Notice of Proposed Action and Opportunity to Comment

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Intermountain Region

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Austin Ranger District

March 2013

Notice of Proposed Action and Opportunity to Comment

Hickison Wild Burro Territory

Appropriate Management Levels and Management Actions Project

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.

Acronyms and Abbreviations AML Appropriate Management Level

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)

AU Animal Unit

AUM Animal Unit Months

BLM Bureau of Land Management (USDI)

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA Environmental Assessment

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FS Forest Service

FSM Forest Service Manual

HA Herd Area (BLM)

HMA Herd Management Area (BLM, synonymous with USFS WBT)

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, syn. BLM RMP)

MUD Multiple Use Decision (BLM)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NF National Forest (Forest Service, USDA)

NFS National Forest System (Forest Service, USDA)

NPO National Program Office (BLM, Reno, NV)

RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM, synonymous with USFS LMRP)

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

TES Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species

TMP Territory Management Plan

TNEB Thriving Natural Ecological Balance

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United State Department of Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

WBT Wild Burro Territory

WFRHBA Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (as amended)

WHB Wild Horse and Burro

WHT Wild Horse Territory

WO Washington Office (Forest Service, USDA)

Notice of Proposed Action 3

Hickison Wild Burro Territory AML and Management Actions Project

Comments Welcome The Austin Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest welcomes your comments on the Hickison Wild Burro Territory Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) and Management Actions Project. The purpose of this project is to establish AMLs and set general management direction for the Hickison Wild Burro Territory (WBT), located on the Toquima mountain range. We would like your thoughts on the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental assessment (EA) and your comments on the proposed action. A detailed explanation of the comment process is included at the end of this document.

Introduction The Forest Service (USFS) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (83 Stat. 852 as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-4335, 4341, 4347) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The EA is being prepared to address the environmental consequences of a proposed agency action to set Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) for the Hickison Wild Burro Territory, a congressionally designated USFS wild burro territory (WBT) (map 1). The territory is managed under the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and is located in the Toquima Management Area. The proposed action is designed to facilitate the management of the adjoining Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Hickison Burro Herd Management Area (HMA) as part of a larger biological unit or complex. While this project seeks to align management of the wild burro herd that uses both the adjoining WBT and HMA, the decision on this project would only apply to the WBT. In addition to establishing AMLs, the proposed action would consider future proper management activities, such as gathers or removal of wild burros over the established AMLs on the territory. The proposed action includes adaptive management provisions to modify AMLs based upon the results of monitoring conducted within the Hickison WBT. The EA will disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

Analysis Area and Background The Hickison Wild Burro Territory (WBT) is located on the Austin Ranger District approximately 20 miles east of Austin, Nevada (map 1). The territory consists of 52,570 acres of National Forest land. The territory is adjoined by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Hickison Herd Management Area (HMA) (57,300 acres) (map 1). The Hickison HMA is not included in the analysis area and the decision in this project will not alter management in the Hickison HMA. The territory is on the northwestern portion of the Toquima mountain range. The direct count aerial survey of the Hickison WBT and HMA conducted in November 2012 observed 90 burros inside and outside of the territory. The burros in this area 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 (an intermediate between desert and humid climates) that supports short or scrubby vegetation.

4 Notice of Proposed Action


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 (especially perennial sources) are scarce. Vegetation primarily consists of a desert shrub association. Common species include sagebrush, horsebrush, hopsage, kochia, saltbrush, greasewood, various forbs and grasses. See appendix A for additional detail on the vegetation in the territory.

Livestock grazing is permitted within the territory on Hot Springs Winter cattle allotment during winter season and Stoneberger cattle allotment during summer. Refer to Appendix A for additional background information on the Hickison Wild Burro Territory.



