Chapter 3. Affected Environment
 
This page intentionally

left blank
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Draft Resource Management iii

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents
 

Dear Reader Letter ....................................................................................................................... xi
 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... xiii
 

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
 

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives .......................................................................................... 1
 

3. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 3
 

3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5
 

3.1.1. Organization of Chapter 3 ...................................................................................... 5
 

3.2. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat ................................................. 7
 

3.2.1. Range and Taxonomy ............................................................................................ 7
 

3.2.2. Biology and Life History ....................................................................................... 7
 

3.2.3. Management Zones .............................................................................................. 13
 

3.2.4. Regional Context ................................................................................................. 32
 

3.3. Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds) .......................... 36
 

3.3.1. Weed Control Guidance and Programs ................................................................ 36
 

3.3.2. Current Condition ................................................................................................ 37
 

3.4. Riparian Areas and Wetlands ........................................................................................ 48
 

3.5. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species ............................................................... 51
 

3.5.1. Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ........................................................... 51
 

3.5.2. Conditions on Forest Service-Administered Lands ............................................. 54
 

3.5.3. Species Accounts ................................................................................................. 54
 

3.5.4. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species .................. 57
 

3.5.5. Management Indicator Species (Forest Service) ................................................. 61
 

3.6. Wild Horses and Burros ................................................................................................ 61
 

3.6.1. Current Conditions ............................................................................................... 62
 

3.7. Wildland Fire and Fire Management ............................................................................ 66
 

3.8. Livestock Grazing ......................................................................................................... 76
 

3.9. Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 85
 

3.10. Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ........................................... 87
 

3.11. Land Use and Realty ................................................................................................... 93
 

3.12. Renewable Energy Resources ................................................................................... 102
 

3.13. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................... 106
 

3.14. Special Designations ................................................................................................. 122
 

3.14.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................................ 123
 

3.14.2. Wilderness ........................................................................................................ 125
 

3.14.3. Wilderness Study Areas ................................................................................... 126
 

3.14.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................... 128
 

3.14.5. Other Special Designations .............................................................................. 128
 

Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

iv Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

3.15. Water Resources ........................................................................................................ 130
 

3.16. Soil Resources ........................................................................................................... 139
 

3.17. Cultural Heritage Resources ..................................................................................... 140
 

3.18. Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns) ........................... 141
 

3.19. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (BLM) ......................................................... 153
 

3.20. Visual Resources ....................................................................................................... 155
 

3.21. Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 157
 

3.22. Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 159
 

3.23. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ............................................................. 168
 

Table of Contents
Draft Resource Management v
 

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement
 

List of Figures
 

Figure 3.1. Historic Sage Grouse Range .......................................................................................... 7
 

Figure 3.2. Preliminary Priority and General Sage-Grouse Habitat and WAFWA Management
 

Zones .................................................................................................................................. 13
 

Figure 3.3. Populations/Subpopulation Management Units and WAFWA Management Zones ... 15
 

Figure 3.4. Occupied Habitat ......................................................................................................... 20
 

Figure 3.5. Areas with a High Probability of Cheatgrass Occurance ............................................ 22
 

Figure 3.6. Fire History 2000-2012 ............................................................................................... 22
 

Figure 3.7. Landscape Condition ................................................................................................... 33
 

Figure 3.8. Bioclimate Change Summary: Greater Sage-Grouse .................................................. 35
 

Figure 3.9. Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas, Herd Management Areas, and Territories ........... 62
 

Figure 3.10. Areas with Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Conifer Interface ................................... 69
 

Figure 3.11. Areas with High Fire Probability ............................................................................... 76
 

Figure 3.12. .................................................................................................................................... 85
 

Figure 3.13. Renewable Energy ................................................................................................... 104
 

Figure 3.14. Existing Oil and Gas Leases and Wells ................................................................... 117
 

Figure 3.15. Existing Geothermal Leases and Power Plants ....................................................... 117
 

Figure 3.16. Special Designations and Other Important Resources ............................................ 123
 

Figure 3.17. Conceptual Groundwater Flow System ................................................................... 136
 

Figure 3.18. Designations for the Particulate Matter PM10National Ambient Air Quality
 

Standards .......................................................................................................................... 158
 

Figure 3.19. Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Change (degrees F) by the
 

2020s, for July, August, and September (Comer et al. 2012a) ........................................ 163
 

Figure 3.20. Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Increases (degrees F) for
 

2060, for July and August (Comer et al. 2012a) .............................................................. 163
 

List of Figures
This page intentionally

left blank
Draft Resource Management vii

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

List of Tables
 

Table 3.1. Characteristics of Sagebrush Rangeland Needed for Productive GRSG Habitat ......... 11
 

Table 3.2. Habitat Health Indicators and Objectives

Table 3.4. Surface Ownership within Nevada and Northeastern California
 

..................................................................... 12
 

Table 3.3. WAFWA Management Zones in the Planning Area ..................................................... 14
 

Population/Subpopulation Areas ........................................................................................ 17
 

Table 3.5. GRSG Habitat1 within Nevada and Northeastern California Population/
 

Subpopulation Areas .......................................................................................................... 19
 

Table 3.6. Suitable GRSG Habitat As Percentage of Population/Subpopulation Surface
 

Acreage and as Percentage of Sub-region Occupied Habitat ............................................. 20
 

Table 3.7. Leks in Population/Subpopulation Areas ...................................................................... 20
 

Table 3.8. Percentage Distribution of Active Leks by Size Category within
 

Population/Subpopulation Areas ........................................................................................ 21
 

Table 3.9. Fire Starts and Acres Burned by Decade1 by Population/Subpopulation Area ............ 22
 

Table 3.10. Active and Inactive Lek Sites and Adjacent Nesting Habitat Burned Since 1980 ..... 24
 

Table 3.11. Acres of Vegetation Communities within PPH and PGH ........................................... 36
 

Table 3.12. Acres of Cheatgrass Potential in GRSG Habitat ......................................................... 47
 

Table 3.13. Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals .......................................... 49
 

Table 3.14. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species .......................... 57
 

Table 3.15. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species Minimal
 

Overlap with Planning Area1 ............................................................................................. 58
 

Table 3.16. BLM and Forest Service Sensitive Species ................................................................ 59
 

Table 3.17. Acres of Wild Horse and Burro Areas and Territories in GRSG Habitat ................... 63
 

Table 3.18. Herd Management Areas and Forest Service Territories in GRSG Habitat ................ 63
 

Table 3.19. Acres of Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Interface in GRSG Habitat ......................... 68
 

Table 3.20. Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions ........................................................................ 69
 

Table 3.21. Fire Regime Condition Classes ................................................................................... 70
 

Table 3.22. Fire Regime Groups in PPH and PGH (acres) ............................................................ 71
 

Table 3.23. Condition Classes in PPH and PGH (acres) ................................................................ 71
 

Table 3.24. BLM Hazardous Fuels Treatments (2008-2012) ........................................................ 71
 

Table 3.25. Forest Service Fuels Treatments (2008-2012) ............................................................ 72
 

Table 3.26. Acres of Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat ................................................................... 72
 

Table 3.27. Fire Occurrence (1992 – 2011) ................................................................................... 74
 

Table 3.28. Causes of Fires (1992 – 2011) ..................................................................................... 75
 

Table 3.29. Acres with High Probability for Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat .............................. 76
 

Table 3.30. Northeastern California BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat ...................................... 80
 

Table 3.31. Nevada BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat ............................................................... 82
 

Table 3.32. Acres of Grazing Allotments in GRSG Habitat .......................................................... 83
 

Table 3.33. Acres of Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards in GRSG Habitat ............. 84
 

Table 3.34. Miles of Fences in GRSG Habitat ............................................................................... 84
 

Table 3.35. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes ................................................................. 87
 

Table 3.36. Travel Area Designations on BLM and Forest Service Lands1 .................................. 90
 

Table 3.37. Miles of Roads in GRSG Habitat ................................................................................ 91
 

Table 3.38. Acres of Roads in GRSG Habitat ............................................................................... 91
 

Table 3.39. Miles of Railroads in GRSG Habitat .......................................................................... 92
 

Table 3.40. Acres of Railroads in GRSG Habitat .......................................................................... 92
 

Table 3.41. Acres of GRSG Habitat within City Limits ................................................................ 94
 

Table 3.42. Number of Communication Towers in GRSG Habitat ............................................... 94
 

Table 3.43. Acres of Transmission Lines in GRSG Habitat .......................................................... 95
 

List of Tables
viii Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.44. Miles of Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat ............................................................... 95
 

Table 3.45. Acres of Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat ............................................................... 96
 

Table 3.46. Acres of ROW Exclusion/Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat ................................... 96
 

Table 3.47. Number of Special Use Authorizations on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 100
 

Table 3.48. Acres of Wind Energy ROWs in GRSG Habitat ...................................................... 105
 

Table 3.49. Stipulations Related to GRSG Habitat ...................................................................... 109
 

Table 3.50. Acres Open to Oil and Gas Leasing in GRSG Habitat ............................................. 114
 

Table 3.51. Acres Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing in GRSG Habitat ........................................... 115
 

Table 3.52. Acres of Oil and Gas Leases in GRSG Habitat ........................................................ 116
 

Table 3.53. Acres of Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production in GRSG Habitat ........................ 116
 

Table 3.54. Acres of Oil and Gas Wells in GRSG Habitat .......................................................... 117
 

Table 3.55. Acres of Geothermal Resource Potential in GRSG Habitat ..................................... 118
 

Table 3.56. Acres of Geothermal Leases in GRSG Habitat ......................................................... 118
 

Table 3.57. Locatable Minerals .................................................................................................... 120
 

Table 3.58. Acres of Locatable Mineral Claims in GRSG Habitat .............................................. 120
 

Table 3.59. Notices and Plans of Operations Reviewed by the California and Nevada BLM .... 121
 

Table 3.60. Acres of Mineral Material Disposal Sites in GRSG Habitat .................................... 122
 

Table 3.61. Conservation Areas in GRSG Habitat ...................................................................... 123
 

Table 3.62. Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in GRSG Habitat ................. 124
 

Table 3.63. Wilderness Areas ....................................................................................................... 125
 

Table 3.64. Wilderness Study Areas ............................................................................................ 127
 

Table 3.65. Hydrologic Sub-basins in the Planning Area ............................................................ 132
 

Table 3.66. Tribal Consultation and Outreach Efforts for the Nevada and Northeastern
 

California Sub-region Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS ............................................................... 145
 

Table 3.67. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics and GRSG Habitat in the Planning Area .... 154
 

Table 3.68. Temperature Variations in the Planning Area ........................................................... 162
 

Table 3.69. Commuter Patterns in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010 ................................... 169
 

Table 3.70. BLM and Forest Service Plans within the Socioeconomic Study Area,
 

Management Units, and Counties .................................................................................... 170
 

Table 3.71. Population Growth in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 1990-2010 .......................... 171
 

Table 3.72. Demographic Characteristics of the Socioeconomic Study Area, Share in Total
 

Population (percent), 2010 ............................................................................................... 172
 

Table 3.73. Employment by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area1 .............................. 177
 

Table 3.74. Labor Income by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area (2010 dollars) ...... 179
 

Table 3.75. Annual Unemployment within the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2007 – 2011 ......... 182
 

Table 3.76. Estimated Annual Visits by Planning Unit ............................................................... 183
 

Table 3.77. Visitor Spending from Recreation on BLM and Forest Service Land in
 

Socioeconomic Study Area, FY 2011 .............................................................................. 185
 

Table 3.78. Farm Earnings Detail within the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010 (2010 dollars) . 186
 

Table 3.79. Active and Billed Animal Unit Months (AUMs) ...................................................... 189
 

Table 3.80. Geothermal Electrical Generation: Sales Volume and Sales Value from
 

BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011 .......................................................................... 192
 

Table 3.81. Oil Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011 .. 194
 

Table 3.82. Mining Sector Employment by County .................................................................... 195
 

Table 3.83. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Received in the Socioeconomic Study Area by County,
 

2010 .................................................................................................................................. 199
 

Table 3.84. BLM Employment and Related Expenditures in the Socioeconomic Study Area ... 200
 

Table 3.85. Population Race and Ethnicity, 2010 ........................................................................ 203
 

Table 3.86. Low-Income Populations, 2006-2010 Average ......................................................... 205
 

List of Tables
Draft Resource Management ix

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement
 

Table 3.87. Federally Recognized Tribes of Nevada1 .................................................................. 205
 

List of Tables
This page intentionally

left blank
Draft Resource Management 5

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

3.1. Introduction

This chapter succinctly documents the existing conditions and trends of resources in the planning

area that may be affected by implementing any of the proposed alternatives described in Chapter

2, Proposed Action and Alternatives. The affected environment provides the context for assessing

potential impacts as described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

For this LUPA/EIS, the planning area is the entire Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region

(49,868,700 acres), which contains BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Within

the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area, there are 45,360,300 of

BLM-administered lands and 9,721,600 acres of Forest Service-administered lands

The planning area is the geographic area within which the BLM and Forest Service will make

decisions during this planning effort, and the planning area boundary includes all lands regardless

of jurisdiction. Lands addressed in the LUP amendments will be public lands (including

surface-estate split estate lands) managed by the BLM and Forest Service in Greater Sage-Grouse

habitats. Any decisions in the LUP amendments will apply only to federal lands administered by

either the BLM or the Forest Service.

3.1.1. Organization of Chapter 3

This chapter contains sections describing the biological, physical, and human resources of the

planning area and follows the order of topics addressed as follows:

● GRSG and GRSG Habitat

● Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds)

● Riparian Areas and Wetlands

● Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species

● Wild Horse and Burros

● Wildland Fire and Fire Management

● Livestock Grazing/Recreation

● Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

● Land Use and Realty

● Renewable Energy Resources/Mineral Resources

● Special Designations

○ Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

○ Wilderness Areas

○ Wilderness Study Areas

○ National Trails

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Introduction
6 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

○ Byways

○ Wild and Scenic Rivers

● Water Resources

● Soil Resources

● Cultural Heritage Resources

● Tribal Interests (Including Native American Religious Concerns)

● Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (BLM)

● Visual Resources

● Air Quality

● Climate Change

● Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Each resource section in this chapter contains a discussion of background information, including

guidance and regulations, and current conditions. Current conditions describe the location, extent,

and current conditions of the resource in the planning area on BLM-administered and Forest

Service-administered lands. Conditions for a resource can vary, depending on the resource.

Those resources (e.g., vegetation, fire management, livestock grazing, mineral resources, and

lands and realty) that have a greater influence on GRSG populations and habitat and that are more

likely to be affected by GRSG management actions are described in greater detail than those

resources (e.g., water, air quality, and soil resources) that have little to no influence. The Nevada

and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area comprises 49,868,700 acres. Within the

Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area, there are 45,360,300 acres of

BLM-administered lands and 9,721,600 acres of Forest Service-administered lands that are

managed according to the BLM and Forest Service plans being amended by this LUPA/EIS.

For each resource, a general description of the existing conditions is provided for the Nevada

and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area, regardless of land status. This is done to

provide a regional context for the resource. Then, a more detailed description of the existing

conditions is provided for the BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands managed

according to the BLM and Forest Service plans being amended by this LUPA/EIS. This is

done to provide an area-specific description of the existing conditions for the resource. When

possible, greater emphasis is placed on describing the existing conditions of the resource as it

pertains to GRSG and its habitat.

The BLM and Forest Service reviewed the LUPs being amended under this LUPA/EIS and other

relevant information sources (such as LUPAs, maps, and state GRSG conservation strategies or

plans) for existing conditions and trends for the resources listed above with respect to GRSG and

its habitat. This affected environment information is summarized below and, where appropriate,

noted when the information is incorporated by reference.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Organization of Chapter 3
Draft Resource Management 7

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

3.2. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

3.2.1. Range and Taxonomy

Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) are the largest grouse found in North America. They

are a ground-dwelling, sagebrush obligate species. Historically, GRSG were considered to be

one species with a range that included 14 US states and 3 Canadian provinces prior to Euro

American contact (Figure 3-1, Historic Greater Sage-Grouse Range; Aldrich 1963; Johnsgard

1983; Connelly et al. 2004; Schroeder et al. 2004). After considering the splitting of GRSG into

separate species and sub-species based on a variety of genetic, morphological, and behavioral

evidence, only the Gunnison Sage-Grouse has been determined to be a unique species. The

Bi-State population in southwestern Nevada and east-central California has been found to be

genetically unique and its status is widely debated, but the species remains taxonomically

within GRSG. The Bi-State population, however, is not within the purview of this Nevada and

Northeastern California Sub-regional LUPA/EIS.

The current range of GRSG includes 11 US states and 2 Canadian provinces and is thought to be

a reduction of 44 percent from the range prior to Euro American contact (Connelly and Braun

1997; Schroeder et al. 2004). Regional population declines have ranged from 17 to 47 percent

(Connelly and Braun 1997). Although specific reasons for population decline differ across the

range, the underlying cause is the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of suitable sagebrush

habitat (Connelly and Braun 1997; Leonard et al. 2000; Aldridge et al. 2008). As sagebrush

habitats increasingly overlap with natural resources (e.g., oil, gas, wind, minerals, agriculture, and

recreation areas) and face increased landscape-level changes caused by exotic weeds, fire, and

conifer encroachment (Connelly et al. 2004), populations have declined substantially, raising

conservation concern for the species.

(PDF Map 3–1)

Figure 3.1. Historic Sage Grouse Range

3.2.2. Biology and Life History

GRSG depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout their life cycle and are considered

obligate users of several species of sagebrush, including Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia

tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), mountain big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. vaseyana), and basin big

sagebrush (A. t. tridentata) (Patterson 1952; Braun et al. 1976; Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et

al. 2004; Miller et al. 2011). GRSG also use other sagebrush species such as low sagebrush (A.

arbuscula), black sagebrush (A. nova), fringed sagebrush (A. frigida), and silver sagebrush (A.

cana) (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2004). GRSG distribution is strongly correlated

with the distribution of sagebrush habitats (Schroeder et al. 2004). GRSG exhibit strong loyalty,

also known as site fidelity, to seasonal habitats (including breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and

wintering areas) even when the area is no longer of value (Connelly et al. 2004). Adult GRSG

rarely switch between these habitats once they have been selected, limiting their ability to adapt

to changes.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater SageGrouse Habitat
8 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

During the spring breeding season, male GRSG gather together to perform courtship displays on

areas called leks. Areas of bare soil, short-grass steppe, windswept ridges, exposed knolls, or

other relatively open sites typically serve as leks (Patterson 1952; Connelly et al. 2004). Leks are

often surrounded by denser shrub-steppe cover, which is used for escape, thermal, and feeding

cover. The proximity, configuration, and abundance of nesting habitat are key factors influencing

lek location (Connelly 1982; Connelly et al. 2000b; Connelly et al. 2011). Leks can be formed

opportunistically at any appropriate site within or adjacent to nesting habitat (Connelly et al.

