APPENDIX E - a123.g.akamai.net

APPENDIX E

DRAFT

Hickison Wild Burro Territory Plan

for

Notice of Proposed Action

Hickison Wild Burro Territory AML and Management Actions Project

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Austin Ranger District March 2013

(Draft TMP Document)

Hickison Wild Burro Territory Plan Appropriate Management Levels

and Management Actions

Austin Ranger District Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Lander County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Appendix E. Proposed TMP for Hickison WBT Page 1

(Proposed Document title and signature page) Hickison Wild Burro

Territory Management Plan

Containing Appropriate Management Levels, Design Criteria, Adaptive Management Strategy,

Standard Operating Procedures for Gathers and Handling, and Monitoring Protocols

Austin Ranger District Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests

Lander County, Nevada Prepared By: Date:

[Name] [Title - Rangeland Management Specialist]

Reviewed By: Date:

[Name] [Title - Forest Range Staff Officer]

Approved By: Date:

[Name] [Title - District Ranger]


Hickison Burro Territory Management Plan

In accordance with 36 CFR 222.21(a)(4), an analysis was conducted on Hickison Wild Burro Territory (WBT) and, based on the analysis, this Territory Management Plan (TMP) has been developed. It provides management actions that will be implemented into the foreseeable future. The environmental analysis and management plan will be updated, as needed and determined by monitoring of conditions on the territory. This TMP supersedes the previous TMP approved by Forest Supervisor Hugh Pougman in 1979 (USDA FS). This document is compliant with direction identified in the R4 FSH 2209.21 Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook (USDA FS 2003) and 1988 Toiyabe Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended.

Table 1. Summary of Territory Status Hickison Burro Territory

County and State Lander County, Nevada

Forest Plan Management Areas Toquima #9

Forest Management Prescription Stewardship Wildlife, Range, and Recreation

Total Joint Management Area Acres 109, 846 ac (100%) National Forest System Acres 52,570 ac (48%) BLM Administered Public Land Acres 57,276 (52%)

Appropriate Management Level (12 months) 16 to 45 adult burros USFS Proportionate Share @ 60% 7.2 months

BLM Proportionate Share @ 40% 4.8 months

Authorized Occupancy on NFS lands based upon 16 to 45 adult burros for 12 months @ Animal Unit factor of 0.6 115 to 324 AUMs

Current Upland Functional Condition Functioning at Risk Current Riparian Functioning at Risk Overall Rangeland Condition and Trend Satisfactory

Most recent population survey November 4, 2012 Population estimate based on most recent population survey ~ 90+

I. Introduction The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Protection Act of 1971, as amended, establishes wild free-roaming horses and burros as a part of the natural system where they occur on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the USFS. The Act requires management, protection, and control of these animals within designated herd areas (syn. territories).


Federal regulations pertaining to management authority of wild free-roaming horses and burros (WHBs) on NFS lands are found in Management of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros – 36 CFR 222, Subpart B. Additional agency direction and guidance is found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2260-Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros which sets the objective to maintain wild free-roaming horse and burro populations in a thriving natural ecological balance in the areas they inhabit on National Forests (FSM 2260.2). FSM 2260.3 establishes policy that includes: 1) Confine wild free-roaming horses and burros to managed Horse and Burro Territories as established

in 1971, to the extent possible; 2) Determine population levels by considering the animals’ forage and habitat requirements, wildlife,

permitted livestock, and other uses recognized under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act; 3) Remove excess animals from the range at the earliest opportunity. FSM 2260 policy also directs consultation and cooperation with organizations that may be affected or interested in providing for protection, management, determination of excess animals, and control of wild burros. USFS policy as described under FSM 2261.1 further requires coordination of all wild burro activities with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reflect similar management objectives. When wild burros roam part of the year on NFS lands and part of the year on public lands administered by BLM, a single complex plan is advised. In addition, Forest Service (FS) policy (FSM 2261.1) requires coordination of all wild horse activities with the U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reflect similar management objectives. The Interagency Agreement between USDI BLM and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) Washington Office regarding WHBs, as signed by USFS Chief Dale Bosworth on August 31, 2011, and Mike Pool for BLM Director Robert Abbey on August 23, 2011 provides for transfer of funds from the USFS to the BLM for use of BLM facilities, equipment, contractors, and staff for the removal, transportation, preparation, maintenance, adoption, short and long term care, compliance checks, and titling of wild horse and burros. FSM 2263.11 provides guidance on development of territory management plans. One key element to the plan is establishment of Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs). A comprehensive procedure for establishment and adjustment of AMLs is described in detail in Handbook H-4700-1, Section 4.2 (USDI BLM 2010). Both sources were used to establish the AMLs as described in this TMP. Analysis and rationale used to arrive at the approved AMLs of 16 to 45 burros is described in the 2012 Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice (cite).