Map 1. Hickison Wild Burro Territory



The WBT and general vicinity provide habitats for many wildlife and sensitive and rare plant species. Table 1. Wildlife Species With Federal Conservation Status that Exist or Have the Potential to

Exist in the Hickison WBT

Species Conservation Status

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ESA1 Candidate Species, RFSS2, MIS3

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) RFSS2

Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) RFSS2

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) MIS3

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) MIS3, MBTA4

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) MIS3, MBTA4 Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) MBTA4, BGEPA5

Migratory birds MBTA4 1 Endangered Species Act 2 Regional Forester Sensitive Species 3 Management Indicator Species for the Toiyabe National Forest 4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 5 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act



Table 2. Region 4 Sensitive Plant Species that Exist or Have the Potential to Exist in Hickison WBT

Species FS Status NNHP Elev. Community

Asclepias eastwoodiana (A. uncialis ssp. ruthiae) Eastwood milkweed

Sensitive At-Risk 3,000 to 7,080

Mixed desert shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper.

Astragalus uncialis Currant milkvetch


Desert shrub and sagebrush.

Astragalus toquimanus Toquima milkvetch

Sensitive At-Risk 6480 to 7520

Pinyon-juniper, sagebrush.

Botrychium ascendens Upswept moonwort


Riparian, seeps, springs.

Botrychium crenulatum Dainty moonwort



Botrychium lineare Slender moonwort

Sensitive Candidate

Watch up to 9,840


Botrychium tunux Moosewort

Sensitive 9,200 to 9,850

Seeps/springs, well-drained rocky meadows, and sparsely vegetated alpine scree slopes.

Cymopterus goodrichii Goodrich biscuitroot


Upper subalpine and lower alpine.

Draba arida Arid draba (Desert whitlowgrass)


Subalpine conifer and lower alpine.

Eriogonum esmeraldense var. toiyabense Toiyabe buckwheat

Sensitive

At-Risk 7,200 to 9,240

Pinyon-juniper, mountain sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and subalpine conifer.

Jamesia tetrapetala Waxflower


Pinyon-juniper to subalpine.

Penstemon arenarius Dune beardtongue


Desert shrub.

Penstemon pudicus Bashful beardtongue


Mountain sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and pinyon juniper

Silene nachlingerea Nachlinger’s silene (Nachlinger catchfly)


Subalpine conifer.



Table 3. State of Nevada “Watch” or “At-Risk” Plant Species that Exist or Have the Potential to Exist in Hickison WBT

Species NNHP Elev. Community Agastache cusickii Cusick hyssop

Watch 5,000 to 11,000

Mountain sagebrush or mountain mahogany.

Astragalus callithrix Callaway milkvetch

Watch 4,880 to 5,900 Desert shrub and sagebrush.

Astragalus calycosus var. monophyllidus Torrey’s one-leaf milkvetch

At-Risk 5,250 to 7,465 sagebrush or juniper-pinyon.

Astragalus cimae var. cimae Cimae milkvetch

At-Risk 5,100 to 6,416 Desert shrub and sagebrush.

Astragalus lentiginosus var. scorpionis Scorpion milkvetch

Watch 6,075 to 11,000

Pinyon-juniper, mountain sagebrush, and subalpine.

Astragalus serenoi var. sordescens Squalid milkvetch

Watch 5,040 to 6,840 Desert shrub, sagebrush, and lower pinyon-juniper.

Astragalus jejunus var. jejunus Starveling milkvetch

Watch 5,740 to 7,310 Sagebrush to pinyon-juniper.

Boechera (Arabis) shockleyi Shockley’s rockcress

Watch 4,000 to 8,600 Desert shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper.

Eriogonum rosense var. beatleyae Beatley buckwheat

At-Risk 5,500 to 9,280 Desert shrub, Wyoming sagebrush, pinyon-juniper.

Frasera albicaulis var. modocensis (Frasera pahutensis) Pahute green gentian

At-Risk 7,030 to 8,400 Pinyon-juniper, mountain shrub.

Hackelia sharsmithii Sierran forget me not

Watch 7,200 to 10,350

Alpine, cliffs.

Lepidium nanum Dwarf peppergrass

Watch 6,440 to 6,560 Pinyon-juniper and sagebrush.

Mentzelia candelariae Candelaria blazing-star

Watch 3,800 to 6,700 Desert shrub, and sagebrush.