2000a), and, therefore, lek habitat availability is not considered to be a limiting factor for GRSG

(Schroeder et al. 1999). Nest sites are selected independent of lek locations, but the reverse is not

true (Bradbury et al. 1989; Wakkinen et al. 1992). Thus, leks are indicative of nesting habitat.

Leks range in size from less than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare) to over 90 acres (36 hectares; Connelly

et al. 2004) and can host from several to hundreds of males (Johnsgard 2002). Males defend

individual territories within leks and perform elaborate displays with their specialized plumage

and vocalizations to attract females for mating. Males do not participate in incubation of eggs or

rearing chicks.

Females have been documented to travel more than 12.5 miles (20 kilometers) to their nest site

after mating (Connelly et al. 2000a), but distances between a nest site and the lek on which

breeding occurred is variable (Connelly et al. 2004). Average distance between a female’s nest

and the lek on which she was first observed ranged from 2.1 miles (3.4 kilometers) to 4.8 miles

(7.8 kilometers) in 5 studies examining 301 nest locations (Schroeder et al. 1999).

Productive nesting areas are typically characterized by sagebrush with an understory of native

grasses and forbs (broad-leaved flowering plants), with horizontal and vertical structural diversity

that provides an insect prey base, herbaceous forage for pre-laying and nesting hens, and cover

for the hen while she is incubating (Gregg 1991; Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a;

Connelly et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2011). GRSG also may use other shrub or bunchgrass

species for nest sites (Klebenow 1969; Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et al. 2004). Shrub canopy

and grass cover provide concealment for GRSG nests and young and are critical for reproductive

success (Barnett and Crawford 1994; Gregg et al. 1994; DeLong et al. 1995; Connelly et al.

2004). Vegetation characteristics of successful nest sites include a sagebrush canopy cover of

15 to 25 percent, sagebrush heights of 11.8 to 31.5 inches (30 to 80 centimeters), and grass/forb

cover of 7.1 inches (18 centimeters; Connelly et al. 2000a).

Hens rear their broods within 0.1 to 3.1 miles (0.2 to 5 kilometers) of the nest site for the first 2 to

3 weeks following hatching, based on 2 studies in Wyoming (Connelly et al. 2004). Forbs and

insects are essential nutritional components for chicks (Klebenow and Gray 1968; Johnson and

Boyce 1991; Connelly et al. 2004). Therefore, early brood-rearing habitat must provide adequate

cover (sagebrush canopy cover of 10 to 25 percent; Connelly et al. 2000a) adjacent to areas rich

in forbs and insects to ensure chick survival during this period (Connelly et al. 2004).

All GRSG gradually move from sagebrush uplands to more mesic areas (moist areas such

as streambeds or wet meadows) during the late brood-rearing period (3 weeks post-hatch) in

response to summer desiccation of herbaceous vegetation (Connelly et al. 2000a). Summer use

areas can include sagebrush habitats as well as riparian areas, wet meadows, and alfalfa fields

(Schroeder et al. 1999). These areas provide an abundance of forbs and insects for both hens and

chicks (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a). GRSG will use free water although they

do not require it since they obtain their water needs from the food they eat. However, natural

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biology and Life History
Draft Resource Management 9

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

water bodies and reservoirs can provide mesic areas for succulent forb and insect production,

thereby attracting GRSG hens with broods (Connelly et al. 2004).

As vegetation becomes desiccated through the late summer and fall, GRSG shift their diet entirely

to sagebrush (Schroeder et al. 1999). GRSG depend entirely on sagebrush throughout the winter

for both food and cover. Sagebrush stand selection is influenced by snow depth (Patterson 1952;

Hupp and Braun 1989), availability of sagebrush above the snow to provide cover (Connelly et al.

2004 and references therein) and, in some areas, topography (e.g., elevation, slope, and aspect;

Beck 1977; Crawford et al. 2004).

Many populations of GRSG migrate between seasonal ranges in response to habitat distribution

(Connelly et al. 2004). Migration can occur between winter, breeding, and summer areas, or not at

all. Migration distances of up to 100 miles (161 kilometers) have been recorded (Patterson 1952);

however, distances vary depending on the locations of seasonal habitats (Schroeder et al. 1999).

Migration distances for female GRSG generally are less than for males (Connelly et al. 2004), but,

in one study in Colorado, females traveled farther than males (Beck 1977). Almost no information

is available regarding the distribution and characteristics of migration corridors for GRSG

(Connelly et al. 2004). GRSG dispersal (when a population permanently moves to other areas) is

poorly understood (Connelly et al. 2004) and appears to be sporadic (Dunn and Braun 1986).

Habitat and Population Trends

Considerable attention has been given to this species since the 1980s, as evidenced by the National

Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (DOI 2004). This conservation strategy provides

national GRSG habitat conservation guidance. The plan identifies potential conservation actions

that might be implemented in order to maintain and enhance GRSG populations and habitat.

Several factors related to GRSG habitat and the way it is used by this species have been

considered causes of the decline in GRSG distribution and abundance. These factors include

habitat loss, alteration, and degradation (Braun 1995). Historically, sagebrush-dominated

vegetation was one of the most widespread habitats in the country and still covers much of

the Great Basin and Wyoming Basin, reaching into the Snake River Plain, Columbia Basin,

the Colorado Plateau, Montana, southwestern Colorado, northern Arizona, and New Mexico.

Across this area, big sagebrush predominates and has five known subspecies (West 1988; Kartesz

1994). The sagebrush mosaic was historically subject to impacts from natural components of the

environment, such as small and patchy fires, and periodic population explosions of jackrabbits,

grasshoppers, and crickets. Big sagebrush does not resprout after a fire, but is replenished by

wind-dispersed seed from adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending on the species

and the size of a burn, sagebrush can reestablish itself within five years of a burn, but a return

to a full pre-burn community (density and cover of sagebrush) cover can take 15 to 30 years

(Bunting 1984; Miller and Rose 1999) for species that grow in higher precipitation zones, such

as mountain big sagebrush. Species such as Wyoming big sagebrush, which grow exclusively

in dry soils, can take 100 to 200 year to recover to pre-burn sagebrush canopy (Cooper et al.

2007; Eichhorn and Watts 1984).

Since Euro American contact with the West began, the amount, distribution, and quality of

sagebrush habitats and populations of GRSG that depend on them have declined as a result

of activities such as large-scale conversions to cultivated croplands or pastures, altered fire

frequencies resulting in conifer encroachment at higher elevations and annual grass invasion

at lower elevations, livestock grazing, herbicide use, mineral and energy development, and

recreational activities related to urban growth and increased human populations. As a result, the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biology and Life History
10 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

156 million acres of sagebrush that existed historically were reduced to 119 million acres by 2004

(Connelly et al. 2004). Currently, sagebrush communities and GRSG are at risk from multiple

sources across multiple scales (BLM 2004d). About 56 percent of the potential distribution of

habitat prior to Euro American contact is currently occupied by GRSG (Connelly et al. 2004).

GRSG use different components of their sagebrush habitat for breeding, nesting, brood rearing,

and wintering. Key habitat components include adequate canopy cover of tall grasses and medium

height shrubs for nesting, abundant forbs and insects for brood rearing, and availability of

herbaceous riparian species for late growing-season foraging (BLM 2004d). Understory, height,

density, cover, and patchiness of the sagebrush-dominated ecosystem are important to GRSG.

The negative impacts of habitat fragmentation on GRSG include reductions in courtship site

persistence, courtship site attendance, winter habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival,

and female nest site choice (USFWS 2010d). Invasive plants are also a serious range-wide threat

to GRSG habitat. Once established, invasive plants reduce and eliminate vegetation essential

for GRSG food and cover. Invasive species can out-compete sagebrush and increase wildfire

frequencies, further contributing to direct loss of habitat. Sagebrush restoration techniques are

limited and have generally been ineffective (USFWS 2010a).

GRSG have declined dramatically within the past 20 years in large portions of its overall range.

In March 2010, USFWS concluded that the GRSG warranted protection under the ESA; however,

USFWS determined that proposing the species for protection is precluded by the need to take

action on other species facing more immediate and severe extinction threats. As a result, the

GRSG will be added to the list of species that are candidates for ESA protection. Habitat loss and

fragmentation resulting from wildfire, energy development, urbanization, agricultural conversion,

conversion of sagebrush to other vegetation types (such as pinyon-juniper woodlands), and

infrastructure development are the primary threats to the species (USFWS 2010a).

Habitat Selection

GRSG are currently estimated to occupy 165 million acres (668,000 square kilometers)

across the western US and Canada (Knick and Connelly 2011), and his range encompasses

tremendous variability in habitat conditions, anthropogenic activities, and GRSG populations.

The development of comprehensive monitoring approaches led to formal recognition that habitat

selection assessments need to utilize approaches that address multiple spatial scales to represent

selection processes of the animals (Connelly et al. 2003b; Connelly et al. 2011). First-order

selection is the geographic range and defines the GRSG population of interest. Within this

geographic range, second-order selection hinges on large, relatively intact regions of habitat and

is often identified using subpopulation distributions (e.g., geographic proximity and potential

connections among leks or regional population connectivity using genetics). Third-order selection

represents refinement of habitats used by subpopulations by identifying seasonal habitats

(e.g., nesting habitat), patch selection, and migration habitats. Assessment can be made of the

fourth-order of behavioral classification by quantifying food and cover attributes and foraging

behavior at particular sites (Stiver et al. 2010). In practice, selection of food items is nested

within selection of feeding site because selection of a particular site determines the array of food

items available to be selected. Habitat value and use will best be determined using a combination

of these characteristics (not one alone). To accurately characterize GRSG habitat selection for

a given population at the first and second orders (landscape spatial scale), the migratory nature

(e.g., seasonal movements) of the population must be well understood (Connelly et al. 2000a)

and this may include very large areas on an annual basis; it has been suggested that migratory

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biology and Life History
Draft Resource Management 11

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

populations may range across a habitat the size of the state of Rhode Island (approximately 1,200

square miles [311,000 hectares]; Connelly et al. 2003).

Habitat

Sagebrush occurs in two natural vegetation types that are delineated by temperature and patterns

of precipitation (Miller et al. 2011). Sagebrush steppe ranges across the northern portion of

GRSG range, from British Columbia and the Columbia Basin, through the northern Great Basin,

Snake River Plain, and Montana, and into the Wyoming Basin and northern Colorado. In this

type, sagebrush typically co-dominates with perennial bunchgrasses (Miller et al. 2011). The

second major type, Great Basin sagebrush, occurs south of sagebrush steppe, and extends from

the Colorado Plateau westward into Nevada, Utah, and California (Miller et al. 2011). The

herbaceous component contributes a smaller portion of the total plant cover (Miller and Eddleman

2000) due to hydrologic patterns. In this habitat type, sagebrush is frequently the canopy

dominant with little understory (Miller et al. 2011).

Table 3-1, Characteristics of Sagebrush Rangeland Needed for Productive GRSG Habitat,

describes GRSG habitat characteristics and provides the standard for seasonal habitat definitions.

Based on current research conducted within the Great Basin sagebrush type (as opposed to the

sagebrush steppe), the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region has developed GRSG

habitat standards to replace the Connelly guidelines within the sub-region or within the floristic

province represented by the WAFWA Management Zone III. These guidelines, outlined in Table

3-2, Habitat Health Indicators and Objectives, emphasize the role of sagebrush canopy cover for

nesting in the Great Basin sagebrush type, the importance of riparian condition and species

diversity in brood-rearing habitat, and the nesting of site-specific habitat attributes within broader

scales of habitat selection by GRSG.

Table 3.1. Characteristics of Sagebrush Rangeland Needed for Productive GRSG Habitat

Breeding Brood-rearing Wintere

Height

(centimeters)

Canopy

(%)

Height

(centimeters)

Canopy

(%)

Height

(centimeters)

Canopy

(%)

Mesic sitesa

Sagebrush 40 to 80 15 to 25 40 to 80 10 to 25 25 to 35 10 to 30

Grass-forb >18c >25d variable >15 N/A N/A

Arid sitesa

Sagebrush 30-80 15 to 25 40 to 80 10 to 25 25 to 35 10 to 30

Grass-forb 18c >15 variable >15 N/A N/A

Areab >80 >40 >80

Source: Connelly et al. 2000a; Tisdale and Hironaka 1981; Hironaka et al. 1983; Schroeder 1995

a Mesic and arid sites should be defined on a local basis; annual precipitation, herbaceous understory, and soils should be

considered.

bPercentage of seasonal habitat needed with indicated conditions.

cMeasured as “droop height”; the highest naturally growing portion of the plant.

d Coverage should exceed 15% for perennial grasses and 10% for forbs; values should be substantially greater if most

sagebrush has a growth form that provides little lateral cover.

e Values for height and canopy coverage are for shrubs exposed above snow.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biology and Life History
12 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.2. Habitat Health Indicators and Objectives

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Objective

General

All life stages Rangeland Health Standards Meeting all standards 1

LEK

Cover Availability of sagebrush cover Has adjacent sagebrush cover

Security Proximity of tall trees Within 3 kilometers (1.86 miles):

● none within line of sight of the lek

● <3.5% conifer land cover

Proximity of tall structures None within 5 kilometers

NESTING

Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (%) >20

Sagebrush species present Includes Artemesia tridentata subspecies

Perennial grass cover (%) >10 if shrub cover <252

Annual grass (%) <5

Total shrub cover (%) >40

Conifer encroachment (%) <5

BROOD-REARING/SUMMER

Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (%) >10

Cover and Food Perennial forb canopy cover (%) >5 arid

>15 mesic

Food Riparian Areas/Meadows Manage for PFC

Perennial forb availability (riparian

areas/meadows)

> 5 plant species present3

Security Conifer encroachment (%) <3 phase I (0 – 25% cover)

No phase II (25 – 50% cover)

No phase III (>50% cover)

within 850-meter (2,788-foot) buffer of

microhabitat plot

Riparian Area/Meadow Interspersion

with adjacent sagebrush

Perimeter to area ratio of 0.15 within 159-meter

(522-foot) buffer of the microhabitat plot

WINTER

Cover and Food Sagebrush canopy cover (%) >10

Sagebrush height (centimeters) >25

Conifer encroachment (%) <5 phase I (0 – 25% cover)

no phase II (25 – 50% cover)

no phase III (>50% cover)

within 850-meter (2,788-foot) buffer of

microhabitat plot

Sagebrush extent (%) >85 sagebrush land cover within 850-meter

(2,788-foot) buffer centered on microhabitat plot

Sagebrush species comp (%) >50 A. tridentate sites

25 A. arbuscula sites

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biology and Life History
Draft Resource Management 13

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Objective

25 A. vaseyana sites

Sources: Blomberg et al. 2012; Casazza 2011; Coates et al. 2011; Coates and Delehanty 2010; Coates and Casazza (in

prep. A); Coates and Casazza (in prep. B); Connelly et al. 2000; Kolada 2009a, 2009b; Lockyer et al. (in review);

Nevada Governor’s Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2010

1 Upland standards are based on indicators for canopy and ground cover, including litter, live vegetation, and rock,

appropriate to the ecological potential of the site.

2 Assumes upland rangeland health standards are being met.

3 Standard considered in addition to PFC. Measured Ecological Site Deterioration (ESD)/Daubenmire (20-centimeter

by 50-centimeter frame). Includes all mesic plant species, not perennial forbs only.

3.2.3. Management Zones

Due to the differences in the ecology of sagebrush across the range of the GRSG, WAFWA

further parses sagebrush habitats into seven management zones (Management Zones I-VII)

based primarily on floristic provinces (Figure 3-2, Preliminary Priority and General Greater

Sage-Grouse Habitat and WAFWA Management Zones). The boundaries of these management

zones were delineated based on their ecological and biological attributes rather than on arbitrary

political boundaries (Stiver et al. 2006). Vegetation found within each management zone

is similar, and GRSG and its habitat within these areas are likely to respond similarly to

environmental factors and management actions.

(PDF Map 3–2)

Figure 3.2. Preliminary Priority and General Sage-Grouse Habitat and WAFWA

Management Zones

The Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-regional planning area includes GRSG habitat

and populations within three management zones as delineated by WAFWA. To facilitate local

planning efforts and foster stakeholder involvement in state-led planning initiated by the Nevada

Governor in 2004, the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region was divided into 66

PMUs that remain a primary reference tool for describing the sub-regional populations (Nevada

Governor’s Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2004). Management zones in the Nevada and

Northeastern California Sub-region include the following:

● Management Zone III: Southern Great Basin Management Zone (includes Utah, Nevada,
 

and California)
 

● Management Zone IV: Snake River Plain Management Zone (includes Idaho, Utah, Nevada,

and Oregon)

● Management Zone V: Northern Great Basin Management Zone (includes Oregon, California,

and Nevada)

These management zones, their aggregate populations and subpopulations, and the PMUs in the

sub-region are described in Table 3-3, WAFWA Management Zones in the Planning Area and in

Figure 3-3, Populations/Subpopulation Management Units and WAFWA Management Zones.

Portions of PMUs may cross population/subpopulation boundaries (Connelly et al. 2004). For

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
14 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

planning purposes, management zone boundaries are adapted to the PMU boundaries described

for the sub-region.

Management Zone Conditions

Nevada Habitat Mapping

NDOW, the BLM, and Forest Service completed detailed mapping of GRSG habitats within

Nevada, with the exception of habitat for the northeast California/northwest Nevada population,

which includes the California portion of the sub-region and the California-managed portion of

northwestern Nevada. This mapping was developed using a mapping framework produced by the

BLM that designates the restoration potential of sagebrush communities (R-values) within the

known range of GRSG in Nevada. The R-values, based upon existing vegetation cover, ecological

site potential, and burned areas, were developed in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) by the

Nevada BLM State Office staff and district personnel with cooperation from NDOW wildlife

biologists. R-value classifications were adapted from Sather-Blaire et al. (2000).

Restoration potentials are defined as follows:

● R-0: Areas with desired species composition that have sufficient, but not excessive, sagebrush

canopy and sufficient grasses and forbs in the understory to provide adequate cover and forage

to meet the seasonal needs of GRSG (nesting, early brooding, summer, fall/winter).

