education. 2012. Research Bulletins - An Annual Scries [Bulleint-FY-201 l.xls]. Accessed at URL: www.doe.nv.gov/SchoolFunding Stats.htm. Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. 2012. Nevada Labor Statistics. Carson City, Nevada. Available at URL: http://www.nevadaworkforce.com/. Nevada Department of Taxation, Division of Assessment Standards. 2012. 2010-1 1 Statistical Analysis of the Roll. Available at URL: http://tax.state.nv.us/DOAS FQRMS/20 10-11 SARFinal.pdf. Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2004. Lahontan Cutthroat Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin. Reno. NDOW. 2006. Management Plan for Mule Deer. Reno. NDOW. 2008a. Vector Digital Data: Wildlife Sighting and Collection Records. File Name: bind diversity 2008 NDOW. Reno. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 5-20 September 2013 REFERENCES NDOW. 2008b. Vector Digital Data: Distribution of Pronghorn Antelope in the Battle Mountain District. File Name: PronghomDistribution 2007. USDOl, BLM, Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. Reno. NDOW. 2009a. Species Population Inventory Summary for Birch Creek and Pete Hanson Creek. July 2009. Reno. NDOW. 2009b. Vector Digital Data: Herpofauna Collection Records. File Name: CommercialRcptilcCollcctions_2009. Reno. NDOW. 2009c. Vector Digital Data: Wildlife Sighting and Collection Records. File Name: bmd_wildlife_sight_2009_NDOW. Reno. NDOW. 2009d. Vector Digital Data: Distribution of Mule Deer within the Battle Mountain District. File Name: Mule Deer Distribution all. Reno. NDOW. 2009c. Vector Digital Data: Pygmy Rabbit Sightings within the Battle Mountain District. File Name: bmd pyg sight ings_2009_N DO W . Reno . NDOW. 2010a. Vector Digital Data: Wildlife Sighting and Collection Records. File Name: bmd_ w ildlife _sight_2009_N DOW. Reno . NDOW. 2010b. Vector Digital Data: Bighorn Sheep Distribution in the Battle Mountain District. File Name: Bighorn Sheep_Distribution_2010. Reno. NDOW. 201 1. Field Trip Report - Willow Creek Fish Population Survey. Prepared by M. Starr, September 19-20, 2011. Reno. NDOW. 2012a. Electronic Mail Communication to Rollin Daggett, Aquatic Wildlife Biologist, AECOM, Colorado, Regarding Moist Area Sites within the 3-Bars Project Area, March 23, 2012. Elko. NDOW. 2012b. Electronic Mail Communication from M. Starr to Steven Foree Battle Mountain Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada, Regarding Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Habitat within the 3 Bars Project Area, July 27, 2012. NDOW. 2012c. 201 1-2012 Big Game Status. Reno. NDOW. 201 2d. Electronic Mail Communication to Steve Force, Wildlife Biologist, USDOl BLM Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada, Regarding Wildlife Species Known or Suspected to Occur within the 3- Bars Project Area, February 27, 2012. Reno, Nevada. NDOW. 2012c. Vector Digital Data: Greater Sage Grouse Nesting Habitat Clipped to the 3 Bars Project Area. File Name: SageGrousc NestingHabitat. Reno. NDOW. 2012f. Big Game Harvest Statistics and Draw Odds Website. Reno. Available at URL: http:/Avww.ndow.orp;/hunt/resources/odds/indcx.shtm#ant. NDOW. 2012g. Expanded Statistics and Data Summaries for Roberts Creek, Roberts Creek Reservoir, Pete Hanson Creek, Vinini Creek, JD Ponds, Dcnay Creek, and Tonkin Reservoir. Data Provided by NDOW to USDOl, BLM, Battle Mountain, Nevada. Reno. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 5-21 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2008. Nevada Contractors Field Guide for Construction Site Best Management Practices. Bureau of Water Quality Planning, Carson City, Nevada. Available at URL: http://ndcp.nv.gov/bwqp/bmp05.htm. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Planning. 2012. Central Region and Roberts Creek Water Quality Standards. Carson City. Available at URL: http://www.lcg.statc.nv.us/nac/nac-445a.html#NAC445AScc2008. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and Nevada Division of Conservation Districts. 1994. Handbook of Best Management Practices. Carson City. Nevada Division of State Parks. 2010. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Carson City, Nevada. Nevada Division of Water Resources. 2012. Nevada’s Hydrographic Regions, Basins, and Sub-basins, and Hydrographic Area Summaries. Carson City. Available at URL: http://water.nv.gov/data/underground/ and http://watcr.nv.gov/programs/planning/counties/. Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Carson City. Available at URL: http://heritage.nv.gov/atlas/atlas.html. Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Animal and Plant At-Risk Tracking List. Carson City, Nevada. Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2011. Climate Change Vulnerability Index (Release 2.01). Select Results for Wildlife Action Plan Conservation Priority Species. March 1 1, 201 1. Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2012. Digital Data Containing the Recorded Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and At-risk Plant and Animal Elements (Taxa) within the 3 Bars Ecosystem Landscape Restoration Project Area Assumed to be Extant, unless Mentioned Otherwise. Provided on February 23, 2012. Carson City. Nevada State Demographer. 2012a. Nevada County Certified Population Estimates July 1, 2000 to July 1, 201 1, Includes Cities and Towns. Carson City. Available at URL: http://nvdemography.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/Popul-of-Nevadas-Counties-and-Incorp-cities-201 l-Ccrtificd-Series-03 1 1 12.pdf. Nevada State Demographer. 2012b. Nevada County Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin Estimates and Projections 2010 to 2030. Prepared By: The Nevada State Demographer’s Office J. Hardcastlc, Nevada State Demographer and A. Mitchell, Student Assistant University of Nevada Reno. October 1, 201 1, revised April 23, 2012. Nevada State Health Division. 2005. Report on Trauma and Other Injuries in Nevada. Center for Health Data and Research, Bureau of Health Planning and Statistics. Carson City. Available at URL: health.nv.gov/PDFs/TraumareportOO 02.pdf. Nevada State Health Division. 201 la. Healthy People Nevada Moving From 2010 to 2020. Report for Eureka County. Available at URL: http://hcalth.nv.gov/PDFs/HSPER/HP/counlvrpts/EurckaCountyReport.pdf. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-22 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES Nevada State Health Division. 201 lb. Healthy People Nevada: Moving from 2010 to 2020. Nevada Department of Health and Human Services. Carson City. Available at URL: http://hcalth.nv.uov/HSPFR HP.htm. Nevada Surveyor General and State Land Register. 1880. Annual Reports 1865-1890. On File at Nevada State Library and Archives, Carson City. Noclle, S.M. 2012. Effects of Intercanopy Vegetation Cover and Pinon-Junipcr Slash Presence on Surface Runoff and Sediment Production from Steep Slopes. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson. Nonnc, D., E. Blombcrg, and J. Sedinger. 201 1. Dynamics of Greater Sage-grouse (Centroccrcus urophasianus) Populations in Response to Transmission Lines in Central Nevada. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Nevada-Reno. Reno, Nevada. Noson, A.C. 2002. Avian Communities in Relation to Habitat Influenced by Fire in Sagebrush Steppe Landscape. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. O’Meara, T.E., J.B. Haufler, L.H. Steleter, and J.G. Nagy. 1981. Nongame Wildlife Responses to Chaining of Pinyon-juniper Woodlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:381-389. Ogle, D.G. 2006. Crested Wheatgrass. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Idaho State Office, Boise. Available at URL: plants.usda.uov/plantuuide/pdf/pu aucr.pdf. Olson, B.E. 1999. Grazing and Weeds. Pages 85-97 in Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds (R.L. Sheley and J.K. Petroff, Editors). Oregon State University Press. Corvallis. Oregon State University. 2012. Fire Effects in Mountain Big Sage Communities. Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center. Available at URL: http://oreuonstate.edu/dept/EOARC/fire-effects. OTAK, Inc. 201 1. Visual Resource Inventory of the Battle Mountain District Office. USDOI BLM, Battle Mountain, Nevada. Otis, D.L., J.H. Schulz, D. Miller, R.E. Mirarchi, and T.S. Baskett. 2008. Mourning Dove ( Zenaida macroura). The Birds of North America, (A. Poole and F. Gill, Editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Ott, R. 2000. Factors Affecting Stream Bank and River Bank Stability, with an Emphasis on Vegetation Influences. Prepared for the Region III Forest Practices Riparian Management Committee. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Forestry Program. Fairbanks, Alaska. Paher, S.W. 1970. Nevada Ghost Towns and Mining Camps. Nevada Publications, Las Vegas, Nevada. Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird Communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group. Boise, Idaho. Patterson, E. 1965. Early Cattle in Elko County. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 8:5-12. Payne, N.F., and F.C. Bryant. 1998. Wildlife Habitat Management of Forestlands, Rangelands, and Farmlands. Kricger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida. 3 Mars Project Draft lilS 5-23 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES Pehrson, K.A., and B.F. Sowell. 2011. Converting Crested Whcatgrass Stands to Hnhanee Big Sagebrush: A Literature Review. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 16:16. Available at URL: http://diuitaleommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol 1 6/iss 1/16. Reliant, M. 2002. Restoration and Management of Sagebrush/Grass Communities Workshop. Elko, Nevada. Available at URL: www.ranuenct.org/tradcr/20Q2 Elko Sagebrush Conf.pdf. Peters, M., and N. Cobb. 2007. BLM Sagebrush Treatment Project - Final Report. Available at URL: http://www.mpccr.nau.edu/sage/data/. Petersen, J. 2012. Fishery Biologist, NDOW, Elko, Nevada. Electronic Mail Communication with R. Daggett, AECOM, Fort Collins, Colorado, March 2012. Peterson, S.L., and T.K. Stringham. 2008. Infdtration, Runoff, and Sediment Yield in Response to Western Juniper in Southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61 :74-81. Pierson, F.B., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, and S.P. Hardcgree. 2007. Runoff and Erosion after Cutting Western Juniper. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:285-292. Pierson, F.B., P.R. Kormos, and C.J. Williams. 2008. Hydrologic and Erosional Impacts of Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into Sagebrush Steppe Communities of the Great Basin, USA. Contribution Number 9 of the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project, United States Joint Fire Science Program, Boise, Idaho. Pilliod, D.S., R.B. Bury, E.J. Hyde, C.A. Pearl, and P.S. Corn. 2003. Fire and Amphibians in North America. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 1 63-18 1 . Poff, N.L., and J.K..H. Zimmerman. 2010. Ecological Responses to Altered Flow Regimes: A Literature Review to Inform the Science and Management of Environmental Flows. Freshwater Biology 55:194-205. Poff, N.L., B.D. Richter, A.H. Arthington, S.E. Bunn, R.J. Naiman, E. Kcndy, M. Acrcman, C. Apse, B.P. Bledsoe, M.C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R.B. Jacobson, J.G. Kcnnen, D.M. Merritt, J.H. O’Keeffe, J.D. Olden, K. Rogers, R.E. Tharmc, and A. Warner. 2010. The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA): A New Framework for Developing Regional Environmental Flow Standards. Freshwater Biology 55:147- 170. Ponce, D.M., and J.M.G. Glen. 2008. Relationship of Epithermal Gold Deposits to Large-scale Fractures in Northern Nevada. Economic Geology and the Bulletin of the Society of Economic Geologists 97( 1 ):3 — 9. Price, J.G., A.R. Coyner, J. Muntean, and D. Driesner. 2010. Update on Nevada Mineral Production and Exploration, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. Available at URL: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/dox.htm. Accessed April 18, 2012. Radle, A.L. 2007. The Effect of Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. Available at URL: ///Users/garywf/Dcsktop/WFAE%2()PROJECT/WFAE%20Ncw/library/rcadings/radlc.html. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-24 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES Reinhardt, T.E., R.L). Ottmar, and A.J.S. Hanneman. 2000. Smoke Exposure among Firefighters at Prcseribed Burns in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service Research Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-526, Seattle, Washington. Available at URL: http://www.depts.washiimton.edu/wildfirc/rcsources/smokcfirc.pdf. Reno, R.L., V.L. Clay, A. Dansie, Foothill Resource Associates, A. Graham,X. Hause, M.R. Rose, and T. Burke (Editors). 1994. The Charcoal Industry in the Roberts Mountains, Eureka County, Nevada: Final Report for the Mitigation of Adverse Effects to Significant Cultural Properties from Atlas Precious Metals’ Gold Bar II Mine Project. Prepared for Atlas Corporation, Denver, Colorado, by Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Virginia City, Nevada. Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001. Nevada Grazing Statistics Report and Economic Analysis for Federal Lands in Nevada. Prepared for State of Nevada Department of Agriculture and Nevada Association of Counties. Carson City. Rhodes, E.C., J.D. Bates, R.N. Sharp, and K.W. Davies. 2010. Fire Effects on Cover and Dietary Resources of Sage-Grouse Habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:755-764. Roberts, R.J., and L.M. Montgomery. 1967. Mineral Resource Map of Eureka County, Nevada. In Geology and Mineral Resources of Eureka County, Nevada (R.J. Roberts, K.M. Montgomery, and R.E. Lehner, Editors). Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 64. MacKay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno. Roberts, R.J., K.M. Montgomery, and R.E. Lehner. 1967. Geology and Mineral Resources of Eureka County, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 64. Robinson, B.P., W. Thordarson and W.A. Beetem. 1967. Hydrologic and Chemical Data for Wells, Springs, and Stream in Central Nevada, Townships 1 through 21 North, Ranges 41 through 57 East. Report TEI-871. USGS Open File Report 67-190. Prepared for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, USGS, Denver, Colorado. Romin, L.A., and J.A. Muck. 1999. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. USDOI, USFWS, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. Available at URL: www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/Doeuments/MigBirds/Raptor%20Guidclines. Romme, W., C. Allen, J. Bailey, W. Baker, B. Bestclmeyer, P. Brown, K. Eisenhart, L. Floyd-Hanna, D. Huffman, B. Jacobs, R. Miller, E. Muldavin, T. Swetnam, R. Tausch, and P. Weisberg. 2007. Historical and Modem Disturbance Regimes for Pinyon-Junipcr Vegetation in the Western U.S. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute and The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, Colorado. Rucks, M. 2000. A Report on Ethnographic Study Conducted to Assist the Bureau of Land Management in the Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties in the Mt. Tenabo Area. Prepared for Cortez Gold Mines, Inc., Beowawe, Nevada, by Summit Envirosolutions Inc., Carson City, Nevada. Rucks, M. 2003. Ethnographic for Pediment Project. Prepared for ENSR, Fort Collins, Colorado, by Summit Envirosolutions Inc., Carson City, Nevada. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-25 September 2013 REFERENCES Rucks, M. 2004. An Ethnographic Study Completed for the Cortez Gold Mines Pediment Project. Prepared by Summit Envirosolutions Ine., Carson City, Nevada. Rucks, M. 201 I. Report on Ethnographic Study Conducted to Facilitate Consultation with Western Shoshone Tribal Governments of Central Nevada for the Sierra Pacific Power Falcon to Gondcr 324kV Transmission Line. Report Prepared by Summit Envirosolutions, Inc., Carson City, Nevada. Rusco, M.K.. 2000. Background Ethnographic Study for Cortez Joint Venture. Prepared for JBR Environmental, Reno, Nevada. Rush, F.E., and D.E. Everett. 1964. Ground-water Appraisal of Monitor, Antelope, and Kobeh Valleys, Nevada. Ground-Water Resources - Reconnaissance Series Report 30. Prepared in Cooperation with the USGS. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada. Ruyle, G., and P. Ogden. 1993. What is an A.U.M? Rangeland Management. Arizona Ranchers’ Management Guide, Arizona Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arizona, Tempe, Arizona. Sage- and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee. 2008. Greater Sage-grouse Population Trends: An Analysis of Lek Count Databases 1965-2007. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available at URL: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairic/species/birds/sagegrouse/archives.html. Sagebrush Sea Campaign. 2007. Managing Western Juniper to Restore Sagebrush Steppe and Quaking Aspen Stands. Chandler, Arizona. Available at URL: www.sagcbrushsea.org/pdf/SSC WJ Position Paper.pdf. Saldi-Caromile, K., K. Bates, P. Skidmore, J. Barenti, and D. Pineo. 2004. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines: Final Draft. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology and the USDOI, USFWS, , Olympia, Washington. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1996-2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Pawtuxet Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Available at URL: http://www.mbr.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. Scott, V.E., and E.L. Boeker. 1977. Responses of Mcrriam’s Turkey to Pinyon-juniper Control. Journal of Range Management 30:220-223. Shepperd, W.D. 1993. Initial Growth, Development, and Clonal Dynamics of Regenerated Aspen in the Rocky Mountains. Research Paper RM 312. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Sheppard, W.D. 2008. Aspen Ecology and Management: the Foundation for Planning into the Future. Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at URL: www.safnet.org/fp/documcnts/aspen mgt 08.pdf. Shepperd, W.D., and F.W. Smith. 1993. The Role of Near-surface Latcrial Roots in the Life Cycle of Aspen in the Central Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 61 : 157-170. Shepperd, W.D., and S.A. Mata. 2005. Planting Aspen to Rehabilitate Riparian Areas: A Pilot Study. Research Note RMRS-RN-26. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-26 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES Short, H.L., and C.Y. McCulloch. 1977. Managing Pinyon-juniper Ranges for Wildlife. General Technical Report RM-47. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. Soil Quality Institute. 2001. Rangeland Soil Quality — Wind Erosion. USDA Natural Rcsourees Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. SRK. 2007a. Baseline Studies for the Mount Hope Project. Report Prepared for Idaho General Mines, Inc. January 2007, Revised May 2007. Elko, Nevada. SRK. 2007b. Baseline Studies for the Mount Hope Project - Wcllfield, Power Line, and Transmission Line. Report Prepared for Idaho General Mines, Inc. September 2007. Elko, Nevada. SRK. 2008. Mount Hope Project Baseline Surface Water and Groundwater Report. Report Prepared for General Moly Inc., Elko, Nevada. SRK. 2010. Mount Hope Project Regional Snail Survey Fall 2007. Report Prepared for Eureka Moly LLC. April 2010. Elko, Nevada. Stevens, B.S. 201 1. Impacts of Fences on Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho: Collision, Mitigation, and Spatial Ecology. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. Stevens, R. 1999. Mechanical Chaining and Seeding. Pages 281-289 in Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities within the Interior West, September 15-18, 1997. Steward, J. 1941. Culture Element Distributions, XIII: Nevada Shoshone. University of California Anthropological Records 4(2):209-360. Steward, J. 1943. Some Western Myths. Anthropological Papers 31 . Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 136:249-299. Steward, J. 1970 [1938], Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Washington, D.C. 1970 Reprinted Edition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Stone, S.M., and J.M. Berdan. 1984. Some Late Silurian (Pridolian) Ostracodes from the Roberts Mountains Central Nevada. Journal of Paleontology 58(4):977-1009. Stoner, E.J., M.K. Rusco, and R. Deis. 2000. Toolstonc Quarricrs and Stone Tool Carriers: The Archaeology of Nine Sites in the Egan Range, White Pine County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Report Prepared by Western Culture Resource Management, Inc., Sparks, Nevada, for BHP Copper and USDOl BLM, Ely District, Ely, Nevada. Tall Timbers Research Station. 2001. Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1 1. Allen Press, Inc. Lawrence, Kansas. 3 Mars Project Draft I . IS 5-27 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES Tague, C., S. Valentine, and M. Kotchcn. 2008. Effect of Gcomorphic Channel Restoration on Strcamflow and Groundwater in a Snowmelt-dominated Watershed. Water Resources Research 44(10)415-424. Available at URL: environment.vale.cdu/kotehcn/pubs/stream.pdf. Tausch, R.J. 1999. Transitions and Thresholds: Influences and Implications for Management in Pinon and Utah Juniper Woodlands. Pages 61-65 in Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinon-junipcr Communities within the Interior West. General Technical Report RMRS-P-9. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Tausch, R.J., and S. Flood. 2007. Pinyon/Junipcr Woodlands. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-202. UDSA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Tausch, R.J., R.F. Miller, B.A. Roundy, and J.C. Chambers. 2009. Pinon and Juniper Field Guide: Asking the Right Questions to Select Appropriate Management Actions. USGS Circular 1335. Reston, Virginia. Thomas, D.H. 1981a. How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1 ):7 — 43. Thomas, D.H. 1981b. Complexity Among Great Basin Shoshoneans: The World’s Least Affluent Hunter-gathers? Pages 19-52 in Affluent Foragers: Pacific Coast East and West (S. Koyama and D.H. Thomas, Editors). National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan. Thomas, D.H. 1982a. An Overview of Central Great Basin Pre-history. Pages 156-1 71 in Man and Environment in the Great Basin (D. B. Madsen and J. F. O’Connell, Editors). Society of American Archaeological Papers 2. Thomas, D.H. 1982b. The 1981 Alta Toquima Village Project. Desert Research Institute Social Science Technical Report Series No. 17. Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. Thomas, D.H. 1983a. The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 59(1). New York, New York. Thomas, D.H. 1983b. The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 1. Epistemology. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 58(1). New York, New York. Thomas, D.H. 1988. The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 3. Survey and Additional Excavations. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 66(2). New York, New York. Thomas, D.H. 1997. Phone conversation with Richard Deis. David Hurst Thomas, Curator, Department of Anthropology. American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. Thomas, D.H., and R.L. Bettinger. 1976. Prehistoric Pinon Ecotonc Settlements of the Upper Reese River Valley, Central Nevada. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 53(3). New York, New York. Thomas, D.H., L.S.A. Pendleton, and S.C. Cappannari. 1986. Western Shoshone. Pages 262-284 in The Great Basin (W. d’Azevedo, Editor). In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 1 1 (W.G. Sturtcvant, General Editor). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 5-28 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J. Rodiek. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands -The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon Riparian Zones. General Technical Report PNW-80. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Thurow, T.L., and J.W. Hester. 2012. How an Increase in Juniper Cover Alters Rangeland Hydrology. Texas Natural Resources. Texas A&M Agrilife Research and Extension Center, San Angelo, Texas. Tilley, D.J., D. Ogle, L. St. John, B.L. Waldron, and R.D. Harrington. 2006. Forage Kochia. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Plant Guide. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg kopr80.pdf. Tinglcy, J.V. 1998. Mining Districts of Nevada, Second Edition, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Report 47. November 19, 1998. Available at URL: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/dox.htm. Tirmenstein, D. 1999. Artemisia tridentata spp. tridentata. In Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at URL: http://www.fs.fcd.us/database/feis/. Townley, J.M. 1986. The Pony Express Guidebook. Great Basin Studies Center, Reno. Trimble, S.W., and A.C. Mendel. 1995. The Cow as a Geomorphic Agent: A Critical Review. Geomorphology 13:233-253. Trotter, P.C. 1987. Cutthroat, Native Trout of the West. Colorado Associated University Press. Boulder, Colorado. Tsukamoto, G.K. 2003. Nevada’s Pronghorn Antelope Ecology, Management and Conservation. Bulletin 13. Revised by G. Tanner, K. Beckstrand, L. Gilbertson, C. Mortimorc, and J. Himes. NDOW, Reno. Tumbusch, M.L., and R.W. Plume. 2006. Hydrogeologic Framework and Ground Water in Basin-Fill Deposits of the Diamond Valley Flow System, Central Nevada. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5249. Prepared in Cooperation with Eureka, Lander, and Nye Counties, Nevada, and the State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Carson City. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. 2010. Nevada Noxious Weed Field Guide. Reno. Available at URL: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/20 1 0/sp 1 00 1 .pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Washington, D.C. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012a. Series CA05N — Personal Income and Earnings by Industry. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.bea.gov/. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012b. Scries CA45 - Farm Income and Expenses. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.bea.gov/. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012c. Regional Economic Accounts, Local Area Personal Income and Employment, 1969 to 2010. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.bea.gov/iTablc.cfm?ReqlD=70&stcp=l&isuri=l&acrdn=5. 3 Pars Project Draft BIS 5-29 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 201 2d. Series CA25 and CA25N - Total Full-time and Part-time Employment by Industry. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.bca.gov/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. TIGER/Linc Shapefiles, 2009, Nyc and White Pine Counties, NV, Current All Lines. Available at URL: http://www.ccnsus.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-linc.html. Accessed on July 20, 2009. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. TIGER/Linc Shapcfdcs, 2009, Elko County, NV, Current All Lines. Available at URL: http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tigcr-linc.html. Accessed on November 12, 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. TIGER/Linc Shapefiles, 2010, Eureka and Lander Counties, NV, Current All Lines. Available at URL: http://www.ccnsus.gov/gco/maps-data/data/tigcr-line.html. Accessed on December 5, 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. TIGER/Linc Shapefiles, 2011, Churchill, Humboldt and Pershing Counties, NV, All Roads. Available at URL: http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tigcr-line.html. Accessed on November 24, 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. 201 lb. 2010 Census, Summary File E Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics, Table DP-1. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/isf/pages/scarchresults. xhtml?ref=geo&refresh=t#none. U.S. Census Bureau. 2011c. Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties of Nevada: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.census.gov/popest/estbvgeo.html. U.S. Census Bureau. 201 Id. Population Estimates for Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions in Nevada, 2000 to 2009, SUB-EST2009_32.csv. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.census.gov/popest/estbygeo.html. 201 1. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2010. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi. USD A Forest Service. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. Available at URL: http://www.fs.fcd.us/pub/fam/. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Fire and Non-native Invasive Plants. Washington, D.C. USDA Forest Service, USDOI National Park Service, and USDOI USFWS. 2010. Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG): Phase I Report - Revised (2010). Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR— 2010/232. Denver, Colorado. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Services. 2012. 201 1 Nevada Agricultural Statistics Bulletin. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: www.nass,usda.gov/statistics by state/Ncvada/Publications/Annual Statistical Bulletin/indcx.asp. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2013. Agricultural Prices, A Monthly and Annual Data and Publication Scries, 1999 to 2013. Available at URL: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/vicwDocumcntlnfo.do7doeumentIDH002. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-30 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. Nevada Annual Precipitation. Seale 1:1,190,000 Map. Prepared in Cooperation with Oregon State University. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service National Cartography and Geospatial Center, Fort Worth, Texas. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2000. NSSH Part 622. Ecological and Interpretive Groups, Prime Farmlands. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://soils.usda.gov/teehnieal/handbook/eontcnts/partt622.htinl. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. USDA Handbook 296. Washington, D.C. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Eureka County, Nevada. Available at URL: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed April 2012. USDA and U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI). 1999. Sampling Vegetation Attributes Interagency Technical Reference. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado. Available at URL: www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/samplveg.pdf. U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI). 2004. Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Department Manual part 620 Wildland Fire Management. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://elips.doi.gov/app DM/act getfiles.cfm?relnum+3610. USDOI. 2007a. Healthy Lands Initiative. Washington, D.C. USDOI. 2007b. Standards and Guidelines for Grazing and Wild Horses and Burros. Nevada Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, location Available at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/res/resource advisory/northeastem great/s gs/wild horses.html. USDOI. 2012. Safety Management Information System. January 1, 2009 through December 31, 201 1. Denver, Colorado. USDOI BLM. 1976. Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as Amended. Denver, Colorado. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/flpma/. USDOI BLM. 1984. Visual Resource Management. Manual Handbook Number 8400-1. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 1986a. Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area Record of Decision. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 1986b. Visual Resource Management System Manual. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/84 1 0.html. USDOI BLM. 1986c. Visual Resources Contrast Rating Handbook H-8431-1. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 1987. Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan Amendment Record of Decision. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 1989. BLM Manual H-1741, Renewable Resource Improvements, Practices, and Standards. Washington, D.C. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 5-31 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES USDOI ELM. 1991a. Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. BLM Wyoming State Office. Casper, Wyoming. USDOI BLM. 1991b. Forest Management (Public Domain). Manual Number 5000-1. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 1991c. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in T hirteen Western States. BLM Wyoming State Office. Casper, Wyoming. USDOI BLM. 1992a. BLM Manual 1737, Riparian-Wetland Area Management. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 1992b. Integrated Weed Management. BLM Manual Section 9015. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 1996. Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 1997. Nevada Perennial Streams Spatial Dataset. Available at URL: http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gOv/ftp/nevada/BLM/pcmstream.htm#tl . USDOI BLM. 1998a. Riparian Area Management, A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Support Science for Lotic Areas. Technical Report 1737-15. USDOI BLM in Cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. USDOI BLM National Business Center, Denver, Colorado. USDOI BLM. 1998b. Pulling Together: National Strategy for Invasive Plant Management. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/weeds/PullingTogether/PullingTogether.htm. USDOI BLM. 1999a. Diamond Valley Complex Evaluation. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 1999b. State Protocol Agreement between the USDOI BLM, Nevada, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. On File at USDOI BLM, Nevada State Office, Reno. USDOI BLM. 2000a. Public Rewards from Public Lands 2000 - Great Basin Restoration. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2000b. The Great Basin: Healing the Land. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2001. Handbook H-4180-1. Rangeland Health Standards. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2002a. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for Fire Management with Environmental Assessment and Decision Record. NV61-EA97-071. Battle Mountain Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2002b. Resource Management Plan Amendment for Fire Management with Environmental Assessment NV61-EA97-07 Land Decision Record. Shoshonc-Eureka Planning Area. Battle Mountain Field Office. Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2003a. Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact Wildland Urban Fire Intcrface/Firc Defense Systems, Eureka and Diamond Valley, Nevada, Battle Mountain Field Office. Environmental Assessment NV-064-EA-02-64. Battle Mountain, Nevada. 3 liars Project Draft KIS 5-32 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES USDOI BLM. 2003b. Riparian Area Management, A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Support Science for Lcntic Areas. Technical Report 1737-16. USDOI BLM in Cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. USDOI BLM National Business Center, Denver, Colorado. USDOI BLM. 2003c. Pygmy Rabbit Surveys. Nevada State Office Instructional Memorandum No. NV-2003. Reno, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2004a. Battle Mountain District Fire Management Plan. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2004b. Fish Creek Complex Evaluation and Rangeland Health Assessment. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2005a. Decision Memorandum on Action and for Application of: Categorical Exclusion 1.12, Red Hills Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project. NV-064-2823-JM-JF28. Battle Mountain Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2005b. Decision Memorandum on Action and for Application of: Categorical Exclusion 1.12, Tonkin Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project. NV-064-2823-JQ-JF27. Battle Mountain Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2005c. Handbook H-1601-1. Land Use Planning Handbook. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM 2006. Worksheet Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy (DNA). Battle Mountain Field Office Document Number NV064-DNA06-016. Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2007a. Record of Decision Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Reno, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Reno, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2007c. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report. Reno, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2007d. Environmental Assessment Roberts Mountain Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project. NV062-EA07-075. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2007e. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. Available at URL: http://www.blm.izov/wo/st/en/prog/more/CRM/paleontology/paleontolo^ical regulations.html. Accessed April 18,2012. USDOI BLM. 2007f. 2007 Monitoring Report Dry Creek Allotment. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-33 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES USDOI BLM. 2007g. Handbook 1 1- 1 740-1, Renewable Resourec Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 20()7h. Roberts Mountain Complex Wild Horse Gather Environmental Assessment NV062-EA07- 120. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. May 2007. USDOI BLM. 2008a. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-l 790-1. National Environmental Policy Act Program. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2008b. Integrated Vegetation Management H-1740-2 Release 1714. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2008c. Manual 8270, Paleontological Resource Management. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2008d. Handbook H-8270-1 General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2008e. Instruction Memorandum 2009-01 1, Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources, December 10, 2008. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/lnstruetion Memos and Bulletins/national instruction/200 9/1M 2009-011.html. Accessed May 9, 2012. USDOI BLM. 2008f. 2008 Fluffy Flat Fire Wildfire Management and Livestock Closure Decision. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2008g. NV063-EIS06-01 1, September 2008. USDOI BLM, Battle Mountain Field Office. Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2008h. Special Status Species Management. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2008i. Battle Mountain Field Office Division of Fire Management General Project Monitoring Template Red Hills Project. Battle Mountain Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2008j. Manual 1740, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatments. Washington, D.C. USDOI BLM. 2008k. Wild Horse Gather Results, Roberts Mountain Complex. January 2008. USDOI BLM. 20081. Roberts Mountain HMA. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2008m. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-203. Rights-of-way Management. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/rcgulations/Instruction Memos and Bulletins/national instruction/200 80/IM 2008-203.html. USDOI BLM. 2009a. Assessment of Existing and Current Conditions for the Proposed 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement, Battle Mountain District, Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2009b. Integrated Weed Management Plan Battle Mountain District Nevada Mt. Lewis Field Office and Tonopah Field Office. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. 3 Bars Project Dralt BIS 5-34 September 2013 REFERENCES USDOl BLM. 2009c. Supplemental Authorities to Consider in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents. Instruction Memorandum No. NV-2009-030. Reno, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2009d. Sulphur Springs Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project, Eureka County, Nevada, Environmental Assessment. NV064-EA-08-077. Battle Mountain Distriet Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2009c. Roberts Mountain Proper Functioning Condition Assessment. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2009f. GIS Data of Strategic Areas of Ongoing Assessments. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2009g. Callaghan Complex Gather Summary Report December 2008-January 2009. January 2009. Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2009h. Callaghan Genetic Horse. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2010a. Healthy Lands Initiative. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2008/April/HLI 09 Fact Sheets.html. USDOl BLM. 2010b. Health Lands Initiative Oregon-Idaho-Nevada Shrub-Steppe Landscape. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2008/April/HLl 09 Fact Sheets.html. USDOl BLM. 2010c. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed 3-Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project, Eureka County, Nevada. Federal Register 75 ( 1 5):39 1 6- 3917. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2010d. Aspen ( Populus tremuloides) Condition Report 3-Bars Project. Mount Lewis Field Office Bureau of Land Management. Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2010e. Elephant Head Fire. 2010a DRK.0. Monitoring Summary FY201 1 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 201 Of. Cain Fire DROJ. Monitoring Summary FY2010 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle, Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2010g. Carico Fire DRC2. Monitoring Summary FY2010 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle, Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 201 Oh. Elephant Fire DB3B. Monitoring Summary FY2010 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle, Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 20 1 Oi. Paris Fire DR35. Monitoring Summary FY2010 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle, Mountain, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 20 1 Oj . Raven Raven Fire DRJ6. Monitoring Summary FY2010 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle, Mountain, Nevada. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-35 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES USDOI BLM. 2010k. Cheatgrass Locations. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM 20101. Wild Horses and Burros Management BLM Handbook H-4700-1. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/cn/info/rcmilations/lnstruction Memos and Bulletins/blm handbooks.html. USDOI BLM. 2010m. GIS data of Herd Management Areas. Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 201 On. Record of Decision, Callaghan and New Pass/Ravcnswood Complex Wild Horse Gather Plan and Environmental Assessment D01-BLM-NV-B010-2010-0087-EA. October 29, 2010. USDOI BLM. 2011a. Greater Sage-grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures. Instructional Memorandum 2012-043. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/rcgulations/lnstruction Memos and Bulletins/national instruction/201 2/1M 2012-043.html. USDOI BLM. 2011b. BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. Instructional Memorandum 2012-044. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/lnstruction Memos and Bulletins/national instruction/201 2/1M 2012-044.html. USDOI BLM. 201 lc. GIS Data of Treatment Polygons. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 201 Id. Authorized Geothermal Parcels (2010). Nevada State Office- Mineral Division, Reno, Nevada. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/morc programs/geographic sciences/gis/geospatial data.html. Accessed on March 20, 2011. USDOI BLM. 201 le. Fluffy Flat Fire. 201 1. Monitoring Summary FY201 1 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle, Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 201 If. Callaghan Fire ECM8. Monitoring Summary FY201 1 Closeout Summary. Battle Mountain District, Battle, Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 201 lg. Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species. BLM Battle Mountain District Office RMP Planning Fact Sheet. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/ficld officcs/battle mountain ficld/blm in format ion/rmp .Par.33571.File.dat/WEEDS.pdf. USDOI BLM. 2012a. GIS data of Land Status/Ownership. Nevada State Office - Mapping Sciences, Reno, Nevada. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/more programs/geographic sciences/gis/geospatial data.html. Accessed on February 21, 2012. USDOI BLM. 2012b. Spruce Mountain Restoration. Wells Field Office, Elko, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2012c. Mount Hope Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Battle Mountain District, Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-36 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES USDOI BLM. 2012d. G1S Data of Cumulative Effects Study Areas. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2012c. G1S Data of Grazing Allotments. Nevada State Office - Mapping Sciences, Reno, Nevada. Available at URL: http://www. blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/morc programs/geographic scicnces/gis/geospatial data.html. Accessed on September 26, 2012. USDOI BLM. 2012f. GIS Data of Wildfires. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2012g. GIS Data Provided in Response to Data Request. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2012h. GIS Data of Key Management Areas. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 20 1 2i. GIS Data of Forest Products. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 201 2j. Electronic Mail Communication to B. Read, AECOM, CO, Regarding Perennial Streams and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Habitat Within the 3-Bars Project Area, September 26, 2012. S. Foree, Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2012k. GIS Data of Preliminary Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Categories on BLM and USFS Administered Lands in Nevada. Nevada State Office. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/more pro grams/geo graphic sciences/gis/geospatial data.html. Accessed on March 3, 2012. USDOI BLM. 20121. GIS data of Battle Mountain Visual Resource Management Areas. State Office - Mapping Sciences, Reno, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2012m. Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation (Public). Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information Resources Management/policy/blm manua l.Par. 1 039.File.dat/M6280%20NSHT%20Management Final 091212%20(2).pdf. USDOI BLM. 2012n. Recreation Management Information System. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2012o. Battle Mountain District Office Recreation Website. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/battle mountain ficld/blm programs/recreation. html. Access on April 9, 2012. USDOI BLM. 2012p. Manual 6330 Management of Wilderness Study Areas (Public). Release 9-935. Washington, D.C. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 5-37 September 2013 REFERENCES USDOI BLM. 2()12q. BLM Nevada Fire Summary, Resource Advisory Councils Annual Meeting, 1-26-2012. Available at URL: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/ctc/mcdialib/blm/nv/rcsourccs/racs/trirac/ian 201 2.Par.93234.File.dat/Fire.pdfTas Vegas, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2013a. Biological Assessment for the 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project. Battle Mountain District Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2013b. Herd Management Area Cumulative Effects Study Areas. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2013c. Irrigated Cropland Map. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2013d. GIS data of Seed Harvest Areas. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2013e. Christmas Tree/Fuelwood Areas. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2013f. GIS Data of Frazier Fire Seeding Areas. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 201 3g. Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-regional Greater Sage-grouse Resource Management Plan Amendment/EIS. USDOI BLM. 2013h. GIS Data of Proper Functioning Conditions. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 20 1 3i. GIS Data of Range Utilization. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 201 3j. Draft Wildlife Survey Protocols BLM Nevada. Reno, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 2013k. GIS Data of Range Improvements. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM. 20131. Land Use Authorizations. Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. USDOI BLM and Colorado Wood Utilization and Marketing Program. 2008. Managing Pinyon- Juniper Ecosystems for Pine Nut Production. Available at UR: http://pinonnuts.org/PJE mgmt rpt March 08.pdf. USDOI National Park Service. 1999. Comprehensive Management and Use Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement for the California National Historic Trail and the Pony Express National Historic Trail. National Park Service Long Distance Trails Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at URL: http://www.nps.gov/cali/parkmgmt/upload/CALI-CMP-SM-iipdated.pdf. USDOI National Park Service. 2004. Lincoln Highway, Special Resource Study Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior. USDOI National Park Service. 2012. Pony Express National Historic Trail website. Available at URL: http://www.nps.gov/pocx/index.htm. Accessed on April 9, 20 1 2. USDOI and USDA. 2001. National Fire Plan. Washington, D.C. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 5-38 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES USDOl and USDA. 2006a. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 1 0- Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. December 2006. Available a URL: http://www.fircplan.gov. USDOl and USDA. 2006b. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.hcalthvforests.gov/CFTS 03-03-06.pdf. USDOl U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Status Report Castilleja salsuginosa Monte Neva Paintbrush. Great Basin Field Office, Carson City, Nevada. USDOl USFWS. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Status Update. Mountain-Prairie Region, Wyoming Ecological Services Office. Available at: www.sagebrushsea.org/sage grouse interim report.htm, USDOl USFWS. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 76(207):66370-66439. USDOl USFWS. 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977 to Present. Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Coterminous United States. National Wetland Inventory Polygon Data. Washington, D.C. USDOl U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. National Gap Analysis Program. Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. RS/G1S Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University. USDOl USGS. 2009. Pinon and Juniper Field Guide: Asking the Right Questions to Select Appropriate Management Actions. USGS Circular 1335. US Geological Survey, Corvallis Oregon. USDOl USGS. 2012a. Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) 2005. Reston, Virginia. Available at URL: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds. Accessed on October 2, 2012. USDOl USGS. 2012b. National Hydrography Dataset. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://nhd.usgs.gov/. USDOl USGS. 2012c. National Water Information System. 2012. Flow and Water Quality Data for Coils Creek, Henderson Creek, Pete Hanson Creek, Roberts Creek, and Tonkin Spring. Available at URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis and http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/qwdata. USDOl USGS. 2012c. Reducing Population Growth Rates: Fertility Control in Wild Horse Mares. Available at URL: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/WildHorsePopulations/Contraception.asp. April 24, 2012. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011a. Supplemental New Release Tables., Charts Presenting the 2010 Survey Results. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.bls.gOv/iif/oshsum.htm#10Summary%20News%20Release. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011b. State Data for Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Cases Requiring Days Away From Work for Musculoskeletal Disorders by Nature of Injury or Illness and Part of Body. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.bls.gov/iif/msd state.htm. 3 liars Project Draft PIS 5-39 September 20 1 3 REFERENCES U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statisties. 2012. Loeal Area Unemployment Statistics. Washington, I).C. Available at URL: http://data.bls.uov/cuibin/ dsrv?la. Accessed March 30, 2012. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2010a. Traffic Safety Facts Eureka County, Nevada 2006-2010. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.uov/departments/nrd- 30/nesa/STSl/32 NV/2010/Counties/Ncvada Eurcka%20County 2010.PDF. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2010b. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts Nevada 2006-2010. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.uov/dcpartmcnts/nrd- 30/ncsa/STSl/32 NV/20 10/32 NV 2010.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Final Guidance For Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: www.cpa.uov/rcuionl/cj/pdfs/ei uuidance nepa cpa0498.pdf USEPA. 2012. National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. Washington, D.C. Available at URL: http://www.epa.uov/climatechanue/uhucmissions/usinventoryreport.html. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2003. The Pygmy Rabbit ( Brachylagus idahoensis). Available at URL: http://wildlife.utah.uov/habitat/pdf/pvumy rabbit.pdf. Vlasich, J.A. 1981. History. In Prehistory, Ethnohistory, and History of Eastern Nevada: A Cultural Resources Summary of the Elko and Ely Districts (S.R. James, Editor). USDOI BLM, Reno, Nevada, Cultural Resources Series No. 3. Walker, S. 2002. Restoration and Management of Sagebrush/Grass Communities Workshop. Elko, Nevada. Available at URL: www.ranuenet.oru/trader/2002 Elko Sauebrush Confpdf. Wambolt, C.L., A.J. Harp, B.L. Welch, N. Shaw, J.W. Connelly, K.P. Reese, C.E. Braun, D.A. Klebenow, E.D. McArthur, J.G. Thompson, L.A. Torell, and J.A. Tanaka. 2002. Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse on Public Lands in the Western U.S.: Implications of Recovery and Management Policies. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands, Caldwell, Idaho. Available at URL: sauemap.wr.usus.uov/Docs/saue- urouse policy.pdf. Wasley, T. 2004. Mule Deer Population Dynamics: Issues and Influences. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno. Waters, T. 1995. Sediment in Streams. Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Welch, P.H. 1979. Historic Overview of the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area. USDOI BLM, Battle Mountain District. Battle Mountain, Nevada. Western Regional Climate Center. 2012. Precipitation Data for Eureka, NV, Station Number 262708. Available at URL: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cui-bin/cliMAIN.pl7nv2708. Whittington, D.M., and G.T. Allen. 2008. Guidelines for Raptor Conservation in the Western United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 9, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 5-40 September 20 i 3 REFERENCES Wilcox, B.P., and D.W. Davenport. 1995. Juniper Encroachment: Potential Impacts to Soil Erosion and Morphology. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Portland, Oregon. Available at URL: wvvw.icbcmp.gov/scicnce/wilcox.pdf. Wilde, J.D., and R.A. Soper. 1999. Baker Village: Draft Report of Excavations, 1990-1994. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Technical Series No. 99-12. Office of Public Archaeology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. NDOW, Reno. Available at URL: http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/ewcs/ Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan Public Review Draft. Nevada Department of Wildlife. Reno, Nevada. Available at URL: http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/cwcs/. Willis, M.J., and R.F. Miller. 1999. Importance of Western Juniper Communities to Small Mammals. Pages 210- 214 in Proceeding: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities within the Interior West (S.B. Monsen, S. Richards, R.J. Tausch, R.F. Miller, and C. Goodrich, Compilers). RMRS-P-9. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Willms, W., A.W. Bailey, A. McLean, and R. Tucker. 1981. The Effects of Fall Defoliation on the Utilization of Bluebunch Wheatgrass and its Influence on the Distribution of Deer in Spring. Journal of Range Management 34:16-18. Wooley, D.E. 1999. The Waltis and Other Early Settlers of Eureka and Lander County, Nevada. Eureka, Nevada. Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-wetland Areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. USDOI, BLM, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010. Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage Grouse (1 1-29- 2010). Cheyenne, Wyoming. Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee. 2002. Wyoming Guidelines for Managing Sagebrush Communities with Emphasis on Fire Management. Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Wyoming BLM. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Young, B., E. Byers, K. Gravuer, K. Hall, G. Hammerson, A. Redder, K. Szabo, and J. Newmark. 2009. Using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index: A Nevada Case Study. NaturcServe, Arlington, Virginia. Young, J.A., and J.D. Budy. 1979. Historic Use of Nevada’s Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. Journal of Forest History 23:113-121. Zeedyk, B., and J. Jansens. 2006. An Introduction to Erosion Control. Earth Works Institute, The Quivira Coalition, and Zeedyk Ecological Consulting. Second Edition. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Available at URL: http://quiviracoalition.org/Publications/Publications for Download/indcx.html. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 5-41 September 2013 REFERENCES Zcedyk, B., and V. Clothier. 2009. Let the Water Do the Work: Induced Meandering, an Evolving Method for Restoring Incised Channels. Quivira Coalition, Santa Fc, New Mexico. Zehncr, R., M. Coolbaugh, and L. Shevencll. 2009. Preliminary Geothermal and Exploration Activity in Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 09-10. Carson City, Nevada. 3 liars Project Draft EIS 5-42 September 2013 CHAPTER 6 GLOSSARY GLOSSARY CHAPTER 6 GLOSSARY A Active ingredient (a.i.): The chemical or biological component that kills or controls the target pest. Activity fuel: Fuels resulting from, or altered by, forestry practices such as timber harvest or thinning, as opposed to naturally created fuels. Adaptive management: A system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and if not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or are reevaluated. Additive effect: A situation in which combined effects of exposure to two effects simultaneously is equal to the sum of the effects given alone. Adverse impact: Impacts that causes harm or negative result. Air pollutant: Any substance in the air that, if in high enough concentration, could harm humans, animals, vegetation, or material. Air pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial matter capable of being airborne, in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or a combination of these. Air quality: The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most frequently in connection with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. Allotment (grazing): Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed period of time. Alternative: In an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment, one of a number of possible options for responding to the purpose and need for action. Ambient air: Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere; open air and surrounding air. Often used interchangeably with “outdoor air.” Animal Unit (AU): A standardized unit of measurement for range livestock that is equivalent to one cow, one horse, five sheep, five goats, or four reindeer, all over 6 months of age. Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of feed or forage required by one animal unit grazing on a pasture for 1 month. Appropriate Management Level: An estimate of the number of wild horses and burros that public lands can support while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance. 3 Mars Project Draft EIS 6-1 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Aquatic: Growing, living in, frequenting, or taking place in water; freshwater. used to indicate habitat, vegetation, or wildlife in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: An area within public lands that requires special management attention to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; other natural systems or processes; or to protect life or provide safety from natural hazards. Attainment area: A geographic area that is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as defined in the Clean Air Act. Baffle: A baffle is a deflector of various configuration and materials, used to create lateral erosion of a streambank in order to widen the channel and alter the meander geometry. A baffle functions by concentrating stream velocity along the opposite bank while decreasing velocity along the adjacent bank. The result is accelerated erosion of the opposite bank with a commensurate increase in sediment deposition along the adjacent bank, causing point bar formation. As the point bar becomes colonized by riparian vegetation, it becomes increasingly resistant to erosion and more effective at deflecting flow towards the opposite bank. In order to achieve the desired meander pattern, baffles must be properly sized and spaced. Biochar: Biochar is the carbon-rich product when biomass, such as wood, manure, or leaves, is heated with little or no available oxygen. In more technical terms, biochar is produced by thermal decomposition of organic material under limited supply of oxygen, and at relatively low temperatures (less than 700° Celsius). This process often mirrors the production of charcoal, which is perhaps the most ancient industrial technology developed by humankind. However, it distinguishes itself from charcoal and similar materials by the fact that biochar is produced with the intent to be applied to soil as a means to improve soil health, to fdter and retain nutrients from percolating soil water, and to provide carbon storage. Biological Assessment (BA): A document prepared by or under the direction of a federal agency that addresses federally listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be present in the action area, and evaluates the potential effects of the action on such species and habitat. Biological crust: Thin crust of living organisms on or just below the soil surface and composed of lichens, mosses, algae, fungi, cyanobacteria, and bacteria. Biological diversity (biodiversity): The variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Broad scale: A large, regional area, such as a river basin; typically a multi-state area. Buffer strip/zonc: A strip of vegetation that is left or managed to reduce the impact that a treatment or action on one area might have on another area. Bunchgrass: A grass having the characteristic growth habit of forming a bunch and lacking stolons or rhizomes. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 6-2 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY c Carrying capacity: The maximum population of a particular species that a particular region can support without hindering future generations’ ability to maintain the same population. Chaining: Vegetation removal that is accomplished by hooking a large anchor chain between two bulldozers. As the bulldozers move through the vegetation, the vegetation is knocked to the ground. Chaining kills a large percentage of the vegetation, and is often followed a year or two later by burning and/or seeding. Class I area: Under the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, all international parks, parks larger than 6,000 acres, and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres that existed on August 7, 1977. This class provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of additional air pollution that can be added to these areas. Classical biological control: The use of agents, including invertebrate parasites and predators (usually insects, fungi, mites, and nematodes) and plant pathogens to reduce populations of invasive plants. Clean Air Act: Establishes a mandate to reduce emissions of specific pollutants via unifonn federal standards. Under the Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for setting standards and approving state implementation plans to ensure that local agencies comply with the Act. The standards set by the USEPA include primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants, to protect public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter. Climate: The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. Climate change: Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.’ The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. Coarse woody debris: Pieces of woody material derived from tree limbs, boles, and roots in various stages of decay, generally having a diameter of at least 3 inches and a length greater than 3 feet. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. Consultation: Exchange of information and interactive discussion; when the “C” in consultation is capitalized it refers to consultation mandated by statute or regulation that has prescribed parties, procedures, and timelines (e.g., Consultation under National Environmental Policy Act or Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act). 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 6-3 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Cooperating Agency: Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, tribal, state, and local governments, as well as other federal agencies, that cooperate with the lead agency (BUM for the 3 Bars Project) in the preparation of an BIS. Agencies that have been granted cooperating agency status for preparation of the 3 Bars Project EIS are the National Park Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and Eureka Board of County Commissioners. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President of the United States; established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental matters. Countervailing: A type of cumulative impact where negative effects arc compensated for by beneficial effects. Cover: 1) Trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow an animal to partly or fully conceal itself, and 2) the area of ground covered by plants of one or more species, usually expressed as a percent of the ground surface. Criteria pollutants: Air pollutants designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as potentially harmful and for which ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants arc carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, and lead. Cultural resources: Nonrenewable evidence of human occupation or activity as seen in any area, site, building, structure, artifact, ruin, object, work of art, architecture, or natural feature. Culvert retrofit: A method of stabilization which consists of raising the effective invert elevation of an existing culvert without replacing the existing installed pipe. Streambed control can be achieved without the cost of a new culvert installation. Cumulative effects: Impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Degradation: Physical or biological breakdown of a complex compound into simpler compounds. Dcnsification: As it applies to the 3 Bars Project, an increase in the density of pinyon-juniper within woodland stands due to fire exclusion and livestock grazing. Density: The number of individuals per a given unit area. Desired plant community: One of the several plant communities that may occupy a site that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan’s objectives for the site. Direct effects: Impacts on the environment that arc caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Dispersed recreation: Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site; for example, hunting or backpacking. 3 Bars Project Draft EIS 6-4 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Dispersion: The act of distributing or separating into lower concentrations or less dense units. Disturbance: Refers to events that alter the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife grazing, and insects and patho- gens. Human-caused disturbances include actions such as timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads, and the introduction of exotic species. Dominant: A group of plants that by their collective size, mass, or number exerts a primary influence onto other ecosystem components. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: The draft statement of the environmental effects of a major federal action which is required under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. Drift: That part of a sprayed chemical that is moved by wind off a target site. E Early successional stage: A successional stage, or collection of stages, that occurs immediately following a disturbance. Ecological site inventory: The basic inventory of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands. Ecological sites are differentiated on the basis of the kind, proportion, or amount of plant species. Ecological site: A type of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other types of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and its response to management. Ecological status: The present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential natural community for that site. Ecoregion: Ecoregions are geographic areas that are delineated and defined by similar climatic conditions, geomorphology, and soils. Since these factors are relatively constant over time and strongly influence the ecology of vegetative communities, ecoregions may have similar potentials and responses to disturbance. Ecosystem: Includes all the organisms of an area, their environment, and the linkages or interactions among all of them; all parts of an ecosystem are interrelated. The fundamental unit in ecology, containing both organisms and abiotic environments, each influencing the properties of the other and both necessary for the maintenance of life. Ecosystem health (forest health, rangeland health, aquatic system health): A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, values, and services of the ecosystem are met. Edge effect: The influence of two communities on populations in their adjoining boundary zone or ecotone, affecting the composition and density of the populations in these bordering areas. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 6-5 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY the same time and place, while indirect effects arc caused by the action but are later in time or further removed in distance, although still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effect and impact are synonymous as used in this document. Encroachment: Natural succession resulting in densification or interspace in-filling, causing an understory or previously dominant species to decline. Endangered species: Plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of their range. Endemic species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. Environment: 1) The physical conditions that exist within an area (e.g., the area that will be affected by a proposed project), including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance; and 2) the sum of all external conditions that affect an organism or community to influence its development or existence. Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document, for which a federal agency is responsible, that serves to: 1 ) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact; 2) aid an agency’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act when no environmental impact statement is necessary; and 3) facilitate preparation of an environmental impact statement when one is necessary. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A required report for all federal actions that will lead to significant effects on the quality of the human environment. The report must be systematic and interdisciplinary, integrating the natural and social sciences as well as the design arts in planning and decision-making. The report must identify 1) the environmental impacts of the proposed action, 2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, 3) alternatives to the proposed action, 4) the relationship between short-term uses of human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological activities. Erosion can be accelerated or intensified by human activities that reduce the stability of slopes or soils. Exotic species: Includes species introduced into an area that may have adapted to the area and compete with resident native (indigenous) species. Expansion: Occurs when vegetation, such as pinyon-juniper, expands into new areas where it was not found historically. Evapotranspiration: Discharge of water from the earth’s surface into the atmosphere by transpiration by plants during growth and by evaporation from the soil, lakes, and streams. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 6-6 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY F °F: Degrees Fahrenheit. Fauna: The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of the area or region. Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. Federal Land Policy and Management Act: Law mandating that the BLM manage lands under its jurisdiction for multiple uses. Establishes guidelines for its administration and provides for the management, protection, development, and enhancement of the public lands, among other provisions. Fertility control: A tool to decrease fertility and which, when implemented, reduces (slows) population growth rates and extends the gather cycle. Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS): A revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement based on public and agency comments on the draft. Fire adapted: Plants that can withstand a certain frequency and intensity of fire. Fire break: A fire break is a gap in vegetation or other combustible material that acts as a barrier to slow or stop the progress of a wildfire. A firebreak may occur naturally where there is a lack of vegetation, such as a river, lake, or canyon. Firebreaks may also be man-made, and many of these also serve as roads, such as a logging road, four-wheel drive trail, secondary road, or a highway. Fire dependent: An ecosystem evolving under periodic perturbations by fire and that consequently depends on periodic fires for normal ecosystem function. Fire intolerant: Species of plants that do not grow well with or die from the effects of too much fire. Fire management plan: A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wildland and prescribed fires and documents the Fire Management Program in the approved land use plan. The plan is supplemented by operational procedures such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans, and prevention plans. Fire regime: The patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and sometimes vegetation and fire effects, in a given area or ecosystem. Fire return interval: The average time between fires in a given area. Fisheries habitat: Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish populations. Fishery: The act, process, occupation, or season of taking an aquatic species. Floodplain: The area starting at or just above the bankfull elevation of the stream channel, where frequent flood events spill out of the channel. The floodplain is inundated relatively frequently, such as once every 1 to 3 years. The floodplain is normally a relatively flat topographic feature adjacent to the stream channel that allows floodwaters to spread out and thus dissipate energy. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 6-7 September 2013 GLOSSARY Forage: Vegetation eaten by animals, espeeially grazing and browsing animals. Forbs: Broad-leafed pants; includes plants that commonly are called weeds or wildflowcrs. Forestland: Land where the potential natural plant community contains 10 percent or more tree canopy cover. Formulation: The commercial mixture of both active and inactive (inert) ingredients. Fossilization: The process of fossilizing a plant or animal that existed in some earlier age; the process of being turned to stone. Fragmentation (habitat): The breaking-up of a habitat or cover type into smaller, disconnected parcels. Fuel (fire): Dry, dead parts of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that can bum readily. Fuel break: A fuel break is a strip or block of land on which the vegetation, debris, and detritus have been reduced and/or modified to control or diminish the risk of the spread of fire crossing the strip or block of land. Functional-at-risk: Riparian or wetland areas are in functional condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. G Geographic Information System (GIS): An information processing technology to input, store, manipulate, analyze, and display data; a system of computer maps with corresponding site-specific information that can be combined electronically to provide reports and maps. Great Basin: The Great Basin is defined as the area wedged between the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the west and the Wasatch branch of the Rocky Mountains on the east, and the Snake River to the north. Its southern boundary cuts across the lower tip of Nevada and the southwestern comer of Utah, where land takes on the characteristics of the Mojave and Sonora deserts. Within the region, three major plant communities grow: sagebrush, salt desert shrub, and pinyon and/or juniper woodlands. Groundwater: Subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation. The top surface of the groundwater is the “water table.” Source of water for wells, seeps, and springs. Habitat: The natural environment of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and soil conditions, or other environmental influences affecting living conditions. The place where an organism lives. Habitat fragmentation: The break-up of a large land area (such as forest) into smaller patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type. The opposite of connectivity. Hardened rock crossing: A form of low water crossing with utilizes rock to reduce the impact of vehicle and animal traffic on a stream crossing. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 6-8 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Hazardous fuels: In the context of wildfire includes living and dead and decaying vegetation that form a special threat of ignition and resistance to control. Headcut: An erosional feature of some intermittent streams and perennial streams, also known as a knickpoint, where an abrupt vertical drop in a stream bed occurs. The knickpoint, where a head cut begins, can be as small as an overly-steep riffle zone or as a large as a waterfall. When not flowing, the Lead cut will resemble a very short cliff or bluff. A small plunge pool may be present at the base of the head cut due to the high energy of falling water. As erosion of the knickpoint and the streambed continues, the head cut will migrate upstream. Herbaceous: Non-woody plants that include grasses, grass-like plants, and forbs. Herbicide: A chemical pesticide used to control, suppress, or kill vegetation, or severely interrupt normal growth processes. Herbivore: An animal that feeds on plants. Herd Area: Geographic area of the public lands identified as habitat used by wild horses and burros at the time the Wild and Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act was enacted (December 15, 1971). Herd Management Area (HMA): Area established for wild and free-roaming horses and burros through the land use planning process. The Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 requires that wild free-roaming horses and burros be considered for management where they were found at the time Congress passed the Act. The BLM initially identified 264 areas of use as HMAs. Hvdric soil: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation is defined as any macrophyte that grows in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): A hierarchical coding system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey to identify geographic boundaries of watersheds of various sizes. Hydrophobic: Any macrophyte that grows in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water. I Indigenous: Living or occurring naturally in an area; native, endemic people, flora, or fauna. Indirect effects: Impacts that are caused by an action, but are later in time or farther removed in distance, although still reasonably foreseeable. Infilling: An increase in the density and competition as a result of encroachment by an invasive species, such as pinyon-juniper, into the native plant community, such as a sagebrush community, at a rate that exceeds the natural vegetation replacement rate. Infiltration: The movement of water through soil pores and spaces. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 6-9 September 2013 GLOSSARY Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review: Policy for managing public lands under wilderness review. Section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Aet states: “During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such lands according to his authority under this Aet and other applicable laws in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness, subject, however, to the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and mineral leasing in the manner and degree in which the same was being conducted on the date of approval of this Act: Provided, that, in managing the public lands the Secretary shall by regulation or otherwise take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their resources or to afford environmental protection.” Manual 6330 - Management of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), states the desire by the BLM not to approve any activity in WSAs which may impair their suitability for Wilderness designation via Congressional action. Intermittent stream: A stream that flows only a certain times of the year when it receives water from other streams or from surface sources such as melting snow. Invasive plants: Plants that 1) arc not part of (if exotic), or are a minor component of (if native), the original plant community or communities; 2) have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions; or 3) are classified as exotic or noxious plants under state or federal law. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g. short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Invasive species: Per Executive Order 131 12, an invasive species means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invertebrate: Small animals that lack a backbone or spinal column. Spiders, insects, and wonns are examples of invertebrates. Irretrievable commitment: A term that applies to losses of production or commitment of renewable natural resources. For example, while an area is used as a ski area, some or all of the timber production there is “irretrievably” lost. If the ski area closes, timber production could resume; therefore, the loss of timber production during the time the area is devoted to skiing is irretrievable, but not irreversible, because it is possible for timber production to resume if the area is no longer used as a ski area. Irreversible commitment: A term that applies to non-renewable resources, such as minerals and archaeological sites. Losses of these resources cannot be reversed. Irreversible effects can also refer to the effects of actions on resources that can be renewed only after a very long period of time, such as the loss of soil productivity. Issue: A matter of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities or land uses. J K Knickpoint: Sharp break in the slope of the channel due to erosion; also sec Headcut. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 6-10 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY L Ladder fuel: Material on or near the ground that will carry fire from the ground to the crowns of trees; sagebrush, bitterbrush, and dead and down woody material. Land management: The intentional process of planning, organizing, programming, coordinating, directing, and controlling land use actions. Landscape: All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish one part of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land that the eye can comprehend in a single view, including all of its natural characteristics. Land use allocation: The assignment of a management emphasis to particular land areas with the purpose of achieving the goals and objectives of some specified use(s) (e.g., campgrounds, wilderness, logging, and mining). Land Use Plan: Land Use Plans are prepared in accordance with established land use planning procedures in 43 CFR § 1600 and pursuant to Federal Land Policy and Management Act. They establish goals and objectives (desired outcomes), identify the management actions needed to achieve the desired outcomes, and identify the allowable uses of the public lands. Large woody debris: Pieces of wood that are of a large enough size to affect stream channel morphology. Leasable minerals: Minerals that are leased to individuals for exploration and development. The leasable minerals have been subdivided into two classes, fluids and solid. Fluid minerals include oil and gas, geothermal resources and associated by-products, and oil shale, native asphalt, oil impregnated sands and any other material in which oil is recoverable only by special treatment after the deposit is mined or quarried. Solid leasable minerals are specific minerals such as coal and phosphates. Lek: A traditional place where males assemble during the mating season and engage in competitive displays that attract females. For purposes of the 3 Bars Project, lek refers to a place where male greater sage-grouse congregate to attract female sage-grouse. Lifeways: The manner and means by which a group of people lives; their way of life. Components include language(s), subsistence strategies, religion, economic structure, physical mannerisms, and shared attitudes. Litter: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, which is essentially the freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetation material such as stems, leaves, twigs, and fruits. Locatable minerals: Loeatable minerals include precious and base metallic ores and nonmetallic minerals such as bentonite, gypsum, chemical grade limestone and chemical grade silica sand. Uncommon varieties of sand, gravel, building stone, pumice, rock and cinders are also managed as locatable minerals. Loeatable minerals are acquired by a company or individual under the General Mining Law of 1 872, as amended and Surface Use and Occupancy Act of July 23, 1955. Log and fabric step fall: A structure used to control hcadcuts advancing through wet soil areas such as wet meadows and spring seeps. The erosive action can be stopped if a healthy mat of wet soil vegetation can become established to hold the lip of the headwall in place. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 6-11 September 2013 GLOSSARY Long term: Generally refers to a period longer than 10 years. M Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Usually documents an agreement reached amongst federal agencies. Microbiotic crust: See biological crust. Minimize: Apply best available technology, management practices, and scientific knowledge to reduce the magnitude, extent, and/or duration of impacts. Mitigation: Steps taken to: 1 ) avoid an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2) minimize an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3) rectify an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4) reduce or eliminate an impact over time by preserving and maintaining operations during the life of the action, and, 5) compensate for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR § 1 508.20). Mitigation measures: Means taken to avoid, compensate for, rectify, or reduce the potential adverse impact of an action. Monitoring: The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data to evaluate progress toward meeting management objectives. Multiple uses: A combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. These may include recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife, and fish, along with natural scenic, scientific, and historical values. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the maximum levels of pollutants that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act of Congress passed in 1969, declaring a national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and the environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of people, and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation, among other purposes. National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS): A single system that encompasses some of the BLM’s premier land designations. By putting these lands into an organized system, the BLM hopes to increase public awareness of these areas’ scientific, cultural, educational, ecological, and other values. Native species: Species that historically occurred or currently occur in a particular ecosystem and were not introduced. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 6-12 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Natural community: An assemblage of organisms indigenous to an area that is characterized by distinct combinations of species occupying a common ecological zone and interacting with one another. Natural resources: Water, soil, plants and animals, nutrients, and other resources produced by the earth’s natural processes. No action alternative: The most likely condition to exist in the future if current management direction were to continue unchanged. Non-native species: A species living outside its native distributional range. Non-target: Any plant, animal, or organism that a method of treatment is not aimed at, but may accidentally be injured by the treatment. Noxious weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the U.S. O Objective: A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used to achieve identified goals. Overgrazing: Continued heavy grazing which exceeds the recovery capacity of the plant community and creates a deteriorated rangeland. Overstory: The upper canopy layer. P Paleontological resources: A work of nature consisting of or containing evidence of extinct multicellular beings and includes those works or classes of works of nature designated by the regulations as paleontological resources. Paleontology: A science dealing with the life of past geological periods as known from fossil remains. Particulate Matter (PM): A complex mixture consisting of varying combinations of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These tiny particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil and dust. Particulates: Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air. Passive restoration: Allowing natural succession to occur in an ecosystem after removing a source of disturbance. Pathogen: An agent such as a fungus, virus, or bacterium that causes disease. Payments in lieu of taxes: Payments made to counties by the BLM to mitigate for losses to counties because public lands cannot be taxed. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 6-13 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Per capita income: Total income divided by the total population. Perennial: A plant that lives for 2 or more years. Perennial stream: A stream or reach of a stream that flows continuously throughout the year and whose upper surface is generally lower than the water table in the region adjoining the stream. Permit: A revocable authorization to use public land for a specified purpose for up to 3 years. Persistence: Refers to the length of time a compound, once introduced into the environment, stays there. Petroglyph: An image recorded on stone, usually by prehistoric peoples, by means of carving, pecking, or otherwise incised on natural rock surfaces. Phase class: Phases of woodland succession for pinyon-juniper. Phase 1, trees are present but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles) on the site; Phase II, trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site; and Phase III, trees arc the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing ecological processes on the site. Phreatophytes: Plants (including, but not limited to, greasewood, rabbitbrush, and saltgrass in the 3 Bars Project area) whose root systems tap into the water tabic. pH: A measure of how acidic or alkaline (basic) a solution is on a scale of 0 to 14 with 0 being very acidic, 14 being very alkaline, and 7 being neutral. The abbreviation stands for the potential of hydrogen. Plant community: A vegetation complex, unique in its combination of plants, which occurs in particular locations under particular influences. A plant community is a reflection of integrated environmental influences on the site, such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope aspect, and precipitation. Playas: Flat land surfaces underlain by fine sediment or evaporate minerals deposited from a shallow lake on the floor of a topographic depression. PM2 5: Fine particulates that measure 2.5 microns in diameter or less. PMi0: Particulate matter that measures 10 microns in diameter or less. Porosity: The ratio of the volume of void space in a material (e.g., sedimentary rock or sediments) to the volume of its mass. Potential Natural Community: The plant community that will persist under pre-settlement disturbance regimes and climate. It is an expression of environmental factors such as topography, soil, and climate across an area where the cover type is a classification of the existing vegetation community. Predator: An organism that captures and feeds on parts or all of a living organism of another species. Preferred alternative: The alternative identified in an Environmental Impact Statement that has been selected by the agency as the most acceptable resolution to the problems identified in the purpose and need. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 6-14 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Prescribed fire: A management ignited wildland fire that bums under specified conditions and in predetermined area, and that produces the fire behavior and fire characteristics required to attain fire treatment and resource management objectives. An approved prescribed fire plan, and conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act, arc required prior to ignition. Prescribed fire projects: Includes the BLM’s efforts to utilize fire as a critical natural process to maintain and restore ecosystems, rangeland, and forest lands, and to reduce the hazardous buildup of fuels that may threaten healthy lands and public safety. Prescribed grazing: The careful application of grazing or browsing prescriptions (i.e., specified grazing intensities, seasons, frequencies, livestock species, and degrees of selectivity) to achieve natural resource objectives. Livestock production is a secondary objective when using prescribed grazing as a natural resource management tool. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program in which state and/or federal permits are required in order to restrict emissions from new or modified sources in places where air quality already meets or exceeds primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. Productivity: The innate capacity of an environment to support plant and animal life over time. Plant productivity is the rate of plant production within a given period of time. Soil productivity is the capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s chemical, physical, and biological properties. Programmatic EIS: An area-wide E1S that provides an overview when a large-scale plan is being prepared for the management of federally administered lands on a regional or multi-regional basis. Proper Functioning Condition: Riparian and wetland areas achieve Proper Functioning Condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows. This reduces erosion and improves water quality; filters sediment, captures bedload, and aids in floodplain development; improves floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develops root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting; develops diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide habitat and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, avian breeding habitat, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. Proposed action: A proposal by a federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement an action. Public lands: Any land and interest in land owned by the United States that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except for (1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and (2) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. Includes public domain and acquired lands. Public scoping: A process whereby the public is given the opportunity to provide oral or written comments about the influence of a project on an individual, the community, and/or the environment. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 6-15 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Qualitative: Traits or characteristics that relate to quality and cannot be readily measured with numbers. Quantitative: Traits or characteristics that can be measured with numbers. R Radiometric dating: The use of the naturally occurring isotope of carbon- 1 4 in radiometric dating to determine the age of organic materials. Rangeland: Land on which the native vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs; not forests. Rangeland health assessment: Assessment used to determine if rangeland conditions are achieving Land Use Plan objectives and Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines. The Indicators of Rangeland Health — actual use, utilization, use pattern maps, ecological status, rangeland trend studies, and professional judgment — are used to evaluate conditions in accordance with BLM’s Handbook 4180, Rangeland Health Standards. Raptor: Bird of prey; includes eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls. Receptor: An ecological entity exposed to a stressor. Recharge: Replenishment of water to an aquifer. Record of Decision (ROD): A document separate from, but associated with, an E1S, which states the decision, identifies alternatives (specifying which were environmentally preferable), and states whether all practicable means to avoid environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if not, why not. Recovery plan: Identifies, justifies, and schedules the research and management actions necessary to reverse the decline of a species and ensure its long-term survival. Registered herbicide: All herbicides sold or distributed in the United States must be registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, based on scientific studies, showing that they can be used without posing unreasonable risks to people or the environment. Rehabilitation: The “repair” of an area using native and/or non-native plant species to obtain a stable plant community that will protect the area from erosion and invasion by noxious weeds. Resident fish: Fish that spend their entire life in freshwater. Resource Management Plan (RMP): Comprehensive land management planning document prepared by and for the BLM’s administered properties under requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Bureau of Land Management lands in Alaska were exempted from this requirement. Restoration: Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and structure and that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance over the long term. 3 Bars Project Draft lilS 6-16 September 2013 GLOSSARY Revegetation: Establishing or re-establishing desirable plants on areas where desirable plants are absent or of inadequate density, by management alone (natural revegetation), or by seeding or transplanting (artificial revegetation). Rights-of-way (ROW): A permit or an casement that authorizes the use of lands for certain specified purposes, such as the construction of forest access roads or a gas pipeline. Riparian: Occurring adjacent to streams and rivers and directly influenced by water. A riparian community is characterized by certain types of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and fauna and requires free or unbound water or conditions more moist than that normally found in the area. Risk: The likelihood that a given exposure to an item or substance that presents a certain hazard will produce illness or injury. Risk assessment: The process of gathering data and making assumptions to estimate short- and long-term harmful effects on human health or the environment from particular products or activities. Rock channel liner: A long, narrow one rock dam, much longer than it is wide, built in a recently incised gully bottom and used to armor the bed and/or reconnect bankfull flow with the recently abandoned floodplain. Runoff: That part of precipitation, as well as any other flow contributions, that appears in surface streams, either perennial or intermittent. Salable minerals: Salable minerals are all other common mineral materials that were not designated as leasable or locatable, and include sand, gravel, roadbed, ballast, and common clay. These are sold by contract with the federal government. Salmonids: Fishes of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, chars, whitefish, ciscoes, and grayling. Scoping: The process by which significant issues relating to a proposal arc identified for environmental analysis. Scoping includes eliciting public comment on the proposal, evaluating concerns, and developing alternatives for consideration. Sediments: Unweathered geologic materials generally laid down by or within waterbodies; the rocks, sand, mud, silt, and clay at the bottom and along the edge of lakes, streams, and oceans. Sedimentation: The process of forming or depositing sediment; letting solids settle out of wastewater by gravity during treatment. Sensitive species: 1) Plant or animal species susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat alterations, and 2) species that have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification or are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 6-17 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Serai: Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during succession. Developmental stages have characteristic structure and plant species composition. In a forest, for example, early scral forest refers to seedling or sapling growth stages; mid-seral refers to pole or medium saw timber growth stages; and mature or late serai forest refers to mature and old-growth stages. Short-term impacts: Impacts occurring during project construction and operation, and normally ceasing upon project closure and reclamation. The definition of short-term may vary for each resource. Significant: The description of an impact that exceeds a certain threshold level. Requires consideration of both context and intensity. The significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts, such as society as a whole, and the affected region, interests, and locality. Intensity refers to the severity of impacts, which should be weighted along with the likelihood of its occurrence. Slope: The inclination of the land surface from the horizontal. Percentage of slope is the vertical distance divided by horizontal distance, and then multiplied by 100. Thus, a slope of 20 percent is a drop of 20 feet in 100 feet of horizontal distance. Snag: A standing dead tree, usually larger than 5 feet tall and 6 inches in diameter at breast height. Sociocultural: Of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and cultural factors. Socioeconomic: Pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors. Soil adsorption: The tendency of a chemical to bind to soil particles. Adsorption occurs onto clay particles and onto both the solid and dissolved forms of organic matter. Soil compaction: The compression of the soil profde from surface pressure, resulting in reduced air space, lower water holding capacity, and decreased plant root penetrability. Soil horizon: A layer of soil material approximately parallel to the land surface that differs from adjacent, genetically related, layers in physical, chemical, and biological properties. Soil texture: The relative proportions of sand, silt, and clay particles in a mass of soil. Solubility: Tendency of a chemical to dissolve in water. Solitude: The state of being alone or remote from habitations; a lonely, unfrequented, or secluded place. The intent is to evaluate the opportunity for solitude in comparison to habitations of people. Special status species: Refers to federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, and species managed as sensitive species by the BLM. Stand: A group of trees in a specific area that is sufficiently alike in composition, age, arrangement, and condition so as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): Procedures that would be followed by the BLM to ensure those risks to human health and the environment from treatment actions were kept to a minimum. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 6-18 September 2013 GLOSSARY Step-down: Refers to the process of applying broad-scale science findings and land use decisions to site-specific areas using a hierarchical approach of understanding current resource conditions, risks, and opportunities. Step pools and rock rundowns: A stabilization method that repairs a high energy hcadcut by laying back the hcadcut at a less steep gradient by building a scries of step pools to gradually dissipate the energy of the falling water. Several structures of different types applied in sequence are often required" to stabilize a hcadcut. Stream channel: The hollow bed where a natural stream of surface water flows or may flow; the deepest or central part of the bed, formed by the main current and covered more or less continuously by water. Subsistence: Customary and traditional uses of wild renewable resources (plants and animals) for food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, etc. Succession: A predictable process of changes in structure and composition of plant and animal communities over time. Conditions of the prior plant community or successional stage create conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. The different stages in succession are often referred to as serai stages. Suckcring: The regeneration process for aspen by developing new shoots along the root system of the parent tree. The new shoots are called root suckers. Sustainability: (1) meeting the needs of the present without compromising the abilities of future generations to meet their needs; emphasizing and maintaining the underlying ecological processes that ensure long-term productivity of goods, services, and values without impairing productivity of the land, and (2) in commodity production, refers to the yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given intensity of management. Synergistic: A type of cumulative impact where total effect is greater than the sum of the effects taken independently. T Target species: Plant species of competing vegetation that is controlled in favor of desired species. Terrestrial: Of or relating to the earth, soil, or land; inhabiting the earth or land. Threatened species: A plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. Threshold: A dose or exposure below which there is no apparent or measurable adverse effect. Tier: In an E1S, refers to incorporating by reference the analyses in an EIS or similar document of a broader scope. For example, this 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project EIS tiers to the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 1 7 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Total suspended particles (TSP): A method of monitoring airborne particulate matter by total weight. Toxicity: A characteristic of a substance that makes it poisonous. Transpiration: Water loss from plants during photosynthesis. 3 liars Project Draft EIS 6-19 September 20 1 3 GLOSSARY Trend: The direction of change in ecological status observed over time. Trend is described as toward or away from the Potential Natural Community, or as not apparent. Tribe: Term used to designate any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community (including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the U.S. to Indians because of their status as Indians. Understory: Plants that grow beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually refers to grasses, forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy. Undesirable plants: Species classified as undesirable, noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or poisonous under state or federal law, but not including species listed as endangered by the Endangered Species Act, or species indigenous to the planning area. Upland: The portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream. Utilization: The proportion or degree of the current year’s forage production that is consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects). Utilization may refer either to a single plant species, a group of species, or to the vegetation as a whole. Utilization is synonymous with use. Vane: A type of deflector that utilizes an upstream-point-barb to divert high velocity flow away from a cutbank or the outboard side of a meander bend. A vane can also be used to direct flow into the opposite bank initiating bank erosion and causing the channel to widen in that direction. Vegetation manipulation: The selective planting or removal of protective streambank vegetation to increase or decrease the rate of erosion or deposition of material within a stream channel. Vertebrate: An animal with a backbone. Fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are vertebrates. Visual resources: The visible physical features of a landscape. Visual resource inventory: Visual resource inventory is an inventory based on scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zone criteria and indicate the overall value of landscapes. Visual Resource Management System: The Visual Resource Management System is used by the BLM to manage visual resources on public land. Visual Resource Management objectives arc established in resource management plans in conformity with land use allocations. The BLM uses the VRM System to systematically identify and evaluate visual resource values and to determine the appropriate level of scenery management. The VRM process involves 1) identifying scenic values, 2) establishing management objectives for those values through the land use planning process, and 3) designing and evaluating proposed activities to analyze effects and develop mitigation measures to meet the established VRM objectives. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 6-20 September 2013 GLOSSARY Water quality: The interaction between various parameters that determines the usability or non-usability of water for on-site and downstream uses. Major parameters that affect water quality include: temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific ions, discharge, and fecal coliform. Watershed: The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water. Wattle: Erosion control wattles arc used to control sediment, silt, and sand in stream channels during stream reconstruction. Wattles are frequently staked into the ground to help filter water and prevent pollution in water collection and transport areas. Weed: A plant considered undesirable and that interferes with management objectives for a given area at a given point in time. Weir: A structure of various material content which spans the bankfull width of a channel used to control the slope, or grade of a stream. Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstance do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include habitats such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wilderness: Land designated by Congress as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. For an area to be considered for Wilderness designation it must be roadless and possess the characteristics required by Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. These characteristics are: 1) naturalness - lands that are natural and primarily affected by the forces of nature; 2) roadless and having at least 5,000 acres of contiguous public lands; and 3) outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation. In addition, areas may contain “supplemental values,” consisting of ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical importance. Wilderness Study Area: Areas that have been designated by the BLM as having wilderness characteristics, thus making them worthy of consideration by Congress for wilderness designation. While Congress considers whether to designate a Wilderness Study Area as permanent Wilderness, the BLM manages the area to prevent impairment of its suitability for wilderness designation. Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros: All unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros that use public lands within ten contiguous Western States as all or part of their habitat, or that have been removed from these lands by the authorized officer, or have been bom of wild horses or burros in authorized BLM facilities, but have not lost their status under the Wild and Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act ( 1 6 USC § 1 332 [f]). Wildfire: Unplanned human or naturally caused fires in wildlands. Wildland fires: Occur on wildlands, regardless of ignition source, damages, or benefits, and include wildfire and prescribed fire. Wildland fire for resource benefit: A fire ignited by lightening, but allowed to burn within specified conditions of fuels, weather, and topography, to achieve specific objectives. 3 Bars Project Draft I IS 6-21 September 2013 GLOSSARY Wildland Urban Interface (WUI): An area where structures and other human development intermingle with undeveloped wildlands or vegetative fuels. Woodland: A forest in which the trees arc often small, characteristically short-bolded relative to their crown depth, and forming only an open canopy with the intervening area being occupied by lower vegetation, commonly grass. Xeric: Very dry region or climate; tolerating or adapted to dry conditions. YZ Zuni bowl: A headcut control structure which uses the principle of the natural cascade or step pool. Rather than spill water directly over a high falls, the cascade is used to build a series of smaller steps and pools thus keeping the velocity within manageable range. 3 liars Project Draft HIS 6-22 September 20 1 3 CHAPTER 7 INDEX INDEX CHAPTER 7 INDEX Air Quality Description: 3-35 Effects: 3-36 Cumulative Effects: 3-44 Effects by Alternative: 3-38 Irreversible Effects: 3-46 Methodology for Assessing Effects to Air Quality: 3-35 Mitigation: 3-46 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-36 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-46 Significance of Effects: 3-46 Unavoidable Effects: 3-45 Regulatory Framework: 3-3 1 Alternatives Chapter 2 of the EIS is devoted to describing the alternatives Chapter 3 is devoted to analyzing the effects of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C Development of Alternatives: 1-25 Description of the Alternatives: 2-1 Activities Common to All Action Alternatives: 2-1 Alternative A: 2-12 Alternative B: 2-39 Alternative C: 2-39 Alternative D - No Action Alternative: 2-40 Alternatives Considered but Not Further Analyzed: 2- 43 Summary of Impacts by Alternatives: 2-40 American Indian and Alaska Native Cultural Resources Consultation and Coordination: 4-1 See Paleontological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Native American Traditional/Cultural Values, Practices, and Resources section in Chapter 3 Biological Crust See Soil Resources Climate See Meteorology and Climate Change Consultation and Coordination Chapter 4 of the EIS is devoted to consultation and co- ordination; also see: Cooperating Agencies: 1-19 Coordination and Education: 2-1 1 Description: 1-17 Other Governmental Agencies: 1-19 Cultural Resources Description: 3-442 Effects: 3-456 Cumulative Effects: 3-462 Effects by Alternative: 3-457 Irreversible Effects: 3-465 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-442 Mitigation: 3-466 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-456 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-464 Significance of Effects: 3-465 Unavoidable Effects: 3-464 Regulatory Framework: 3-441 Special Precautions: C-24 Cumulative Effects Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions: 3-5 Irreversible Effects: 3-20 Resource Protection Measures Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis: 3-20 Structure of the Cumulative Analysis: 3-4 Temporal and Spatial Domain: 3-5 Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 3-19 See also Chapter 3 for an assessment of cumulative effects for 3 Bars Project cultural, natural, and social resources Decisions to be Made Decisions to be made by Decision-maker: 1-10 Demographic See Section 3.24, Social and Economic Values and Environmental Justice 3 Bars Project ITraf't I IS 7-1 September 20 1 3 INDEX Ecological Site Descriptions See C hapter 3, Section 3. 1 l .2.2, Vegetation Communities Economic Environment See Section 3.24, Social and Economic Values and En vironmental Justice Effects Comparison of Alternatives: 2-45 Cumulative Effects: 3-4 Direct and Indirect Effects: 3-3 How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Evaluated: 3-1 Chapter 3 is devoted to analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C for 3 Bars Project cultural, natural, and social resources Environment Chapter 3 of the EIS is devoted to a description of the environment and analysis of effects on the environment Environmental Justice See Section 3.24, Social and Economic Values and Environmental Justice Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms Description: 3-264 Effects: 3-271 Cumulative Effects: 3-281 Effects by Alternative: 3-274 Irreversible Effects: 3-285 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-264 Mitigation: 3-285 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-271 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-284 Significance of Effects: 3-285 Unavoidable Effects: 3-284 Regulatory Framework: 3-263 Fire See Wildland Fire and Fire Management Geology and Minerals Description: 3-48 Effects: 3-53 Cumulative Effects: 3-54 Effects by Alternative: 3-53 Irreversible Effects: 3-55 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-48 Mitigation: 3-56 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-53 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-55 Significance of Effects: 3-55 Unavoidable Effects: 3-55 Regulatory Framework: 3-47 Human Health and Safety Description: 3-512 Effects: 3-517 Cumulative Effects: 3-521 Effects by Alternative: 3-518 Irreversible Effects: 3-524 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-512 Mitigation: 3-519 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-517 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-524 Significance of Effects: 3-524 Unavoidable Effects: 3-524 Regulatory Framework: 3-51 1 Impacts See Alternatives and Effects Issues and Concerns Issues and Concerns: 1-21 Issues Not Addressed in this EIS: 1-25 Need for the Project: 1-7 Purposes of the Project: 1-6 Land Use and Access Description: 3-396 Effects: 3-410 Cumulative Effects: 3-413 Effects by Alternative: 3-41 1 Irreversible Effects: 3-414 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-396 Mitigation: 3-415 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-410 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-414 Significance of Effects: 3-415 Unavoidable Effects: 3-414 Regulatory Framework: 3-395 3 Mars Project Draft HIS 7-2 September 2013 INDEX Livestock Grazing Description: 3-350 Effects: 3-357 Cumulative Effects: 3-366 Effects by Alternative: 3-359 Irreversible Effects: 3-370 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-350 Mitigation: 3-370 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-357 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-369 Significance of Effects: 3-370 Unavoidable Effects: 3-369 Regulatory Framework: 3-350 Meteorology and Climate Change Description: 3-26 Effects: 3-29 Cumulative Effects: 3-3 1 Effects by Alternative: 3-30 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-29 Regulatory Framework: 3-26 Mitigation Description: 2-44 See also Fish and other Aquatic Resources, Livestock, Cultural Resources, and Native American Traditional/Cultural Values, Practices, and Resources Native American Traditional/Cultural Values, Practices, and Resources Description: 3-469 Effects: 3-474 Cumulative Effects: 3-482 Effects by Alternative: 3-476 Irreversible Effects: 3-486 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-468 Mitigation: 3-487 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-474 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-485 Significance of Effects: 3-486 Unavoidable Effects: 3-485 Regulatory Framework: 3-466 Special Precautions: C-24 See Paleontological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Social and Economic Values and Environmental Justice Native and Non-in vasive Vegetation Resources Description: 3-148 Effects: 3-205 Cumulative Effects: 3-220 Effects by Alternative: 3-209 Irreversible Effects: 3-224 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-148 Mitigation: 3-224 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-205 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-224 Significance of Effects: 3-224 Unavoidable Effects: 3-223 Regulatory Framework: 3-146 Special Status Species: 3-202 Special Precautions: C-20 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive and Non-native Species Description: 3-226 Effects: 3-228 Cumulative Effects: 3-237 Effects by Alternative: 3-232 Irreversible Effects: 3-239 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-227 Mitigation: 3-240 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-228 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-239 Significance of Effects: 3-239 Unavoidable Effects: 3-239 Regulatory Framework: 3-225 Special Precautions: C-20 Paleontological Resources Description: 3-58 Effects: 3-58 Cumulative Effects: 3-61 Effects by Alternative: 3-59 Irreversible Effects: 3-63 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-58 Mitigation: 3-63 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-58 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-62 Significance of Effects: 3-63 Unavoidable Effects: 3-62 Regulatory Framework: 3-56 Special Precautions: C-26 3 Mars Project Draft IIS 7-3 September 2013 INDEX Prime Farmland Description: 3-207 Public Involvement Public Scoping Meetings: 1-21 Public Involvement: 5-1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Proposed Action: 1-3 Purpose and Need: 1-5 Recreation Description: 3-416 Effects: 3-418 Cumulative Effects: 3-427 Effects by Alternative: 3-422 Irreversible Effects: 3-430 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-416 Mitigation: 3-430 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-418 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-429 Significance of Effects: 3-430 Unavoidable Effects: 3-429 Regulatory Framework: 3-415 Riparian Management Description: 2-12, 3-18 Scoping Scope of Analysis: 1-12 Public Involvement, Scoping, and Issues: 1-12 See Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination Smoke Management Policies and Regulations See Wildland Fire and Fire Management Social and Economic Values and Environmental Justice Description: 3-488 Effects: 3-501 Cumulative Effects: 3-508 Effects by Alternative: 3-504 Irreversible Effects: 3-51 1 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-488 Mitigation: 3-51 1 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-501 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-5 1 1 Significance of Effects: 3-51 1 Unavoidable Effects: 3-510 Regulatory Framework: 3-487 Soil Compaction See Soil Resources Soil Erosion See Soil Resources Soil Resources Description: 3-64 Effects: 3-76 Cumulative Effects: 3-88 Effects by Alternative: 3-82 Irreversible Effects: 3-92 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-64 Mitigation: 3-93 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-80 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-91 Significance of Effects: 3-92 Unavoidable Effects: 3-91 Regulatory Framework: 3-63 Special Precautions: See Special Precautions provide for several resources in Appendix C. Special Status Species Special Precautions: C-21 See Native and Non-invasive Vegetation, Fish and Other Aquatic Resources, and Wildlife Resources in Appendix C. Species Common and Scientific Names of Species: Appendix A Statues, Regulations, and Policies Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence Restoration Treatments: 1-16 Standard Operating Procedures See Appendix C Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation: Chapter 4 See Special Status Species 3 Bars Project Draft HIS 7-4 September 2013 INDEX Visual Resources Description: 3-373 Effects: 3-380 Cumulative Effects: 3-390 Effects by Alternative: 3-384 Irreversible Effects: 3-395 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-373 Mitigation: 3-395 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-380 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-394 Significance of Effects: 3-395 Unavoidable Effects: 3-394 Regulatory Framework: 3-373 Water Resources Description: 3-93 Effects: 3-110 Cumulative Effects: 3-123 Effects by Alternative: 3-115 Irreversible Effects: 3-126 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-93 Mitigation: 3-128 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-111 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-126 Significance of Effects: 3-127 Unavoidable Effects: 3-126 Regulatory Framework: 3-93 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Zones Description: 3-130 Effects: 3-132 Cumulative Effects: 3-142 Effects by Alternative: 3-135 Irreversible Effects: 3-145 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-130 Mitigation: 3-146 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-132 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-145 Significance of Effects: 3-145 Unavoidable Effects: 3-145 Regulatory Framework: 3-128 Wild Horses Description: 3-331 Effects: 3-338 Cumulative Effects: 3-345 Effects by Alternative: 3-340 Irreversible Effects: 3-349 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-33 1 Mitigation: 3-349 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-338 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-349 Significance of Effects: 3-349 Unavoidable Effects: 3-348 Regulatory Framework: 3-331 Wilderness Study Areas and other Special Areas Description: 3-432 Effects: 3-433 Cumulative Effects: 3-438 Effects by Alternative: 3-434 Irreversible Effects: 3-440 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-432 Mitigation: 3-441 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-433 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-440 Significance of Effects: 3-440 Unavoidable Effects: 3-440 Regulatory Framework: 3-430 Special Precautions: C-27 Wildland Fire and Fire Management Description: 3-242 Effects: 3-3-253 Cumulative Effects: 3-259 Effects by Alternative: 3-254 Irreversible Effects: 3-262 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-242 Mitigation: 3-263 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-253 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-262 Significance of Effects: 3-262 Unavoidable Effects: 3-261 Regulatory Framework: 3-240 3 liars Project Draft HIS 7-5 September 20 1 3 INDEX Wildlife Resources Description: 3-288 Effects: 3-309 Cumulative Effects: 3-325 Effects by Alternative: 3-312 Irreversible Effects: 3-330 Methodology for Assessing Effects: 3-288 Mitigation: 3-33 1 Scoping Comments and Other Issues Evaluated in the Assessment: 3-309 Short and Long Term Effects: 3-330 Significance of Effects: 3-330 Unavoidable Effects: 3-330 Regulatory Framework: 3-287 Special Status Species: 3-298 Woodland Products Description: 3-203 3 Bars Project Draft BIS 7-6 September 20 1 3 APPENDIX A COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS GIVEN IN THE EIS COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS APPENDIX A COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS GIVEN IN THE EIS This appendix contains a list of the common and scientific names of plant and animal species mentioned in the text of the EIS. Common Name Scientific Name PLANTS Grasses and Grass-like Plants Alkali Sacaton Sporobolus airoides Barley, Foxtail Hordeum j ubatum Bluegrass Poa spp. Bluegrass, Alkali Poa juncifolia Bluegrass, Kentucky Poa pretensis Bluegrass, Nevada Poa nevadensis Bluegrass, Sandberg’s Poa secunda Brome, Downy Bromus tectorum Brome, Mountain Bromus carinatus Brome, Red Bromus rubens Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Cordgrass, Alkali Spartina gracilis Fescue, Idaho Festuca idaho crisis Grama, Blue Bouteloua gracilis Hairgrass, Tufted Deschampsia cespitosa Muhly Grass Muhlenbergia capillaris Muttongrass Poa fendleriarta Needle-and-thread Hesperostipa comata Needlegrass, Columbia Achnatherum nelsonii Needlegrass, Letterman’s Achnatherum letter manii Needlegrass, Thurber’s A chnatherum thurberianum Needlegrass, Western Achnatherum Occident ale Quackgrass Elymus repens Redtop Agrostis gigantea Ricegrass, Indian A chnatherum hymeno ides Rush, Baltic J uncus balticus Rush, Spike Eleocharis spp. Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Saltgrass, Inland Distichlis spicata Sedge, Clustered Field Car ex praegracilis Sedge, Nebraska Carex nebrascensis Sedge, Water-loving Carex aquatilis Squirrcltail Elymus spp. Squirrcltail, Bottlcbrush Elymus elymoides 3 liars Project Draft HIS A-l September 20 1 3 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS Common Name Scientific Name PLANTS (Cont.) Grasses and Grass-like Plants (Cont.) Timothy, Alpine Phleum alpinum Wheatgrass, Blucbunch Pseudoroegneria spicata Whcatgrass, Crested Agropyron cristatum Wheatgrass, Slender Elymus trachycaulus Wheatgrass, Western Pascopyrum smithii Wildrye, Basin Leymus cinereus Forbs and Nonvascular Plants Balsamroot Balsamorhiza spp. Bassia, Fivchook Bassia hyssopifolia Buckwheat, Beatley Eriogonum beatleyae Bulrush Scirpus spp. Cat-tail Typha lati folia Cinquefoil Potentilla spp. Clover, Sierra Trifolium sp. Cress, Hoary Cardaria draba Eriogonum Eriogonum spp. Forage Kochia Bassia prostrata Goldcnweed Haplopappus acau/is Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus Hawksbeard Crepis spp. Iris, Wild Iris missouriensis Knapweed, Russian Acroptilon repens Knapweed, Spotted Centaurea stoebe Lahontan Beardtongue Penstemon palmeri Least Phacellia Phacelia minutissima Locoweed Oxytropis lambertii Lupine Lupine spp. Milkvetch, One-leaflet Torrey Astragalus calycosus Mint Mentha spp. Mustard, Tansy Descurainia pinnata Mustard, Wild Sinapis arvensis Nevada Willowherb Epilobium nevadense Onion Allium sp. Paintbrush, Monte Neva Castilleja salsuginosa Penstemon Penstemon spp. Phlox Phlox spp. Pickleweed Salicornia sp. Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Ragwort, Tansy Senecio jacobaea Reedgrass Calamagrostis spp. Scarlet Globe-mallow Sphaeralcea coccinea Seepweed Suaeda intermedia Snakeweed Gutierrezia spp. Snakeweed, Broom Gutierrezia sarothrae Sorrel Rum ex acetosa Spikerush Elocharis spp. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS A -2 September 20 1 3 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS Common Name Scientific Name PLANTS (Cont.) Kerbs and Nonvascular Plants (Cont.) Spurge, Leafy Euphorbia esula St. Johnswort, Common Hypericum perforatum Thistle, Bull Cirsium vulgare Thistle, Canada Cirsium arvense Thistle, Musk Carduus nutans Thistle, Russian Salsola tragus Thistle, Scotch Onopordum acanthium Watercress Nasturtium officinale Whitctop, Tall Lepidium latifolium Y aiTow Achillea spp. Shrubs and Trees Aspen, Quaking Populus tremuloides Bitterbrush, Antelope Purshia tridentata Bud Sagebrush Picrothamnus desertorum Ceanothus Ceanothus sp. Chokecherry Primus virginiana Cottonwood, Black Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa Fir, White A bies concolor Gooseberry Ribes spp. Greasewood Sarcobatus spp. Greasewood, Black Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greenstem Paperflower Psilostrophe sparsiflora Hemlock, Poison Conium maculatum Hopsage Grayia spp. Hopsage, Spiny Grayia spinosa Horsebrush, Littleleaf Tetradymia glabrata Iodine Bush Allenrolfea occidentalis Juniper, Utah Juniperus osteosperma Mahogany, Cur-leaf Mountain Cercocarpus ledifolius Manzanita Arctostaphylos spp. Mormon Tea Ephedra spp. Nevada Ephedra Ephedra nevadensis Pine, Limber Pinus flexilis Pinyon, Singleleaf Pinus monophylla Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp. and Ericameria spp. Rabbitbrush, Douglas’ Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Rabbitbrush, Rubber Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rose, Wild Rosa spp. Sage, Mediterranean Salvia aethiopis Sagebrush Artemisia spp. Sagebrush, Basin Big Artemesia tridentata tridentata Sagebrush, Big Artemisia tridentata Sagebrush, Black Artemisia nova Sagebrush, Low Artemisia arbuscula Sagebrush, Mountain big Artemesia tridentata ssp vaseyana Sagebrush, Wyoming big Artemesia tridentata spp. whyom ingens is 3 Bars Project Draft BIS A -3 September 20 1 3 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS Common Name Scientific Name PLANTS (Cont.) Shrubs and Trees (Cont.) Saltbush A triplex spp. Saltbush, Four-wing A triplex canescens Saltccdar (tamarisk) Tamarix ramosissima Scrvicebcrry Amelanchier utahensis Shadscale A triplex confertifolia Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Willow Salix spp. Willow, Arroyo Salix lasiolepis Willow, Narrow-leaf Salix exigua Willow, Rock Salix vestita Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata INVERTEBRATES Beetle Coleoptera Caddisfly Trichoptcra Fly Diptera Leach Hirdinea Mayfly Ephemeroptera Snail Gastropoda Springsnail Pyrgulopsis spp. Stonefly Plecoptera True Bug Hemiptera FISH Chub, Newark Valley Tui Siphateles bicolor newarkensis Chub, Tui Gila spp. Dace, Monitor Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus spp. Dace, Speckled Rhinichthys osculus Shiner, Redside Cyprinella lutrensis Sucker, Mountain Catostomus platyrhynchos Sucker, Tahoe Catostomus tahoensis Trout, Brook Salvelinus frontinalis Trout, Brown Salmo trutta Trout, Rainbow Oncorhynchus myliss REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Boa, Rubber Charina bottae Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum Frog, Columbia Spotted Rana luteiventris Frog, Northern Leopard Lithobates pipiens Lizard, Great Basin Collared Crotaphytus bicinctores Lizard, Greater Short-horned Phrynosoma douglasii Lizard, Long-nosed Leopard Gambe/ia wislizenii Lizard, Sagebrush Sceloporus graciosus Lizard, Western Fence Sceloporus occidental is Rattlesnake, Western Cro talus oreagnus Snake, Long-nosed Rhinocheilus lecontei Snake, Ringncek Diadophis punctatus Toad, Great Basin Spadefoot Spea intermontana Toad, Western Anaxyrus boreas 3 Bars Project Draft PIS A -4 September 20 1 3 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS Common Name Scientific Name REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS (Cont.) Whipsnake, Striped Masticophis taeniatus ornatus BIRDS American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus American Kestrel Falco sparverius American Robin Turdus americanus Black Rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata Bluebird, Mountain Sialia currucoides Bluebird, Western Sialia mexicana Chickadee, Mountain Poecile gambeli Cuckoo, Yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus Dove, Mourning Zenaida macroura Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos Falcon, Prairie Falco mexicanus Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus Finch, Cassin’s Haemorhous cassinii Flicker, Northern Colaptes auratus Flycatcher, Gray Empidonax wrightii Flycatcher, Willow Empidonax traillii Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray Polioptila caerulea Goose, Canada Branta canadensis Goose, Snow Chen hyperborea Hawk, Cooper’s Accipiter cooperi Hawk, Ferruginous Buteo regalis Hawk, Red-tailed Buteo jamaicensis Hawk, Rough-legged Buteo lagopus Hawk, Sharp-shinned Accipiter striatus Hawk, Swainson’s Buteo swainsoni Heron, Black-crowned Night Nycticorax nycticorax Heron, Great Blue Ardea herodias Jay, Pinyon Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Jay, Western Scrub Apelocoma californica Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Meadowlark, Western Sturnella neglecta Merlin Falco columbarius Nighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor Northern Coot Fulica americana Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Nuthatch, Red-breasted Sitta canadensis Owl, Bam Tyto alba Owl, Flammulated Otus flammeolus Owl, Great Homed Bubo virginianus Owl, Long-eared Asio otus Owl, Northern Pygmy Glaucidium gnoma Owl, Northern Saw-whet Aegolius acadicus Owl, Short-eared Asio flammeus Owl, Western Burrowing A thene cunicularia 3 liars Project Draft HIS A-5 September 20 1 3 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS Common Name Scientific Name BIRDS (Cont.) Partridge, Chukar A lector is graeca Quail, Mountain Oreortyx pictus Raven, Common Corvus corax Robin, American Turdus americanus Sage-grouse, Greater Certrocercus urophasianus Scrcceh-owl, Western Otus asio Shrike, Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus Solitaire, Townsend’s Myadestes townsendi Sora Porzana Carolina Sparrow, Black-throated Amphispiza bilineata Sparrow, Brewer’s Spizella breweri Sparrow, Lark Chondestes grammacus Sparrow, Sage Amphispiza belli Swan, Tundra Cygnus columbianus Thrasher, Sage Oreoscoptes montanus Titmouse, Juniper Baeolophus ridgwayi Towhee, Green-tailed Pipilo chlorurus Vulture, Turkey Cathartes aura Warbler, Black-throated Gray Setophaga nigrescens Warbler, Macgillvray’s Geothlypis tolmiei Warbler, Orange-crowned Oreothlypis celata Warbler, Virginia’s Vermivora virginiae Wax wing. Cedar Bombycilla cedrorum Woodpecker, Lewis’ Melanerpes lewis MAM MALS Antelope, Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Bat, Little Brown Myotis lucifugus Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Corynorhinus townsendii Cottontail, Mountain Sylvilagus nuttallii Cougar Puma concolor Cow, Domestic Bos primigenius taurus Coyote Canis latrans Deer, Mule Odocoileus hemionus Horse Equus ferus caballus Jackrabbit, Black-tailed Lepus californicus Marmot, Hoary Marmota caligata Mouse, Dark Kangaroo Microdipodops megacephalus Mouse, Deer Peromyscus maniculatus Mouse, Pinyon Peromvscus truei Myotis, California Myotis californicus Myotis, Fringed Myotis thysanodes Myotis, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus Myotis, Long-eared Myotis evotis Myotis, Long-legged Myotis volans Myotis, Western Small-footed Myotis ciliolabrum Pipistrelle, Western Parastrellus Hesperus Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 3 liars Project Draft PIS A -6 September 2013 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS Common Name Scientific Name MAMMALS (Cont.) Rabbit, Pygmy Brachylagus idahoensis Rat, Desert Kangaroo Dipodomys deserti Rat, Ord’s Kangaroo Dipodomys ordii Sheep, Bighorn Ovis canadensis Sheep, Domestic Ovis aries Shrew, Montane Sorex monticolus Vole, Sagebrush Lemmiscus curtains Woodrat, Bushy-tailed Neotoma cinerea 3 Bars Project Draft HIS A-7 September 20 1 3 APPENDIX B PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MOUNT LEWIS FIELD OFFICE OF THE BLM AND THE NEVADA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MOUNT LEWIS FIELD OFFICE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE NEVADA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REGARDING NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT COMPLIANCE FOR THE 3 BARS ECOSYSTEM AND LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROJECT EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA WHEREAS, the Mount Lewis Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing a plan to conduct multiple phased vegetation treatments on +/-200,000 acres of public lands at various locations within the Roberts Mountain, Simpson Park Range, Kobeh and Pine Valley, Eureka County, Nevada (hereinafter referred to as the “undertaking” as defined in 36 C.F.R. § 800.16[y]); and WHEREAS, the undertaking is officially identified as the 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project (undertaking), Eureka County, Nevada; and WHEREAS, the BLM proposes to implement the undertaking to comply with all relevant Federal regulations, policies, and laws; and implementing these policies subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the BLM is responsible for completing NEPA and ensuring that it is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470f, and its implementing regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 800; and WHEREAS, the BLM has determined that the undertaking may have an effect upon properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and has consulted with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA); and WHEREAS, the BLM has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), pursuant to 36 CFR §800. 