Opuntia pulchella Sand cholla

At-Risk 3,950 to 6,300 Desert shrub, sand dunes.

Oxytheca watsonii Watson Spinecup

Watch 4,200 to 6,530 Desert shrub.

Penstemon palmeri var. macranthus Lahontan beardtongue

At-Risk 3,428 to 7,400 Desert shrub, sagebrush.

Sphaeromeria argentea Chickensage

At-Risk 6,100 to 7,520 Pinyon-juniper.

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to set the lower and upper AMLs for the Hickison WBT in light of the joint USFS and BLM management of the wild burro resource. The purpose of this project is also to approve population management actions that can be employed when wild burros are over the upper AMLs established for the WBT. Establishing lower and upper AMLs and population management actions would facilitate the creation or revision of an effective territory management plan for the Hickison WBT. Establishing lower and upper AMLs and population management activities that are compatible with the neighboring BLM HMA would foster



cooperative management of the wild burros in this area and improve the agencies’ efforts to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance.

Consideration of all of the laws, regulations, agency policy, and land management direction on wild burros creates several needs for action by the agency at this time. There is a need to manage the Hickison WBT and HMA as one biological unit to allow for the year-round essential habitat components for wild burros (forage, water, cover and space), and unimpeded natural movement of wild burros between the WBT and the HMA. Refer to Appendix A. Proposed Appropriate Management Levels for Hickison WBT. Appendix A includes a habitat evaluation based on an Essential Habitat Components Matrix. To ensure proper management, FSM 2261.1 requires coordination of all activities related to wild burros with the BLM to reflect similar management objectives (USDA FS 2003). Wild burros associated with the Hickison WBT routinely move between the neighboring BLM HMA and adjoining NFS lands. The wild burros spend approximately five months of the year in the Hickison HMA and the remaining time in the Hickison WBT and adjoining NFS lands. However, individuals can be found on either unit year-round.

Much of the wild burro movements among the Hickison WBT and the neighboring Hickison HMA can be attributed to seasonal availability of water and forage during the growing season, or relative snow depths and open ground during the winter. Generally, higher elevation habitats (above 7,500 feet) are used during late spring, summer, and fall before the onset of winter snows. During this time period, the ground is either snow-free or has shallow snow depths and water and herbaceous forage are more readily available. Lower elevation habitats are occupied by wild burros during late fall through early spring due to shallow snow depths and forage availability. Consequently, habitat conditions or population control actions in the Hickison WBT will influence wild burros in the neighboring Hickison HMA and vice versa.

There is a need to establish AMLs with a low and high range to ensure that wild and free-roaming horses and burros reach and maintain the agency’s goal of preserving these animals in a thriving natural ecological balance within the established territory boundaries, to the extent possible. The Hickison WBT does not have established AMLs. Census flights have shown that wild burro populations in this area have grown from 11 wild burros in 1975 to 90-plus wild burros in 2012 (Appendix A, pp. 10-11). A census flight was conducted on November 4, 2012. As discussed above, understanding wild burro interactions between the Hickison WBT and the neighboring Hickison HMA is necessary to ensure that any proposed AML is consistent and compatible with the overall management of wild burros in the project area.



In addition to establishing AMLs, there is a need to establish population management actions so that herd sizes can be monitored and maintained within the established AML range. Population management actions include:

• gathering and removing of burros outside the territory boundary and complex; • establishing a lower and upper AML range; • removing of excess animals; • maintaining the sex ratio of the herd at particular levels; • establishing a baseline on the genetic diversity of the herd; • maintaining genetic diversity through periodic herd augmentation with wild burros from

other herds having similar characteristics; and • periodic census flights to determine herd size and distribution.