II. Location and Habitat Hickison wild burro territory (WBT) is located on the Austin Ranger District approximately 20 miles east of Austin, Nevada. The territory consists of 52,570 acres of National Forest land adjoining 57,276 acres of BLM (Hickison Herd Management Area) and is managed as a WBT/HMA complex 109,846 acres as shown on Map 1. This herd complex is referred to hereafter as the Hickison Wild Burro Joint Management Area (JMA).

The JMA is on the northwestern portion of the Toquima Mountain Range. The burros show a preference for the open foothills rather than the mountainous areas. Topography primarily consists of alluvial fans broken occasionally by ridges or foothills. Climate is generally of the Dry Steppe type. Elevation ranges from 6,000 to 7,000 feet. Average annual precipitation is 6 to 10 inches. Average winter temperatures range from 20 to 40° F, and summer temperatures range from 65 to 80° F. Small hot springs adjoin the territory; cold water sources are scarce. Vegetation primarily consists of a desert


shrub association. Common species include sagebrush, horsebrush, hopsage, kochia, saltbrush, and greasewood. Key grass and forb species are listed in Section XI. Wildlife ungulates found within the territory include mule deer and pronghorn.

The WBT and general vicinity provide habitats for many wildlife species including: mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), western small footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola), and desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos).

Livestock grazing is permitted within the territory on Hot Springs Winter cattle allotment during winter season and Stoneberger cattle allotment during summer.

BLM’s original Herd Area (HA) boundaries are limited to areas of public lands identified as being habitat utilized by wild horses and/or burros at the time of the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. The Hickison HMA boundary is identical to the original HA boundary as depicted from the April, 1975 delineation map for wild horse and burro use areas.

Hickison WBT territory, first delineated in 1971, encompassed a long narrow area along the forest boundary of the Toquima Range. The territory, as drawn, had no water sources on National Forest. In 1978, when a territory management plan was developed, Hickison WBT boundary was re-configured to align with the BLM’s Hickison HMA. The boundary adjustment also included a single water source at Peterson’s well. In 2013, territory boundary was adjusted again to acknowledge the need for the wild burro herd to access higher elevation summer habitat as shown in Map 1.

III. Territory History and Herd Description As described by Berger (1986) as cited in Wyman (1945) feral and federally protected wild horses and burros now inhibiting North America are probably derived from stock that escaped from ranchers, miners or Native Americans. Few, of these equines show affinities to the Spanish stock that escaped from Hernando de Soto’s 1519 landing near Vera Crus, Mexico, or Hernando de Soto’s 1543 travels on the Mississippi River. Amaral (1977) stated that the possibly the first wild horse sighting reported in Nevada was from John Bidwell in 1841 as a member of the first emigrant train to California in 1841. Another early observation was published by Dan De Quille, a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise in Virginia City who saw a small band of wild horses in the Stillwater Range east of Fallon and surmised that they were strayed from droves brought across the desert by emigrants. Burros, horses and mules played a diversified role in ranch and mining operations, as well as transport of commerce in Nevada from the mid 1800’s into the early 1900’s.

As noted in a Hot Springs C&H Winter Allotment G-Plan (USDA FS circa 1950) the Hickison wild burro population originated from trespass stock owned by a Mr. Peter Demale. The 1950 report indicated a request had been made for Demale to remove both trespass burros and horses. The burros persisted and by 1970 they were considered a wild herd and briefly addressed under the Wildlife Section of the Hot Springs Winter C&H Allotment Management Plan (USDA FS 1970); file records indicate there was a population of 13 burros at that time.


In compliance with the 1971 WFRHBA, information was gathered beginning in 1971 and a comprehensive territory management plan was completed in 1979 (USDA FS 1979). A total of 16 burros were thought to comprise the entire population. The burros were described as follows:

“The bands in the Toquimas are all black or dark brown in color. The underside, the muzzle and the area encircling the eyes appear white or oyster. Yearlings or foals have less pronounced white areas… All burros appeared to be in good condition. The population seems to have a high percentage of younger animals but this is based largely on speculation. Because of the small herd size, inbreeding may be a problem. This could be the explanation for their slow productivity. The average burro stood 44 inches tall….”