Table 3.3. WAFWA Management Zones in the Planning Area

WAFWA

Management

Zone

Populations/Subpopulations Population Management Units

III

Central Nevada Cortez, South Fork, Shoshone, Three Bar, Monitor,

Reese River, Toiyabe, Kawich, Clan Alpine, Desatoya,

Stillwater, Fish Creek, Sonoma, Ruby Valley, Battle

Mountain, Diamond

Southeast Nevada East Valley, Butte/Buck/White Pine, Schell/Antelope,

Spring/Snake Valley, Steptoe/Cave, Lincoln

Northwestern Interior Jackson, Slumbering Hills, Eugene, East Range,

Humboldt, Trinity, Limbo, Majuba 1,2,3,4, Sahwave 1,2,

Nightingale, Eden Valley

Quinn Range Quinn

IV

North Central Nevada Santa Rosa Desert

Northeastern Nevada Tuscarora, North Fork, Islands, O’Neil Basin, Snake,

Gollaher

V

South Central Oregon/North Central

Nevada

Lone Willow

Northeastern California/

Northwestern Nevada

Massacre, Vya, Sheldon, Buffalo-Skedaddle, Likely

Tablelands, Black Rock, Pine Forest

Klamath (California) Devil’s Garden

Warm Springs Valley Virginia/Pah Rah

Source: Stiver et al. 2006

● R-1: Areas with potential to produce sagebrush plant communities that have good understory

composition of desired grasses and forbs but lack sufficient sagebrush canopy. These areas

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 15

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

could be characterized by native perennial grasslands post-fire or seeded perennial grass

rangelands.

● R-2: Existing sagebrush plant communities with insufficient desired grasses and forbs in
 

the understory.
 

● R-3: Areas dominated by pinyon-juniper woodland that may have the potential to produce

sagebrush plant communities. These areas include sagebrush sites that have been encroached

by pinyon-juniper woodlands, as well as other pinyon-juniper dominated sites that may

provide potential value to GRSG.

● X-3: Pinyon-juniper areas that have crossed the threshold from sagebrush ecological site
 

to pinyon-juniper or juniper woodland or have only had a potential for woodland plant
 

community.
 

(PDF Map 3–3)

Figure 3.3. Populations/Subpopulation Management Units and WAFWA Management Zones

● R-4: Areas with potential to produce sagebrush plant communities but are dominated by
 

annual grasses, annual forbs, or weeds.
 

● X-4: Areas that have crossed the threshold from sagebrush ecological site to annual grasses,

perennial weeds, bare ground, or a non-sagebrush ecological site.

● Other: Areas with some value to GRSG but typically not considered traditional GRSG
 

habitat. These areas include riparian zones, salt desert scrub communities, aspen stands,
 

mountain mahogany stands, and agricultural lands.
 

Using the R-mapping as a starting point, the NDOW habitat categorization mapping then

incorporates the best available data (including lek observations, telemetry locations, survey and

inventory reports, vegetation cover, soils information, and aerial photography) into a statewide

prioritization of GRSG habitat. This mapping delineates GRSG habitat into the following five

categories:

● Category 1 – Essential/Irreplaceable Habitat: The lek and associated nesting habitat is

categorized as essential and irreplaceable habitat. The interrelationships between the vegetal

characteristics of a given area, female nest site selection, and movement patterns of the

population that drive males to establish a lek in areas of female use is spatially and temporally

dynamic and has yet to be successfully recreated (USFWS 2013a). However, focusing solely

on the lek location and a certain buffer around the lek does not always adequately represent

those areas that are crucial to the long-term survival of particular populations, especially those

that are migratory. Several telemetry monitoring efforts, particularly in eastern Nevada, have

shown that females will move up in elevation from the lek sites to more mesic habitats to both

nest and raise their broods. These habitats should also be considered as Category 1 habitats

that are essential and irreplaceable. Category 1 habitat often corresponds to the R-0 habitat

definition (see definitions above).

● Category 2 – Important Habitat: Suitable and diverse winter habitats and high quality
 

brood-rearing habitats are critical to the long-term persistence of GRSG populations.
 

Winter habitats are very important to GRSG due in large part to their complete dependence
 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
16 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

on sagebrush during the late fall and winter months (Connelly et al. 2000a). Depending

on the year and the snowpack in a given area, winter habitats elevate in importance as

snow accumulations rise. Because of the loss of sagebrush in Nevada over the last decade

(approximately 2.6 million acres or 12 percent of available GRSG habitat), winter habitat is at

a premium and, depending on the particular PMU, could actually be considered essential and

irreplaceable. In Nevada, winter habitats are essentially comprised of mountain big sagebrush,

Wyoming big sagebrush, and low sagebrush communities. Plants within these communities

are usually taller than at random sites (Connelly 1982; Schoenberg 1982). Also, sagebrush

canopy cover is typically greater than 20 percent at wintering sites (Hanf et al. 1994; Eng

and Schladweiler 1972; Homer et al. 1993). High quality winter habitat may correspond to

the R-2 habitat definition, but there are situations where important winter habitats could be

nested within R-0 habitats as well.

Brood-rearing habitats are also a very important component of GRSG habitats. A mosaic of

upland sagebrush vegetation intermixed with mountain meadows and spring systems compose

brood rearing habitat. These habitat types are fairly limited in Nevada because of the dry climate

exhibited throughout the majority of the Great Basin. These habitats have been impacted by

improper livestock grazing practices (whether prior or current), overutilization by wild horses,

and pinyon and juniper encroachment. High quality brood-rearing habitat generally corresponds

best to the R-0 habitat definition; however, there are instances where high quality brood-rearing

habitat could be nested within R-1 and R-2 habitat definitions.

● Category 3 – Habitat of Moderate Importance: These habitats are not meeting their full

potential due to any number of factors but still serve some benefit to GRSG populations.

These habitats can serve as nesting, brood rearing, wintering, or transitional habitat but are

marginal. For the short term, these habitats may only be of limited value on a seasonal basis

but could serve additional long-term values if certain habitat components (most importantly

sagebrush) return to the site.

Habitats within this category could correspond to R-1, R-2, or R-3 habitat definitions. R-1

habitats generally tend to be upper elevation sagebrush habitats, normally mountain big sagebrush

communities that have recently burned. These areas are likely to return to a mountain big

sagebrush community within 35 to 100 years (Baker 2006) and would then serve greater value

to GRSG, but presently may only be of marginal value during the brood-rearing period, for

example. R-2 habitats with ample sagebrush but little understory exist at various elevation and

topography types. These areas can often be treated with passive management techniques, which

are recommended in xeric sagebrush communities that receive less than or equal to 12 inches of

precipitation. Pinyon and juniper-encroached sagebrush habitats, or R-3 habitats that have not

crossed a threshold, may be of value to GRSG depending on the level of encroachment.

● Category 4 – Low Value Habitat and Transition Range: Habitats within this category currently

contribute very little value to GRSG other than transitional range from one seasonal habitat

to another or minimal foraging use. Habitats within this category that also correspond to

R-3 habitat definitions have not completely crossed a threshold where restoration efforts

would be ineffective but would be very expensive, with secondary work needed to recover

the understory. The cost to benefit ratio is too high to apply recovery efforts at this time.

Similarly, habitats that correspond to the R-4 habitat definition may not have necessarily

crossed the restoration threshold, but restoration would be very expensive and would also

require secondary or tertiary treatments to control invasive plant species post treatment.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 17

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

● Category 5 – Unsuitable Habitat: This category represents non-habitat at this time unless

greater strides are made with respect to restoration techniques. In general, this type of habitat

is in such poor condition that restoration efforts would not be feasible or effective. Non-habitat

can either be designated non-habitat areas delineated within seasonal distribution maps or

areas that have undergone substantial change and are not likely to recover. These areas

could be lower elevation sagebrush habitats that have burned and are now annual grasslands

dominated by various invasive weeds. Areas such as these are not likely to recover without

substantial effort and expense. Other examples of habitat alteration that could render an area to

be considered non-habitat include agricultural conversion, or cultivation, and urban/suburban

development. Category 5 habitat could correspond to the R-3 or R-4 (and X-3 or X-4) habitat

definitions. These areas have little potential to produce sagebrush plant communities and are

currently dominated by pinyon-juniper woodlands or annual grasses and forbs.

California Habitat Mapping

The California BLM administers lands within the Surprise, Eagle Lake, and Alturas Field

Offices in the northwestern portion of the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region.

BLM-administered lands in the Surprise and Eagle Lake Field Offices fall within California and

Nevada. For the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada GRSG population, California BLM

utilized a mapping methodology based on the Doherty modeling (Doherty et al. 2011), including

the 100 percent breeding bird density core regions, or all known active leks with appropriate

buffering (6.4 kilometers [4 miles] for 25 percent and 50 percent kernels, 8.5 kilometers [5.3 miles]

for 75 percent and 100 percent kernels). Areas were modified by local knowledge of seasonal

range use, known connectivity, and vegetative and natural barriers. In California, extensive radio

telemetry information was available, providing a direct footprint of GRSG use areas.

For the purposes of quantifying GRSG habitat, the terms PPH and PGH are used. PPH includes

NDOW mapping Categories 1 and 2, and PGH includes mapping Category 3. All mapped habitat

within California and California-managed PMUs in northwestern Nevada are included as PPH

and PGH per the methodology noted above.

Surface and Habitat Acres

Population/subpopulation surface acreage within the sub-region is dominated by

BLM-administered lands at 70 percent. Forest Service-administered lands comprise 13 percent,

and all other ownerships comprise the remaining 17 percent (Table 3-4, Surface Ownership

within Nevada Population/ Subpopulation Areas).

Table 3.4. Surface Ownership within Nevada and Northeastern California

Population/Subpopulation Areas

Population/Subpopulation Total BLM Forest

Service

Other

Management Zone III

Central Nevada 13,796,074 9,561,331 2,461,316 1,773,427

Northwestern Interior 1,284,622 991,457 0 293,165

Quinn Range 1,986,395 1,719,176 222,502 44,717

Southeast Nevada 9,015,524 7,530,250 787,939 697,335

Management Zone IV

North Central Nevada 2,063,293 1,341,319 312,456 409,518

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
18 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Population/Subpopulation Total BLM Forest

Service

Other

Northeastern Nevada 5,981,841 3,403,738 679,337 1,898,766

Management Zone V

Klamath (California) 69,539 0 59,446 10,093

Northeastern California/Northwestern Nevada 4,265,207 3,129,350 18,213 1,117,644

South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 480,377 456,409 0 23,968

Warm Springs Valley 356,033 231,387 0 124,646

Total 39,319,059 28,364,422 4,541,212 6,393,283

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Population/subpopulation PPH and PGH within the sub-region is slightly more skewed toward

BLM-administered lands at 73 percent. Forest Service-administered lands comprise 11 percent,

and all other ownerships comprise the remaining 15 percent (Table 3-5, GRSG Habitat

within Nevada and Northeastern California Population/Subpopulation Areas). Of note is the

percentage of PPH/PGH contained within each of the population/subpopulation areas and the

contribution of each for the sub-region (Table 3-6, Suitable GRSG Habitat As Percentage of

Population/Subpopulation Surface Acreage and as Percentage of Sub-region Occupied Habitat).

Occupied GRSG habitat is depicted on Figure 3-4, Occupied Habitat.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
19 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.5. GRSG Habitat1 within Nevada and Northeastern California Population/Subpopulation Areas

Population/Sub

population

Total BLM Forest Service Other

PPH PGH PPH PGH PPH PGH PPH PGH

Management Zone III

Central Nevada 4,123,513 2,643,355 3,041,134 1,887,370 502,472 303,839 579,907 452,146

Northwestern Interior 29,155 111,458 25,070 93,837 0 0 4,086 17,622

Quinn Range 1,669 259,543 1,204 230,084 0 22,549 465 6,910

Southeast Nevada 2,282,856 1,357,973 2,003,203 1,201,344 106,425 53,770 173,228 102,859

Management Zone IV

North Central Nevada 1,380,282 369,967 969,511 282,418 203,319 35,934 207,452 51,614

Northeastern Nevada 4,256,002 847,865 2,621,895 457,111 372,976 147,879 1,261,131 242,874

Management Zone V

Klamath (California) 0 69,526 0 0 0 59,435 0 10,091

Northeastern California/

Northwestern Nevada

3,072,306 415,918 2,559,361 376,424 4,169 7,754 508,776 31,740

South Central Oregon/North

Central Nevada

314,813 84,396 300,319 78,119 0 0 14,494 6,278

Warm Springs Valley 83,635 72,654 60,253 51,490 0 0 23,382 21,164

Total 15,544,232 6,232,655 11,581,950 4,658,196 1,189,361 631,161 2,772,921 943,299

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Occupied Habitat defined as Categories 1 and 2 for PPH and Category 3 for PGH mapped by NDOW as described above.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
20 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.6. Suitable GRSG Habitat As Percentage of Population/Subpopulation Surface

Acreage and as Percentage of Sub-region Occupied Habitat

Population/Subpopulation As % of Surface within

Population/Subpopulation

As % of Sub-region

Occupied Habitat

Central Nevada 49 31

Northwestern Interior 31 2

Quinn Range 13 1

Southeast Nevada 40 17

North Central Nevada 72 7

Northeastern Nevada 84 23

Klamath (California) 100 <1

Northeastern California/Northwestern Nevada 81 16

South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 83 2

Warm Springs Valley 44 1

Source: NDOW and CDFW 2012

Sage-Grouse Populations

The NDOW and CDFW lek database classifies leks into five categories defined as follows:

● Active: 2 or more males observed at least twice in the last 5 years

● Pending Active: 2 or more males observed only once in the last 5 years with no other visits

conducted

● Inactive: 0 or 1 male observed during every visit (minimum 2 visits) in the last 5 years

● Historic: 0 or 1 male observed during every visit (minimum 5 visits) in the last 30 years

● Unknown: no other conditions met

Currently, there are 573 leks classified as active, 272 leks classified as inactive, and approximately

200 leks classified as pending (having been active within the last 5 years with no other visits).

Active leks are distributed among the population/subpopulation areas, as shown in Table 3-7,

Leks in Population/Subpopulation Areas.

Lek data demonstrate where GRSG in the sub-region are persistent within

populations/subpopulations. (See management zone discussions below for summaries of

population trends and habitat factors.)

(PDF Map 3–4)

Figure 3.4. Occupied Habitat

Table 3.7. Leks in Population/Subpopulation Areas

Population/Subpopulation Active Inactive Total

Central Nevada 134 51 185

Northwestern Interior 0 9 9

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 21

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Population/Subpopulation Active Inactive Total

Quinn Range 0 0 0

Southeast Nevada 105 42 147

North Central Nevada 44 29 73

Northeastern Nevada 157 93 250

Northeastern California/Northwestern Nevada 95 30 125

South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 36 18 54

Warm Springs Valley 2 0 2

Source: NDOW and CDFW 2012

Numbers of males per active lek in each population/subpopulation are characterized in Table 3-8,

Percentage Distribution of Active Leks by Size Category within Population/Subpopulation Areas.

Table 3.8. Percentage Distribution of Active Leks by Size Category within

Population/Subpopulation Areas

1-10 males 11-20

males

21-30

males

31-40

males

41-50

males

50+ males

Central Nevada 35% 23% 16% 11% 6% 8%

Northwestern Interior N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Quinn Range N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Southeast Nevada 56% 28% 10% 3% 0% 3%

North Central Nevada 43% 18% 16% 7% 2% 14%

Northeastern Nevada 44% 27% 17% 3% 5% 3%

Lake Area: Northeastern

California/Northwestern Nevada

24% 19% 18% 17% 7% 15%

South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 53% 19% 17% 5% 3% 3%

Warm Springs Valley 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50%

Source: NDOW and CDFW 2012

The distribution of lek categories among the population/subpopulations depicts their relative

strength. Of note is the northeast California/northwest Nevada subpopulation with a relatively flat

distribution across lek categories indicating a disproportionate number of larger leks. Central

Nevada exhibits a similar distribution. Northeastern Nevada and Southeastern Nevada have a high

number of small leks and a linear decrease in number of leks by lek size across the categories. The

smaller but viable populations in North Central and South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada

have fewer leks overall but lek size distributions similar to those of the most robust northeast

California/northwest Nevada and Central Nevada populations. These distributions generally

correlate to wildfire/annual grass/conifer influences among subpopulations.

Fire Occurrence

Fire has played a major role in the decline of GRSG habitat within the sub-region. Fire starts

and total burned acres by both year and decade have increased substantially since 1980. Causal

factors are attributable initially to the influence of invasive grasses on fire return intervals. The

fine fuel bed created annually has the ability to ignite more frequently and to burn in larger, more

continuous patches. Of increasing importance is the role of climate change. Live fuel moistures

are reaching lower values earlier than in recorded history thus greatly increasing the flammability

of larger fuels such as sagebrush. This increases fire size and also intensifies fire behavior.

Figure 3-5, Areas with a High Probability of Cheatgrass Occurrence, shows the areas of the

sub-region with a high probability for cheatgrass to occur. The loss of GRSG habitat in the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
22 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Northwestern Interior population of the sub-region bears a direct relationship to the high risk of

cheatgrass replacement following wildfire (Connelly et al. 2004). Of note is the low risk for the

Nevada portion of the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada, North Central, and Northeastern

subpopulations and the low to moderate risk in the Central and Southeastern subpopulations,

demonstrating some level of resilience to the effects of wildfire and ultimately loss of habitat

in these areas.

More recent fire history in the sub-region is shown on Figure 3-6, Fire History 2000-2012, while

the trends in fire starts and burned acres are depicted in Table 3-9, Fire Starts and Acres Burned

by Decade by Population/Subpopulation Area.

Chart 3-1, Acres Burned by Decade, displays fire data by decade and demonstrates the increase

in fire size. Trends in fire starts reflect a general increase across the chart, while acres burned

more than tripled from the 1980s to the 1990s and nearly quadrupled to current.

(PDF Map 3–5)

Figure 3.5. Areas with a High Probability of Cheatgrass Occurance

(PDF Map 3–6)

Figure 3.6. Fire History 2000-2012

Table 3.9. Fire Starts and Acres Burned by Decade1 by Population/Subpopulation Area

Population/

Subpopulation

1983-1992 1993-2002 2003-2012 Total

Starts Acres Starts Acres Starts Acres Acres

Central Nevada 215 189,475 517 1,123,789 503 631,250 1,944,514

Northwestern Interior 71 75,305 214 394,503 110 91,217 561,025

Quinn Range 5 1,928 4 1,362 9 10,735 14,025

Southeast Nevada 120 54,085 182 100,672 69 59,361 214,118

North Central Nevada 45 44,284 84 187,976 114 328,232 560,492

Northeastern Nevada 310 279,340 519 809,090 590 1,841,607 2,930,037

Northeast California/

Northwest Nevada

223 132,446 426 211,190 142 419,248 762,884

South Central

Oregon/North Central

Nevada

29 99,309 41 91,569 34 239,713 430,591

Warm Springs Valley 81 55,772 65 73,304 119 24,145 153,221

Total 1099 931,944 2052 2,993,455 1690 3,645,508 7,570,907

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

1Nevada fire data 1984 to present.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 23

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

This chart and these tables reflect a relatively lower frequency and fire size in the 1980s. Burned

acreage increased dramatically in Central Nevada from 1993 to 2002 and remains high into

the present. Fires are concentrated in the northern one-third of this subpopulation adjacent to

the Northeastern subpopulation where fire activity more than doubled per decade, burning

nearly 2 million acres between 2003 and 2012. This general area of fire activity is within an

apparent storm track that bisects the state from west to east and runs generally from the Warm

Springs Valley population on the west, through the Northwest Interior, and into the Northeast.