There is a need to comply with Forest Plan direction and bring these rangelands into satisfactory condition or better (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). This project focuses on the impacts caused by wild burros. Domestic livestock grazing will be addressed in future environmental analyses on the grazing allotments. Wild burros are currently roaming outside of the Hickison WBT and onto other public and private land and contributing to adverse grazing effects in some areas. Wild burros have been sighted several miles in Stoneberger Basin, approximately 10 miles south along the Toquima Range and approximately 10 miles across Monitor Valley towards the Monitor Range. Degraded rangeland vegetation conditions have been documented on public grazing lands outside of the Hickison WBT. Season long grazing by wild burro populations in the absence of established AMLs have caused resource problems, such as degraded vegetation within winter habitats for mule deer, pronghorn, greater sage-grouse, and raptors. Habitat degradation has also been recorded within greater sage-grouse lekking habitat, which occurs in the Hickison WBT. Refer to Appendix A for details on impacts related to wild burros. Domestic livestock grazing is authorized in the Hot Springs Winter Allotment, which overlaps the Hickison WBT. However, permittees on this allotment have rarely used the allotment in recent years due to drought concerns and a lack of forage caused by year round use by the growing wild burro herd.

Table 4summarizes the desired conditions, the existing conditions, and the disparity between the desired and existing conditions resulting in associated needs for action. Desired conditions are defined by the Forest Plan or were developed by the interdisciplinary team after consideration of applicable laws, regulations, and agency policy.



Table 4. Hickison Wild Burro Territory Desired and Existing Conditions Desired Conditions Existing Conditions Need for 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

Management Direction Projects that take place on National Forest System lands are guided by the desired conditions, goals, objectives, management direction, and standards and guidelines set out in the Forest Plan specific to each National Forest. The 1986 Toiyabe FP, as amended, embodies the provisions of National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), its implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. The primary sources of management direction that affect wild horse and burro management are described below.



1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan

Standards and Guidelines

Range Proposed Action

4- Develop allotment management plans for all active range allotments and wild free-roaming horse and burro territories (USDA FS 1986, IV-26).

The Proposed Action sets AMLs and other management activities that necessary for the development of a territory management plan for the Hickison Wild Burro Territory.

6- Ensure that water developments and other range improvements meet wildlife needs (USDA FS 1986, IV-26).

The Proposed Action includes design features to ensure that water developments are safe for wildlife.

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 (USDA FS 1986, IV-26).

The Proposed Action identifies utilization levels by the wild burros that would allow for an improvement in ground cover. Utilization levels would be controlled by managing the wild burro herd size within the proposed AML range and improving distribution of wild burro utilization by reconstructing water developments in the territory. Utilization by wild burros would be monitored and the herd size would be adjusted, if necessary, to keep utilization levels at or below desired levels.

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 (USDA FS 1986, IV-26-27).

The Proposed Action sets AMLs to reduce the impact of year- round grazing by wild burros. The Proposed Action identifies utilization levels by the wild burros that would allow rangelands that are not in satisfactory condition to improve. Utilization by wild burros would be monitored and the herd size would be adjusted, if necessary, to keep utilization levels at or below desired levels.

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Proposed Action

1- Manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (USDA FS 1986, IV-31).

The Proposed Action would manage, protect, and control the wild burros in the Hickison Wild Burro Territory in a manner consistent with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended.

4- Manage wild free-roaming horses and burros to population levels compatible with resource capabilities and requirements (USDA FS 1986, IV-31).

The Proposed Action established AMLs that are compatible with the Hickison Wild Burro Territory’s resource capabilities and the neighboring BLM Hickison Herd Management Area. Monitoring would determine whether adjustments to the AMLs are necessary in the future.



Wildlife and Fish Proposed Action

3- B. Maintain 20 percent to 55 percent canopy cover on sage grouse range (USDA FS 1986, IV-49).

The Proposed Action sets AMLs to reduce the impacts of year round grazing by wild burros. Reduced canopy cover on greater sage-grouse range is one of those impacts. The Proposed Action identifies utilization levels by the wild burros that would allow for the maintenance or improvement of canopy cover on greater sage-grouse range. Utilization by wild burros would be monitored and the herd size would be adjusted, if necessary, to keep utilization levels at or below desired levels.

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 (USDA FS 1986, IV-49).