The initial management levels for the burros in 1980 were set at 18 animals for both the Hickison HMA (25%) and Hickison aka “Burro” Territory (75%) combined. This herd had stayed, at these low numbers (less than 20 animals), since the late 1940s (USDA FS 1978). The herd appeared to be down to as few as 8 animals in 1995. Concerns regarding the suppressed population and genetic viability of the herd prompted Forest Service to request that BLM supplement the herd with up to 12 burros from another herd management area (USDA FS 1994). Supplemental release of 8 animals (5 jennies and 3 jacks) from Winnemucca BLM District did occur in February 1995. The population has since grown from 16 animals (low AML) to approximately 65 animals. The herd is now a mix of blacks, grays and paints.

IV. Goals and Objectives

The goal is a need to manage the Hickison WBT in thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB) with the surrounding environment. The objectives are to manage the WBT and BLM HMA as Joint Management Area (JMA); a biological unit to which provides wild burros year around essential habitat components (forage, water, cover and space), and unimpeded natural movement of wild burros between the WBT and the HMA. The wild burro herd sizes can be monitored and maintained within the established AML range using efficient population management actions.

In addition to the laws, regulations, policy, and guidance discussed above, the project area is managed under the 1986 Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan):

• Rangelands will be in satisfactory condition or better (pg. IV-4); • All grazing allotments and wild and free roaming horse and burro territories will be under

approved management plans (pg. IV-4).

For the purpose of this TMP, the term “satisfactory” will be synonymous with the more contemporary phrase “proper functioning condition.” Also, the phrase “approved management plan” will refer to this and future Territory management plans, including any errata, amendment, or revision; that the management plan will be NEPA sufficient at that point in time when management activities are implemented on-the-ground.

V. Desired and Existing Conditions The Forest Plan provides several desired conditions that relate to wild horses and burros on the Forest and the rangeland resources that wild horses and burros rely upon and use:

• Livestock and wild horse/burro use will have been maintained at pre-existing levels. (pg IV-4); • Management plans will have been approved for all grazing allotments and wild and free-roaming

horse and burro territories. (pg. IV-4); and


• Ninety-five percent of all rangelands will have been brought to satisfactory condition (pg. IV-4).

Table 2. Hickison Wild Burro Territory Desired and Existing Conditions

Desired Conditions Existing Conditions Management Action

Territory has high and low AML ranges that are sustainable, cost efficient to maintain, and in balance with other uses

AML determinations have not been made Establish AMLs with a high and low range compatible with Hickison HMA for year-round WBT/HMA complex that is in balance with other uses

Territory management is compatible with neighboring Hickison Burro HMA

Hickison Burro HMA has established AMLs and population management objectives have been identified

Establish compatible management with that identified in BLM’s Final Multiple Use Decision (FMUD) on the Hickison HMA

Forage utilization levels by wild burros is consistent with the forage utilization standards identified in the Forest Plan

Forage utilization levels by wild burros are exceeding proper use levels.

Control wild burro numbers and monitor forage use patterns and rangeland conditions.

Wild burros remain inside designated WBT/HMA complex

Wild burros are dispersing outside the territory in search of water and forage resources.

Manage the burro population within AML. Prioritize removal of burros from areas outside the established territory.

Territory has approved population management and monitoring actions

No established population management actions. Monitoring actions have been established

Establish population management actions compatible with Hickison HMA FMUD. Follow established actions with monitoring

Rangelands in Territory are in satisfactory or better condition. Rangeland health is in functioning condition as determined by H-T ecological condition scorecards

Rangelands are in unsatisfactory condition and monitoring indicates rangeland health is at risk

Improve rangeland condition and trend to restore healthy rangelands

VI. Forest Plan Management Direction The Toiyabe Forest Plan (1986) is the primary sources of management direction that affect wild horse and burro management. Standards and guidelines for specific resources are described below:

Range Management 3- Consolidate administration responsibilities where Forest lands are adjacent to public lands (p. IV-26).

4- Develop allotment management plans for all active range allotments and wild free-roaming horse and burro territories (p. IV-26).

6- Ensure that water developments and other range improvements meet wildlife needs (p. IV-26).

11- Utilize Toiyabe National Forest range suitability standards (p. IV-26).

12- Strive to achieve or maintain a minimum of 60 percent ground cover on upland rangelands with the exceptions of low sagebrush types, Wyoming big sagebrush types, crested wheatgrass seedings, pinyon/juniper types, and south facing sagebrush types on granitic slopes of the Sierra Nevada (p. IV-26).

14- Conduct monitoring and evaluation in accordance with FSH 2209.21, Range Environmental Analysis Handbook, and the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook (p. IV-26).

15- Achieve or maintain rangeland in satisfactory condition which is defined as: (1) having a resource value rating (RVR) of 50 or above for vegetation or other features; or (2) being in a mid-succession or higher class of ecological status; and (3) having a stable or upward trend in soil and vegetation (p. IV-26-27).