While certain spikes of fire activity are obvious, of note are the general increases in recent fire

activity in those previously relatively unburned populations. These trends are noticeable in the

Northeast California/Northwest Nevada, North Central, and South Central Oregon/North Central

Nevada population/subpopulations where the 2003 to 2012 decade demonstrates decadal highs.

Populations of comparatively low fire activity are Southeast Nevada and the southern two-thirds

of Central Nevada. Higher terrain, varied fuel types, and monsoonal late-summer weather

patterns may contribute to this effect.

Fire Effects on GRSG

To depict the direct effects of fires and fire history on GRSG populations, Table 3-10, Active

and Inactive Lek Sites and Adjacent Nesting Habitat Burned Since 1980, utilizes the composite

footprint of all wildfires in the sub-region and overlays active and inactive leks (NDOW and

CDFW 2012), and any leks that had wildfire occurrence within a four-mile buffer to reflect

impacted nesting habitat. An unknown number of “Pending Active” leks may be either active or

inactive and are omitted from this analysis. In areas of high wildfire frequency and extent, an

extremely high percentage of active and inactive lek sites have been impacted. It is assumed that

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
24 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

many of these leks may have become inactive in the years following wildfires. The Northeastern

subpopulation shows the highest percentage of impact on active/inactive leks and associated

nesting habitat. Approximately 25 percent of active leks and over 50 percent of inactive leks

have been burned. Virtually all leks have had varying amounts of associated nesting habitat

burned. The effects of the 2012 wildfires are shown in the South Central Oregon/North Central

Nevada subpopulation, where nearly one-third of active and inactive leks are burned and

virtually all nesting habitat associated with active and inactive leks is impacted. In the Northeast

California/Northwest Nevada area, while just over 10 percent of active leks have burned, nesting

habitat associated with virtually all leks has been impacted.

Table 3.10. Active and Inactive Lek Sites and Adjacent Nesting Habitat Burned Since 1980

Population/Subpopulation Total Leks Burned Leks

Lek Site Burned Within 4-mile buffer

Active Inactive Active Inactive Active Inactive

Central Nevada 134 51 2 1 71 22

Northwestern Interior 0 9 0 0 0 6

Quinn Range 0 0 0 0 0 0

Southeast Nevada 105 42 2 0 37 15

North Central Nevada 44 29 1 1 21 20

Northeastern Nevada 157 93 36 50 145 91

Northeastern California/

Northwestern Nevada

95 30 10 1 66 20

South Central Oregon/North

Central Nevada

36 18 8 7 33 16

Warm Springs Valley 2 0 0 0 2 0

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Connectivity

A key feature relating to connectivity on the statewide scale in Nevada is the presence of the

Interstate 80 corridor following the general centerline of the checkerboard land ownership that

bisects the state. The checkerboard ownership is a product of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862,

which conveyed to the railroads ten sections of land in alternating sections on either side of each

completed mile of railroad in support of the construction and operation of the trans-continental

railroad system. The Act therefore facilitated a 40-mile wide corridor (20 miles to either side

of the railroad) of checkerboard ownership. The railroad and the subsequent interstate highway

provide a transportation network around which much of the infrastructure development in

northern Nevada has occurred. While this infrastructure is not expected to expand dramatically

into GRSG habitats, development will continue to intensify within this zone (Comer et al.

2012a). The corridor contains the largest urban areas in northern Nevada, extensive mining and

transportation infrastructure, and agricultural development. The combined effects of the corridor

on GRSG and their habitats are well demonstrated, with consensus among the land and wildlife

management agencies that very little seasonal range connectivity currently exists across this

corridor. It is unknown whether enough episodic crossing occurs to facilitate genetic exchange.

The detrimental effects of interstate highways on GRSG nesting has been documented in

Wyoming and northeastern Utah (Connelly et al. 2004) (Chart 2-5), with an analysis of active

leks within distance buffers from the interstate and exhibiting similar land ownership and

concentration of infrastructure as in Nevada. The analysis found no leks within 2 kilometers of

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 25

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

the interstate (4-kilometer-wide [2.5-mile-wide] band) and only 9 leks between 2 and 4 kilometers

[1.2 and 2.5 miles] of the interstate. Only 1 equivalent-sized band 62 to 64 kilometers [38.5 to 40

miles] from the interstate had 8 leks, with all other intervals having more. A similar analysis for

Interstate 80 in Nevada shows similar results. In the Nevada analysis, active leks were counted

in 5-kilometer [3.1-mile] bands out to 60 kilometers [37.3 miles] on either side of the interstate

from Winnemucca to the Utah border. No leks occur within the 5-kilometer [3.1-mile] band (10

kilometers [6.2 miles] wide), 9 occur within the 10-kilometer [6.2-mile] band (20 kilometers

[12.4 miles] wide), and 10 occur within the 15-kilometer [9.3-mile] band (30 kilometers [18.6

miles] wide). An equivalent band 21 to 25 kilometers [13 to 15.5 miles] away contains 9 leks.

Of the highest 5 band counts, 4 occur beyond 40 kilometers [24.8 miles], indicating that the

corridor may be affecting GRSG to that distance.

The distance and distribution of GRSG leks in relation to Interstate 80 are displayed in Chart

3-2, Leks by Distance from Interstate 80 and Chart 3-3, Nevada Lek Distribution – Interstate

80, below.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
26 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Management Zone III

Management Zone III is the most arid and includes the southern extent of GRSG populations

across all of central and south-central Nevada and five of seven subpopulations across Utah.

The zone consists of 4 populations/subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004) and all or portions of

39 PMUs in central and southeastern Nevada. Of the four populations/subpopulations, two of

these are considered large but fragmented (Central Nevada and Southeast Nevada), and two are

considered small and isolated (Northwestern Interior and Quinn Range).

The Central Nevada subpopulation includes West Nye, East Churchill, Eureka, South Elko,

Lander, and West White Pine counties, including 13.8 million surface acres and 6.7 million

acres of GRSG habitat. The subpopulation contains 16 PMUs and is considered 1 of the 4

stronghold GRSG habitats within Nevada. Vegetation modeling across GRSG population areas

was completed June 2013 by Forest Service and the BLM using the Vegetation Dynamics

Development Tool (VDDT). This tool incorporated Landscape Fire and Resource Management

Planning Tools Project (LANDFIRE; USGS 2006a), available GRSG habitat information, expert

opinion, and other related information. VDDT modeling indicates that 44 percent of sagebrush

habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat

condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current

management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up

to 68 percent in 50 years.

Current vegetation treatments are resulting in an improving trend. However, this subpopulation

is considered in long-range population decline (Connelly et al. 2004; Garton et al. 2011). The

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 27

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

subpopulation area supports 134 active and 51 currently inactive leks. Fifty-six active leks (42

percent) have greater than 20 males in attendance, with 11 active leks having greater than 50

males (NDOW 2013). The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes the population status as

being “potentially at risk” because of limited or declining numbers, range, or habitat even though

GRSG may be locally abundant in some portions of the area. The report highlights conifers,

weeds/annual grasses, fire, infrastructure, grazing, free-roaming horses and burros, and recreation

as threats. Wildfire activity has been concentrated in the northern end of the subpopulation

adjacent to the Northeast subpopulation area where wildfire has exerted the highest impacts

within the state. The southern two-thirds of the Central subpopulation remains relatively insulated

from the occurrence and effects of wildfire.

Generally, wildfire has had less overall impact on habitats than in other populations/subpopulations

in central Nevada, while conifer encroachment plays a larger role. Annual grasses model at or

below 45 percent probability of occurrence throughout the entire subpopulation, giving it a

lower but still moderate ranking of fire regime departure (projected to increase in frequency and

extent) but reflective of the current level of annual grass invasion which has already occurred.

Overall, compared with the habitats of other Nevada subpopulations, these habitats maintain the

highest integrity in the state with respect to potential abundance of annual grasses. Change

in extent of pinyon-juniper woodland is moderate, indicating a significant level of continuing

expansion into sagebrush habitats. Summarizing the effects of climate change on GRSG habitats

indicates a strong predicted influence with increased temperature regimes shifting lower elevation

sagebrush habitats into mixed salt desert scrub on a significant scale and sagebrush habitat

expansion occurring at higher elevations, retaining significant habitat as potential projected

climate change focal areas for GRSG and other species (Comer et al. 2012). Ownership includes

a higher percentage of higher elevation lands managed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

The BLM administers 9.6 million surface acres (69 percent), and Forest Service administers 2.5

million acres (18 percent).

The Southeastern Nevada subpopulation includes portions of far Southeast Elko, East White Pine,

and North Lincoln counties, including 9 million surface acres and 3.6 million acres of GRSG

habitat. It contains all or portions of 6 PMUs. GRSG habitats here are considered important as a

stronghold within the state, but are recognized as having generally smaller population size (lek

size) on average compared with other stronghold areas. The subpopulation area supports 105

active and 42 currently inactive leks. Only 17 active leks (17 percent) have greater than 20 males

in attendance, with 3 active leks having greater than 50 males (NDOW 2013). VDDT modeling

indicates that 36 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is

considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued implementation

of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats

supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 54 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation treatments

are resulting in an improving trend. Topography in this subpopulation is a north-south basin

and range configuration, with invasive conifer occupying an elevation zone between breeding

and summer brood-rearing habitats. GRSG complete one- and two-stage migrations in this

subpopulation between these seasonal ranges. The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes

the seasonal ranges as “disjunct, but connected.” As with populations throughout Nevada, the

population is considered to be in long-term decline (Connelly et al. 2004; Garton et al. 2011).

The COT Report USFWS 2013a) does not differentiate between the Central and Southeastern

Nevada subpopulations. The report characterizes the population status as being “potential at risk”

because of limited or declining numbers, range, and habitat even though GRSG may be locally

abundant in some portions of the area. The report highlights conifers, weeds/annual grasses, fire,

infrastructure, grazing, free-roaming horses and burros, and recreation as threats. Annual grasses

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
28 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

have potential abundance at or above 45 percent throughout the basins, with low to no risk on

mountain topography. Climate change projections indicate a substantial shrinkage of sagebrush

habitats from the southern end of the subpopulation due to an increase in salt desert scrub and

northerly encroachment of Mojave Desert species with only minor expansion of pinyon-juniper

habitats. Intact habitats will persist at higher elevations (Comer et al. 2012).

While the Northwest Interior population of Pershing and South Humboldt counties is relatively

small in area (1.9 million acres), the population contains all or portions of 16 small and isolated

PMUs. The population area is dominated by lower elevation Wyoming sagebrush habitats

that have burned extensively and repeatedly for the last two decades due to the domination of

invasive grasses and altered fire return intervals. Approximately 561,000 acres have burned

since 1984. Sagebrush canopy is absent over vast areas, marginalizing habitat value to GRSG.

NDOW mapped habitat on only small portions of seven of these PMUs based on the lack of

leks and the suspected inability of these areas to recover from wildfire. Total GRSG habitat

is 311,000 acres. VDDT modeling was not completed on this population. The COT Report

(USFWS 2013a) characterizes the population status as “high risk” because of extremely limited

or rapidly declining numbers, range, or habitat, making GRSG in this area highly vulnerable to

extirpation. The NDOW lek database indicates no active and nine currently inactive leks. The

report highlights isolated and small size, fire, weeds, annual grasses, mining, infrastructure,

grazing, free-roaming horses and burros, and recreation as threats. The invasive grass potential is

above 45 percent, with fire regime departures the highest in Nevada (Comer et al. 2012).

The Quinn Canyon population contains one PMU and is the southernmost extent of GRSG range

in Nevada, located in east Nye and northwest Lincoln counties. The Quinn PMU encompasses

2 million surface acres (1.7 million BLM; 222,000 Forest Service). NDOW maps total habitat

at 258,557 acres with no habitat in Categories 1 and 2 (Essential/Irreplaceable and Important).

VDDT modeling was not completed on this population. The COT Report (USFWS 2013a)

characterizes the population status as “high risk” because of extremely limited and/or rapidly

declining numbers, range, and/or habitat, making GRSG in this area highly vulnerable to

extirpation. The report states the population as containing less than 200 birds and that Garton et

al. 2011 does not model the population due to lack of data. The NDOW lek database indicates no

active or currently inactive leks. Moderate and imminent threats to the population are myriad,

including weeds/annual grasses, conifers, infrastructure, livestock, and wild horses. Climate

change modeling indicates the near elimination of sagebrush habitat for this population by 2060

(Comer et al. 2012).

Management Zone IV

This management zone is extensive, including five states with the subpopulations in Nevada

shared into southern Idaho, northwestern Utah, and southeastern Oregon. The zone consists of two

subpopulations (Northeastern and North Central) and all or portions of nine PMUs in north-central

and northeastern Nevada, in the northern half of Elko and eastern Humboldt counties. Surface

acreage and habitat for the Northeastern subpopulation are 6 million acres and 5.1 million acres,

respectively. Surface acreage and habitat for the North Central subpopulation are 2.1 million

acres and 1.5 million acres, respectively. Of seven management zones, Management Zone IV

is characterized as one of those supporting the highest densities of GRSG but also considered

in long-range population decline (Connelly et al. 2004; Garton et al. 2011). The Northeastern

subpopulation supports 157 active and 93 currently inactive leks. Active lek size distribution is

skewed toward leks with less than twenty males (112 leks, 71 percent). Four leks have more than

50 males. The North Central subpopulation supports 44 active and 29 currently inactive leks.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 29

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Seventeen leks (39 percent) have more than 20 males (NDOW 2013). The critical factor affecting

GRSG and their habitats in Management Zone IV is the effect of wildfires. Combined, these

subpopulations have had 555 fire starts burning 3.5 million acres since 1984. The combined areal

footprint of wildfire in these subpopulations is 2.3 million acres. Thirty-seven (18 percent) of 201

active and 51 (42 percent) of 122 inactive leks have burned. Eighty-two percent of active and

91 percent of inactive leks have suffered nesting habitat losses within a four-mile buffer of leks.

Wildfires have increased dramatically in both frequency and extent, leaving large areas devoid

of sagebrush canopy and dominated by grasses in general but particularly invasive species.

Restoration efforts are moderately successful in some areas. VDDT modeling in the Northeastern

subpopulation indicates that 55 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush

cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued

implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush

habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 62 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation

treatments are resulting in a stable to improving trend. VDDT modeling in the North Central

subpopulation indicates that 56 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush

cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued

implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush

habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 70 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation

treatments are resulting in an improving trend. The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) highlights fire

and weeds/annual grasses, conifer encroachment, and infrastructure development as threats.

The potential abundance of invasive annual grasses is consistently above 45 percent over the

majority of the management zone, with the remainder in the 25 to 45 percent range, second only

to the Northwest Interior subpopulation area in invasive grass abundance. However, climate

change modeling shows expansion of habitat types supportive of GRSG through time with an

accompanying increase in invasive juniper. Considering the intermediate scores for landscape

condition and invasive annual grasses, low likelihood of future development, and low climate

change stress, habitat restoration opportunities are very high in this management zone supporting

the potential for management as a stronghold in this zone (Comer et al. 2012).

Management Zone V

This zone consists of five populations/subpopulations in three states (Connelly et al. 2004) and all

or portions of ten PMUs in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California. It represents the

westernmost extent of the GRSG range in California and contains a mix of habitat issues that have

had long-term effects on GRSG populations. The range of GRSG in this region has continued to

shrink in extent over the last three decades, while some populations within the zone are relatively

stable. When considered in its entirety, including south-central Oregon, population changes from

1965 to 2004 are statistically undetectable (Connelly et al. 2004). Of seven management zones,

Management Zone V is characterized as one of those supporting the highest densities of GRSG.

The Klamath population in northern Modoc County, California, is shared with Oregon and

contains the Devil’s Garden PMU. It was once connected to PMUs to the south in northeastern

California and northwestern Nevada, but is now virtually extirpated. Of 46 active leks known

to have been extant as late as the 1970s, only 1 active lek remains. The lek is located on

USFWS lands at Clear Lake and has been supported for the last seven years through population

augmentation efforts consisting of annual trans-location of various numbers of males and females

from other lek sites, mostly from the Sheldon Antelope Refuge and other well-attended lek

locations in Nevada. Habitat in this area has been severely compromised by conifer encroachment

and to a lesser extent by invasive grasses. The persistence of the Clear Lake population is

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
30 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

dependent upon the implementation of large-scale juniper removal by the Modoc National Forest.

Planning for this PMU/population is not considered further in this LUPA/EIS.

The Northeast California/Northwest Nevada subpopulation includes portions of west Humboldt

and north Washoe counties in Nevada, and east Lassen and southeast Modoc counties in

California. Total surface acreage is 4.3 million, with 3.5 million acres of mapped habitat. The

subpopulation includes a mix of extirpated, highly threatened, and relatively stable PMUs. In the

COT Report (USFWS 2013a), USFWS generalizes threats to this subpopulation as isolation and

small size, conifers, fire, weeds, annual grasses, livestock, and wild horses.

The California portion includes the Likely Tablelands PMU in eastern Modoc County, which is

likely to become extirpated within the next decade. The population consists of only one lek that

contained three strutting males in 2012. Up to eight leks were present on the tablelands in the

1980s and were connected to other populations on the Devil’s Garden and further west onto

Rocky Prairie and into the next valleys to the west, including Round Valley and Big Valley in far

northwestern Lassen County, all of which are extirpated. The Likely Tablelands PMU is the site

of an extensive invasion of non-native grasses, including cheatgrass, but specifically medusahead

grass. Repeated fires and the resulting continuous mat of medusahead have precluded all but

a few localized areas of sagebrush from this landscape. The PMU is disconnected from the

Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU to the south by a 20-mile-wide band of invasive conifer.

The Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU is one of mixed habitat quality and is discussed as a stronghold in

many references. Of 1.4 million acres in the PMU, restoration mapping indicates 46 percent of

potential habitat (mature sagebrush) understory is dominated by annual grass, annual forbs, bare

ground, or 0 to 9 percent juniper cover (invasive phase 1). An additional 19 percent of potential

sagebrush habitat has crossed the threshold from sagebrush-dominated to juniper or annual

grass-dominated communities (Armentrout and Hall 2006). The PMU has been subject to a

highly altered fire regime that has systematically reduced sagebrush cover. In 2012, the Rush Fire

burned 315,000 acres of this habitat (23 percent of the PMU). The Rush Fire burned nearly the

entire length of the PMU and severed the remnant western half of the PMU from the stronghold

populations to the east, creating another isolated GRSG population along the western edge of the

range. Restoration of previous burns in the PMU has not proven successful due to the presence of

invasive grasses, low-elevation Wyoming sage sites, and low precipitation. Similar results are

expected from the Rush fire. Long-term population declines leading to extirpation of GRSG in

this PMU are likely over the next several decades due to isolation and habitat loss, thus greatly

shrinking GRSG range on the western edge and potentially eliminating GRSG from northeastern

California. No modeling has been completed to support this hypothesis. As of 2012, 21 leks were

active in the PMU. Of these leks, 11 were burned in the Rush Fire of 2012. Livestock grazing,

both historic and present, and wild horse overpopulation are additional threats affecting the PMU,

including both nesting cover and availability of late-summer brood-rearing habitats.

The remaining PMUs within the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada subpopulation include

stronghold populations within northwestern Nevada and the far northeastern corner of California.

The Massacre PMU has experienced much less wildfire than is the norm for the remainder of

northern Nevada. Invasive grasses, though present, are a threat which have not manifested

extensively in the PMU. GRSG populations remain high and stable and are connected with

stronghold PMUs at the Sheldon Antelope Refuge and into Oregon. As of 2012, 28 leks were

active in the PMU, including 2 leks with over 100 males. Though the high level of fire activity

since the 1980s characterizing much of northern Nevada has spared this PMU, recent wildfire

activity has affected up to 100,000 acres, including 60,000 acres lost to fire in 2012. This

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
Draft Resource Management 31

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

potentially reflects a further heightening of wildfire activity overall due to the effects of climate

change and resultant lowering of fuel moisture levels in larger fuel types such as sagebrush.

Habitat quality is further threatened by both livestock grazing and wild horse overpopulation

affecting both nesting cover and availability of late-summer brood-rearing habitats.

Adjacent to the Massacre PMU, the Vya PMU is the northwestern-most Nevada PMU and

includes a sliver of farthest northeastern California. Similar to the Massacre, wildfire and invasive

grasses are less manifest than in north-central and northeastern Nevada, with overall habitat

quality relatively high. However, GRSG habitat is affected by the encroachment of invasive

juniper. The agencies continue to conduct large-scale juniper control in the PMU. Livestock

grazing and wild horse overpopulation are additional threats. The PMU supports 16 active leks

with population declines apparent as the conifer encroachment increases fragmentation.

Overall, VDDT modeling for the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada subpopulation indicates

that 56 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is

considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include implementation of habitat

treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10

to 30 percent cover down to 45 percent in 50 years. Trend is down due to increasing annual

grasses and conifer encroachment.

The South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada subpopulation contains 480,390 surface acres

and 400,000 acres of GRSG habitat in Humboldt County north of Highway 140 and west of

Highway 95. It is denoted as the Lone Willow PMU and includes the Bilk Creek and Montana

mountains. The subpopulation is continuous into Oregon and also includes the Trout Creek

Mountains and the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge. Though relatively small in size, the

subpopulation includes 36 active leks, with 9 of these supporting 21 to 50 males and 1 population

supporting more than 50 males, similar to other larger subpopulations considered as strongholds

in the sub-region. It contains one of the most densely populated winter ranges identified in

Nevada. Fire activity is high with total burned acreage of nearly 25 percent of the area by decade.

In 2012, the Holloway Fire burned approximately 214,000 acres in the Nevada portion and

another 245,000 acres in Oregon. VDDT modeling indicates that 30 percent of sagebrush habitats

support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition

trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current management,

are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 35 percent in 50

years. Current vegetation treatments are resulting in an improving trend though greatly impacted

by recent fire activity. The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes fire and annual grasses as

substantial and imminent threats within this portion of the subpopulation along with mining and

infrastructure as substantial and non-imminent.

The Warm Springs Population (Pah Rah and Virginia PMUs) encompass 402,748 surface acres

and 156,111 acres of mapped habitat in southern Washoe County. This area is bounded on the

west by Highway 395, on the south by Long Valley, Interstate Highway 80, and the cities of

Reno and Sparks Nevada, and on the east and the north by State Highway 446. Wildfires have

burned approximately 35 percent of this PMU, converting sagebrush-dominated shrub lands to

annual grasses and weeds. Wildfires that occurred from 1999 through 2001 were particularly

devastating, burning some of the last strongholds of GRSG habitat left in both the Pah Rah and

Virginia Mountain Ranges. GRSG in these two mountain ranges occur in small isolated pockets

of suitable habitat in the northern Virginia Mountains. It is estimated that GRSG currently utilize

approximately 54,000 acres (15 percent) of the 356,034 acres in this PMU. Only 65 percent is

under BLM administration, while 24 percent is under private ownership and 9 percent belongs

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Zones
32 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

to the Pyramid Lake Indian Tribe. Urbanization particularly in the Pah Rah Range threatens

existing GRSG habitat. Of the estimated 53,760 acres of habitat currently used by GRSG in the

Pah Rah and Virginia Mountain Ranges, 27,520 acres or 51 percent are under private ownership.

Within the Pah Rah Range, an estimated 69 percent of existing GRSG habitat is under private

ownership. VDDT modeling indicates that 60 percent of the modeled remaining sagebrush

habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat

condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current

management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover to 56

percent in 50 years. Downward trends are slight and due to treatment rates not keeping pace

with annual grass expansion. A qualitative population viability analysis was completed using

parameters outlined in Appendix 6 of the Governor’s GRSG plan. Analysis by Nevada Division

of Wildlife of factors in these mountain ranges indicates a high probability of extirpation within

the next 20 years. Only three active leks are known. Current population estimates based on these

leks indicate declining numbers with a spring breeding population of 150 to 200 GRSG (NDOW

2004b). The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) notes only two leks and characterizes the population at

less than 200 males. It does not provide estimates for persistence. The report highlights a myriad

of threats, including fire infrastructure, weeds/annual grasses, conifer, energy, free-roaming horses

and burros, recreation, and urbanization. The report identifies the population as “at risk” overall.

3.2.4. Regional Context

Clear patterns in the distribution and current ecological condition of conservation elements are

a direct response to change agents of invasive plant species, alterations to wildfire regimes,

and development.

Roads, other linear infrastructure, urban areas, mining, and other industry have a relatively small

overall footprint in this ecoregion. Approximately 7 percent of the land surface is currently

occupied by these uses. Development tends to occur in areas of productive soils, surface and

groundwater availability, and areas topographically suitable for roads, transmission, and pipelines,

which also tend to be favored for wildlife movement and so may impact some of the most

productive and sensitive resources.

Much more pervasive are the effects of expanding invasive species and their interacting effects

of wildfire regimes. Nearly every fifth field watershed is vulnerable to, if not already seriously

infested with, invasive annual grasses, substantially altering effects on natural wildfire regimes.

Effects include wildfires of increased size and severity, conversion from perennial bunchgrasses,

forbs, and shrubs to annual grasses, and related fragmentation of habitat for species such as

GRSG. The relative size and frequency of wildfire events will in all likelihood continue to

increase across the region.

Infrastructure

All development types currently occupy approximately 7 percent of the ecoregion and are only

expected to increase another 0.5 percent by 2025. The proportion of the ecoregion that would

be developed by 2025 will increase from less than 7.1 percent currently to 7.6 percent by 2025.

While this increase is proportionately small, it represents nearly 500,000 acres of additional

development. Renewable energy development remains as a key concern for managers. While the

current and expected 2025 renewables footprint amounts to only 0.2 percent of the ecoregion,

the potential (as mapped by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) covers the majority

of the area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Regional Context
Draft Resource Management 33

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

All of the indicators consistently show impacts for the heavily developed urban and agricultural

use areas in the northwestern quadrant of the ecoregion, along the Wasatch Front, in the Owen’s

Valley, along the Interstate 80 corridor, and in certain interior watersheds where large mines and

other impacts occur.

Consistent with forecasts of the development change agents, the summary map of landscape for

current and projected 2025 conditions does not indicate a large degree of change. For the most

part, increased urbanization is forecasted to occur in and around current locations. Figure 3-7,

Landscape Condition, shows the current landscape condition indicator based on development

change agents.

Source: Comer et al. 2012a

Figure 3.7. Landscape Condition

Invasive Species/Fire

Currently and by 2025, wildfire and invasive annual grasses are by far the greatest management

concerns.

An overwhelming proportion of the CBR is predicted by this model to support annual grasses at

45 percent cover. Although disturbance is a driver of the competitive success of these invasive

annual grasses, one can assume that future disturbances will continue in the present patterns. This

is undoubtedly the most severe circumstance on an ecoregion scale in the western United States.

Indicators suggest overall that substantial fire regime departure has occurred throughout the

Montane Uplands (Montane forest and shrub land vegetation) of the CBR.

Change from historic reference conditions (known as fire regime departure in fire analysis

discussions) for upland ecosystems in the inter-mountain basins (such as salt desert scrub and

big sagebrush shrub land) is overall more severe, and reflects a similar spatial pattern to that

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Regional Context
34 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

provided by the invasive annual grass indicator. While annual grasses and fire regime departure

are linked processes operating on the landscape, the current mapping of invasive species is not yet

fully coupled with fire regime departure. For example, fire frequency remains very low in some

desert scrub types, while they appear to be accumulating invasive plant abundances. Fire regime

departure models from 2025 to 2060 indicate relative minor differences. Thus, management

priorities guided primarily by the analysis of current conditions should hold for the upcoming

decades. Where current conditions suggest needs for habitat restoration and management focus,

forecasts for upcoming decades for landscape condition and fire regime departure suggest those

same management directions.

Climate Change

Over the coming 20 to 50 years, forecasts indicate the potential for truly profound transformation

in many ecosystems across the CBR. Climate space trends indicate the potential for extreme

growing season temperatures throughout the vast majority of the ecoregion. These forecasts

appear most intense along the southern CBR, and throughout the other largest basins.

For November through June for the 2020s, less than 5 percent of the CBR area is projected to

experience statistically significant increases in monthly maximum temperature of one standard

deviation beyond the values of the 20th century baseline. In contrast, for this same near future

time period, July, August, and September may see similarly significant maximum temperature

increase over 50, 65, and 70 percent of the CBR ecoregion, respectively. The spatial distribution

of these projected changes by the 2020s is concentrated toward the southern half of the ecoregion.

By 2060, the six global climate models ensemble forecasts substantial increases in maximum

temperatures for all months, with the greatest increases concentrated during the summer. For

July and August, by 2060, 90 percent and 85 percent of the CBR, respectively, is forecast to

experience monthly maximum temperatures 2 standard deviations beyond the values of the

20th century baseline.

As early as the 2020s, July, August, and September minimum temperatures (i.e., night-time

temperatures) are predicted to exceed 1 standard deviation beyond the 20th century baseline for

90 percent of the CBR. By the 2050s, the increases in monthly minimum temperature become

even more pervasive and severe. For every month during the 2050s, nearly all of the CBR is

projected to exceed 1 standard deviation beyond the 20th century baseline, and for July through

September, the models predict that 90 percent of the region will experience monthly minimum

temperatures 2 standard deviations beyond baseline values, and 61 percent of the region will

experience this in October. In some cases, substantially more than 50 percent of the area of the

current climate distribution is lost over the next 50 years.

Regarding landscape pattern effects, in most cases, a clear shift to higher elevation, and to the

north, can be observed in each model. Differences among types tend to be in the forecasted

magnitude of change (i.e., the relative proportion of current distribution where the climate

envelope is forecasted to move elsewhere).

There is a tendency for mixed salt desert scrub to expand into adjacent lands currently occupied by

big sagebrush shrub land. In the southern portion of the region mixed salt desert scrub is displaced

with expansion by desert scrub species characteristic of the Mojave Desert. Farther upslope, the

climate envelope for Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodland is forecast to retreat northward to

some degree, but overall there appears to be considerable overlap throughout this region.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Regional Context
Draft Resource Management 35

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Dramatic climate envelope shifts are forecasted for GRSG, with only a relatively small proportion

of the current distribution forecasted to retain the climate regime close to that currently supporting

this species (see Figure 3-8, Bioclimate Change Summary: Greater Sage-Grouse). Green areas

indicate where current climate envelope distributions “overlap” with forecast. Blue areas indicate

potential contraction, where current climate characteristics supportive of GRSG habitat will be

replaced by significantly different climate regime. Pink areas indicate where current climate

regime for GRSG habitat is forecasted to occur outside of the current distribution by 2060. More

generally, species that rely on sagebrush habitat have higher loss in climate envelope compared

with other species. In particular pygmy rabbit, sage sparrow, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

are projected to experience severe climate-related loss by 2060.

Source: Comer et al. 2012a

Figure 3.8. Bioclimate Change Summary: Greater Sage-Grouse

Lowest elevation basins throughout the ecoregion could transition from cool semi-desert into very

warm and sparsely vegetated desert landscapes more typical of the Mojave Basin and Range.

When the overlap areas of major vegetation type climate envelopes are combined, one can

identify areas ranging in importance for retaining these vegetation types (i.e., focal areas). In

some areas of the CBR, as many as seven major vegetation types show an overlap between

current and forecasted climate envelopes. These areas are good indicators of potential climate

change focal areas. Areas forecasted to experience the least amount of change are concentrated in

north-central and south-central Nevada. These areas may be further evaluated in this light for

their potential to provide some degree of climate change focal areas. Restoration priorities and

restoration focal areas can be identified in areas showing intermediate status scores for landscape

condition and invasive annual grasses, low likelihood of future development, and low climate

change stress by mid-century.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Regional Context
36 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

3.3. Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic Species/Noxious

Weeds)

Vegetation serves multiple purposes on the landscape and provides many ecosystem services.

Vegetation stabilizes soils, prevents erosion, uses carbon dioxide, releases oxygen, increases

species diversity, and provides habitat and food for animals and products for human use. Many of

the BLM’s and the Forest Service’s land management policies are directed toward maintenance

of healthy vegetation communities. Vegetation can be characterized generally by ecological

provinces and more specifically by plant communities. The ecological provinces and plant

communities discussed below are those that provide the most important land cover across the

planning area.

The planning area falls in the Northern Basin and Range, CBR, Sierra Nevada, and Eastern

Cascades Slopes and Foothills ecoregions (EPA 2010). These ecoregions are subdivided based

on physical characteristics of the landscapes, and further divided into vegetation communities,

which are named according to the types of plant species of which they are composed. Plant

communities with the same name can occur in more than one ecoregion or subdivision; however,

these communities often have subtle differences in their makeup. A description of each of the

major vegetation communities in the planning area is provided below.

Acres of each vegetation community in PGH and PPH on BLM-administered and Forest

Service-administered lands in the planning area are shown in Table 3-11, Acres of Vegetation

Communities within PPH and PGH.

Table 3.11. Acres of Vegetation Communities within PPH and PGH

Vegetation Community PGH (acres) PPH (acres)

BLM Forest Service BLM Forest Service

Northern Basin and Range 793,800 179,600 5,201,500 551,00

Central Basin and Range 3,663,600 358,600 6,208,100 625,600

Sierra Nevada 400 0 400 0

Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills 50,500 0 106,00 0

Mojave Basin and Range 0 0 0 0

Cascades 0 0 0 0

Total 4,508,300 538,200 11,516,926 1,198,431

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

3.3.1. Weed Control Guidance and Programs

Integrated Weed Management is a systems approach for the management of noxious weeds

and invasive species. Walker and Buchanan defined Integrated Weed Management as “the

application of many kinds of technologies in a mutually supportive manner. It involves the

deliberate selection, integration, and implementation of effective weed control measures with due

consideration of economic, ecological, and sociological consequences” (Walker and Buchanan

1982).

Noxious weeds and invasive annual grass species out-compete native vegetation for resources

through advantageous physiological characteristics. Weeds threaten to degrade public lands in

Nevada and California by spreading into and infesting sensitive riparian ecosystems, important

rangelands, wildfire scars, and developed lands maintained as ROWs or recreational areas.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic

Species/Noxious Weeds)
Draft Resource Management 37

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

These threats can come in the form of unbalanced biodiversity, a weakened ecosystem, a higher

propensity for soil erosion, increased frequency of wildfires, and limited food resources for both

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Weeds on private agricultural lands have the potential to spread

onto federal lands and vice versa.

3.3.2. Current Condition

Noxious Weeds on BLM-Administered Lands

There are about 8.5 million acres of noxious weeds on BLM-administered land in the planning

area. Most species are expanding at about 14 percent annually (BLM 1985c). Active management

of noxious weeds occurs on a regular basis by federal, state, and county agencies; conservation

groups; and private landowners. Repeated wildfires and other disturbance regimes tend to

increase noxious and invasive weed presence and likelihood. Infestation rates have reached the

point in many areas where complete eradication is no longer possible (BLM 1986c).

Noxious Weeds on Forest Service-Administered Lands

On the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, invasive species account for less that 0.5 percent of

the land base in Nevada. Approximately 29,000 acres of invasive species have been identified; of

this approximately 16,000 acres are classified as noxious weeds. Of this, 16,000 acres, 40 percent

of the infestation is less than one tenth of an acre in size, and 30 percent of the infestations are

one half acre or less.

The Forest Service has comparative data showing what vegetative community types are currently

infested with noxious weeds. These data show that while mountain big sage accounts for 18

percent of the vegetative types, it contains 27 percent of the weed occurrences. Comparatively,

pinyon-juniper accounts for 37 percent of the vegetative types but contains 17 percent of the

noxious weed occurrence.

When all riparian vegetative types are combined, they account for 1 percent of the vegetative

types found on the forest but contain 24 percent of the noxious weed occurrence. The fact that

riparian-related vegetation types support such a disproportionate amount of noxious weeds

species makes management of riparian areas even more important. This is especially true in the

arid state of Nevada, where preserving the integrity of riparian areas is critical for wildlife,

recreation, water quality, and grazing management.