14(b), to develop and execute this Programmatic Agreement (PA) and the ACHP has elected not to formally enter consultation on the development of this PA; and WHEREAS, effects to historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) cannot be fully determined and the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth procedures to be followed in satisfaction of the BLM’s Section 106 responsibilities of the National Historic Preservation Act, for the Project in the APE, and WHEREAS, the BLM is responsible for conducting Native American Tribal consultation on a government to government level and ensuring that it is in compliance with the BLM Manual Handbook, H-8 120-1, Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation and Secretarial Order 3317; WHEREAS the undertaking would be implemented over the course of the next 15 years; and WHEREAS, this Programmatic Agreement (PA) covers all aspects of the planning, development, and implementation of undertaking including use of prescribe fire, tree cutting and removal, chaining, herbicide treatments, weed prevention and treatment, aspen restoration, seeding, stream and spring restoration and protection; NOW THEREFORE, the signatories agree that implementation of the NEPA decision record shall be administered in accordance with the following stipulations to ensure that historic properties will be treated to avoid or mitigate effects to the extent practicable to satisfy the BLM’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities for all aspects of the undertaking. I. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The signatories agree that the STATE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT between the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office for Implementing the National Historic Preservation Act, Revised January 2012 (Protocol), except as amended here, will be utilized for this PA. This Protocol is incorporated by reference. The BLM is responsible for administering this PA. This includes but is not limited to: ensuring that signatories carry out their responsibilities; overseeing cultural resource work; assembling submissions to the SHPO including reports, determinations of eligibility and effect, and treatment plans; and for seeking SHPO concurrence with agency compliance decisions. II. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT The APE for cultural resources is defined as the project boundary (+/-750,00Q acres) or the area considered for vegetation and fire management in the undertaking NEPA documents. The overall APE is shown on the map in Appendix A. The APE shall be defined to include potential direct and indirect effects to cultural resources and properties of traditional religious and cultural importance from any activities associated with the undertaking without regard for land ownership. Based on current data, there are no known historic properties outside of the direct APE that would have the characteristics that qualify them for listing in the NRHP adversely affected by visual impacts from the proposed action. However, the APE for assessing indirect effects on known historic properties will be the area plus one mile outward in all directions from the perimeter of each area, which would include some areas outside the undertaking area. The BLM may amend the APE as needed or as requested by the SHPO without amending the PA proper. 111. STIPULATIONS The BLM shall ensure that the stipulations of this PA are carried out by its contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel involved with this undertaking. The BLM shall ensure that ethnographic, historic, architectural, and archaeological work conducted pursuant to this PA is carried out by or under the direct supervision of persons meeting qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (currently available at http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm) and that those who require permits for such work by the BLM Nevada have them. A. Identification 1. The BLM, in consultation with the SHPO, shall ensure that appropriate cultural resource identification activities, including records research; informant interviews; context development; and archaeological, historic, or ethnographic inventory for the APE are conducted in a manner consistent with the Protocol. 2. The BLM shall make a good faith effort to consult with the Tribes and affected tribal members to identify properties of traditional religious or cultural importance in accordance with Secretarial Order 3317. B. Eligibility 1 For each phase of undertaking within the APE, the BLM shall evaluate cultural resources for eligibility to the NR HP. The BLM will determine NR HP eligibility prior to the initiation of activities that may affect cultural resources, using the Protocol as guidance. 2. The BLM shall consult with the Tribes or identified affected tribal members to evaluate the NRHP-eligibility of properties of traditional religious and cultural importance. Based on information shared with the BLM, the BLM would determine the NRHP eligibility of identified properties, and consult on these determinations with SHPO and the Tribes. 3. The BLM shall ensure that appropriate cultural resource inventories that identify and evaluate cultural resources are completed and that appropriate reports are prepared in accordance with the Protocol and with the Nevada BLM’s Guidelines and Standards for Archaeological Inventory, 5th edition ( January 2012), or the latest edition issued by BLM Nevada (Guidelines) at the date of implementation of each phase. C. Treatment 1. To the extent practicable, the BLM shall ensure that project activities avoid adverse effects to historic properties through project design, or redesign, relocation of activities, or by other means in a manner consistent with the Protocol. 2. In avoiding or mitigating effects, the BLM, in consultation with the SHPO, shall determine the precise nature of effects to historic properties identified in the APE, using the Protocol as guidance. 3. The BLM shall consult with the Tribes, or identified affected tribal members, to evaluate effects to properties of traditional religious and cultural importance. Based on information shared with the BLM, the BLM would determine the appropriate treatment to avoid or to minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects, and consult on these determinations with SHPO and the Tribes. 4. For properties eligible under NRHP criteria (a) through (c), mitigation other than data recovery may be considered in the treatment plan (e.g., Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record recording, oral history, historic markers, exhibits, interpretive brochures or publications, etc.). Where appropriate, treatment plans may include provisions (content and number of copies) for a publication for the general public. 5. The BLM shall, in consultation with the SHPO, ensure that the fieldwork portions of any treatment plan (using BLM staff or contractors and subcontractors) are completed prior to initiating any activities that may affect historic properties located within the area covered by the plan. 6. The BLM shall ensure that all field records, artifacts, and samples (soil, carbon.. .) collected during the identification, recordation, and any treatment efforts are maintained until the final treatment report is complete. All artifacts will be curated in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 79 or 43 C.F.R. § 10. TV, DURATION This PA shall remain in effect for fifteen (15) years from the date of its execution. If proposed actions in the APE are not completed prior to such time, the BLM may consult with the other signatories to reconsider the terms of the PA and amend it in accordance with Section X below or extend the document for additional fifteen (15) years. The BLM shall notify the signatories as to the course of action it will pursue. V. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY SITUATIONS Stipulations of this PA and the Protocol are intended to identify and treat cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Unplanned discoveries of buried cultural resources are not anticipated. In the case of an unplanned discovery, the BLM will ensure that provisions in the Protocol (Section VI.B) and Appendix B of this PA are met. Prior io initiating any ground disturbing activities within the APE, all BLM employees, contractors, and subcontractors empowered to halt activities in a discovery situation shall be informed about who to contact and under what time frame. At least one of these individuals will be present during any project field activities. Activities in the area of the discovery will be halted until the BLM Authorized Officer provides written authorization that the required mitigation is complete and activities can resume. VI. NOTICES TO PROCEED When appropriate, in consultation with the SHPO and in compliance with the PA stipulations, the BLM may issue Notices to Proceed for individual project phases, under the following conditions: A. The BLM, in consultation with the SHPO, has determined that 1 . either there are no historic properties within the APE or through project design all historic properties will be avoided for the current phase of the undertaking; and 2. in consultation with the Tribes, no properties of traditional religious or cultural importance were identified within the APE for the current phase of the undertaking; or B. The BLM, after consultation with the SHPO and in the case of properties of traditional religious or cultural importance, the Tribes, has implemented an adequate treatment plan for the current phase of the undertaking, and 1 . the fieldwork phase of the treatment option has been completed; and 2. the BLM has prepared or accepted a summary description of the fieldwork performed and a schedule for reporting that work; and 3. the BLM shall provide a copy of the summary to SHPO; and 4. the SHPO shall review the summary and if the SHPO concurs or does not respond within two working days of receipt, BLM shall assume concurrence and issue the NTP; and 5. the BLM shall not begin any ground disturbing activities within the boundaries of any historic property until a NTP is issued for the property; and 6. a partial NTP may be issued for portions of the APE that are outside of the area that may affect historic properties. VII. MONITORING AND REPORTING A. Any signatory may monitor actions carried out pursuant to this PA. To the extent practicable, monitoring activities should minimize the number of monitors involved in the undertaking. B. Reporting 1 . A draft report of the identification, recordation, evaluation, treatment or other mitigative activities will be due to the BLM from any contractor within three (3) months after the completion of the fieldwork associated with the activity, unless otherwise negotiated. 2. BLM should review and comment on any report submitted by contractors within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. The BLM shall submit the results of identification, recordation, evaluation, and treatment efforts, including discovery situations, and treatment plans to the SHPO for a 30 calendar day review and comment period. 4. If the SHPO fails to respond to the BLM within 30 calendar days of the receipt of a submission, the BLM shall presume concurrence with the findings and recommendations as detailed in the submission and proceed accordingly. 5. The BLM shall ensure that all final archaeological reports resulting from actions pursuant to this PA will be provided to the SHPO. All such reports shall be consistent with contemporary professional standards and the Department of Interior's Formal Standards for Final Reports of Data Recovery Programs (48 Federal Register 44716-44740). VIII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A. The BLM shall ensure that all its personnel and all the personnel of its contractors and subcontractors are directed not to engage in the illegal collection of historic and prehistoric materials. All parties shall cooperate with the BLM to ensure compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470), as amended, on public lands and with Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 383 for private lands. B. The BLM shall ensure that any human remains, grave goods, items of cultural patrimony, and sacred objects encountered during the undertaking are treated with respect. In coordination with this PA, human remains and associated grave goods found on public land will be handled according to the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., and its implementing regulations (43 C.F.R. § 10). Human remains and associated grave goods on private land will be handled according to the provisions of NRS 383. C. The BLM shall bear the expense of the identification, evaluation, and any treatment of historic properties directly or indirectly affected by project-related activity. Such costs may include, but not be limited to, pre-field planning, fieldwork, post-fieldwork analysis, research and report preparation, interim and summary report preparation, publications for the general public, and the cost of curating project documentation and artifact collections. D. Information on the location and nature of cultural resources, and information provided by and considered proprietary by the Tribes, will be held confidential to the extent provided by Federal and state law. IX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION If any signatory to this PA objects to any activities proposed pursuant to the terms of this PA, the BLM Mount Lewis Field Office (MLFO) Manager shall consult with the objecting party and the SHPO to resolve the issue. If the BLM MLFO Manager determines that the objection cannot be resolved, they shall request the assistance of the BLM Nevada Deputy Preservation Officer and the Battle Mountain District Manager to resolve the objection. The BLM Battle Mountain District Manager’s decision will be considered final. The signatories may continue all actions under this PA that are not in dispute. X. AMENDMENT Any signatory to this PA may request that this PA be amended, whereupon the signatories will consult to consider such amendment. The amendment will be effective on the date a copy signed by all of the signatories is filed with the ACHP. XL TERMINATION Any signatory to this PA may terminate the PA by providing thirty (30) days advance written notice with cause to the other signatories, provided that the signatories will consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. EXECUTION of this PA and implementation of its terms is evidence that the BLM has taken into account the effects of this undertaking on historic properties and afforded the ACHP an opportunity to comment. SIGNATORIES: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT N ERVATION OFFICER C :Jd Office Manager bnald M. James, SHPO Date Date 3 Bars Programmatic Agreement Concurring Party Signatures Battle Mountain Band Council Michael Price, Chair Elko Band Council Gerald Temoke, Chair Ely Shoshone Tribe Alvin Marques, Chair South Fork Band Council Sim Malotte, Chair Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Bryan Cassadore, Chair Yomba Shoshone Tribe Date Dale Yie/zO/Z Date Date Date Date Elisha Mockerman, Chair Date Appendix A: Area of Potential Effect w ** iiSQtmwpmmammmtmmam maim MomrrifMVNajDomcc MIOIMI *a*> MTTVJ WOW • (mi oiAtt e> COUNTY 6 SAT LAND STATUS PVT BLUWSA I J-UAR8 PROJECT U9A0tSTB — STATE HWY LOCAL HOAD - MINOR TOAD PERENNIAL 5TREAM o«n a puaus>«o m n« NoaiH amcacam oahm i M3 cmooi uTNrortt. n »_ Mrran k mnscu.JAMjMAV’s.fpik ^TsansracaMms xtsems APPENDIX B: DISCOVERY AND UNANTICIPATED IMPACTS PROCEDURES In the event that previously unknown cultural resources are discovered within the area of potential effects of the undertaking, or should known resources be directly or indirectly impacted in an unanticipated manner, the following actions, at a minimum, would be initiated by the BLM in consultation with the signatories: 1 . All activities will halt in the immediate vicinity of the discovery and all actions will be directed away from an area at least 100 meters in all directions from the point of discovery. a. A BLM cultural resources specialist (CRS) will be notified immediately by the contractors or BLM staff working on the project. The BLM will ensure that a CRS, with the proper expertise for the suspected resource type, is on-site as soon as possible. b. The BLM will initiate consultation with the appropriate parties, including the SHPO, other federal agencies, the Tribes, and interested parties as appropriate. c. In the event that a CRS or other necessary persons are not immediately available, BLM may be required to cover and/or otherwise protect the resource until such time that the appropriate parties can be present for inspection and/or evaluation. 2. Upon arriving at the site of the discovery, the CRS will assess the resource. At a minimum, the assessment will include: a. The nature of the resource (e.g., number and kinds of artifacts, presence/absence of features). This may require screening of already disturbed deposits, photographs of the discovery, and/or other necessary documentation. b. The spatial extent of the resource. This may require additional subsurface testing, mapping or inspection, as is appropriate to the resource. c. The nature of deposition/exposure. This may require interviews with construction personnel, other persons having knowledge concerning the resource or, in rare instances, the expansion of existing disturbances to establish the characteristics of the deposits. 3. Discoveries and unanticipated impacts to known resources will be managed according to the provisions of this PA and the Protocol. After consultation with the appropriate parties, BLM shall then make a determination of eligibility, treatment and effect. If necessary, BLM, in consultation with the SHPO, the Tribes and appropriate parties, shall ensure that a treatment plan is prepared following the guidance provided in this PA. 4. Any items covered by NAGPRA encountered in a discovery, or unanticipated impact situation, will be handled according to 43 C.F.R. § 10 or Nevada state laws, as appropriate. 5. All implementation activities in the area of the discovery will be halted until the BLM documents in writing that identification and treatment is complete and activities can resume. APPENDIX C STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page C. 1 General Standard Operating Procedures C-l C.2 Project Specific Standard Operating Procedures C-l C.2. 1 General C-l C.2. 2 Livestock .7. C-l 3 C.2. 3 Wild Horses C-14 C.2.4 Erosion Control C-15 C.2. 5 Planting and Seeding C-16 C.2. 6 Protective Fences C-16 C.2. 7 Riparian Management C- 1 7 C.2. 8 Aspen Management C-l 7 C.2. 9 Pinyon-juniper Management C-l 7 C.2. 10 Sagebrush Management C-l 8 C.2. 1 1 Prescribed Fire and Fire for Resource Benefit C-l 8 C.2. 12 Activity Fuel Disposal Methods C-l 8 C.3 Special Precautions C-20 C.3. 1 Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response C-20 C.3. 2 Fish and Wildlife C-21 C.3. 3 Native American Concerns and Cultural Resources C-24 C.3. 4 Paleontological Resources C-26 C.3. 5 Wilderness Study Areas C-26 References C-27 List of Tables C-l Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines C-2 C-2 Raptor Nest Buffers C-23 3 liars Project Draft lilS C-i September 20 1 3 S TANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES APPENDIX C STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES This section identifies Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that would be followed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under all alternatives to ensure that risks to human health and the environment from treatment actions would be kept to a minimum. Standard operating procedures are the management controls and performance standards required for streambank restoration and vegetation management treatments. These practices arc intended to protect and enhance natural resources that could be affected by future treatments. C.l General Standard Operating Procedures The BLM will comply with SOPs identified in the 17-States PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007a:2-22 to 2-38), and PER (USDOI BLM 2007b:2-31 to 2-44). These SOPs are provided in Table C-l. These SOPs have been identified to reduce adverse effects to environmental resources and human health from vegetation treatment activities based on guidance in BLM manuals and handbooks, regulations, and standard agency and industry practices. The SOPs listed in these documents are not all encompassing, but give an overview of practices that should be considered when designing and implementing a vegetation treatment project on public lands. In addition to these SOPs, the Mount Lewis Field Office has identified the following additional SOPs that would apply to the 3 Bars Project. C.2 Project Specific Standard Operating Procedures C.2.1 General 1 . Several site-specific projects would likely take place each year. Treatment locations and acreage to be treated within any one year would be dependent upon availability of funding. The BLM will coordinate with the affected livestock operator(s) to ensure that livestock are managed in a way that supports the accomplishment of treatment objectives. 2. If multiple projects are proposed for an area, the BLM will try to complete all or several of the projects at similar times to reduce/avoid the occurrence of multiple disturbances in the area over an extended period of time. 3. Treatments would occur during those times of the year when they are most likely to be successful. The BLM will make every effort to ensure through treatment design that restorative actions achieve site specific objectives. 4. The BLM will consult the LR2000 database to identify locations of existing authorizations and avoid disturbance of active mining claim markers prior to any treatment. The LR2000 is the BLM's Legacy Rehost System that provides reports on BLM land and mineral use authorizations for oil, gas, and geothermal leasing, rights-of-way, coal and other mineral development, land and mineral title, mining claims, withdrawals, and classifications, on federal lands or on federal mineral estate. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS C-l September 20 1 3 TABLE C-l Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 05 OJ t oa o <2 Z OJ g- § cc ^ m 1 1 2 ■*— o 73 2 o U •Sax: -s JD S p? S k -ft js Q —■ X ^ -<3 S bo r be a g s 1 3 CU s 4-1 m ^ o ^ bok 2 | ^"§ 2 a k § a X ^ S ti s* cd ^ x ■8 -§ r R to -r a >, (U X! 4—* <3 H P c/3 P <3 ^ 73 O <3 lL 4-* P c/3 C <3 ° ^ o P _ <3 a3 $ O X) ’3) p -2 eS O X •° a „ >n X f r— « 4— » g 1/5 ° •£ ^ bD X 03 <3 „ J-. <3 03 x: <3 N 2£ - 73 *3 a > y c/f 2 13 •*-* 6C/) *73 a © o £ <3 £* <3 I *•§ >4 a J3 0 X X 4- c X 03 c/5 C/3 G X C G 03 s G 0 <3 73 9 G C g «x 03 0 H C H G X O a/ o a/ CL •■“ ce c/5 -5 G <1> I X g 2 « &|x 44 fc «/ w O T5 03 § fa *1> C JD O 73 U <2 - ^ 2 — o .2 o a/j o J2 ” 4= o (~i ^ X J-, C/5 X C g -o £| g g O ^ '2 s Z 2 « « ■a o j= •L* a j c a» E -w C3 0/ ■- H T~»4 I IP C ^3 03 3 3 « (N I S ’-* S ™ o ON T3 ^ c s: x; S O bo ^ C3 > g Co (D J—i S-l (U & C ^ § (1) 73 > c/) 03 ^ X3 O C/3 2 (D 53 o o Q -4 CQ ■g o3 "^S ft) O C/3 4-. c/3 2 e 43 > ^ >5^ aj g N C O ’G G -44 C X “2 •G o "O C/l X o a/ >N C/j -P .2 tj G O 2 1 c aj g o G C/5 o O X w . G X O " g -O o G - U x -2 5 x G G iO C3 e «t j= o 0/ o o o s ^ ^ g 3 ^ rc> ~ -T5 k, — to .c J£ 5 2 S G G o S2 o a3 5 s .S t x G 3 L> L, a3 X ^ 3 O G3 Gs g I o Ph C3 D, o3 o3 <3 . 43 i-l 4-> 0) KA §• s (3 73 !> c/3 o3 -rr 43 O w 2 ^ G g .2 O c/3 C/3 03 x S3 'Tj § 2 5 C/5 33 , <3 4-, G G O W x 0/ Sh o. - 2- G ^ S S ^ <3 <3 S3 u. Vh W ^3 ^3 35 CT <3 73 S3 c3 C/3 J3 13 73 <3 (3 bO S3 <3 <3 £ C3 S3 <3 H 43 oJ (3 <3 > —« X 2 S3 <2 > ^ > 43 O > • od £5 03 O (3 4-» J_ C/3 ^ 03 x O X G o X X G 03 03 I? au G S tj j 9 § o I § 1« If cu O} i2 oj ~C3 3 G — , -O •5b i R . R i C3 < k gj C ki 2! 3 ^ 04 "X ON CJJ 4 -R s OJ E — w OJ OJ •— 3 O s OJ QZ CD c aj g G u o Q 0> o r~| o3 #^o *3 o G G G G g R 03 TZ <3 (3 — ' rl -♦-* o o E P X) ’o > < p .2 c3 a5 bD (3 o3 p- <3 C (3 o <3 C/3 73 g 4-1 3 liars Project Draft RIS C-2 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES s o U I U u -J ca < H en 0/ s "O U ■o 2 2 V) 4» •— 2 ■o it at O WO .c H-< at Q. O •a c 2 ■*— C/5 1/3 13 © — ■hj a s c at £ Cl o H c %o h-< « •*— at OX) at > ■a o J3 ■*-< at c at £ +-» Cd H CO at 'cx| _© "o £ cO E x o c D cx • .ir t- 3 at o"P o £ • S oo 3 c 3 2 'J* o 2 £ C/3 g > o CD *-• N -O 3 X C 3 at x at 3 CX . S 2 « s = 3 CD > J3 O *33 03 .5 a. ^ £ CD X O c3 Oh . E 2 •- X) 4—* c3 g S = 5 (U G l* • 3 3 3 at X hS at at u U- ■o a co 3 at at oo c0 3 CO £ at x*c o c 1/5 g s 0 at o > at 2 xt' 1 o O o c/T 3 •S CD X! C/D O T3 Oh 4— > CD X cd o 03 O- r— * 3 O a £? II u5.S — T3 O o3 C/3 ^ o S' 55 u o o ^ p ,iu 2 S Jt: E co at c« •2 T3 ■o § o c 8 .2 at S •5 X C0 P % O > o 3 T3 at 3 CX O 3 -3 X £ 1 03 <+3 T3 at o. C/3 ‘o g a> 3 C3 Uh O > .KJ ^4— < at c/5 'O s 3 O 3 X £ 1 m 8 _at X cO o 'E- cx cO 3 at x c/T at t-i X X at c0 X C/5 X o o 3 .O to at N •S 1 8 '§ > c at x 3 at > 3 X o c X cO at x o E C/5 _ at at x oo.g E C/3 ^ co f O in ID 3 X O O CX O }— C (X cx CO at x o E X ^2 3 O O CO ■“ Oh • ^ 50 CO ‘g JZ o ^ (D +-» o D CQ £ 8 3 f CO o 0/J • r-H a> > 8 3 2 O- X o 3 3 E 4— » G X Uh 4—* T3 G G C/3 a> Ih Oh E 3 X > E I -s X X x o p. U5 at q a S at 3 00 at « £ 4—* 03 JZ! o oj . i ° X CO > o at x o at B £ at 3 i- at *X .M m E CO '£ E C/3 C/3 O S 3 ° O X o C/3 C/3 Q> 03 „ O S c cO © I a 6 E O 3 bo o o O 3 o 3 .2 CO X 3 2 <- S x o cu * m ^ .S .5 oo c & X 3 at ,2P £ c0 > c/D .3 i £ 's £ ° 3 ^ 07 >» t£ * O 13 ^2 ^ c/3 P r- O ^ ZZ5 o .s '% at 3 O 00 1 rs *o > < -4-* (L> x oo at ° 53 E >5 S to i -i X O 2 ft ■« u 8 2 -2 at x o O C/3 (D X C/3 C/3 a> _ ^ C3 73 J2 2i o < O 03 03 C e £ o > ^ 4-h C/3 O 4— • w g X 3 00 •2 .£ to > o O 00 = at ,o > ^ at oo ^ 3 at x to 3 4-» 03 C/3 G o Q G fG X H D U. O Uh o 03 X) s C/3 o C/3 CD N ■E E .S 03 CD ctf G D H c^ o 4— » g iC E > to O (1) at -o S 'x CO H x 3 00 •2 .2 S ^ at *— 1 oo = at ,c > c<- at oo ^ 3 at -rt 4— • ^3 CO 3 _4— » CU X Oh 2 >- • «2 o -g x 00 O x •£ E XL "g to 3 8 K X ca 3 at N 3 £ 2 x « 3 X co 4— * w CD 3 2 at £ r- 03 £-£ fa O'. 52 at -o at x 'o X C/5 at •5 at 3 x oo at O co £ § to = 4 £ x o 2 X c/5 8 2-2 at = X = o ^ "2 3 8 2 at N at at x 3 c0 at x CO o 3 o o at 5~ cO > .s £ E 03 o g E -o © -= ■©> © c © E -4-1 eo © u H T3 P P P o © O © p ’OX) °- © CQ o o © N 00 •g c P P © ■3 3 Mi CX o © P > c P c '3 « a CD cj fa "d CD i-t T3 § CJ fa O r2 C/D C/D fa 0 c/T 1 D 'S O *C 4— * fa '0 C/D £ X) D 0 4-* CL, 4-, Oh O CD CD •£ fa fa C/D V- 4 C4 C/D "fa O D H -4— < C/D fa E C/D CL fa fa O fa fa r- 1 *53) 0 00 p ’o E CJ O .fa 'fa fa D > O fa CD C/D *13 CL s C/D 0 ‘S D D SD O X3 4D CL O S LH J- fa cL L- O D Lh D ’d fa C/D X- D rfa o rv c/d ^ o C/) ■*— ' fa <\j W> Oi) to J2 S § P CO —3 TO 'o © - .N © E > '3 CD 5 £ £ P o © CO a. g o © o rq A p ?? © © J3 o. Xh 22 O c/5 © c § o cd a N CD CD & 2 © c -a . 2 C/D £ CL 3 cr C cO o •53 P* O C3d O 2 G © CO © ~ C e .2 33 C/5 o o Pc© io 8 "2 .2 © 3 § S hn M ^ g CX *0 (D > o3 - 3 -2 © § *— 1 ,2 O i2 s I “ - & c o $3 (D C/D J3 8 W a . . o fa ^ "cTd -9 Cb o C c © 5 £ % -s 0: i5 -3 Mog f- CO JO © © r2 c o "d 0 CA fa fa © d N CD 'g N O "2 ci3 '3 D ^ H fa 0 © U. ■a c -2 © — © 'o £ C/D ^h c3 ^ ^ tj o © © 2? c ^ o *X X) p CO P CO CO © © p © 'p 2 c+H « H P C © E to © J3 p o *4— » 03 o a 55 o S a> c>o > o CD > O CJ x- © to x a © -a •4—* 03 T3 CO P JX o © © o 3 +-* 03 & £ © 00 D, S ca) 43 (D 03 d P CD 03 fa .2 - 'So O O fa fa ^ o3 dj 43 N © .1 -2 .2 2 § p 3' • 2 T3 t3 ^ •© S o © cn © on P, 03 C/D •p 5 © « b 2 c g ■O 'O o © C/D fa (D N A * Cl . fa D ' ■ 'E- 44 r- Q fa O 03 X- X© fa p O C/D C/D D fa 03 C/D .fa rfa fa o ML 2 s p p >- ^ sg © ©H • — £ © TJ p g o co P3 © T3 00 P © CO > — "O S CO CO c« cO © P "O P © o 3 — C/5 P © > © _© X3 U5 P © Sh • »-H *55 ^ L— i—> o 2 fa CD T3 C/D D CJ fa O C/D O fa CD Lh D N 03 — T3 JO P p P ia p © P P3 P ©- Ji O ^ — C/5 P © > © O -P C/5 © •5 o CX X5 P E ' o g © © © N P (U © -p p 2 p ^ o _© 4—* 4— » 03 C/5 4-* "d d *-• cr g © p JO ^ p p B “ o fa o ^ Q ^ g c fa 4— » CJ 4— » fa OD • ^ s CJ CD >-* fa- ©4 ^ o J^ C/D “ 00 P JO 25 o> ” — p £ o ?— c/D CJ *1-H OO CA © p © o Cu © p G P C/5 i p JD P - E cl .£ © p cx p CD CL 0 JO 00 C/D p E 43 p CD JO 4—* fa . © 4—* CD N W) £ CD > - 2 D X© © ©