17- Update allotment and territory management plans that are not consistent with the Forest Plan, following the schedule found in Chapter V (p. IV-27).

20- Each allotment management plan shall present administrative and management requirements of the specific range allotment or wild free-roaming horse or burro territory. Each plan will contain sections on objectives, actions, monitoring, and evaluation (p. IV-26).

23- Involve livestock permittees, other federal and state agencies, and interested parties in the development of allotment and territory management plans. Utilize the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Process as appropriate (p. IV-28).

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burros 1- Manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and

Burro Act of 1971 (p. IV-31).

2- Carry out interagency agreements with the Inyo National Forest and the BLM (p. IV-31).

3- Involve interested federal and state agencies and other groups in the management of wild free-roaming horses and burros (p. IV-31).

4- Manage wild free-roaming horses and burros to population levels compatible with resource capabilities and requirements (p. IV-31).

Riparian Areas 4- Design range and wildlife habitat improvement projects and/or silvicultural prescriptions in riparian

areas to benefit riparian area-dependent resources (p. IV-42).

6- Give priority to range, wildlife habitat, and watershed improvement projects that will rehabilitate riparian areas that cannot be restored in a timely manner by other management techniques. Use fencing for protection of riparian areas only where no other viable alternative exists (p. IV-42).

13- Move inventoried water developments out of riparian areas when and where feasible (p. IV-42).

15- Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative (p. IV-43).

16- Capitalize on opportunities to resolve and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains; and to preserve, enhance, and manage the natural and beneficial values of wetlands (p. V-43)

Wildlife and Fish 3- B. Maintain 20 percent to 55 percent cover on sage grouse range (p. IV-49). 3- D. Maintain meadows in sage grouse range in high ecological status. Where meadows have lost their

natural characteristics because of lowered water table, trampling, overgrazing, road building, or for other reasons, take measures to restore the meadows (p. IV-49).

3- E. Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within two miles of leks (p. IV-49). 3- H. Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat on known sage grouse wintering areas (p. IV-49). 3- J. Protect critical areas for sage grouse brood rearing (p. IV-49). 4- Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal

populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (p. IV-49). 5- Coordinate management practices which may affect threatened and endangered animal species with

the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California and Nevada state wildlife agencies (p. IV-50). 6- Improve habitat for threatened or endangered species, and sensitive species that have been adversely

affected by man's activity in wilderness areas (p. IV-50).


7- Apply grazing management systems aimed at improving key habitat for big game animals and fisheries. As a maximum, browse utilization by livestock or wild horses on key winter ranges will not exceed 30 percent on those areas prior to big game use (p. IV-50). 8- Minimize disturbing activities (grazing, timber, mining, etc.) on key mule deer habitat (fawning areas, winter range, riparian areas, holding areas, migration corridors, etc. ) (p. IV-50). 12- Manage aspen stands at a mid-succession or higher ecological status with emphasis on improving age-class structure (p. IV-50). Toquima Management Area 9 Management Direction The management area direction pertaining to this project area is summarized here: Key wildlife and fisheries habitats will be maintained and improved (p. IV-130). Noxious farm weeds will be controlled (p. IV-130). Compatibility of livestock production with other resources and activities will be emphasized (p. IV-130).

VII. Habitat Suitability Determination Analysis and evaluation of the Hickison WBT was presented in the Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment (cite). It provides the information and rationale for the established lower and upper AMLs of 16 to 45 wild burros on the territory. It incorporates by reference the BLM Simpson Park Complex Evaluation and Rangeland Health Assessment.

The results of the habitat suitability analysis indicate that Hickison WBT must be managed jointly with the Hickison Herd Management Area as a complex to be sustainable. This Joint Management Area has sufficient water, forage, space and cover yearlong to support a small herd of burros.

VIII. Herd Population Management and Control The following herd population management and control actions will be planned into the WHB program of work and implemented:

• establishing a lower and upper AML range of 16 to 45 adult burros; • gathering and removal of burros whenever outside of territory or JMA; • gather and removal of excess burros when upper AML is reached; • maintain the herd at or near mid-AML of 30 adult animals • maintaining the sex ratio of the herd at a 1:1 male to female level; • establishing a baseline on the genetic diversity of the herd; • maintaining genetic diversity through periodic herd augmentation with wild burros from other

herds; and • conduct periodic census flights, every 4 to 5 years to determine herd size and distribution.

Established Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) The AML of 16 to 45 burros is established to allow for minimal management, in conformance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.