Ecoregion Types

Northern Basin and Range

The Northern Basin and Range ecoregion contains arid intermontane basins, dissected lava planes,

and scattered mountains. Shrub communities and aridisols are common, and non-mountain areas

have sagebrush steppe vegetation. Mountain ranges are generally covered in sagebrush at higher

elevations as well as other mountain browse species with an understory of bunchgrasses and

forbs. These areas are largely treeless and included a mosaic of native bunchgrasses and shrubs.

In this type, sagebrush typically co-dominates with perennial bunchgrasses (Miller et al. 2011).

Common species include Wyoming, basin, and mountain big sagebrush as shrub components,

with inclusion areas that contain low sagebrush, early sagebrush, and black sagebrush occurring

within shallower soils. Other mountain browse species can be found at higher elevations, which

typically include antelope bitterbrush, serviceberry, and snowberry. Bunchgrasses are typically

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
38 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

cool season grasses such as Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass,

Great Basin wildrye, Indian ricegrass, needle and thread, and Idaho fescue. However the range of

understory and diversity are based on successional stages that vary from early, mid, and late.

Central Basin and Range

The CBR ecoregion is internally drained (Great Basin) and is characterized by a mosaic of

xeric basins, scattered low and high mountains, salt flats, and dry lake beds. It has a hotter and

drier climate, more shrubland, and more mountain ranges than the Northern Basin and Range

ecoregions to the north. Basins in this ecoregion are primarily covered by Wyoming and basin

big sagebrush with a limited understory of bunchgrasses and forbs, as well as salt desert and

greasewood vegetation occurring in the low valleys. The herbaceous component contributes a

smaller portion of the total plant cover (Miller and Eddleman 2000) due to hydrologic patterns. In

this habitat type, sagebrush is frequently the canopy dominant with little understory (Miller et

al. 2011).

Sierra Nevada

The Sierra Nevada is a deeply dissected block fault that rises sharply from the arid basin and

range ecoregions on the east and slopes gently toward the Central California Valley to the west.

The eastern portion has been strongly glaciated. Much of the central and southern parts of the

region are underlain by granite. The vegetation is mixed conifer and in Nevada are predominately

white fir and lodgepole pine on the west side and Jeffery pine and lodgepole pine on the east

side. Higher elevations include red fir, mountain hemlock, and western white pine. There are

many high mountain lakes, streams, and meadow/riparian areas. Alpine conditions exist at the

highest elevations (EPA 2010).

Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills

The Eastern Cascade Slopes and Foothills ecoregion is in the rain shadow of the Cascade

Mountains. Its climate exhibits greater temperature extremes and less precipitation than

ecoregions to the west. Open forests of ponderosa pine and some lodgepole pine distinguish this

region from the higher ecoregions to the west where fir and hemlock forests are common, and the

lower dryer ecoregions to the east where shrubs and grasslands are predominant. The vegetation

is adapted to the prevailing dry continental climate and is highly susceptible to wildfire. Volcanic

cones and buttes are common in much of the region (EPA 2007).

Vegetation Types

Vegetation Alliances

Vegetation Alliances are the largest division of plant formations. “An alliance is a vegetation

classification unit containing one or more associations, and defined by a characteristic range of

species composition, habitat conditions, physiognomy, and diagnostic species, typically at least

one of which is found in the uppermost or dominant stratum of the vegetation” (Jennings et al.

2004). There are four alliances in the management area: forest/woodland, shrubland, herbaceous,

and wetland/riparian. Plant Associations are used to describe a characteristic collection of

diagnostic species according to local habitat conditions and physiognomy (Jennings et al. 2004),

for example: “Great Basin mixed shrub” or “basin big sagebrush.” Plant Communities are used to

describe a collection of plants living in close association that are linked by effects on one another

and by their response to a shared environment (Jennings et al. 2004). The following is a list of the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
Draft Resource Management 39

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

most common plant alliances, associations, and communities that provide habitat for GRSG in the

Nevada and Northeastern California planning area.

Shrub Alliances

Shrubs are woody plants, relatively short in height, that have multiple stems. Seven shrub

associations have been identified in the planning area; a description of each follows. Because

many disturbance factors affect these associations similarly, they are addressed in a general

manner here. Disturbance means a significant, and relatively sudden, modification of the resource

(i.e., an alteration of the plant community away from a stable state, accompanied by changes in

species composition, growth patterns, and reproduction). The key functional elements of any

disturbance are its timing (seasonality), intensity (degree of resource modification/loss), frequency

(recovery interval between disturbances), availability of abiotic (water and nutrients) and biotic

(plant species and effects of wildlife and domestic stock) resources, and regime (connection with

similar disturbances in time and space; Sousa 1984). In the following discussion, variations in

response to disturbance are noted for each plant community.

Past and current human influences on sagebrush-steppe ecosystems (particularly livestock

grazing, fire, and recreation) are not perpetuating the original plant communities. West (1999)

estimates that less than 1 percent of the sagebrush-steppe remains in unaltered condition.

Furthermore, systematic disturbance has caused significant, and sometimes radical, changes in

species composition in many areas. This has occurred in one of three ways: (1) disturbances

may enhance the competitive ability of a dominant species (e.g., sagebrush) and force formerly

dominant species into a subservient role (e.g., perennial grasses); (2) disturbances may enhance

the competitive ability of a dominant species (e.g., a perennial grass) and eliminate the other

formerly dominant species (e.g., sagebrush); and (3) disturbance may result in loss of the

original dominants. In order to preserve the integrity of the original plant community in all three

scenarios, one or all of the originally dominant species must exhibit sufficient dynamism and

adaptability to compete with various disturbance-adapted species associated with human activities

(e.g., cheatgrass and medusahead). The natural dominants, having evolved with an indigenous

disturbance regime, are not well adapted to this role.

Management of fire, livestock and wild horse grazing in particular are difficult issues that involve

much ecological uncertainty; the question is whether human activities will be sufficiently altered

to rehabilitate and stabilize natural ecosystems, or whether compromised but fairly functional

desired plant communities will be perpetuated. The present state of sagebrush-steppe ecosystems

requires difficult decisions about fire, livestock, and wild horse management, to be made in

order to salvage sagebrush steppe communities.

The effects of overgrazing, high-frequency fires, and other factors (particularly off-road driving)

on sagebrush-steppe communities and soils are obvious (Blaisdell et al. 1982; Bunting et al.

1987; Vavra et al. 1994). Less obvious are the effects on other biota and more subtle changes.

For instance, judicious grazing and prescribed fire are still associated with varying degrees of

uncertainty regarding short-term and long-term outcomes in these plant communities. A degree

of uncertainty can be expected because the manner in which these key disturbance activities

are conducted varies with time and location. Furthermore, with a highly variable climate, they

function more as a disturbance regime than as independent events (Eddleman and Doescher 1999).

Great Basin Mixed Shrub Association

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
40 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

This association includes several plant communities, a few of which have substantial variation in

canopy cover or understory vegetation. Human and natural phenomena can have adverse effects

on these communities. These include heavy, late-summer livestock browsing on snowberry,

antelope bitterbrush, and other palatable shrubs; pinyon-juniper invasion; decreasing precipitation

associated with long-term climate change; and short-term climate extremes, especially drought.

The risk of dominance and type-conversion to exotic annual grasses is high below 5,500 feet

because of lower precipitation and a dryer environment that supports hotter fires. Above this

elevation, native plants normally receive more precipitation and respond better to disturbance;

therefore, they compete successfully with invasive annuals such as cheatgrass. A typical plant

community is the mixed mountain shrub 25 to 39 percent perennial grass community. This

is a moderate-to-dense, primarily broad-leaf community of 3-foot to 6-foot evergreen shrubs.

Canopy cover is 25 percent to 39 percent. The dominant shrubs are mountain big sagebrush and

snowberry. Grasses include California brome, western needlegrass, Idaho fescue, bluebunch

wheatgrass, and squirreltail. Understory forbs include mule’s ears, old man’s whiskers, and

silvery lupine. This plant community grows between 6,600 and 7,600 feet and is frequently found

on north-facing slopes throughout the region.

Another typical plant community is the Great Basin mixed shrub 10 to 24 percent perennial

grass community. This is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf evergreen and deciduous

community dominated by 3- to 6-foot tall sagebrush. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent.

Grasses include Sandberg’s bluegrass, squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye,

Thurber’s needlegrass, and cheatgrass. Understory forbs include tapertip hawksbeard, silvery

lupine, uncommon annual buckwheat, mule’s ears, arrowleaf and Hooker’s balsamroot, sulfur

buckwheat, and rock eriogonum. This plant community occupies flats and moderate slopes at

elevations of 4,500 to 5,800 feet.

Mountain Big Sagebrush Association

Most researchers believe that genus Artemisia (sagebrush) originated in Eurasia. Mountain big

sagebrush, the most genetically primitive form, evolved during the middle Pliocene (5 million

years ago), or earlier. During pluvial times, mountain big sagebrush had a nearly continuous

distribution. However, under hypsothermal climatic conditions (and into recent times), mountain

big sagebrush retreated into foothills and mountains where deep, well-drained but summer-moist

soils are prevalent (Trimble 1989).

Mountain big sagebrush is normally found at elevations above 5,000 feet (in locations where soils

are deep, well-drained, and moist). This species is not a fire responder, and recovery after fire

may take 20 years (Bunting et al. 1987). Where undisturbed, canopy cover varies from 15 percent

to 40 percent, though it may be 50 percent in wetter areas with deep, loamy soils and northerly

exposures. Bitterbrush and snowberry are commonly associated shrubs (Tisdale 1994). Forbs are

usually abundant, with 12 genera and many species. Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and

Thurber’s needlegrass are the principal grasses on drier sites. On deeper, loamier sites, onion

grass, western needlegrass, and subalpine needlegrass are more common.

A typical plant community is the big sagebrush 10 to 24 percent perennial grass community. This

is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf evergreen shrub community dominated by 3- to 6-foot

mountain big sagebrush. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. The understory is primarily

bluebunch wheatgrass; however, plateau gooseberry, antelope bitterbrush, snowberry, basin

wildrye, Idaho fescue, arrowleaf balsamroot, mule’s ears, and prickly gilia are also present. This

community grows on flats or gentle-to-steep slopes, primarily at elevations of 5,500 to 7,800 feet.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
Draft Resource Management 41

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Basin Big Sagebrush Association

Basin big sagebrush has trunk-like stems and is heavily branched with uneven tops. Shrub

heights normally range from 3 to 6 feet, though plants in heavily incised drainages may reach

15 feet. This plant grows in various soils, but prefers the dry, deep, well-drained soils of the

plains, and valleys and foothills below 7,000 feet (Blaisdell et al. 1982). The presence of this

subspecies often indicates productive rangeland because it frequently grows in deep, fertile soil

(Blaisdell et al. 1982; Collins 1984). Basin big sagebrush was once the most abundant shrub in

North America. However, its lowland range has been largely converted to agricultural uses.

This subspecies was thought to be intolerant of alkali; however, there are ecotypes that grow in

relatively alkaline areas in association with alkali-tolerant plants such as black greasewood,

shadscale, saltbush, and saltgrass (Blaisdell et al. 1982). Basin big sagebrush is killed by fire;

recovery following fire may take as long as 50 years (Bunting 1990). Overgrazing can eliminate

the understory of native perennial grasses. Communities in this association may then be easily

dominated by exotic annual grasses (weeds) where this is allowed to happen.

A typical plant community is the big sagebrush 10 to 24 percent perennial grass community.

This is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf evergreen shrub community dominated by 3-

to 6-foot basin big sagebrush. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. It is associated with

forbs and perennial grasses, especially bluebunch wheatgrass, which dominates the understory.

Other common grasses are basin wildrye, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and Thurber’s needlegrass. This

community grows on flats at elevations of 4,700 to 7,800 feet.

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Association

The Wyoming big sagebrush association appears to have originated as a cross between basin big

sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush (Trimble 1989). Although Wyoming

big sagebrush grows in combination with the other two big sagebrush subspecies; it occupies

the drier, shallower, and poorer soils. It is the shortest subspecies, reaching only 3 to 4 feet

under normal conditions (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

Natural fire intervals in Wyoming big sagebrush communities appear to range from 10 to 110

years or more. Post-burn recovery to 20 percent canopy cover may take more than 40 years

after a stand-replacing fire (Young and Evans 1989; Winward 1991). Grasses usually dominate

the site before reestablishment occurs. Sites are reestablished from soil seedbanks, and seeds

from remnant and adjacent plants. Because Wyoming big sagebrush occupies drier soils and

poorer sites, these communities are especially vulnerable to grazing impacts. Many have lost a

substantial portion of the native perennial grass understory. This has opened these communities to

invasion by exotic annual grasses such as cheatgrass, which has now replaced the native perennial

grasses in most areas. A cheatgrass understory is highly susceptible to fire, and greatly shortens

the fire interval. As a result, these communities are dominated by exotic annual grasses and are

severely degraded (Young and Evans 1989).

A typical plant community is the big sagebrush 10 to 24 percent perennial grass community. This

is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf, evergreen shrub community dominated by Wyoming

big sagebrush about 3 feet in height. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. Low-growing

sagebrush is associated with perennial grasses and forbs. Other codominants in Wyoming big

sagebrush steppe include western wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, Idaho

fescue, Thurber needlegrass, and needle-and-thread grass. Although not often used in vegetation

classifications, cheatgrass is also a dominant species in some Wyoming big sagebrush steppe

communities. This community occurs on flats at elevations of 4,700 to 5,500 feet.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
42 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Low Sagebrush Association

Low sagebrush grows on very poor shallow soils that are dry, rocky, and frequently alkaline. In

the warmer, drier parts of its range, particularly in Nevada, it may grow at altitudes above 9,800

feet. In some areas, low sagebrush grows in discontinuous, low or high-elevation bands. Soils

that support this species generally are rockier and contain more clay than those that support big

sagebrush; they are also wetter in spring and dryer in fall (Blaisdell et al. 1982). Low sagebrush

stands generally escape fire when mixed with big sagebrush. However, under extreme conditions,

low sagebrush will burn; when this happens, recovery time is longer than for big sagebrush. If

overgrazed, low sagebrush communities are susceptible to cheatgrass invasion. Where clay

content is high, the invasive grass is usually medusahead (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

A typical plant community is the low sagebrush scrub 10 to 14 percent perennial grass community.

This is an open, broad-leaf evergreen shrub community dominated by low sagebrush, usually

less than 1 foot in height. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. Associated plants are

primarily perennial grasses and forbs, sometimes with scattered western juniper. Sandburg’s

bluegrass dominates the understory; other associated species include antelope bitterbrush,

plateau gooseberry, gray horsebrush, squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, ballhead

sandwort, desert yellow daisy, low pussy-toes, rock eriogonium, Bolander’s yampah, Hooker’s

balsamroot, and cushion eriogonium. Tufts of perennial grasses are often elevated, indicating

soil loss. This community occurs on rocky flats or gentle slopes at elevations of 4,200 to 6,800

feet throughout the region.

Black Sagebrush Association

Black sagebrush is generally 12 inches tall or shorter, with leaves less than one half inch long.

This species flowers in the fall, and the flower stalks often cast a slight orange appearance.

These flower stalks often persist from year to year. The canopy is often loosely branched with

a short trunk but may have a compact rounded appearance if heavily grazed by wildlife or

livestock. The stems are usually dark, and the leaves have tiny black dots, hence the name black

sagebrush. Black sagebrush is found on sites from about 4,500 feet to 8,500 feet, where the

annual precipitation ranges from less than 8 inches to over 16 inches. Black sagebrush is often

found on gentle slopes above the nearly level valley bottoms, the adjacent foothills, and on steep

mountainside slopes. The primary factors that control its distribution are a soil with a low water

holding capacity and usually a high level of calcium carbonates. Black sagebrush typically

inhabits soils that have either bedrock or a caliche (thick calcium carbonate that restricts rooting

depth) layer at about 18 inches or less. Black sagebrush tolerates large amounts of soil carbonates

better than the other sagebrush species. It is common on shallow soils derived from limestone.

Soil profiles often have substantial amounts of gravel or rock that further limit the soil’s water

holding capacity. Black sagebrush does not tolerate prolonged flooding, preferring to inhabit drier

sites. Black sagebrush provides important forage for pronghorn, mule deer, GRSG, and domestic

sheep, particularly in the late summer, fall, and winter, when succulent forbs and grasses decline.

Cattle may increase consumption of the plant in the fall and winter (Shultz and McAdoo 2002).

The perennial grasses associated with these communities are Idaho fescue, Webber ricegrass,

bottlebrush squirreltail, Cusick bluegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and pine bluegrass. Potential

vegetative composition is about 50 percent grasses, 15 percent forbs, and 35 percent shrubs.

Typically, the sparse vegetation of most black sagebrush communities normally precludes the

occurrence of fire, except in exceptional years. Black sagebrush stands, where they form a major

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
Draft Resource Management 43

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

part of the community, are a valuable wildlife winter forage species, and should not be burned

on a large-scale basis.

Herbaceous and Grassland Alliance

By definition, herbaceous plants have succulent (non-woody) stems; they include forbs

and aquatic plants and may have annual or perennial life-cycles (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf

1995). Herbaceous plants are usually a major part of the understory vegetation in tree or

shrub-dominated communities. However, in this alliance, forbs and grasses are the dominant

plants. The herbaceous and grassland alliance is primarily seasonal or permanent meadow and

seep communities (the latter are described under Wetland and Riparian Associations). Although

herbaceous and grassland habitats are characterized by low species diversity, and when compared

with habitats with more complex structural diversity, they are very important in terms of regional

biodiversity. There are three main plant associations.

Non-Native Perennial Grass Association

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, various forms of crested wheatgrass were used to control

the invasive weed halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) and to provide spring grazing deference on

native ranges for purposes of improving rangeland conditions. These seedings were conducted

primarily on gentle terrain at lower elevations (Wyoming big sagebrush sites). BLM records

indicate that the cumulative acreage of rangeland seedings on BLM-administered lands in Nevada

increased from approximately 30,000 acres in 1962, to 160,000 acres by 1965, 400,000 acres

by 1969, and 500,000 acres by 1975. This acreage does not include private land seedings. The

practice of range seeding to improve spring ranges peaked in Nevada as early as 1965, then

underwent a slow, steady decline through the next decade until no acres were treated from 1978

through 1981. By 1999, the cumulative total of seeded acres had grown to 590,000 acres (State of

Nevada 2001).

Native Perennial Grass Association

These areas also include areas of dominant native grasses and forbs that can occur following a

wildfire. Fire occurrences in the last 20 years have resulted in many acres of shrub-grasslands

being converted to a vegetative community currently dominated by perennial grasses and forbs.