fa _fa 'fa 4—* _C fa C o> E lj © © x 3 O / © £ P o © © © 3 o C/5 © Cd ’0 C/5 C/5 © © © P O C/5 © od p — C s: p co x J ■ & X « p ^ ?> .0 C/2 © £ ^ 3 Bars Project Draft HIS C-4 September 20 1 3 Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES a> C a> £ a a> u X G CL) g -5 O X > X C/5 Cd £ £ O CL, C 5 J- 2 >; >> cr "5 P "§ 8 G ^ o * 8 5 5) X> 0) a; G $ c/s E .« o 1/5 * S G O (L> cH G ^ c/s G k- C o be! o o 4— » C/5 ^ g G 2 .2 8 0) 2 o ° r° X ) X -+-» 9- o o o -a c X 'dU c/5 O cn a> 2 CX ’ C/5 X o C/5 cd C G £ .2 X 00 ’ C D. G O o 0) •— O o £ > _> X X £ X G o X £ ’oo cd "3 S 03 C/5 CD C (D g 4— < cd o •— w O £ c^ ^ g •i a 2 g s J I (U G b cc! c<3 ^ C/2 'G .G C C C6 4) G 4) *i •" 1-. O — 1 -G G, 1) c n G > o 2 « S 5 G > £ 4) G 4) E .2 "H. 4) G G, & 2 c7? E E b ■- o o G G ^ T3 -2 0) X 60 § 'I E ^ « O 60 G 4) G > S — U (U (J u 3 O c/s 0/ QC C/S G O 3 o c/s G c2 ^ k- -j G c 3 o ^ U .1 3 .2- 2 •G G 3 c/s ■G C G c/s •3 « G J> £ < £ .2 X cd 4—* ^ O w o gS ^ Cl ^3 ^ g Id <*'2 2 s « . cd ■ 2. p o go c G — r; T3 G G" G 1/3 G ^ cc! be! O O x> •G G G X b ”<3 § 2 5 2 I ^ § | I ^ «=; 's~i s: co at 'oil o "o 5 CO £ £ CO ■a o — -t-l at s ■*4 £ a* E -n CO a* •— E- 43 G D s c/5 T3 3 t-H D r2 c o U 0) 3 O c ■ - .9 £ 3 s .a o. 00 CL G cO N 9 3 43 bb 00 00 .g .5 "3 C/5 X CL> ■ o C/5 0) _c d 00 22 G G N M 2 c ob .9 3 9 G 43 o .9 5b £ 2 £ O 3 D 1/5 s G CO D •E g c/3 G ^ c3 x a> S ^ ’3 TO C/3 X cd X) 03 ^ Cd (D 2 ^ CD O g ^ .& 5 Vh 9, 3 <42 > s-. o o3 £ •*- o g CD C/3 G CD CD 03 03 SO CD E -4—* o3 CD 03 £ 00 o -r .2 § S ^ .£ _G «-H C/5 2 V3 G c3 O H 4— » C/3 .3 C/3 c*j CD > r~] C/3 CO T3 > G ^ co 9 S s a Q o G J, g 1 £ f .& 03 £ i-H CD ■4— * G CD O X. ^ CD G TO (D o3 a o 2 2 s s CD To a T3 03 fl ’S 2 c3 s u £ CD 43 •— TO -*— * w G "G c/5 CD g v- o ,P 4=i 9 33 to .2 ^ c CD 3 >, ’’O +3 33 T3 C O O O co ft ax cO CD G C/5 i-i c9 3 _D "3 CD -a G CO G O C/5 E ^30 3 CD Jr; « 43 " 00 ^ ^ CD 00 O > G 1/5 G 'Eh 2 •3 cO N 3 aj G .£ -9 I co 43 C/5 !+3 _G 5+i E c E S I C/5 43 T3 ,!£ o -c >i (D 3 CL , C/5 G - x> •s E CD CD 2 r 43 C/3 CD t+3 w — C/5 G CD 2 oo -£ 9 ? to CD 43 P •- G G +r C »D O O 43 o •> T o 5 to -a t: s 00 f o to ■£ g o o £ g-g -G c3 T C/3 ■= 2 •£ C Xl _• D 43 D O 43 -O u £ N 3 00 D X ■4—* O "O c ra E S I C/3 CD -3 £ d -r G. > D D r~! I— i X 2 X /CD | g 2 S ♦r cd G D O 3 o' o 9 '£ 2 c9 G CL 00 +1 C 3 •g 3 = s ^ E, C/3 gH Bl II 03 -*T (D O •J-* TO b> £ N G E ^ U. CD X TO G o3 C/3 TO (D ’S 2 O X T3 ^ G c/3 03 o> c^ fa CD ^ 2 X x (D ^ X 2 c2 . 2? r-2 TJ X • 2 TO ^4 *— < CD X X > 2 X •CO Cd ^ ~ lo G D o • G G ‘^0 03 Q* n “ G 2 CC G X bo G *c G X C/3 2 CD a 2 CD H -4— » CD G o3 ^4 £ G ,o CD 4— > cd C-4— ( N C bD C/3 X X C— < | 3 c 4— » C/3 .2 d X 'S o CL - 9 .9 g a* 9 "33 co O ^ g 9 e. £ CD E QJ w at at •- £ O C/5 at Q£ o o 3 4— < D 00 D > D O — 3 O C/5 D c9 3 43 3 .9 ix 2 ^ bp ssl 3 Bars Project Draft E1S C-6 September 20 1 3 Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES C3 c j "3o| _o "o £ « a £ § :§ a E fcb -o xa c o co O . . ■4—* 2 OJ 15 •- o £ O C/5 rz: (D £ rg ID bo £ * o > o o o o fc- *-■ c >» O Xa c — O c/3 03 nn u d> d> > ■§ CO ? _ C/5 Q CO 3 7 ° j: CO (D CX XP CJ CO > o E CD 3 O c/3 i2 to o qo;-5 a> C > o 12 1 ,o o .« s a 2 o c a « 2 cir ex to IP ^ i r- ID CO C « ■s g ja 2 c ~ ^ o o C/5 d) cd a, £ 6 o ^.2 T3 | g P 7 & 8 T3 d> C/5 O Oh o c a3 O d> rs T3 o 03 GO C 1 I S-h C/5 o c — * o *73 W) ’-O 8 .£ .£ 2 3b K o « 2 , d> 00 2 d> 2 d> 13 d> T3 JU X d> X rs ' C/5 4-4 o C/5 o > O Oh C/5 d) d) o3 4— i d> 2 c M d) .g o. w P c .S o O C/5 d» Oh 2 £ d> > -4—* o ■4—* O d> X .2 c S c2 z P ° CX CJ X5 O a> s c 1/ e -DH S3 CD i_ H d> ’5 d> 5s" 03 03 3 O o o d> c/5 d> ^ o O V- oj Cu o 03 Oh £ .§ £ d> N d) 8*Jp c2 E 4-t > C d> £ ^ o O 4_ CO o d) C/5 d> 4Z o 03 Oh g § c« 33 33 b/j 2 ? O cO t/o 'i/5 . 2 -a bB' £ « 5 g 1 *8 « Zbcfi£ 3-i C/3 o c , o bO • C CJ .2 §) o c B X_ S-X 2 ° to P > xc o ,_ X- O cu c2 o ID 'o* "g x- E CX co ID P -5 -2 P? co o c en bp 2 o .2 o E ° § ^ ?; 2 ,?p p- o •'■ Z 2 T3 C CO C/3 o 00 S -2 c S o a o ^ _ C/3 .5 E c 8 x> C — 2 o o CX x> T3 >? 'o c2 > CO CO i^i ■a _, o c E 2 co 2 -o "S C d) S2 c3 " P «r ■S SPcP to 53 ^ P In O x- , m C/5 cS d) C o3 CO "S CJ CO -a id “ o c “ S o cx c Q ID P O E to — CJ ^3 s- 0) 2 P cx -3 co o jx co CJ ID P _ CO CO P CO -P u S'! > a o — CJ C/3 •p CO O 2 E 12 pCP £ cj £ c -= p d) "S T3 .S P cO O -P X3 CJ C/5 p O P G S op g • S tj o Xh CD O P a> g O CO 'a? eg ^ S ^ CO 03 C/5 ~o H o3 >, O O . »—i -4— » -o -2 aj o CD CX d i — X c^ d> d) 4-» 'Td c ^ t-H i cd -o g g S P aj ob p Xh s. 0 .br Oh C/5 C/5 S 03 2 4) a d) o Oh O C/5 CJ T3 d> ° C Oh E o ^ B. ^ X-i ‘*3 O P «» -2 aj 12 to ^3 •p c S « U C/5 d) g E g B O aj bo P pa "bb O 3 O JO 1/3 t/3 2 x 30 bb — u p .2 ’ O -r-J X 8 « S c <2 8 pa o o a \ C/5 < > X 2 xp ^ 2 co m P "O C O O ‘C C aj C/5 -4— > d> 03 Oh g C/5 C/5 S O o o d> E CO ° ts CD ID D 2 bo x p 2 £P 5b p P S ^ n 2 S N cx bo c 'n CO t>0 S — C/3 X) D n YX co 5^3 ■ — ■ (DX) Oh B w d> d) £ --2 X- c/3 2 S ■ P cx to X: 1 2 o 13 2 « S 3 > > x o ^ 5- n CU X d> d> Q5 Tj P3 P- C Oh 03 o3 d> r" C _C C/5 •4—* CJ b/j 3 _o o o 'c *c C/5 d> -5 p- O CJ -3 .5 o S ° C £ S >3 CX E o Z 2 — C/3 .2 E £ d> o q d) c -4-* *r O O Oh ^ "O ^ o c2 % S T5 C d> W) 03 d) ~c3 3 c H IZ1 O T3 a> cn o CU 1/5 ■§ x u P ifl 5? p co aj ^ o aj ° i—* 4— < (ij Q_ (/) o u o C/5 C/5 ■4— » C/5 jy CJ o3 'c Oh o g • |H fc ■4—* d> o d) d) c o '^3 CJ d> 4-4 N o g C/5 .2 *3 *3 d> i Oh C/5 • .2 ’3 d> Oh oJ d) ’S 0 S ■g efa C/5 -*-* d> X 1 s 4=i d> in X T3 d> in ^ ° ^ Oh S o ^ a cB' P* 'J3 O P ID 12 £3 X •g O g 03 C C/5 d) g ^ g IP g P to o aj bfl _P 'n cO x- aj 5b P X^ bfl 2 3 O CO C/3 P! CD a> co pa o o -4— • C/5 d) > o d) X ■f-* C/5 CJ d> d) d) o3 • cx 2 •co 'o’ "g T3 C § E 2 co C/3 £ P x g g E eg to O aj id P bO a I J3 5 2 T3 Q co N 03 O G •: g E CX ^3 bX3 t/5 S d) 03 4> *- -r O wp. d) •*-* dX) C/5 c X ^ ‘n ^ S — S— ( O f-N bX) CU S 5/3 > ° -P cx to Itp E pa 2 o to 2 C/3 a> 2 > > XP 2 x a c2 a> "O x co ' ° ,c C/3 tj— « o P a> o . .P o . £ ° 2 aj D > CX o >3 CX, « E • O Z 2 = 0/ r“ B — U 1/ CJ o CD 0 c/3 a> 01 c2 c o a a> 'o ^ aj a ^ S C/3 Cj TO ^ Tt aj >*- 4 T3 O cd tg c o •S is X. cu ■i s: 4 C3 R r*» '-X* a 4*4 R xa 0 0 =§ N C3 6 P S "a **«H» CJ d) *4^» CJ *4^* S bo s a xP 5 5i 1) 0 1 g Y* CJ CJ 0 1/3 D u X 0 aj a/ on CJ £ bo § U CQ s; .0 i£i > IS aj 00 3 ■o a* u o - a- ©D cs •- a> D. o T3 C5 •o C •*— E « 0) H 3 Bars Project Draft PIS C-8 September 20 1 3 Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES cs CJ _© "o ca c/3 T3 3 co X 3 3. c/3 1) X •C c o u 3 b x w c *-> cO X ^ •= X 'C „ •o 2 "S 5 S 3 « O c£ •*“* d— . fl > * v rr4 c o d> > d> G a 3 ^ o § o O to c/3 X « t M d) X G '5 £ t . C 3 a g I _0 3 . 3 w BO § §>'§ id o5 cd "S .a ^ BO <5 O > o T3 03 X c 1) to ,2 3 x II > c/5 C/5 d) G > ^ 03 o J2 3 C/3 C/3 C/3 X 03 O 3 O i-H ' , ' (Tt H d) < O c ~ 8 a i 8 d< h »v C C/3 o 3 ~ 3 O » O .3 3 .3 m-* , — < co x> 3 3 'K 3 00 cx > cO 3 o 3 o u c/5 d> 4-* t-H cj <2 S X G (u .52 13 ^ G X C/5 •r* C/5 > 58 3 ~ 3 C J C/5 C/5 TS 2 c 3 0 £ 8 to g o- 2 u. x o S 4— » 03 d> TS 8 « ret X1 .8 5 •3 o .> o 4—* «- 3 C/5 r-! *— 1 03 C/5 03 g Q £ x 3 O X ~ 3 C/3 3 3 o X o 03 X r-c 3 X) 2 «j c a ■2 3 2 •O O x a* a CD x '> o 3 3 X 3 3. 3 O >3 3 cd < 3 o 3 3, s C/3 0) 3 C/5 e ^ 3.^ & = o £, c s a> X X -C O C/5 d) *d S _* d) ^ £ g o3 _ 03 O -*-* 4-> C/5 r-* b: 3 ' x-> *5 w) •d d) > > 4— » ^4— I 3 0 C/3 c/3 3 3 O P CJ 3 03 (_ -5 o x 3O 3 3 03 C/3 3 3 X > 'C x ■3 cd 03 3 3 3 _r 3 X X 3 *- « * X O U ,0) OJ o § tt> o S £ C/5 fa cd 22 C/5 cd O d> ^G g d> G G cd c^ G G d> X X cd G • fa Oh C/5 _h 3 x x ,5P x IS o •- C/5 G C/5 d) O G 3 s n .2 s B G CD

G d) is ! 3 > C/5 C/5 d) G > r" 03 "g 2 3 - C/5 C/5 C/5 ^ G g d> O ?-• V1 cd i~~‘ ^ d) < o 3 3 3 X O r2 03 3 3 £ .2 > 4—3 G d) CJ G G d> d> d) s -4—* Oh _G CJ C/5 G d> Vh O G 4—* G O CM O d) G X G *C/5 o3 OD C/5 CD d) O d> > O- > CJ b J G O • ^ C/5 C/5 d) li d) & « 3 s C/5 •rr ^ > C/5 3 p 8 ^ g s -g 8 t— J G G d> X 4—* -4— * G d) E-h O d» _ *- T3 cn d) d> T3 o « 2 J G X X X O G 4—* d) C/5 a ^ G •*-* CJ d) C/5 d) C/5 TS •g o .> CJ 4—* «N CJ d) 03 c c^ C d) »-4 Q c2 G G o^ d> > O *G <-* o C/5 d) s ? 2 G • 4— C G ^ U C Qi •£ 3 > ^ C/5 > G O Oh £ 6 C/5 d) d) N SI O G c^ -rj p g d> O +-* d) C/5 X d> ^ v-. d) G c^ G G CJ d> O G d> d> E o X 3 3. 3 O G G < « 2 3 s X C/5 2 3 _2 X o. 3 3 o >1 X, 03 2 X C/3 3 X cc3 X- „ x- P O X X o 4—* »— H G 5 d> X T3 *C G n C/5 r x CJ C/5 d) Tj G O X G G ^ C/5 C/5 C G O y U CO 3 3 03 « 3 3 2 X > « 8 x x" E x 3 O cj X) d> ^ rd> m g s >; 3 3 ^ S 3 G o X X d) . G G d) d> X G CJ 2 5 3 X 3m 2 C/5 •£ u o « o "G cd 3 .1 d) CJ 2 G *0 S3 x 2 3 3 N ' o3 ' — 1 1 X X 03 3 .b 3m 1/1 c 3 X x .2? <4-M X O Vm C/3 CO C/3 3 O 3 3 3 3 3 &.2? G V-H G d> d) C/5 G G N 2 E B • •3 3 2 •2 BO 8 X 3 8 *5 > 3 3 d> is |g C/3 3 3 > X 03 3 m2 3 M\ c/3 C/3 C/3 cB O 3 O s- -- « 3 < O 3 O u 2 X > £ .2 oj > C 2 3 3 J 8 E Oh G CJ JO T3 G G CO 3 u 382 3 2 G .2 3' .2 3 _0 3 3 *oo 3 BO c/3 CO 3 O 3 > 3. > O & X x G d> d> N S 8 ■s p E B 8 S Oh q £ x O Oh 2 d» .G TS d> G d) •G ^ G cd i I bO O 3. O 3 3 4—* d> CD d) > d> Cd G O C/5 C/5 d> 4-» *<— li 3 c/3 « ^ G Zd w •J-H > 58 G -2 d> CJ in c/5 T3 p G d) w X d) TS x- to | 8.E £ TS 2 § c/5 s_T .2 o ’G G 4-» • e ^ ^ 0 cj ai" G c X cd G ■S3 E d) Q S 3 *0 o J2 2 J cd — X -9 CJ G d> c/5 Oh ^ O O C/5 d> C/5 d) > O X 4-* CJ C/5 d> G S „ cd -G G TJ 3 g cb ^ 8 > G S) l«s .2 o *3 3 m-m -a c '> ■2 o 3 1- X CL X G C/5 d» 8 | G ^ O G Oh d> d) g » O d) C/5 N d) G X G g 2 8 5S 3 3 3 CO > 3 3 O 3 O o 3. 3. O >% 4-h 3 3m 3 O C M J3 o 3- 3 *073 3 O C/5 S-h G Oh 13 ,0 5— 1 f«4_H B C/3 oO g 3 3 3 b x 3 e s ® X co o 60 O & 0 c BO 2 .£ x 4—* o 3 £ it d) *^3 2 8 P" 3 x b x S ^ «5 c/3 -0 d) -—3 ’Td E .2 8 3 ■p -— 3 Crt 3 <1> -0 : 2 x1 2 E o ,2 o 'r-< G ^ Oh G ^H n 5 d) O O 4-3 rv c/5 G EL d) C ^ fa G d) CS a> r— c QJ u 3 31 3 3 © C/3 4> O 3 P ,0 2 L I b bp o T >5 M Cl s ^ 8 -8 tC ^ ^ ^ -j- c ■< bs Q o - -OCX ‘ -2 2 ■Mm bO ^ s o ^ s N L 2 8 ~ 2: oq Dei “S CLm bi Pb X o ^5 •»— C/5 cd Id G C/5 i> <0 £ C/3 Si o o X TD 3 2 "T x o 3 — 1 3 ■'0- 00 OO o S b .'b 2 £ ~~M C W b o - ■5 ^ 03 Tf 00 1 = ft 'G ^ G G 1-H* ^ s i I s r8 x Cj c G o Co cj L» O ^3 <0 co 52 o Q b fH. I K a 00 “i; 3 Bars Project Draft BIS C-9 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES c o U I U w - 03 < H a* #S 33 *3 O -a s

3 T3 o u o •~ a. ox #s ■HH cu a. O -a u SS T3 3 « •h< C/5 c/i T3 O .3 -hh a> c a» E 3 a* 3 .© C*H 3 -t-i a* ox a> > -o o -3 *- cd 3 a> E Cd a> H c/5 G O X Id £ ’c7> S 2 •— ti ox .S o s 0 d> C/5 hG _> c C/5 dj 'G G dJ £ ’G > 0 N £ _ 'c/5 d> -C d> 3 3 s > .2 O 4— » O 2 G 3 ^G L£ G C/5 C3 CJ G O +-* 5-h l #g d) 4—* s C/5 G fai G O G 4—* G dj E G O •■— d) -C J2 -O d> C/5 OX) c CD 3 .CD *3 S3 -3 © CJ O P p ca a is o ca ca C r\ c/5 C * 1 c 4 2 OX) C .S *•£ 5 s c/5 GO s I p B, S h P 43 .> « Oei G o p -p cr c % *5 5 p C/5 *G JD 43 a* S .3 O •»-; c/) 2 « C OJ X! P3 O '> C <1> (U +3 C 05 G (D 9s SO X (D C/5 M > (L> Cd ■4— ' G cj g-'g a» _> ■4— » o « _ O N o .a a X5 C O V w c o o ^ c V (U X5 05 '55 ^ 05 13 2 G P. ca "O 05 C ^ ca « 05 C X a-> a -o 2 r oj < G £ p U p o G lH a oo 2 G Cl. -p '3 .a cr x , G "G c/5 CJ) ca o O' G ^ a ca c/3 ■|1 .2 G • S "G ca sp gJ G «5 .G o CL) i U'2 g a :> 22 ^ o t3 oo ca J, G o • 'P J-. O ^5 Gh JJ 1 G O C/5 G dJ cS , g g S CC 05 *-h 05 S- p a « ca G cj o^'S S p s b G C/5 .2 S iv C/5 O • ^ 'G '5 G C ^ r ^ c O c r G G ” — « , o 2 M o c C G dj 0/ s w b •2 "o d 3 2 2 ^ £ G G d-> b G u. d> CJ * o •G ° fc C/5 C/5 JJ _ G C/) Oh G C/5 • U $ c 2 ^ S x G *rj dJ rj O. /J g/j d c «u G *G G .’G G cXj O O fa fa G u u p > Xj C/5 X 4—* -pa i— G G O d» G d) fa Z fa G r- h G o c 1 05 ■a -o S 3 G N 05 ca 05 X! <0 CJ r— a «j S s cp ca O o « P fc .22 & — X — . ca oj P ‘P l-H i! p u a a w ca a p o P t« (D G fa ^ fa G ^ C 0/ IJ5 E g p a o 2 O H G C/5 Oh G d> N 4— » G G £ d> fa s O ■*“* O „ C/5 d> fa .2 G J-H X) G 4—* C/5 G N C/5 Oh Cd G d> Dh dJ c d> > (D ^ 4-; c/T t: g OX) *C G G 2 G d> 4— » -4—* O d) Z E G M P d) Vh dJ > 0> -e C/5 G ^ 03 dJ 2 2 C G o G r— ■ C/5 •G P S G -* N c n G ^5 Ga V -4—* CJ CJ G CJ ~ aG G 4 dJ p J-H c/5 PhJ^ ‘x G a a ca S P OPS CJ H dJ G d> d> CJ) al X3 2 ^ -G G CJ (D CO Oh •*-* C/5 •s | D. ^ 00 P o •n ,« P P V- fa O d) 4-» Vh c/T G O _> •4—* G G N c G fa X d) •*— 1 c/T G G O X G X*R -e G r\ \ G d) G G ^2 ’o > T3 d) _E c/T *G 2 cj C/5 ^ cj cd P 2 G G 1 E -9 G 2 Oh r— 4 G ca E P> 2 '5 I 1 p E d) C/5 e g a a .2 p dj G C »- g d> 03 ^H d) CJ * d) d> G d> O Oh C/5 1-ai! o (U p CO CO P X ca £ o •*■"* 05 V 05 « a u E ex a 00 •- p a ‘5 p p P ID C P a c £ ^ "S oT V-H CJ dj •— d) > G E d> >> •e G d) C G d> Uh G s QJ E _04 S 0/ o Oh 3 o C/1 0/ OS V-c ID P P P ca 03 05 ID E ID P R . ^ -S' R ^ -C bp c5 Is d ^ CO oo ^ X R CO R ^ ft <0 too S <3 t-. R -SO | s 3Q JO B • § a p o a ID ■Ot ^ O 5 =§ o *§ § 0 1 ^ X ox p “-3 p ca I top 3 liars Project Draft HIS C-10 September 20 1 3 TABLE C-l (Cont.) Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 3 liars Project Draft lilS C-l 1 September 2013 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES o Ml O "o c5 s o V I O u -J BQ < H tS) .3 ."2 ”5 U ■o s S3 C/5 a* La 3 73 o> o> 0 Cl, OX) '3 "m> C3 La 01 Da o ■o La S3 ■o 3 3 -m> (Zi c/s ■o o o 3 o» E a— 3 0> La H 3 O • aa •*a 03 ♦a 0> OX) o> > ■3 o a j 3 QJ E •M 3 a> 3 y 3 3 -3 o» o T3 (D J-H cd * ’~l. j- r-j 4—1 o "5 to o -C 'S (L) 5 J— 1 M C/5 c o C/5 '— (D w D. a, o •— ex m -a c «j O 2 3 c 1/5 32 -o C/D *-7—4 >> ° jo fg c co 3a 5 b w ^ cd d) •SCO co a> c tS > c > 3 O DQ 02 1) > _g CJ La 3 O CO o> Ctf T3 C CO M — 2 2 Li-J c/} 3 Bars Project Draft EIS C-12 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 5. No new roads will be constructed. 6. Some sites could likely be treated with a combination of methods. For example, an area with cheatgrass could be burned, then disked, then drill seeded with desirable plant species. 7. Although manual and mechanical methods arc labor intensive and costly on a per unit of area basis compared to prescribed burning, they are highly selective and can be used in areas such as sensitive habitats or where human health and safety arc concerns. Manual and mechanical treatments will be applied when prescribed burning is not appropriate. 8. Several mechanical methods are available for vegetation treatment. With any mechanical treatment, steps will be taken to minimize both soil disturbance and the spread of invasive species. Treatment methods will be matched with site characteristics and potential based on ecological site description. 9. Thinning will be conducted in a manner that blends treated areas into untreated areas, thus maximizing the “edge effect,’' or the amount of area between two adjacent habitat types. Stumps will be cut as low as possible to the ground. 10. For proposed treatments that would impact use of the Pony Express National Historic Trail, the BLM would coordinate with the National Pony Express Association to minimize activity and noise that would detract from the experience of re-riders during the annual re-ride of the trail through the Project Area. C.2.2 Livestock There are 12 livestock allotments within the 3 Bars ecosystem. The following procedures will ensure that the health and safety of livestock are not compromised by treatment activities, and that treatment activities will have minimal impacts on livestock operators. Standard Operating Procedures specific to livestock are: 1 . Notify allotment permittee(s) of proposed vegetation treatments to discuss dates of treatment and restoration, current grazing practices, and additional site-specific mitigation, and to resolve issues they may have with the proposed treatments. This will help to ensure safe implementation of treatments. 2. Do not implement any restoration activities without appropriate adjustments in the management of livestock. 3. Design treatments to take advantage of normal livestock grazing rest periods for a particular area, when possible, to minimize impacts to livestock grazing permits. 4. Rangeland improvements would be documented prior to initiating treatment projects and any damaged improvements will be repaired to previous condition or current BLM standards as soon as project activities in the immediate area are complete. 5. Vehicle speed limits will be set at 25 mph to avoid livcstock/vchiclc collisions and to reduce the generation of fugitive dust deposition. 3 Bars Project Draft filS C-13 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPHRATING PROCEDURES C.2.2.1 Temporary Livestock Crazing Closures 1 . Close areas for at least 2 growing seasons, or until restoration objectives arc met. Closure decisions are associated with the range regulations 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 4160 and are required to close the treatment areas to livestock grazing. Animal Unit Months associated with the treatment areas will be temporarily suspended. 2. Re-open treated area to grazing in accordance with livestock grazing mitigation actions developed in the 3 Bars Project E1S or in accordance with existing permitted uses. Depending upon the vegetation management treatment method used, the length of the temporary grazing closure will vary. Any treatment method used to release understory vegetation, and that meets the following criteria, will result in a temporary closure of that area for a minimum of 2 growing seasons or until vegetation establishment objectives are met. These criteria are: 1 . The proposed treatment area understory lacks perennial understory vegetation that is expected and described in the Ecological Site Description(s) for the Ecological Sitc(s) for the treatment area. 2. Rest from livestock grazing is considered necessary to aid in the establishment/improvement of desired perennial vegetation. Perennial plant species that meet site-specific restoration objectives will be determined by the BLM. 3. Treatment area requires reseeding. For prescribed fire treatments, a year of grazing rest prior to a prescribed fire treatment may be required in order to build up an adequate amount of fine fuels needed to carry the fire. The BLM will determine if a growing season’s rest is required before the prescribed fire treatment. Following the prescribed fire treatment, a minimum of 2 growing seasons of grazing rest will be required to meet vegetation establishment objectives. Riparian treatment areas will be closed for a minimum of 2 years; however, closure could be extended until the streambank is stabilized and vegetation establishment objectives arc met. The BLM will take steps to reduce the impact of treatment closures on permittees through targeting general areas for treatment as opposed to scattering treatments across the 3 Bars Project Area. The BLM will also work within grazing authorizations to modify patterns of use to accommodate treatment closure when possible, thus limiting impacts to current management strategies. C.2.3 Wild Horses There are four Herd Management Areas (HMAs) within the 3 Bars ecosystem. The wild horse population in the 3 Bars Project area is in excess of the established Appropriate Management Level (AML) in the Roberts Mountain Complex. The Rocky Hills HMA population is currently below AML, but is heavily concentrated in the vicinity of Cadet Trough Spring. The following procedures will ensure that the health and safety of wild horses arc not compromised by treatment activities. The procedures will also ensure a desirable distribution of wild horses, and few areas of overuse by wild horses, to ensure treatment success. To meet these objectives, SOPs specific to wild horses arc: 3 Bars Project Draft filS C-14 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES C.2.3.1 Roberts Mountain Complex 1 . Use temporary or permanent fencing to protect riparian treatment areas and include water gaps or off-site water development (trough placement). 2. Where fencing is needed within HMAs, use temporary electric fencing around sagebrush and pinyon-juniper treatment areas to protect from use by wild horses. C.2.3.2 Rocky Hills Herd Management Area 1 . The Rocky Hills HMA is part of the Catch, Treat, and Release gather and fertility control program. National direction has been to return to these HMAs on a 2- to 3-ycar basis to re-treat the mares for fertility control. The timing of the gathers will be determined by the BLM Nevada State Office. The Rocky Hills HMA is a priority for gathering and for maintaining the AML through subsequent gathers during the life of the 3 Bars Project. 2. Use temporary or permanent fencing to protect riparian treatment areas and include water gaps or off-site water development (trough placement). C.2.3.3 Other Measures 1 . Minimize disturbance associated with restoration activities within wild horse HMAs during the foaling season (March 1 - June 30). 2. Do not implement any restoration activities without appropriate adjustments in the management of livestock or wild horses. C.2.4 Erosion Control 1 . Follow guidance provided in the Nevada Contractors Field Guide for Construction Site Best Management Practices (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 2008) and in An Introduction to Erosion Control (Zecdyk and Jansens 2006). 2. Stabilize terrestrial areas as quickly as possible after treatment, including reseeding or replanting with native vegetation, if the existing native plant community cannot recover and revegetate the site sufficiently. 3. Install sediment traps in streams if prescribed fire is used near streams. 4. Leave downed trees and mulch in areas with large-scale pinyon-juniper removal to prevent sediment from entering nearby waterways. 5. Use mulch, wood straw, wattles, and other erosion control features to minimize erosion and movement of sediments into nearby water bodies in areas treated using prescribed fire or where other large-scale vegetation removal occurs. 3 liars Project Draft E1S C-15 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES C.2.5 Planting and Seeding 1 . Follow BLM 1 landbook H- 1 742- 1 , Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (USDOI BLM 2007c) during the seed procurement process, including the sampling and testing of all seed lots for noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species, to ensure that noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species seed arc not present. 2. Follow the contour of the land as much as possible when drill seeding to reduce potential water erosion. Do not disturb intact stands of sagebrush and native perennial vegetation. C.2.6 Protective Fences 1. Build fences in accordance with BLM Manual H-1741, Renewable Resource Improvements, Practices, and Standards (USDOI BLM 1989). Modifications may be incorporated into the design based on consultation with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and subsequent recommendations to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife. Let-down fences could be constructed in big game ranges and migration corridors where feasible and necessary. 2. Use existing fence infrastructure as much as is practical to protect treatment areas. This may entail modification of grazing on a pasture basis to ensure the appropriate amount of protection for seeding and restoration activities. 3. Use temporary protective fences when feasible. Fences may be permanent if needed to protect the integrity of the treatment. Permanent fences besides those proposed for the 3 Bars Project, if needed, will be analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act for the effects to cultural, natural, and social resources from the fencing. 4. Construct livestock, wild horse, and wild ungulate exclusion fences around treatment boundaries. These protective fences will be on an as-needed basis to allow vegetation to establish, and to reduce the need to remove livestock from the pasture or allotment. 5. Place the top fence wire above horizontal braces to minimize perching by predatory birds. 6. Place domed pipe caps on the top of steel pipes, if steel pipe comers are used, to prevent wildlife entry and to minimize predatory bird perching. 7. Enhance the visibility of fences constructed within greater sage-grouse habitat or HMAs by using appropriate measures such as installing wide stays, deflectors, and/or white-topped posts. Type or brand of reflectors used will be selected from those that have been previously tested and determined to be effective. Additional measures to reduce impacts to greater sage-grouse include constructing fences with larger and more conspicuous wooden fence posts, ensuring that fence segments are less than 13 feet wide, avoiding fence construction within 1 ,640 feet of an inactive lek, and avoiding fence construction within 1 !4 miles of an active lek. 8. Where exclusionary fencing is constructed around water features, the BLM will provide access to water through the form of a water gap or impoundment. 3 Bars Project Draft li IS C-16 September 2013 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES C.2.6.1 Types of Temporary Fencing 1 . Riparian I reatments - Piperail (jack fence type), standard barbed wire fence, and temporary cleetrie fence may be used. 2. Aspen Treatments - Piperail (jack fence type), standard barbed wire fence, and temporary electric fence may be used. 3. Pinyon-juniper Treatments - Temporary electric fence and piperail (jack fence type) may be used in Birch Creek and Upper Pete Hanson treatment areas, and temporary barbed wire fencing outside of areas utilized by wild horses. 4. Sagebrush Treatments - Temporary electric fence, and temporary barbed wire fencing may be used outside of areas utilized by wild horses. C.2.7 Riparian Management 1 . Remove non-riparian trees within the historic floodplains. 2. Remove mountain mahogany only where it compromises riparian habitat treatment objectives. 3. Remove vegetation incrementally over several years if loss of shade near streams and other waterbodies is of concern to minimize stream temperature effects. 4. No fueling within 300 feet of water bodies. C.2.8 Aspen Management 1 . Slash accumulations will remain in place to promote seedling and sapling establishment. 2. Pinyon-juniper removal activities may extend 200 feet beyond the aspen stand. 3. The BLM may protect treated aspen stands until the stand density is 1 ,500 stems per acre and sapling reach at least 7 feet in height with exclosure fencing. Typically, objectives are met in 3 to 5 years as a result of exclusion. C.2.9 Pinyon-juniper Management 1 . Prescribed fire could be utilized in all pinyon-juniper phase classes and may be carried out at any time of the year depending on treatment objectives. 2. In most instances, treatment of pinyon-juniper will occur predominately in Phase I and Phase II sites. Treatments within Phase III sites will be used to disrupt the continuity of fuels and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, as well as improve forest health. 3. The BLM may leave downed trees and mulch in areas with large-scale pinyon-juniper removal to prevent sediment from entering nearby waterways. 3 liars Project Draft I IS C-17 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 4. For all pinyon-juniper removal projects, the BLM will implement SOPs to minimize the chance of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation becoming established on the treatment units, and will monitor all units for noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation for up to 5 years after treatment. C.2.10 Sagebrush Management 1 . Treatments will adhere to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Connelly et al. 2000), the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (2010) greater sage-grouse guidelines, and the BLM Nevada State Office and Washington Office instructional Memoranda guidelines when restoring sagebrush habitats. 2. Any treatments on greater sage-grouse habitat will utilize a mosaic design where treated areas have a width of no greater than 200 feet between untreated areas. No treatment will occur within 0.6 miles of any occupied lek that results in a decrease in canopy cover of greater than 1 5 percent, unless additional site-specific objectives are identified. 3. Prescribed fire and fire for resource benefit will not be used in Wyoming big sagebrush communities or where annual precipitation is less than 1 2 inches. 