AML is defined as the number of adult wild horses or burros (expressed as a range with an upper and lower limit) to be managed within a Herd Management Area (HMA) (syn. Territory). Forage for wild burros (AUMs) is allocated based on the AML upper limit. The AML upper limit is the maximum number of wild burros that results in a thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB) and avoids a deterioration of the range. This number is intended to be below the number that would cause damage to


the range. The AML lower limit is the number that allows the population to grow to the AML upper limit over 4 to 5 years, without need for gathers to remove excess wild burros in the interim.

Burro occupancy may vary seasonally from 6 to 12 months depending on ground and weather conditions. For administrative purposes, the Forest Service assumes responsibility for 60% of the herd, and BLM assumes responsibility for the remaining 40% under as a Joint Management Area (JMA).

Gather and Remove Whenever Outside of Territory or JMA Animals would be gathered and removed if the Hickison wild burro herd population is over mid AML (30 adults) or gathered and returned to the territory if the herd population is under mid AML when outside the territory. Nuisance animals and/or animals causing a public safety hazard would be removed regardless of herd population. Gathers and handling will be conducted by authorized Forest Service and/or BLM personnel or authorized contractors. Gathers and handling of wild burros would be conducted following Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) developed by the Forest Service and/or the BLM. SOPs are designed to ensure the safe and humane treatment of the wild burros. Gather Plan for Removal of Excess Wild Burros when Upper AML is reached Animals will be gathered and removed when the Hickison wild burro herd population exceeds the upper AML (45 adults). The usual gather technique will be bait trapping. Helicopters would be allowed to assist during gathers if bait trapping is ineffectual. Gathers would be used as opportunities to manage for a natural sex ratio of 1:1 male to female.

Components of Gather Plan Review the planning record for NEPA adequacy. NEPA in establishing Appropriate Management Levels and/or Territory Management Plans, no further NEPA is required to complete a gather, which is an implementation of the existing plan.

Areas Closed to Grazing by Wild Burros within the Territory Boundary Currently there are no areas closed to wild burros within the Hickison territory boundary. Exception includes livestock exclosures associated with water developments or protected cultural properties. The territory is open range; at this time there are no excluded recreational facilities, mining operations or road rights-of-way. Baseline Genetic Testing and Maintenance of Genetic Diversity of Herd Hair samples will be collected from any burros gathered in the vicinity of the territory, in accordance with the most current protocol. The hair samples would be submitted to Dr. Gus Cothran, Texas A&M University (or other similar service provider) for analysis and evaluation. Periodic Herd Augmentation with Wild Burros from Other Herds Genetic diversity will be augmented by releasing wild burros from a different herd into the Hickison wild burro herd. One or two young jennies would be introduced from outside the WHT/HMA complex every generation (about every 10 years) (USDI BLM 2010, p. 74). The introduced animals would come from herds living in similar environmental conditions.


IX. Repair and Maintenance of Water Developments The Forest Service will work under cooperative agreements with the Hot Springs Winter grazing permittees to repair and maintain existing water developments to provide perennial sources of water for livestock, wild burros and wildlife. These repairs and/or maintenance would be conducted as funds are available in the priority given in Table 2 below and shown on Map 2 attached.

Table 3. Proposed Repair and Maintenance of Water Sources in Hickison WBT Priority Rank Name Type Current

Condition Location Action and Date Accomplished

1 Peterson Well (aka Pete’s Well)

Solar Pump and trough

Solar Panel Removed, pump and trough in place

T17N, R46E, Sec. 32

Reinstall solar panel or install windmill, stock tank, and develop overflow pit.

2 Pete’s Spring and Pipeline

Spring box, pipeline, & trough Poor T16N, R46E,

Sec. 20 Reconstruct collection system and repair pipeline

3 Hunts Well (aka Burro Well)

Solar Pump and troughs

Solar Panel and pump removed and troughs in place

T17N, R46E, Sec. 6

Install windmill, stock tank, and develop overflow pit.

4 Henry Meyer Spring Spring box, trough Unknown T17N, R46E, Sec. 22

Reconstruct collection system. and stock tank

Source: U.S. Forest Service I-Web, Range Infra, 2230 Term Grazing Permits, Austin Ranger District

If solar systems are used, design and secure the system to the greatest extent possible. Monitor effectiveness of water source in the dispersal and distribution of wild burros.

X. Design Features for other Resources Design features, as stated below, are elements of the project design that were developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts of the proposed action on forest resources. Design features are applied in conjunction with pertinent management direction and guidelines.