Over time, shrubs will naturally reestablish and begin to dominate the vegetative composition of

these areas. These areas are historic GRSG habitat that still have potential in the future to develop

a shrub component capable of providing cover and forage for GRSG. Some of these areas in

higher elevations have had successful fire rehabilitation treatments and already have established

sagebrush seedlings, but currently do not have the height or structure to provide adequate habitat.

Annual Grassland Association

Annual grassland habitats composed of invasive weeds (primarily cheatgrass and medusahead)

are highly undesirable and considered biological deserts. Exotic annual grasses (particularly

medusahead and cheatgrass) are likely to persist, whether or not livestock grazing continues on

BLM-administered lands. These plants persist because of abundant annual seed production and

long-term viability of seed stored in surface litter and soil, plus earlier germination than native

perennials. Damage and loss of native perennial shrubland/bunchgrass communities because of

persistent grazing and frequent wildfires has greatly accelerated introductions and domination by

exotic annual weeds. However, it is possible to reduce infestation, or at least slow its progress,

through proper grazing management on lands surrounding the affected area. Improving health

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
44 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

in adjacent areas creates a natural barrier to the spread of weeds. Properly designed grazing

strategies have also noticeably improved areas presently dominated by exotic annuals. Areas

where annual grasses are still a minor problem have also benefited from improved grazing

management. Improvement is evidenced by increased vigor and seed production in native

vegetation, and such efforts are now being prioritized (Reisner et al. 2013).

Wetland and Riparian Alliance

Nationwide riparian-wetland areas comprise less than nine percent of the land base. However,

these areas are the most productive and prized resource on BLM-administered lands.

Riparian-wetland areas are essential to restoring and maintaining natural hydrologic function

(particularly groundwater recharge and flood control) and the physical, chemical, and biological

health of the nation’s water supply. There is disproportionately heavy use of riparian-wetland

areas by numerous wildlife species, more so than any other habitat types. Riparian-wetland

areas are also highly prized for their recreational value (e.g., hunting, fishing, photography,

hiking, and wildlife-viewing), economic value (e.g., livestock grazing), and for nature education.

These habitats are highly valued by Native Americans for food-gathering and other traditional

economic activities.

When viewed from high elevations, riparian zones usually appear as thin green ribbons in

canyon bottoms. Green strips in many mountain drainages are less than 15 feet wide (including

stream width); even the largest streams in the management area are only 10 to 40 feet wide.

However, portions of some rivers exceed 100 feet in width. The riparian vegetation zone varies

tremendously in width, according to water depth, volume, and flow rate and local topography,

soils, and streambank (or nearby) modifications. Riparian and wetland communities in this

planning area are primarily found in or adjacent to seeps and springs, seasonal or permanent

meadows, creeks and rivers, natural lakes or playas, and human-made irrigation canals and

reservoirs. Because of the proximity and abundance of water, riparian plants are usually quite

different from those found in adjacent upland areas; they also thrive in or tolerate wet or saturated

soil conditions that upland plants cannot.

The BLM’s Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s (BLM 1991c) establishes national goals

and objectives for protecting riparian-wetland resources on public lands. The initiative’s chief

goals were to restore and maintain riparian-wetland areas so that at least 75 percent were in PFC

by 1997 and to achieve an advanced condition of ecological stability (except where resource

management objectives, such as PFC, required an earlier stage of succession to provide greater

habitat diversity for wildlife, fish, and watershed protection). The strategy of this initiative

requires holistic watershed-based management. The condition of the entire watershed is an

essential component for determining whether a riparian-wetland area is functioning properly.

Riparian Scrub/Herbaceous Association

Riparian zones and riparian plant communities in this association occupy areas adjacent to

streams, lakes, and other natural sources of open water, as well as reservoirs; this water exerts

a predominant influence on the native vegetation and the associated biotic community (USDA

NRCS 1997). The riparian association, riparian communities, and ecological sites all describe

plants that grow in the riparian zone. Obligate species require the environmental conditions that

prevail within this zone, whereas facultative species tolerate these conditions and are frequently

found outside the riparian zone. Riparian ecosystems are distinctly different from surrounding

lands and vegetation because of the strong influence exerted by free water in the soil (USDA

NRCS 1997). Riparian and all plant communities are classified according to recognizable,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
Draft Resource Management 45

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

repeatable, and clearly defined assemblages of riparian plant species. The following plant

communities are commonly found in California and Nevada.

Willow Scrub Community

This is an open to moderately dense deciduous community of tall shrubs (less than 8 feet) or trees

(less than 30 feet). The dominant genus is willow, mixed with wet meadow plants and scattered

low shrubs (3 feet or less). Associated species may include narrow-leaf willow, arroyo willow,

red willow, Scouler’s willow, Lemmon’s willow, shining willow, interior rose, sedges, rushes,

columbine, mountain alder, American dogwood, quaking aspen, and black cottonwood. This

community occupies flats or gentle slopes in springs, meadows, and wet drainages throughout

the region. Willows grow in riparian and wetland associations on periodically saturated soils.

Healthy willow communities sprout vigorously following fire. Willows also sprout well from

cuttings, and are used extensively for revegetation. However, close association with open water

and palatability make willows especially vulnerable to overgrazing by livestock, wild horses,

and burros. Repeated streambank trampling by livestock causes soil erosion and gullying, which

lowers the water table and converts riparian habitats to upland shrub communities. Similar effects

can result from improper road placement (through or alongside riparian habitats) and excessive

motor vehicle traffic.

Seasonally Dry Meadow Community

This community occupies areas with remnant meadow soils that are wet in spring but usually dry

by early summer. It is primarily composed of perennial, grass-like plants, but also may contain

scattered 3- to 6-foot shrubs. When in poor condition, it may contain numerous annual weeds or

bare ground. The dominant plants are usually Baltic rush and various sedges. Associated species

include silver sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, squirreltail, annual beardgrass, clustered field sedge,

mat muhly, beardless wildrye, inland saltgrass, meadow barley, fine-branched popcornflower,

and tanseyleaf evening primrose. This community occupies flats or gentle slopes at elevations of

4,000 to 6,000 feet.

Wet Meadow or Seep Community

This community occupies seeps, springs, or meadows that are wet most of the year. It supports

a dense community of primarily riparian grass-like plants, and sometimes a few scattered 3- to

6-foot shrubs. Rushes and sedges are the dominant plants. Associated species include willow,

golden currant, interior rose, Nebraska sedge, Baltic rush, common spikerush, short-awn foxtail,

meadow barley, spike redtop, thingrass, western blue flag, small-flowered camas, hoary nettle,

and common monkeyflower. This community grows on flats or gentle slopes at elevations of

4,000 to 8,000 feet.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds and invasive plants are recognized as a very serious threat to the biodiversity

of native rangelands, second only to habitat loss and fragmentation. These plants alter basic

ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling, hydrology, and wildfire frequency; overwhelm

native plants and animals; and sometimes hybridize with native species. All natural plant

communities are susceptible to noxious weed invasion. The presence, abundance, and influence

of noxious weed infestations in a particular ecosystem is highly dynamic, responding to changes

in local environmental conditions from a range of human and natural causes. Introduction,

proliferation, and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants—and priorities for their

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
46 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

control—can change in as little as two years, as new infestations are located, known infestations

are successfully treated (or increase in size and severity), and management priorities change.

Trends in noxious weed infestation are assessed according to the number and severity of

infestations, and their net or gross size in acres. A sustained reduction in any of these factors is

considered a positive trend. The ultimate goal of the noxious weed program is elimination (or

effective control) of noxious weeds on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Effects

of change on the noxious weed problem are difficult to predict because of the complexity of

ecosystem processes and the diversity of management activities. However, there is an undisputed

consensus that, in the absence of continued inventory, a coordinated weed-treatment program,

and yearly treatment evaluation, the problem would rapidly worsen. Certain weeds have already

become so ubiquitous that infestations are now considered too difficult, time-consuming, and

costly to treat.

Aggressive fire suppression and overgrazing have led to encroachment and degradation of

sagebrush communities by certain native shrubs, particularly western juniper. Fire can be used to

control invasive species or to approximate historic fire regimes. Nonetheless, land managers must

be cautious when using fire for these purposes; if not used correctly, fire may favor proliferation

of other fire-tolerant invasive species or exotic weeds, resulting in further degradation of already

compromised ecosystems. Natural fire regimes in sagebrush ecosystems did not occur in the

presence of numerous exotic plants, and its use may not be feasible if fire tolerant exotics are

present (Brooks and Pyke 2001). Exotic annual grasses especially benefit from fire, and the

proliferation of these grasses results in a frequent reoccurrence of fire (i.e., an unnaturally

shortened fire-return interval) to the point where native species cannot persist and sagebrush

communities are converted to exotic annual grasslands. Type-conversion of this kind severely

reduces biodiversity and is devastating for wildlife, including carnivores. Therefore, effective

wildlife management depends on the control of invasive and exotic plants and use of appropriate,

site-specific fire regimes (Brooks and Pyke 2001).

Cheatgrass, especially, is widespread in low-elevation juniper woodlands. However, cooler,

mesic woodlands appear less susceptible to invasion and dominance by this and other exotic

annuals. A better understanding of factors that influence woodland susceptibility to invasive and

exotic species is required. Whisenant (1990) reviewed the effects of cheatgrass infestation on fire

frequency in shrub-steppe communities and found that it tends to exert dominance on disturbed

soils. Because it forms a continuous fuel load, its presence leads to more frequent fires. Frequent

fire shrinks native plant cover, encourages proliferation of cheatgrass, and reduces biodiversity,

making establishment easier on relatively undisturbed soils.

The BLM and Forest Service utilize an integrated pest management approach to prevent the

introduction and establishment of noxious weeds and to control existing infestations. This

includes education and preventive measures, as well as physical, biological, chemical, and

cultural treatments. In 2007, the BLM released the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on

Bureau of Land Management Land in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement and Record of Decision (BLM 2007a). The ROD identified prevention measures and

standard operating procedures for the BLM to follow to protect and enhance natural resources that

could be affected by future vegetation treatments. Prevention measures are designed to minimize

invasive weed establishment as part of activity planning.

In Table 3-12, the known acreage values of cheatgrass, by jurisdictional boundaries, are presented.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
Draft Resource Management 47

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.12. Acres of Cheatgrass Potential in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 2,521,800 5,157,100 2,521,800 3,612,900

IV 6,234,900 13,995,500 674,300 3,044,200

V 4,209,100 4,401,200 543,600 2,649,300

Forest Service III 243,700 1,065,100 243,700 437,600

IV 1,086,900 1,521,600 181,300 566,700

V 113,600 82,500 11,800 44,100

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 15,700 288,200 15,700 51,900

IV 740,200 974,100 2,200 1,700

V 96,300 374,100 16,400 193,900

Private III 468,200 1,972,100 468,200 510,100

IV 4,257,400 5,643,800 487,800 1,510,700

V 1,429,500 759,300 72,900 148,000

State III 200 427,900 200 5,600

IV 945,500 1,022,900 400 1,000

V 107,800 62,600 7,900 13,100

Other III 0 100 0 100

IV 54,900 93,800 0 100

V 94,100 361,800 88,700 361,800

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Acreage composed of areas with a high potential for cheatgrass occurrence

Conifer Encroachment

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are complex, not only in terms of species composition and

physiognomy, but also because the management area contains woodlands that vary greatly in

successional stage (from early to senescent). The developmental stage greatly affects fuel loads,

wildlife habitats, and management activities involving other natural resources. Treatment of

invasive pinyon-juniper, including methods, cost, and response to treatment, also largely depends

on developmental stage.

Studies show that the expansion of pinyon-juniper has more than tripled in the areas dominated by

pinyon-juniper woodlands within the last 150 years. Although pinyon-juniper woodlands have

increased dramatically in the last 150 years, they currently occupy far less than they are capable

of under current climatic conditions (Miller and Tausch 2001). These changes have generally

coincided with the introduction of heavy livestock grazing, tree utilization by the mining industry,

and fire suppression that followed settlement of the region. Unfortunately, pinyon-juniper has

the potential to replace existing shrubland and grassland communities. An increase in tree

dominance results in a loss of understory. A loss of understory further reduces the fuel and further

decreases the fire frequency. Altered disturbance regimes and climate change have resulted

in major changes in plant community compositions. Since the 1860s, many bunchgrass and

sagebrush-bunchgrass communities, which dominated the Intermountain West, have shifted to

pinyon and juniper woodland or introduced annual-dominated communities (West 1984; Miller

et al. 1994). Studies conclude that barring some major environmental change or management

action, continued forage reduction and decreased fire frequency will continue until trees dominate

most of the sites favorable to their survival. This continued tree dominance then jeopardizes the

historic woodland sites because under the right conditions, a crown fire could result in a stand

replacement wildfire with catastrophic consequences because of continuous tree canopy. Studies

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Condition
48 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

further show that in pinyon-juniper communities that are overstocked, the ability of the understory

to respond after a fire is dramatically reduced and potentially opens the site to the invasion by

exotics. Once these communities become mature, tree-dominated woodlands, treatment becomes

difficult and expensive (Miller and Tausch 2001).

3.4. Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Riparian areas and wetlands are critical to the long-term viability of GRSG populations. Riparian

habitats provide important sources of food and cover for GRSG, particularly during the late

summer brood-rearing period (see Section 3.2, Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse

Habitat). This function is especially important in the more arid portions of the GRSG range,

including much of the planning area.

Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or

subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas are lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous

with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers, streams, and shores of lakes and reservoirs

with stable water levels. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not

exhibit vegetation dependent on free water in the soil. Wetlands are areas that are inundated or

saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and which,

under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in

saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, lakeshores, sloughs, bogs, wet

meadows, estuaries, and some riparian areas. For a description of riparian and wetland vegetation

community types characteristic of the planning area, refer to Section 3.3, Vegetation.

Riparian and wetland areas adjacent to surface waters are the most productive and important

ecosystems in the planning area. Although these areas represent 2,509,000 acres (5 percent) of the

planning area, riparian habitats play an integral role in restoring and maintaining the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of water resources (Fitch and Ambrose 2003). Healthy riparian

and wetland areas have the potential for multi-canopy vegetation layers with trees, shrubs,

grasses, forbs, sedges, and rushes and are valuable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species.

Healthy systems also filter and purify water, reduce sediment loads, enhance soil stability, provide

micro-climatic moderation, and contribute to groundwater recharge and base flow (Prichard et

al. 1998).

Generally, riparian areas and wetlands are stratified into lotic (flowing water or riverine) systems

and lentic (standing water) systems, which may include a wide variety of wetland types. In

the planning area, lentic riparian habitats typically include seeps, springs, aspen stands, and

both wet and dry meadows.

Current Conditions

Although detailed information on the condition and trend of riparian and wetland areas is not

available for the planning area as a whole, some data are available for portions of the Elko, Battle

Mountain, and Winnemucca BLM districts in Nevada, the Surprise, Eagle Lake, and Alturas

BLM field offices in California, and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in both California

and Nevada (Table 3-13, Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals; BLM and

Forest Service GIS 2013). Collectively, these seven management areas cover 14,778,500 acres

(83 percent) of total PPH and PGH within the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian Areas and Wetlands
Draft Resource Management 49

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Much of the information presented in Table 3-13, Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting

Riparian Goals, is based on proper functioning condition (PFC) assessments, as this technique

is used by the BLM to determine whether or not riparian areas are meeting rangeland health

standards. Riparian areas are considered to be in PFC when adequate vegetation, landform, or

debris is present to dissipate energy, improve water quality and reduce erosion, filter sediment

and aid floodplain development, capture and store water, and provide for greater biodiversity

(Prichard et al. 1998; Prichard et al. 1999, Revised 2003). Riparian areas that are functioning at

risk lack one or more soil, water, or vegetation attribute, making them susceptible to degradation.

Nonfunctional riparian areas are clearly not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or debris to

dissipate energy, filter sediment, capture and store water, and provide for greater biodiversity.

Table 3.13. Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals

Management Unit Percent

Meeting Goals1

Data Set Assessment Method2

Lotic Riparian Areas

Elko District 60 558 miles (2000 to 2012) 1

Winnemucca District 55 891 miles (1993 to 2012) 2, 3

Battle Mountain 47 752 miles (1994 to 2012) 2, 3

Alturas Field Office 81 51.5 miles (1995 to 2012) 2, 3

Eagle Lake Field Office 90 109 miles (1995 to 2012) 2, 3

Lentic Riparian Areas

Elko District 30 2,237 assessments (1996 to 2012) 4, 5

Winnemucca District 38 2,103 acres (1993 to 2012) 4, 5

Battle Mountain 27 2,213 assessments (1994 to 2012) 4, 5

Alturas Field Office 95 737 acres (1995 to 2012) 4, 5

Eagle Lake Field Office 71 146 acres (1995 to 2012) 4, 5

Surprise Field Office 14 398 assessments (1993 to 2012) 4, 5

Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Combined

Humboldt-Toiyabe

National Forest

21 553 assessments (1990 to 2012) 6

1Goals are defined here as: proper functioning condition (PFC) or functional-at-risk with an upward trend

(most BLM district data); good to excellent riparian habitat condition (Elko District data); or high ecological

condition (Forest Service data).

21=Stream Survey (Elko District, BLM 2002d); 2=Lotic Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard et al.

1993); 3=Lotic Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard et al. 1998); 4=Lentic Functioning Condition

Assessment (Prichard et al. 1994); 5=Lentic Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard et al. 1999, Revised

2003); 6=Forest Service Ecological Scorecard System.

Some of the data in Table 3-13, Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals, are

from stream surveys (Elko District, BLM 2002d) or from a scorecard system used by the Forest

Service to determine ecological condition based on riparian community types and attributes such

as frequency, cover, root depths, and soil characteristics. High ecological condition indicates that

the site is functioning within physical and biological capability of the ecosystem. Moderate

ecological condition indicates the site has one or more disturbances to the biological and physical

features that limit the capability of the site. Low ecological condition indicates that the site

has crossed a biological or physical threshold where site disturbance has resulted in the loss of

the ability to sustain the ecosystem.

Condition of riparian habitats varies throughout the planning area. In many portions of

California, a high percentage of both lotic and lentic riparian habitats are functioning properly or

functioning-at-risk with an upward trend. For some portions of California and most of Nevada,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian Areas and Wetlands
50 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

riparian management goals have not been met for a majority of assessed lentic riparian habitats (or

for both lentic and lotic areas for Forest Service-administered lands). On BLM-administered lands

in Nevada, results are more positive for lotic riparian habitats in comparison to lentic riparian

habitats. This is likely the result of management strategies that have been focused on priority

stream habitats within the last 15 to 20 years. In addition, lentic areas are characteristically small

in size, widely scattered, and typically less resilient to grazing impacts than stream systems.