The Proposed Action sets AMLs to reduce the impact of year round grazing by wild burros on meadows. The Proposed Action identifies utilization levels by the wild burros that would allow for the maintenance or improvement of conditions in meadows. Utilization by wild burros would be monitored and the herd size would be adjusted, if necessary, to keep utilization levels at or below desired levels.

3- E. Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within two miles of leks (USDA FS 1986, IV-49).

The Proposed Action identifies utilization levels by the wild burros that would allow for the maintenance or improvement of sagebrush habitat on greater sage-grouse range. Utilization by wild burros would be monitored and the herd size would be adjusted, if necessary, to keep utilization levels at or below desired levels. The Proposed Action also includes design features that ensure activities associated with gathers and census flights would avoid sagebrush habitat within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks.

3- H. Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat on known sage grouse wintering areas (USDA FS 1986, IV-49).

The Proposed Action sets AMLs to reduce the impacts of year round grazing by wild burros on sagebrush habitat. The Proposed Action identifies utilization levels by the wild burros that would allow for the maintenance or improvement of sagebrush habitat. Utilization by wild burros would be monitored and the herd size would be adjusted, if necessary, to keep utilization levels at or below desired levels.

3- J. Protect critical areas for sage grouse brood rearing (USDA FS 1986, IV-49).

The Proposed Action sets AMLs to reduce the impacts of year round grazing by wild burros on sagebrush habitat. The Proposed Action identifies utilization levels by the wild burros that would allow for the protection of critical areas for greater sage-grouse brood rearing. Utilization by wild burros would be monitored and the herd size would be adjusted, if necessary, to keep utilization levels at or below desired levels.

4- Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (USDA FS 1986, IV-49).

The Proposed Action includes design features that ensure that sensitive plants and sage-grouse (a Region 4 sensitive species) would not be impacted by project activities. There are no threatened and endangered species populations in the project area.

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 (USDA FS 1986, IV-50).

The Proposed Action establishes AMLs and an adaptive management strategy that are designed to keep wild burro utilization at light levels (less than 20 percent utilization on herbaceous forage).



Management Area 9 – Toquima The 1986 Toiyabe FP divides NFS lands in Central Nevada into five sub-units called management areas (MAs). Each Management Area has resource or activity goals and management standards for managing areas in particular ways under management area prescriptions. Specific Management Area standards and guidelines apply in addition to any relevant forest-wide direction. The management area direction pertaining to this project area is summarized below.

Management Direction Proposed Action

Key wildlife and fisheries habitats will be maintained and improved. (USDA FS 1986, IV-130).

The Proposed Action contains design features to maintain or improve greater sage-grouse habitat. The Proposed Action is also designed to improve or maintain ground cover and rangeland condition, which would in turn result in improvement or maintenance of wildlife and fisheries habitats.

Noxious farm weeds will be controlled. (USDA FS 1986, IV-130).

The Proposed Action contains design features to control the introduction and spread of noxious weeds.

Compatibility of livestock production with other resources and activities will be emphasized. (USDA FS 1986, IV-130).

The Proposed Action establishes AMLs and an adaptive management strategy that are designed to keep wild burro utilization at light levels (less than 20 percent utilization on herbaceous forage). The AMLs and utilization levels would allow for compatible livestock production on the Hot Springs Winter and Stoneberger allotments and compatible management with the neighboring BLM Hickison Wild Burro Herd Management Area.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action was developed to meet the purpose and need for this project. The objective of the Proposed Action is to maintain the wild burro population associated with the Hickison WBT in a thriving natural ecological balance. The Proposed Action would:

Establish lower and upper Appropriate Management Levels (16 to 45 wild burros) for the Hickison Wild Burro Territory;

Authorize population management actions; Approve reconstruction of water developments within the Hickison Wild Burro Territory; Establish design criteria to resolve potential resource conflicts associated with the

structural developments in the Hickison Wild Burro Territory; and Approve an adaptive management process based on monitoring.

Although one of the purposes of this project is to align the management of the Forest Service’s Hickison WBT with the BLM’s Hickison HMA, this is not a joint analysis with BLM. None of the elements of the Proposed Action would alter or control BLM’s actions in the HMA.