Forage Allocation and Wild Burro Occupancy Burro occupancy may vary seasonally from 6 to 12 months depending on ground and weather conditions. For the purpose of present and future forage allocations for wild burros, wildlife and permitted livestock, the wild burro allocation of forage is 324 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) based upon 45 adults with foals for 12 months equivalent to 540 head months and using a 0.6 animal use (AU) factor [(45 animals @ 12 mo. = 540 HMs); (540 HMs) * (0.6 AU) = 324 AUMs]. Adjustments to this allocation will be based on a minimum of 3-years pre-season and post-season monitoring and current aerial survey population estimates. Allowable Utilization Levels The allowable utilization level on key forage species at key area locations is listed in Table 4 and illustrated on Map 3. Utilization measurements would be conducted using methods described in the Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3 Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements (USDI BLM 1996) or comparable agency guidance. The year-around grazing by wild burros will be monitored prior to the winter cattle grazing season and then following that same cattle grazing season. The management intent is to have negligible to light average utilization from wild burros and wildlife prior to the onset of


the winter cattle grazing season (December 1 to March 31). Post-winter grazing utilization measurements are intended to reflect actual use from wild burros, wildlife and livestock combined.

Table 4. Allowable Utilization Levels on Key Forage Species in Hickison WBT

Maximum percent Utilization By Key Species

Type Key Area Grass or Forb Shrubs or Trees

Pre-Winter Grazing Season

Post-Winter Grazing Season

Pre-Winter Grazing Season

Post-Winter Grazing Season

Upland KA 1 20% 45% 5% 30%

Upland KA 2 20% 45% 5% 30%

Upland KA 3 20% 45% 5% 30%

Upland KA 4 20% 45% 5% 30%

Upland KA 5 20% 45% 5% 30%

Upland KA 6 20% 45% 5% 30%

Upland KA 7 20% 45% 5% 30%

Upland KA 8 20% 45% 5% 30%

Riparian KA 9 20% 55% 5% 25%

• A key area riparian utilization transects will be established at Pete’s spring long term monitoring plot in the first year. The Landscape Appearance Method will be used on herbaceous vegetation. The Key species method will be used shrubs and trees. Key riparian species include: Leymus cinereus (Great Basin wild rye), Artemisia tridentata spp. tridentata (Basin big sagebrush), and Salix exigua (Narrow-leaf willow).

• The Key Species Method will be used on upland grasses and shrubs. Key upland forage species

include: Achnatherum hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Elymus elymoides (squirreltail), Poa secunda (Sandberg bluegrass), Artemisia nova (black sagebrush), Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush), and Krascheninnikovia lanata (winterfat).

• Key Area sites may need to be moved over time if they are not representative of the use in the

area. The process for selecting key areas is described in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook (cite).

Wildlife Friendly Water Developments Water developments can impact wildlife in a variety of ways. To minimize these impacts, the following design features are incorporated into the proposed action:

• Design water developments of structural range improvements to include escape ramps suitable to avian and small mammal species, and minimize obstructions to the water’s surface;

• Install floats or shut-off valves in all water developments to control the flow of water in tanks and troughs;

• Design water developments to maintain free water and wet meadows at the spring;


• The immediate spring source and associated riparian vegetation will be excluded from grazing disturbance by wild burros and livestock.

• Fence exclosures will be designed to facilitate access by wildlife to the greatest extent possible. • Consider impacts to sagebrush communities when repairing or replacing a water development.

When repairing or replacing water developments, alter design of water developments to reduce concentration of animals in contiguous sagebrush habitat;

Wildlife Mitigations during Aerial Survey flights and Wild Burro Gather Operations

• Contact the District Wildlife Biologist for possible avoidance/minimization/mitigation measures regarding census flights and gather operations taking place during golden eagle breeding/nesting dates (late January – August).

• Localized disturbances associated with gather operations or census flights (e.g. public viewing opportunities, trap locations, temporary holding corrals, incident command stations, helicopter flight paths) would be avoided with a 0.6 mile (1 km) buffer of greater sage-grouse leks from March 1-May 15.

• The District Wildlife Biologist would be contacted for any additional or updated avoidance/minimization/mitigation measures regarding census flights and gather operations taking place during greater sage-grouse breeding dates (March 1 – May 15).

Sensitive Plant Protection Measures

• Future planned activities that are likely to concentrate wild burro use (such as placement of watering sources and placement of temporary handling facilities) will be designed to avoid direct or indirect effects to known sensitive plant locations.

• Future wild burro concentrating activities will not occur in potential habitat for sensitive plant

species until surveys are performed. If sensitive plants are found, the population would be avoided.

• Where placement has already affected known sensitive plant locations, the activity will be

evaluated for adverse effects and a determination made about whether mitigation is required to provide adequate protection. Surveys in potential habitat will also include existing activities that concentrate wild burro use.