4. Soil tests will be conducted to determine if suitable seeds are present in the seedbank before treatments occur in sagebrush communities. 5. Standing tree skeletons in areas burned to enhance greater sage-grouse habitat may be felled. C.2.11 Prescribed Fire and Fire for Resource Benefit 1 . Develop a bum plan prior to any prescribed burn occurring. 2. Ignite bums under fair to excellent ventilation conditions and suspend operations under poor smoke dispersion conditions. 3. Minimize dirt content when slash piles are constructed. 4. Consolidate bum piles and other burn materials to enhance fuel consumption and to minimize smoke production. 5. The BLM may suspend grazing on burned areas for at least 2 years after the bum, or until standards are met. 6. Use fencing, if necessary, to allow desirable plants to become established in burned areas. 7. Treatments may be conducted next to roads to improve the roads’ usefulness as fuel breaks and as control lines for wildfires and prescribed fires. C.2.12 Activity Fuel Disposal Methods The following actions will be taken to dispose of felled trees, slash, and other woody materials that remain from treatments to reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels and potential for wildfire. 3 liars Project Draft HIS C-18 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 1 . Dispose of activity fuels (slash) using one or more of the disposal options from the activity fuel disposal alternatives listed below. 2. Remove biomass in a manner that minimizes the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species and promote seeding establishment and development. Should slash accumulations exceed 4 tons/aerc, these activity fuels will be disposed of with one or more of the activity fuel disposal methods listed below. 3. Bum during the fall, winter, and spring to take advantage of conditions of soil moisture, snow, precipitation, and vegetation green-up to reduce fire impacts to non-target vegetation. 4. Where appropriate, leave tree materials on the ground and positioned perpendicular to slopes to minimize erosion. 5. Where appropriate, lop and scatter felled trees to reduce fuel loading, buck and stack close to access points to minimize erosion and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species, or burned in slash piles to minimize ground litter. 6. Where appropriate, allow felled trees to be used for public wood harvesting per District policy and to aid in the removal of tree materials. C.2.12.1 Biomass Utilization 1 . Where appropriate, make juniper activity fuels that are wider than 3 inches available to the public (personal use or commercial) for fire wood or posts. 2. Where appropriate, make activity fuel available to the public (personal use or commercial) as mulch. 3. Where feasible, use coarse and large woody debris for stream restoration to slow stream water flow and reduce the potential for stream erosion. 4. Place coarse and large wood debris perpendicular to slopes greater than 1 0 percent. 5. Where appropriate, make activity fuel available for personal and commercial biomass use. C.2.12.2 Pile Burn 1 . Bum piles should not exceed 1 0 feet long by 1 0 feet wide by 6 feet high. 2. Bum piles will be piled with fine fuels and slash on the interior and larger fuels on the exterior. 3. Bum piles maybe covered with wax paper or similar material (no plastic). 4. Piles will be burned in the spring, fall, or winter. C.2.12.3 Slash Burn 1 . Scatter activity fuels according to guidance from the Fire Behavior Fuel Models for slash. 2. Slash will be burned in the spring, fall, or winter. 3 liars Project Draft P IS C-19 Seplembcr 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES C.2.12.4 Leave on Site 1 . Where appropriate, leave some material piled on site to provide wildlife habitat or for erosion control. C.3 Special Precautions C.3.1 Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response Once weed populations become established, infestations can increase and expand in size. Weeds colonize highly disturbed ground and invade plant communities that have been degraded, but arc also capable of invading intact communities. Therefore, prevention, early detection, and rapid response arc the most cost-effective methods of weed control. Prevention, early detection, and rapid response strategics that reduce the need for vegetative treatments for noxious weeds and other invasive non-native should lead to a reduction in the number of acres treated using herbicides in the future by reducing or preventing weed establishment. As stated in the BLM’s Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the £LA/(USDOI BLM 1996), prevention and public education are the highest priority weed management activities. Priorities arc as follows: • Priority 1: Take actions to prevent or minimize the need for vegetation control when and where feasible, considering the management objectives of the site. • Priority 2: Use effective nonchemical methods of vegetation control when and where feasible. • Priority 3: Use herbicides after considering the effectiveness of all potential methods or in combination with other methods or controls. Prevention is best accomplished by ensuring the seeds and reproductive plant parts of new weed species are not introduced into new areas. The BLM is required to develop a noxious weed risk assessment when it is determined that an action may introduce or spread noxious weeds or when known noxious weed habitat exists (USDOI BLM 1 992). If the risk is moderate or high, the BLM may modify the project to reduce the likelihood of weeds infesting the site and to identify control measures to be implemented if weeds do infest the site. The following arc actions that can be taken by the BLM to slow the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation: 1 . To eliminate the transport of vehicle-borne weed seeds, roots, or rhizomes, all vehicles and heavy equipment that could cause ground disturbance, or are authorized for off-road use, will be cleaned to ensure that they are free of soil and debris capable of transporting weed propagulcs. All vehicles and equipment will be cleaned prior to entering or leaving the project area. Cleaning efforts will concentrate on vehicle tracks, feet and tires, and undercarriage. Cleaning efforts will also focus on axles, frames, cross members, motor mounts, steps, running boards, and front bumper/brush guard assemblies. Vehicle cabs will be swept out and refuse will be disposed of in waste receptacles. 2. Equipment will be washed prior to being moved between project units. Equipment will arrive at the project unit area already cleaned of all dirt and debris. Any subsequent cleanings (i.e., before moving between units) will be recorded using Global Positioning System units or other mutually acceptable equipment and provided to the District Office Weed Coordinator or designated person. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS C-20 September 2013 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 3. All treatment areas where soil is disturbed will be monitored to determine if noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation establish on the site. If so, they will be treated to remove them from the site. 4. Project areas will be surveyed for noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation prior to project implementation. Any noxious weeds discovered within the Project area will be flagged and project treatments will not be allowed within 75 yards of the noxious weed infestation. C.3.2 Fish and Wildlife C.3.2.1 Fish 1 . To ensure fish passage and to protect fish, all culverts will be designed to ensure fish passage unless specifically designed and located to minimize interaction of fish species in coordination with NDOW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2. Hardened water crossings or raised culverts would be considered in all locations where roads cross lotic or lentic areas. C.3.2.2 Special Status Species Federal policies and procedures for protecting federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species and species proposed for listing were established by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) and regulations issued pursuant to the Act. The purposes of the Act are to provide mechanisms for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Under the Act, the Secretary of the Interior is required to determine which species are threatened or endangered and to issue recovery plans for those species. Section 7 of the Act specifically requires all federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the Act to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species, and to ensure that no agency action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Policy and guidance (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species ; USDOl BLM 2008a) also stipulates that species proposed for listing must be managed at the same level of protection as listed species. The BLM state directors may designate special status species in cooperation with their respective state. These special status species must receive, at a minimum, the same level of protection as federal candidate species. The BLM will also carry out management activities for the conservation of state-listed species, and state laws protecting these species will apply to all BLM programs and actions to the extent that they are consistent with Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other federal laws. Threatened, endangered, and other special status species arc discussed in Section 3.14 of the EIS. Before any vegetation treatment or ground disturbance occurs, BLM policy requires that the Mount Lewis Field Office survey the treatment site for species listed or proposed for listing, and for special status species. This must be done by a qualified biologist and/or botanist who consults the state and local databases and visits the site during the appropriate season. For wildlife surveys, the biologist will follow the BLM Nevada Wildlife Survey Protocols (USDOl BLM 2013a). If a proposed project may affect a proposed or listed species or its critical habitat, the BLM will consult with the USFWS. A project with a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination requires formal consultation and receives a Biological Opinion from the USFWS. A project with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination requires informal consultation and receives a concurrence letter from the USFWS. 3 Bars Project Draft 1. IS C-21 September 2013 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES The BLM consulted with the USFWS during development of the 3 Bars Project HIS as required under Section 7 of the Act. As part of this process, the BLM prepared a formal consultation package that included a description of the program; species listed as threatened or endangered, species proposed for listing, and critical habitats that could be affected by the program; and a Biological Assessment that evaluated the likely impacts to listed species, species proposed for listing, and critical habitats from the proposed vegetation treatment programs. The Lahontan cutthroat trout was the only species that required evaluation in the Biological Assessment (USDOI BLM 2013b). The BLM would also consult with the USFWS and NDOW before conducting prescribed fire and other treatments that could adversely impact Lahontan cutthroat trout when working near Lahontan cutthroat trout occupied or potential habitat. C.3.2.3 Migratory Birds 1 . The BLM will conduct migratory bird nest surveys prior to any surface disturbing activities that would occur during the avian breeding season (April 1 through July 3 1 ) following guidance in BLM Nevada Wildlife Survey Protocols (USDOI BLM 2013a). If nests are found within the treatment area, or if other evidence of nesting (i.e., mated pairs, territorial defense, carrying nest material, transporting food) is observed, treatment activities may be postponed until after the completion of nesting, or a protective buffer (the size depending on the habitat requirements of the species) will be delineated and the buffer area will be avoided to prevent destruction or disturbance to nests and birds until they are no longer active, or the area will be removed from project consideration. 2. Raptor nest sites are subject to seasonal and spatial protection from disturbance to avoid displacement and mortality of raptor young as shown in Tabic C-2. 3. A BLM-approved wildlife biologist will conduct raptor nesting using guidance in the BLM Nevada Wildlife Survey Protocols (USDOI BLM 2013a). Surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to commencement of surface-disturbing activities in an area. If disturbance does not occur within 14 days of the survey, the site will be resurveyed. If during any surveys nests or nesting behavior are documented, the area must be avoided until the young have fledged from the nest or the nest fails. Compliance with this SOP does not constitute full compliance with, or exemption from, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as amended, or any other legislation. C.3.2.4 Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope, and other Mammals 1 . Ground disturbing activities will not occur in mule deer and pronghorn antelope winter range from November 15 through March 16 to avoid displacement and mortality to mule deer and pronghorn antelope during winter. The BLM will consult seasonal range maps prepared by the NDOW to delineate winter range for mule deer and pronghorn antelope at the time of treatment activities. 2. Ground disturbing activities will not occur in pronghorn antelope kidding areas from May 1 through June 30 to avoid displacement and mortality to pronghorn antelope during the kidding season. The BLM will consult seasonal range maps prepared by the NDOW to delineate kidding areas at the time of treatment activities. 3. BLM will not conduct treatments within 40 meters (131 feet) of active pygmy rabbit burrows. 3 liars Project Draft PIS C-22 September 2013 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES TABLE C-2 Raptor Nest Buffers Species Seasonal Restrictions Spatial Buffers (miles) Turkey vulture 2/1-8/15 0.5 Northern harrier 4/1-8/15 0.25 Cooper’s hawk 3/15-8/31 0.25 Sharp-shinned hawk 3/15-8/31 0.25 Northern goshawk 3/1-8/15 0.5 Red-tailed hawk 3/15-8/15 0.33 Swainson’s hawk 3/1-8/31 0.25 Ferruginous hawk 3/1 -8/1 1.0 Bald eagle 1/1-8/31 1.0 Golden eagle 1/1-8/31 0.5 American kestrel 4/1-8/15 0.125 Prairie falcon 3/1-8/31 0.5 Peregrine falcon 2/1-8/31 1.0 Bam owl 2/1-9/15 0.125 Burrowing owl 3/1-8/31 0.25 Flammulated owl 4/1-9/30 0.25 Great-homed owl 12/1 -9/30 0.125 Long-eared owl 2/1-8/15 0.125 Northern pygmy-owl 4/1 -8/1 0.25 Northern saw-whet owl 3/1-8/31 0.125 Short-eared owl 3/1 -8/1 0.25 Western screech-owl 3/1-8/15 0.125 Sources: Herron et al. (1985), Romin and Muck (1999), Whittington and Allen (2008), and USDOI BLM (2013a). C.3.2.5 Greater Sage-grouse 1 . To ensure that treatments benefit greater sage-grouse, sagebrush restoration treatments would adhere to the most recent guidance available at the time of treatment implementation, currently the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department greater sage-grouse guidelines, and the BLM Nevada State Office and Washington Office Instructional Memoranda when restoring sagebrush habitats. 2. Ground disturbing activities will not occur near within 3 miles of active sage grouse leks from 7 p.m. to 10 a.m., Pacific Time, during March 1 through May 15, or in accordance with current guidelines and policies. The BLM will conduct lek and other surveys based on the BLM Nevada Wildlife Survey Protocols (USDOI BLM 2013a). 3. Ground disturbing activities will not occur in sage-grouse brood rearing areas from May 15 through August 1 5, or in accordance with current guidelines and policies. The BLM will consult seasonal range maps prepared by the NDOW to delineate greater sage-grouse use areas at the time of treatment activities. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS C-23 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 4. Ground disturbing activities will not occur in sagc-grousc winter habitat use areas from November I through March 15, or in accordance with current guidelines and policies. The BLM will consult seasonal range maps prepared by the NDOW to delineate greater sage-grouse use areas at the time of treatment activities. C.3.2.6 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 1. No in-stream treatments will be conducted between January 1 and July 15 for waters occupied by Lahontan cutthroat trout. 2. No in-stream treatments will be conducted between January 1 and June 1 for waters occupied by rainbow trout. C.3.3 Native American Concerns and Cultural Resources The BLM meets its responsibilities for consultation and govemment-to-govemment relationships with Native American tribes by consulting with appropriate tribal representatives prior to taking actions that affect tribal interests. The BLM’s tribal consultation policies arc detailed in BLM Manual 8120 ( Tribal Consultation under Cultural Resource Authorities', USDOl BLM 2004a) and Handbook H-8 120-1 (Handbook H-8 120-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation: Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation ; USDOl BLM 2004b). The BLM consulted with various tribes and bands of the Western Shoshone during development of this EIS. Information gathered on important tribal resources and potential impacts to these resources from restoration activities is presented in the analysis of impacts. The BLM meets its responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and has adopted the following SOPs that would in part ensure compliance. All disturbance activities would comply with Section 106 in accordance with the measures outlined in the State Protocol Agreement between the Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office for Implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (Protocol Agreement) and specifically the Programmatic Agreement for the 3 Bars Project (Appendix B) between the Nevada BLM and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. Actions that could be taken to address Native American concerns and cultural resources and to meet its responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act include: 1 . All disturbance activities will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Compliance will be achieved in accordance with the measures outlined in the Protocol Agreement. 2. Wherever possible, the project will be designed to avoid potential adverse effects to historic properties (i.e. archeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places[NRHP]). Where it is not possible to avoid potential adverse affects, a mitigation plan will be crafted in accordance with National Historic Preservation Act as guided by the 36 CFR § 800 regulations and the sitc(s) will be fully mitigated. 3. Each treatment will be monitored to ensure that avoidance measures have been effective and that project activities have not impacted cultural resources in an unforeseen manner. All persons participating in the construction, operation, or maintenance of a project will not disturb, alter, injure, or destroy any scientifically important remains, or any eligible archeological site, structure, building, object or artifact on lands associated with the project. Individuals involved in illegal activities will be subject to penalties under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 United States Code [USC] § 470ii), the Federal Land Policy and Management 3 Bars Project Drall BIS C-24 September 2013 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Act (43 USC § 1701 ), the Native American Graves and Repatriation Aet ( 1 6 USC § II 70), or other applicable statutes. 4. If human remains/burials or other previously unidentified cultural resources or vertebrate paleontological resources arc discovered during project operations, all activities within 300 feet of the discovery will immediately cease and the BLM archeologist will be notified by telephone, followed by written confirmation. Work will not resume and the discovery will be protected until the BLM authorized officer issues a Notice to Proceed. All discoveries of human remains (regardless of location in association with the project area) will be reported to the BLM Mount Lewis Field Office. 5. Sites identified as holding special significance to Native American groups from a cultural or spiritual importance will be avoided if restoration activities would compromise the site’s value. 6. Phase III cultural resource inventories Handbook H-81 20-1 , General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation: Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation be conducted prior to project implementation. Under all alternatives, the BLM Handbook H-81 20-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation: Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation implement the following measures as outlined in the Programmatic Agreement prepared for the 3 Bars project and signed by the BLM and Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer on September 5, 2012. 1 . Complete a cultural resource inventory of the proposed project area and consult with the Tribes in accordance with Stipulation III (A) of the Programmatic Agreement. 2. For each phase of the undertaking, evaluate cultural resources for NRHP eligibility, consult with the Tribes or tribal members regarding areas of cultural or traditional religious importance, and consult with the State Historic Preservation Office and tribes regarding the NRHP determinations per Stipulation III(B) of the Programmatic Agreement. 3. Develop and implement appropriate treatment measures to mitigate adverse affects to those resources determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and in accordance with Stipulation II 1(C) of the Programmatic Agreement. 4. Treat unanticipated finds in accordance with the protocols outlined in Stipulation VII of the Programmatic Agreement. 5. Provide training to all BLM and contract personnel to ensure compliance with the Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1 979 ( 1 6 USC § 470), as amended, and ensure that human remains and burial associated items are treated with respect and arc handled according to the provisions of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act and Nevada Revised Statute 383 in accordance with Stipulation VIII of the Programmatic Agreement. 3 Bars Project Draft I IS C-25 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES C.3.4 Paleontological Resources Standard Operating Procedures that apply to palcontologieal resources arc in BLM Manual 8270, Paleontological Resource Management , and BLM Handbook H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management (USDOI BLM 2008b, c). If it is the opinion of the authorized officer that particular treatment areas may contain valuable fossil resources that may be placed at risk by invasive treatments, then paleontological surveys will be conducted by a BLM-permitted paleontologist. Palcontologieal surveys would assess the potential for valuable resources to be present by using the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System. Once geologic deposits have been classified according to the PFYC system, and if there is a medium to high potential for valuable fossil resources to be present in a given area, then protective measures according to BLM rules and guidance will be implemented to protect potential fossil resources. Such protective measures will include, but arc not limited to, the following actions: 1 . If any scientifically important fossils are found during a field survey, a program will be developed and implemented to remove at risk fossils prior to ground disturbing activities. 2. Treatment areas identified as having a high potential for buried paleontological resources based upon field surveys will be monitored by a qualified paleontologist during ground disturbing activities. The method of treatment will determine the level of monitoring needed. For instance, a stream restoration that potentially involves substantial excavation will require more intense monitoring than other activities. 3. Personnel will be instructed about the types of fossils they could encounter and the steps to take if fossils are uncovered during construction. Instruction would stress the nonrenewable nature of paleontological resources and that collection or excavation of fossil materials from federal land without a federal pennit is illegal. 4. Fossils recovered during the field surveys or monitoring will be prepared in accordance with standard professional paleontological techniques. A report on the findings of the salvage program, including a list of the recovered fossils, will be prepared following completion of the program. A copy of this report will accompany the fossils to the BLM-approvcd facility where they arc curated. C.3.5 Wilderness Study Areas The guidance for managing each Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) is provided in the BLM Manual 6330 {Management of Wilderness Study Areas', USDOI BLM 2012). The general management standard is that the suitability of the WSAs for preservation as Wilderness must not be impaired. Additional policies for specific activities are provided in the manual and will be followed for the 3 Bars Project. 3 Mars Project Draft HIS C-26 September 2013 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES References 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 28:967-985. Herron, G.B., C.A. Mortimorc, and M.S. Rawlings. 1985. Nevada Raptors: Their Biology and Management. Nevada Department of Wildlife Biological Bulletin No. 8. Reno, Nevada. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2008. Nevada Contractors Field Guide for Construction Site Best Management Practices. Bureau of Water Quality Planning, Carson City, Nevada. Available at URL: http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/bmp05.htm. Romin, L.A., and J.A. Muck. 1999. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Department of the Interior USFWS Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. Available at URL: www.fws.gov/utahftcldotTice/Documcnts/MigBirds/Raptor%20Guidelincs. USDOl BLM. 1989. BLM Manual H-1741, Renewable Resource Improvements, Practices, and Standards. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 1992. Integrated Weed Management. BLM Manual Section 9015. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 1996. Partners against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2004a. BLM Manual 8120 - Tribal Consultation under Cultural Resource Authorities. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM 2004b. Handbook H-8 120-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation: Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2007a. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Reno, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report. Reno, Nevada. USDOl BLM. 2007c. Handbook H- 1742-1, Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2008a. Special Status Species Management. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2008b. Manual 8270, Paleontological Resource Management. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2008c. Handbook H-8270-1 General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2012. Manual 6330 Management of Wilderness Study Areas (Public). Release 9-935. Washington, D.C. USDOl BLM. 2013a. Draft Wildlife Survey Protocols BLM Nevada. Reno, Nevada. 3 Bars Project Draft BIS C-27 September 20 1 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES USDOI BLM. 2013b. Biological Assessment lor the 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project. Battle Mountain District Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 20 1 0. Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage Grouse ( 1 1 -29-20 1 0). Cheyenne, Wyoming. Zccdyk, B., and J. Jansens. 2006. An Introduction to Erosion Control. Earth Works Institute, The Quivira Coalition, and Zccdyk Ecological Consulting. Second Edition. Santa Fc, New Mexico. Available at URL: http://quiviracoalition.org/Publications/Publications for Download/index.html. 3 Bars Project Draft HIS C-28 September 20 1 3