Establish Appropriate Management Levels The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest purposes to establish lower and upper AMLs for the Hickison WBT. The proposed AML would have a range between lower and upper limits. The proposed AMLs would only apply to NFS lands within the Hickison WBT. The wild burros in this area move between BLM and NFS lands without consideration to boundaries. Because of the known wild burro interactions between the Hickison WBT and HMA, this project proposes to manage the WBT and HMA as a complex. BLM has already established low and high AMLs for the Hickison Wild Burro HMA: 16 to 45 wild burros for five months. To be compatible with the HMA, this project proposes to set the low and high AMLs for the Hickison WBT at 16 to 45 burros for seven months. Harmonizing the AMLs between the Hickison Burro WBT and HMA would allow the areas to be managed as a complex that would have a year around capacity of 16 to 45 animals for 12 months. Accordingly, the wild burro herd that inhabits the Hickison WBT and HMA would be managed to have a minimum population of 16 animals and a maximum population of 45 animals.

Authorize Population Management Actions Authorize the Austin District Ranger or his/her delegate or agent to remove and/or relocate any excess wild burros located in the Hickison Burro Territory or adjacent National Forest System lands.

Gather and Remove Whenever Outside of Territory 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. Emphasis on removing animals that are outside of the existing boundary should address “learned” behavior associated with occupation of those areas.

Gather and Remove When Upper AML is Reached

Animals would be gathered and removed when the Hickison wild burro herd population exceeds the upper AML (45 adults). The initial removal of 45 to 74 excess animals to be within AML should reduce the population pressure that promotes migration beyond the territory boundary. The usual gather technique would 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.

Gathers and handling would 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. Examples of SOPs are included in appendix C.

These AMLs, population management actions, and SOPs would then be used to prepare a Territory Management Plan (TMP) for the Hickison WBT. The new TMP would guide management of the territory as part of a larger biological unit as expressed by the



administratively designated WBT/HMA complex identified in this action. A combined AML for the WBT/HMA complex would be the foundation for future management and achievement of a TNEB to promote healthy self-sustaining wild burro populations. A draft of the TMP is included in appendix E.

Reconstruction of Water Developments The Forest Service would work under cooperative agreements with the Hot Springs Winter grazing permittees to reconstruct existing water developments to provide perennial sources of water for livestock, wild burros and wildlife. This reconstruction would be conducted as funds are available. The water sources are listed in the preferred order of priority in table 5. However, if opportunities arise that favor reconstruction of these water sources in a different order, those opportunities would not be overlooked merely because they are listed with lower priority. The reconstruction activities would be conducted in conformance with the design features listed below.

Table 5. Proposed Reconstruction of Water Sources in Hickison WBT Name Type Condition Location Proposed Action

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.

Pete’s Spring and Pipeline

Spring box, pipeline, & trough

Poor T16N, R46E, Sec. 20

Reconstruct collection system and repair pipeline

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.

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

Map 2 reflects to location of these water developments.



Map 2. Location of Water Development Within Hickison Wild Burro Territory



Design Features 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.

Cultural Resources Future planned activities that are likely to concentrate wild burro use could affect cultural resources in several ways. In project specific areas, such as the proposed reconstruction of water sources, an archaeological survey will be conducted to identify cultural resources to meet Forest Service responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. A cultural resource report of survey results and determination of significance and effect will be prepared in consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. Standard procedures for protecting cultural resources will be followed.

Temporary facilities for gathers and handling, which would entail the construction of temporary fences, fall under the National Programmatic Agreement among the Forest Service, the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers regarding rangeland management activities and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). An archaeological survey will be conducted at the locations of the temporary facilities to identify cultural resources. If no cultural resources are identified, the survey results will be reported in the annual report to SHPO. If cultural resources are identified, the temporary facilities will be relocated to a location where there are no cultural resources. Implementation of these strategies would satisfy the Forest’s compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA (USDA FS 1995).

Tribal concerns regarding project activities will be addresses prior to and during planning phases of the proposed project activity.