Noxious/Invasive Weeds Control To reduce the potential for the introduction or spread of noxious and invasive weeds in the territory, the following design features are incorporated into the proposed action:

• All hay brought onto NFS lands will be “Certified Weed Free.” In the event that no weed free hay is available, the District Ranger may grant an exception;

• All potential gather trap sites, bait trap sites, and temporary holding facilities will be inventoried for noxious weeds prior to construction;

• Any equipment or vehicles exposed to weed infestations or arriving on site carrying dirt, mud, or plant debris will be cleaned before moving into or within the project area;

• All gather sites, holding facilities, and camping areas on National Forest will be recorded with Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and monitored for weeds during the next several years;

• As needed, control of noxious weeds and invasive species will be conducted under the 1996 Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment.


Cultural Resource Protection Measures Future planned activities that are likely to concentrate wild burro use (such as placement of watering sources and placement of temporary handling facilities) can affect cultural resources in several ways. To avoid these effects, areas where wild burro concentrating activities will occur are to be surveyed to determine if the impacted area contains a site that is considered potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. If a potentially eligible site is identified, the two-tiered strategy to address potential effects to historic properties from the rangeland memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will continue to be implemented. Implementation of these strategies will satisfy the Forest’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (USDA FS 1995).

XI. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Short-Term Implementation Monitoring

• Annual Territory Inspections - will be made as the opportunity arises. Any significant observations will be documented in writing. Inspections will include but are not limited to: Seasonal distribution patterns of wild burros within the territory or JMA Wild burros observed outside the territory or JMA Availability of year around waters. Condition of watering facilities and fences exclosures. Body Condition Class of wild burros observed using the Henneke Scoring System Observed mortalities Onset of foaling period(s) or new born foals

• Plant Phenology and Range Readiness – Based on previous plant phenology data key forage grasses generally break winter dormancy in mid-February; have vegetative growth through May; and develop seed heads by end of May; cast seed by end of June; and began to desiccate by end of July. Some regrowth can occur with onset of fall rains and cooler temperatures. Note and record annual plant phenology during pre and post-season use intensity mapping.

• Use Intensity Mapping - Monitoring would be conducted on residual forage prior to the winter cattle season to ensure that the established AMLs are compatible with resource capabilities while considering permitted livestock. The proposed lower and upper AMLs for wild burros are designed to keep residual forage utilization by wild burros at negligible to light levels prior to the winter cattle grazing season (December 1 to March 31).

Long-term Habitat Effectiveness Monitoring Upland Sites - Long term condition and trend effectiveness monitoring will be conducted at plot locations listed in Table 5 will be used for this monitoring. Each site has a specified type of monitoring and visit interval. Methods listed below are detailed Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3 1734-4 Sampling Vegetation Attributes (USDI BLM 1996). Evaluate upland sites using the Humboldt-Toiyabe vegetation group matrices. Trend will be based on changes in relative cover for herbaceous and shrub species indicative of desired function. Riparian Sites - Evaluate riparian ecological sites using nested frequency and the Ecological Scorecard for riparian in Central Nevada. The riparian complex is keyed as (1) Warm Willow Mesic Graminoid ecological site having Cryofluvent-Gravel bar, and (2) Artemisia tridentata tridentata/Leymus cincereus – Cryoboroll /Trough drainway. Note changes over time in size of meadow area, relative extent of


hummocks and soil surface compaction, and vegetation diverse, and relative abundance of White-Top (Cardaria pubescence).

Table 5. Condition and Trend Transects in Hickison Wild Burro Territory

Study Name Vegetation Group Methods of Study Existing

Condition Year Established and Visit Interval

Spencer Hot Springs Quad 1

Desert Shrub Point Intercept for veg and ground cover; Line intercept for shrub

Functioning at Risk

Established in 2010. Reread approximately every 5 years.

Spencer Hot Springs Quad 2

Black Sagebrush Point Intercept for veg and ground cover; Line intercept for shrub

Functioning at Risk


Henry Meyer Canyon P-J Woodland

Point Intercept for veg and ground cover; Line intercept for shrub

Functioning at Risk


Pete's Summit Quad 2

Mountain Big Sagebrush

Point Intercept for veg and ground cover; Line intercept for shrub

Functioning at Risk


Pete’s Spring Riparian Nested frequency and riparian scorecard.

Low similarity to Potential Natural

community


PI = Point Intercept; LI = Line Intercept

Population Monitoring Wild Burro Distribution Inside and Outside JMA Boundaries – During flight surveys or field inspections document any wild burros observed outside the JMA boundary particularly in Stoneberger Basin, down South along the Toquima range and across Monitor Valley towards the Monitor Range.