Sensitive Plants Future planned activities that are likely to concentrate wild burro use (such as placement of watering sources and placement of temporary handling facilities) would be designed to avoid known sensitive plant locations. Future wild burro concentrating activities would 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 would be evaluated for adverse effects and a determination made about whether mitigation is required to provide adequate protection. Surveys in potential habitat would also evaluate impacts from existing activities that concentrate wild burro use.

Wildlife Water developments can impact wildlife in a variety of ways. To minimize adverse impacts, the following design features are incorporated into the Proposed Action:

• Design water developments 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; • When repairing or replacing water developments, alter design of water developments to

reduce concentration of animals in contiguous sagebrush habitat;

To minimize disturbances to golden eagles, the District Wildlife Biologist will be contacted for any necessary avoidance measures regarding gather operations taking place during golden eagle breeding/nesting dates (later January – August).

To protect sagebrush communities associated with lekking habitat, any activity associated with the proposed action that may fragment, remove, and/or jeopardize sagebrush habitat would not be allowed within 2 miles of a greater sage-grouse lek. Further, to avoid disrupting greater sage-grouse during their breeding season, 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 not be allowed within a 0.6 mile (1km) buffer around active 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 – May15).

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

• All hay brought onto NFS lands would be “Certified Weed Free”; • All potential gather trap sites, bait trap sites, and temporary holding facilities would be

inventoried for noxious weeds prior to construction; • All vehicles or equipment that are used to implement the proposed action would be free

of dirt, mud, or visible plant debris before moving into the project area; • All gather sites, holding facilities, and camping areas on National Forest would 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 would be conducted under the 1996 Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment.

Adaptive Management Adjustments Based on Monitoring Adjustments Based on Utilization Monitoring Monitoring would be conducted on residual forage prior to the winter cattle grazing season to ensure that the established AMLs are compatible with resource capabilities while considering permitted livestock and other uses recognized under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act. 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).



This project proposes to conduct short-term and long-term monitoring as part of the adaptive management process. Short-term monitoring would monitor forage utilization by wild burros, livestock, and wildlife. Utilization would 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 would be measured again at the end of the winter grazing season and prior to onset of spring plant growth. The proposed utilization levels are listed in table 6.

Table 6. Maximum Utilization Levels for Wild Burros in Hickison WBT

Vegetation Type

Maximum Percent Utilization By Key Species

Grass or Forb Shrubs and Trees

Pre-Winter Grazing Season

Post-Winter Grazing Season

Pre-Winter Grazing Season

Post-Winter Grazing Season

Riparian 20% 55% 5% 25%

Upland 20% 45% 5% 30%

If the short-term monitoring indicates that the desired utilization levels are exceeded for three years in a row even though the upper AML has not been reached, adjustments to herd size would be considered. The process for adjusting herd size described in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook (example 2) would be used to set a new upper AML (appendix D). Gathers would not reduce the wild burros population below the lower AML established as part of this decision.

Adjustments Based on Changes in Plant Composition Long-term monitoring would monitor changes in plant species composition in the project area. Recent studies in the project area indicate that grass and forb species indicative of desired function are not at desired levels. Repeated measurements at long-term monitoring sites would be used to determine whether desirable grass and forb species are increasing toward the desired levels. Long-term monitoring would focus on the changes in the levels of squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) and forbs not considered to be noxious or invasive. Desired levels of these species are determined using the Resource Implementation Protocol for Condition Assessment Matrices (Matrices), an ecological scorecard developed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The Matrices include measurable parameters for soil, vegetation, hydrology, and disturbance factors that indicate whether a vegetation community, and the wildlife habitat it represents, is in functioning, functioning-at-risk, or non-functioning condition. Desired levels (or condition) are those associated with functioning condition.

Changes in plant composition in the project occur slowly over many years. Repeat monitoring would be conducted at intervals when changes in plant composition may be possible to detect; somewhere between every 5 and 10 years. If the short-term monitoring reflects that the desired



utilization levels are not being exceeded, but the long-term monitoring indicates that the desired grasses and forbs listed above are not increasing or at desired levels, adjustments to herd size would be considered. Herd size adjustments would be conducted in the same manner as described above for the short-term monitoring process.

The short-term and long-term monitoring sites that would be used for these purposes are identified in the draft Territory Management Plan (appendix E). These 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 described in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook would be used to select new monitoring sites (appendix F).

Adjustments Based on Genetic Diversity Hair samples would be collected during every gather operation from any burros gathered in the vicinity of the WBT. These hair samples would be used to monitor the homozygosity (genetic diversity) of the herd. If the hair sample monitoring indicates that genetic diversity has decreased to such a degree that it threatens the survival of the herd over the long term, the genetic diversity of the herd would be augmented by releasing wild burros from a different herd into the Hickison wild burro herd. One or two young jennies (female burro) would be introduced from outside the WHT/HMA complex. The introduced animals would come from herds living in similar environmental conditions. The introduced animals would not be selected to promote particular physical characteristics in the herd’s offspring.

Actions That Are Not Part of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is limited to the actions listed above. Other methods are sometimes used to control wild burro populations, but only the methods listed above would be authorized for use if the Proposed Action is selected by the responsible official. This means that under the Proposed Action gathers would not be used to skew the wild burro population to have more males than females. Rather, gathers would seek to leave the herd with a 1:1 male to female ratio.

Likewise, the fertility or reproduction of wild burros would not be controlled through the use of Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) or other contraceptives. Furthermore, no wild burros would be sterilized under the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, wild burro populations in the Hickison WBT would be controlled exclusively through gathers.

While one of the purposes of this project is to align the management of the Forest Service’s Hickison WBT with the BLM’s Hickison HMA, this is not a joint analysis with BLM. None of the elements of the Proposed Action would alter or control BLM’s actions in the HMA.

Comment Process The Forest Service encourages your substantive comments on this proposed action, along with supporting reasons that the responsible official should consider in reaching a decision.

Your comments will help us prepare an Environmental Assessment on the Proposed Action. The assessment will be used to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or to make a Finding of No Significant Impact. If there is no potential for significant impacts, that



finding along with the Environmental Assessment and the Decision Notice will be sent to those who commented. If the Environmental Assessment concludes that there is the potential for significant impacts, an Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared. Additional alternatives may be generated from public scoping comments and would also be included in the analysis.

Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, and electronic comments concerning this action will be accepted for 30 calendar days following the publication of the legal notice in the Battle Mountain Bugle. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for the Proposed Action. You should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

To provide comments on the Proposed Action, please go to: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/htnf/hickison. Written or facsimile comments must be sent to District Ranger, Austin Ranger District, 100 Midas Canyon Road, P.O. Box 130, Austin, Nevada 89310; phone (775) 964-2671, fax (775) 964-1451; or you may hand-deliver your comments to the above address during normal business hours from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Oral comments must be provided at the Austin Ranger District office during normal business hours. Comments must have an identifiable name attached or verification of identity will be required.

It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period. Those who provide substantive comments during this comment period are eligible to appeal the decision. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to appeal must provide the information identified in 36 CFR 215, including:

• Name and Address;

• Title of the proposed action;

• Specific substantive comments (36 CFR 215.2) on the proposed action, along with supporting reasons that the Responsible Official should consider in reaching a decision;

• Signature or other verification of identity upon request; identification of the individual or organization who authored the comments(s) is necessary for appeal eligibility;

• For multiple names or multiple organizations, a signature must be provided for the individual authorized to represent each organization, or for each individual that wishes to have appeal eligibility, and

• Individual members of organizations must submit their own substantive comments to meet the requirements of appeal eligibility as an individual, comments received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record for this project and will be available for public inspection and will be released if requested under the Freedom of Information Act. For further information contact Vernon Keller, Project Manager at (775) 355-5356.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/htnf/hickison



References

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. 2006. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. Second Edition. Educational Bulletin 06-03.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. The Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. United States Forest Service. Toiyabe National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Rangeland Management Program on National Forest System Lands.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Washington Office. Forest Service Agreement 11-1A-11132421-214. August 2011.

Documents

Notice of Proposed Action and Opportunity to Comment