Population survey and distribution flights, and ground observation provide information on wild horse and burro movement and distribution within and outside the delineated Hickison JMA boundaries. The seasonal availability of water and forage, snow cover and depths, livestock presence, and weather conditions all affect the distribution of burros across the JMA. Adjust or revise the current percentage of wild burro use (Table 6), by Administrative Area, if changing environmental conditions and survey data indicate a shift in overall use.

Table 6 Annual distributions by between Administrative Areas with in Hickison Joint Management Area

Hickison Burro Joint Management Area

Public Land Agency % Wild Burro Use

USFS Territory National Forest System lands 60% USDI BLM Herd Management Area

Public Lands 40%

Total 100%

Herd Size and Growth Rate - In cooperation with BLM aerial survey the JMA every 4 to 5 years, or more often if needed, to determine the herd size and calculate the growth rate. Consult with the BLM’s Population Survey and Research Program Lead to develop the most efficient and reliable survey design.

Distribution Patterns - Some generalizations regarding distribution patterns in the wild burro population between allotments, U.S. Forest Service administered lands and BLM administered lands, and within the


Hickison HMA boundaries were made based on the analysis of existing aerial census data from 1978, 1981, and 1998-2004. The following table summarizes these generalizations and distribution

Sex Ratio – During field observations, flight surveys and gather operations note the relative number of males to females and estimate the sex ratio. Manage for a ratio of 1:1 male to 1 female.

Foaling period – Jennies are polyestrous and can foal during any month. The gestation period is 12 months but can vary from 11 to 13 months. Past breeding has been noted in the northern portion of the JMA during May and June. Record dates when foals begin appearing on the range. Phenotype - Manage the herd for historic characteristics, as noted in the 1979 Territory Management Plan. Unique features include all black or dark brown in color, white or oyster underbelly, muzzle and eye rings. The average height of the original burros was about 44 inches tall.

Baseline Genetic Testing and Maintenance of Genetic Diversity of Herd - Hair samples will be collected from any burros gathered in the vicinity of the territory, in accordance with the most current protocol. The hair samples will be submitted to Dr. Gus Cothran, Texas A&M University (or comparable other lab services) for analysis and evaluation. Based on findings implement actions to maintain of genetic diversity. If needed, introduce new genetics into the herd (two or more jennies every 10 years).

XII. Adaptive Management Adjustments Based on Monitoring Monitoring information should reveal if conditions are progressing toward Desired Conditions. If conditions do not move toward desired conditions, re-evaluate the plan and make appropriate adjustments, such as adjustments in AML, forage allocations among wild horses/burros, livestock, and wildlife, or improvement projects that may incidentally benefit wild burros.

As noted in Section IX, utilization will be measured after the end of the growing season and prior to the winter season for permitted livestock on the Hot Springs Winter Allotment. Utilization will be measured again at the end of the winter grazing season and prior to onset of spring plant growth.

If the short-term monitoring indicates that the allowable utilization levels are exceeded for three years in a row even though the upper AML has not been reached, adjustments to herd size need to be considered. The process for adjusting herd size described in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook and provided below will be used to set a new upper AML. Do not gather and remove wild burros below the lower AML.

Example: The following example uses:

• permitted cattle winter grazing season of December 1 to March 31; • actual burro population at upper AML of 45 adult burros; • allowable use level for pre-season burro grazing on uplands @ 20%; • burro grazing period of 8 months prior to onset of the cattle winter grazing season; and • weighted average use on all key areas November 30th is determined to be 40%

216 AUMs (45 burros @ 8 months * 0.60 AU Factor) x (0.20) = 108 AUMs 0.40 (weighted average use)

In this example the calculated actual use was 216 AUMs is 200% greater than the 108 AUMs of allowable use at that point in time. If actual use levels by burros were to exceed allowable use levels for 3 or more consecutive years, and management objectives were not being met then consideration is given to lowering the upper AML.


XIII. Annual Reporting and Project Tracking Annual Reporting Annually update NRM I-Web INFRA Range by end of the Fiscal Year with the following information:

• Appropriate management level • Adjustments to propotionate administrative share of AML by FS and BLM • Surveys conducted • Estimated population level • Estimated sex ratio • Number of animals removed


Map 1. Hickison Wild Burro Joint Management Area


Map 2. Water sources in or near Hickison WBT


Map 3. Key Use Areas for monitoring utilization on Hickison WBT

Date post:	01-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX E - a123.g.akamai.net

Documents