Consequently, these areas tend to be disproportionally impacted by grazing animals, including

both livestock and wild horses.

For remaining management units in the planning area, including the Ely and Carson City districts

of BLM, information on condition and trend of riparian areas has not been summarized. However,

available information generally indicates many of these areas are not functioning properly.

Where riparian habitats in the planning area are not meeting goals, grazing by livestock and wild

horses is often identified as the primary causal factors. Overgrazing riparian vegetation makes

streambanks more vulnerable to destabilizing effects of livestock trampling and the erosive force

of water, exposes soils to drying out by wind and sunlight, reduces water storage capacity of the

riparian area, reduces shade and thereby increases stream water temperature, encourages invasion

of undesirable plants, speeds up runoff, and reduces filtration of sediment necessary for building

streambanks, wet meadows, and floodplains (Chaney et al. 1993).

Where riparian habitats are meeting goals, this is often the result of protective fencing or

implementation of prescriptive livestock grazing practices to reduce frequency and duration of

hot season use on riparian areas. Many of these efforts have been undertaken in cooperation

with the livestock industry as well as other agencies and entities and have included both public

and private lands.

Besides grazing impacts from livestock and wild horses, riparian areas and wetlands in the

planning area are impacted by a wide range of land uses that have occurred and continue to

occur throughout the western US. These can include recreation, water diversions, mining, roads,

agricultural encroachment, channelization, flood control, urbanization, and railroads (Meehan

1991; Williams et al. 1997; Sada et al. 2001; Prichard et al. 1998). Impacts including accelerated

erosion, concentration of stream energy, loss of floodplain access, reduced water supplies,

sediment loading, and degradation of water quality all affect functionality and condition of

riparian ecosystems.

Although identified as the number one threat to the GSGR by the USFWS, impacts on riparian

areas from wildfire are highly variable depending on a host of factors, including but not limited to

elevation, precipitation, timeframes, habitat conditions, grazing impacts, and fuel moisture levels.

Especially during periods of drought or in areas of low average annual precipitation, wildfires can

result in complete destruction of riparian communities resulting in loss of hydrologic function

or in plant community shifts from mesic species to invasive weed species. Riparian areas in the

planning area, in general, are inherently resilient to the impacts from fire due to the persistence

of soil moisture.

However, habitat conditions (often tied to livestock grazing practices) can also be determinants

of riparian response to fire. In an analysis of 81 streams on BLM-administered and Forest

Service-administered lands in northern Nevada, Dalldorf et al. (2013) found that the occurrence

of wildfires between 1999 and 2001 played a non-influential role in the response of selected

stream survey attributes when coupled with livestock grazing attributes.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian Areas and Wetlands
Draft Resource Management 51

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Climate change also has the potential to negatively impact lotic and lentic riparian habitats in

the planning area. Increases in water and air temperatures and decreases in precipitation rates

predicted as a result of climate change can fuel expansions of invasive species, lead to increased

stream temperatures, and create higher potential for floods and erosion (Karl et al. 2009).

3.5. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species

This section describes the existing conditions of special status and non-special status fish and

wildlife resources, including aquatic and terrestrial animal species and their habitats, in the

planning area. Fish and wildlife resources include big game, upland game, waterfowl, raptors,

migratory birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. NDOW, CDFW, and USFWS

have primary responsibilities for management of fish and wildlife species in the planning

area. The BLM and Forest Service are responsible for land management. Therefore, on

BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in the decision area, the agencies are

directly responsible for the management of habitat for fish and wildlife species and indirectly

responsible for the health of fish and wildlife populations that are supported by these habitats.

The ESA mandates the protection of species listed as threatened or endangered of extinction and

the habitats on which they depend. Section 7 of the ESA clarifies the responsibility of federal

agencies to utilize their authority to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species.

In addition, federal agencies must consult with USFWS to insure that any action authorized,

funded, or carried out by the agency is “...not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any

endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification

of habitat of such species.”

3.5.1. Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Within the planning area, the major ecoregions are the Great Basin and Modoc Plateau and the

westernmost edge of the Sierra Nevada. Sagebrush generally occurs throughout the Great Basin

and Modoc Plateau and is most common in valleys and mountain ranges north of the Mojave

Desert. Sagebrush does occur in the ecotone between the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin

ecoregions, mostly in mid-elevation drainages and old burn scars of blackbrush shrublands and

higher on mountain ranges. Because sagebrush is a dominant vegetation type in the planning area,

a high number of species have evolved specifically to thrive in sagebrush habitat. Sagebrush

types are generally found in a mosaic with other habitat types but can occur as large monotypic

expanses. Sagebrush habitats generally occur between 4,500 and 10,000 feet and are widespread

throughout the valley, foothill, and mountain environments (NDOW 2012b). Annual precipitation

ranges from 8 to 30 inches, mostly in the form of snow. Temperatures range from -30 to 110°F

(NDOW 2012b). Sagebrush overstory structure can range from less than 6 inches on exposed,

rocky slopes, up to 9 feet in drainages where basin big sagebrush has extended its roots into the

water table. Sagebrush canopy, however, is generally between 2 and 3 feet high. Crown cover

varies from 1 to 70 percent but commonly is between 20 and 40 percent (NDOW 2012b).

There are 27 recognized species and distinct subspecies of sagebrush in the planning area.

Dominant species include basin big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush,

low sagebrush, and black sagebrush (Cronquist et al. 1994). Co-dominant plant species

include bitterbrush, snowberry, rabbitbrush, snakeweed, white sage, spiny hopsage, bluebunch

wheatgrass, bluegrass, needle and thread, Idaho fescue, Indian ricegrass, Great Basin wildrye,

Indian paintbrush, lupine, buckwheat, globemallow, and penstemon. The altitudinal distribution

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species
52 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

of sagebrush generally follows a pattern of basin big sagebrush in the valley floors or lower

alluvial fans, Wyoming big sagebrush at mid-elevations, and mountain big sagebrush above 6,500

feet. Low and black sagebrush are both low-growing shrubs that rarely exceed heights of 15

inches (38 centimeters), primarily on shallow or poorly drained soils with a root restricting layer,

interspersed throughout the greater sagebrush expanse in many elevation bands.

Commonly occurring trees in the planning area include Utah juniper, western juniper, mountain

mahogany, and pinyon pine. Aspen communities are dispersed throughout the planning

area. Conifer forests dominate the higher elevations. The planning area has a diverse aquatic

environment from wetland, spring, meadow, seep, vernal pool, stream/river, and riparian

communities providing invaluable water sources across the arid cool desert landscape.

The planning area is an outstanding region for wildlife, providing habitat for characteristic

megafauna such as mountain lion, mule deer, elk, black bear, and pronghorn antelope as

well as an abundance of avian species such as hawks, peregrines, golden eagles, pinyon jay,

burrowing and other owls, and various shorebirds and waterfowl. The area boasts at least eight

sagebrush-dependent species such as pygmy rabbit, Great Basin pocket mouse, sagebrush vole,

sagebrush lizard, Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage Sparrow, and GRSG. The varied

aquatic habitats and natural barriers have resulted in the evolution of several unique communities

of endemic fish and invertebrates.

Sagebrush range in good condition supports an abundant understory of protein rich bunchgrasses

and forbs. The presence of this understory is critical to the needs of other wildlife species,

including the sagebrush vole. The various shrew species that live in sagebrush are invertivores,

but they depend on the productivity of the herbaceous component for the abundant production of

their prey items, as well as for cover.

Much of the planning area has been substantially altered or degraded since the 19th century

by a combination of change agents. Despite being in one of the least-developed regions of

the country, the Great Basin and Modoc Plateau are one the most threatened ecosystems in

the country (TNC 2001). Major change agents that negatively affect terrestrial wildlife in the

planning area, including GRSG, include increases in both the frequency and intensity of wildfire,

invasive annual grasses, the expansion of native pinyon and juniper, development, and livestock

and wild ungulate grazing that exceeds land health standards. The aggregate effects of these

change agents have altered the planning area’s sagebrush, riparian, and forest habitats (Miller

et al. 1994; Schaeffer et al. 2003).

For example, much of the basin big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush range in Nevada

currently lacks understory of native bunchgrasses and forbs that were historically present. Shrub

cover has increased from what are generally regarded as the conditions prior to Euro American

contact. Nonnative annual grasses, most notably cheatgrass, have invaded big sagebrush

range, bringing with them an accelerated fire interval for which sagebrush regeneration cannot

compensate. Low and black sagebrush are being similarly invaded by cheatgrass throughout the

state and by medusahead in northern Nevada, which is an aggressive exotic grass that can tolerate

the shallow clay soils of these ecological sites and can cause a similar negative impact through

altered fire regime and is threatening the low sagebrush landscape. Overall, a temporal conversion

from shrubland with high species diversity to annual grassland with drastically reduced wildlife

value is occurring (NDOW 2012b).

Pinyon and juniper expansion into shrubland has thrived due to range overgrazing in the 19th

century and continuing in the first half of the 20th century (Young and Sparks 2002), and fire

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands
Draft Resource Management 53

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

suppression after the 1920s (Blackburn and Tueller 1970; Pyne 2004). Many true woodlands

within a few miles of mines were harvested or thinned during the historic mining era of the late

19th century, but many woodlands have repopulated the soils that supported them and continue

to aggressively contribute to the expansion of trees into sagebrush range. Pinyon and juniper

expansion into sagebrush range drastically alters range structure and creates conditions difficult to

restore to pre-encroachment expression. Pinyon and juniper expansion is also generally facilitated

by regional warming (Grayson 1993; Tausch and Nowak 1999). Currently, there is considerable

discussion in Nevada concerning the need to manipulate the balance between woodland expansion

and healthy sagebrush communities in light of the recent efforts to conserve GRSG and the

habitat needs of pinyon and juniper obligates such as pinyon jay, which are currently experiencing

a 4 to 6 percent decline in population per year (GBBO 2010).

New road development, existing road improvement, and urban, suburban, and industrial

development are also contributing to depletion and fragmentation. Increased human population

in several areas of the sub-region has exerted increased pressure on the landscape, and thus

sagebrush community integrity will continue to be challenged over time.

Loss of habitat reduces living space for wildlife. Where sagebrush habitat has been depleted of

its understory, it lacks the ability to provide nesting cover, escape cover, and sources of food to

herbivorous and granivorous animals. Lack of nesting and escape cover, coupled with increasing

human infrastructure (e.g., roads and utility ROWs), creates travel lanes for mammalian predators

and perch sites for avian predators (Knight et al. 1995) and serves to fragment the landscape into

smaller and smaller patches. This interaction may increase the success of predators at the expense

of species such as ground-nesting birds. Predation pressure may be reaching effect levels on a

suite of sagebrush residents, including GRSG. Increased human activity on the land can leave

in its path a footprint of habitat degradation in the form of a broken-down shrub layer, loss of

species diversity, and increased soil erosion that reduces site restoration capability.

The US Breeding Bird Survey documented a population decline of 50 percent or greater for

Brewer’s sparrow between 1966 and 1999. The Partners in Flight North American Landbird

Conservation Plan has identified Brewer’s sparrow as a Watch List Species in need of management

action in the Intermountain Bird Conservation Region due to the significant population decline

(Rich et al. 2004). Loggerhead shrike continues to decline significantly across its range in North

America, and the sage thrasher continues to exhibit significant declines in neighboring states,

although it is showing signs of stabilizing in Nevada and throughout the Great Basin.

Declining populations for most fish and wildlife species are attributable to habitat loss and

fragmentation as the primary cause. Tables 3-14 through 3-16, under Current Condition, below,

list species federally recognized as threatened or endangered, and those recognized by the Forest

Service and BLM as sensitive.

The BLM designates as sensitive species all federally designated candidate species, proposed

species, and delisted species in the first five years following their delisting. Additional species

may be designated as sensitive if they are native species found on BLM-administered land for

which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species

through management and either: 1) there is information that a species has recently undergone, is

undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward trend, such that the viability of the species

or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the

species range; or 2) the species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitat on

BLM-administered lands and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands
54 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk. The BLM coordinates the

potential listing of species as sensitive in consultation with their respective state wildlife agencies

and the Nevada Natural Heritage Program.

The following species accounts are a selection of Forest Service indicator species or are

considered strongly dependent upon a sagebrush-dominated ecosystem for their persistence.

Alternatives for various land management scenarios affecting the sagebrush ecosystem are likely

to positively or negatively impact these species.

3.5.2. Conditions on Forest Service-Administered Lands

The Forest Service-administered lands within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and within

the project area provide a diversity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, similar to what is described

above for BLM-administered lands. For management purposes, the Forest Service categorizes

species into four main group: Federally listed threatened and endangered species, designated by

the USFWS under the ESA; sensitive species, designated by the Regional Forester with each

Forest Service region; management indicator species, designated for each forest unit within the

individual LUPs during the planning process; and other wildlife species. Other wildlife species

are those that are not included in the special status species categories (federally listed threatened

or endangered, or sensitive). They include mammals (e.g., deer and elk), birds (e.g., raptors and

migratory birds), fish, amphibians, insects, and other taxa.

3.5.3. Species Accounts

Mule Deer

Mule deer occur in a diversity of habitat types throughout the sub-region but occur in highest

densities in montane shrub-dominated communities. They are often associated with successional

vegetation. They are often found on open or “bared off” south-facing slopes in winter. Mule deer

browse on a wide variety of woody plants and graze on grasses and forbs. Throughout the year,

most activity occurs at dawn and dusk, though nocturnal and daytime activity is common. Mule

deer are a secondary successional species, taking advantage of plant species that are often the

result of some type of disturbance. They have a high degree of selectivity, not only for the plant

species they choose to eat, but also for the specific parts of the plant and the time of year that

a particular plant may be eaten. Browse species include sagebrush, bitterbrush, serviceberry,

snowbrush, and snowberry. When deer are feeding on browse, they prefer the most tender parts,

the new shoots and tips or leaders. Leaders are the most nutritious, most easily bitten off, most

flavorful, and most easily digested part of the browse. Seasonally, home range size is extremely

variable and may be 74 to 593 acres or more and is directly correlated with the availability of food,

water, and cover. In mountainous regions, mule deer tend to migrate (up to 120 miles) from high

summer range to lower winter range. In the intermountain west, deer often migrate in response to

snowfall patterns. They exhibit high fidelity to individual seasonal ranges (Kucera 1992).

Mule deer populations were estimated at all-time highs in the late 1980s. Habitat loss and

degradation are the primary concerns for this species. Invasive weeds, increase in number

and frequency of large-scale fires, pinyon-juniper encroachment, shrubland decadence, urban

development and expansion, and drought all contribute to habitat degradation and loss. Decreases

in quality of summer range and loss of critical wintering habitat in particular have been the

biggest challenges to the species.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Conditions on Forest Service-Administered Lands
Draft Resource Management 55

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Pygmy Rabbit

This species is found primarily on big sagebrush-dominated plains and alluvial fans where plants

occur in tall dense clumps (Green and Flinders 1980). Deep, friable, loamy-type soils are required

for burrow excavation. They may occasionally use burrows excavated by other species (e.g.,

yellow-bellied marmot) and, therefore, may occur in areas that support shallower, more compact

soils as long as sufficient shrub cover is available (USFWS 2010b). Dense stands of sagebrush

growing adjacent to permanent and intermittent streams, along fence rows, and in ditches may be

avenues of dispersal (Green and Flinders 1980). Cover and height of woody vegetation appear to

be critical habitat features (Green and Flinders 1980); however, Larrucea and Brussard (2008)

found that pygmy rabbits occupied clusters of sagebrush that were taller than the sagebrush

shrubs in the surrounding area (i.e., sagebrush islands that range from 12 to 117 centimeters [4.7

to 46 inches] in height). Big sagebrush is the primary food and may comprise up to 99 percent

of food taken in winter and 51 percent of food taken in the summer. Wheatgrass and bluegrass

were highly preferred foods in the summer, while forbs were eaten only occasionally (Green and

Flinders 1980). This is the only native leporid in the sub-region to excavate its own burrows

(Weiss and Verts 1984; Janson 1946). Dispersal abilities are limited; this species is reluctant

to cross open areas such as roads or areas cleared of sagebrush (Weiss and Verts 1984). The

size of pygmy rabbit home ranges fluctuates with the seasons; they tend to have smaller home

ranges during winter and larger home ranges during the spring and summer. Individuals generally

remain near their burrows during the winter. Annual home ranges in southeastern Oregon and

northwestern Nevada differed between the sexes and ranged from 1.2 to 25.8 acres for males and

0.27 to 18.7 acres for females. Male home ranges tend to be larger than females during the

spring and summer, as males travel further among a number of females. In the southeastern

Oregon and northwestern Nevada study, home ranges for males ranged from 0.27 to 18.5 acres

and from 0.15 to 17.5 acres for females during the breeding season. Juvenile dispersal in Nevada

and Oregon was reported greater than 0.3 mile, with a maximum long-distance movement of 5.3

miles recorded by a juvenile female (Weiss and Verts 1984).

Livestock grazing at inappropriate levels can be detrimental to sagebrush habitat. Recent studies

show that grazing is compatible with pygmy rabbits if grazing occurs at levels that leave sagebrush

plants intact and soils not overly compacted. Fire was found to be the strongest predictor of

loss of pygmy rabbits in Nevada and California. Cheatgrass invasion is detrimental to pygmy

rabbits. Shrub cover is necessary for protection during dispersal, and cheatgrass monocultures

may provide a barrier to dispersal. Pinyon-juniper encroachment decreases understory species

and, in turn, decreases suitable pygmy rabbit habitat. Climate change has been attributed to

an upward elevational shift in pygmy rabbit occurrences. Extant historical pygmy rabbit sites

averaged 515 feet higher than extirpated sites. With local downward shift effect accounted for,

overall upward elevation shift of extant sites was 722 feet; the researchers attributed this to

climate (USFWS 2010b).

Sage Thrasher

In the northern Great Basin, the sage thrasher breeds and forages in tall sagebrush/bunchgrass,

juniper/sagebrush/bunchgrass, mountain mahogany/shrub, and aspen/sagebrush/bunchgrass

communities (Maser et al. 1984). The species is positively correlated with shrub cover, shrub

height, bare ground, and horizontal heterogeneity (patchiness) and negatively correlated with

spiny hopsage, budsage, and grass cover (Rotenberry and Wiens 1980; Wiens and Rotenberry

1981). The species usually nests within 1 meter (3.3 feet) of the ground in the fork of shrubs

(almost always sagebrush) and sometimes nests on ground (Harrison 1978; Reynolds 1981; Rich

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Species Accounts
56 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

1980). In winter, the sage thrasher uses arid and semi-arid scrub, brush and thickets. The species

feeds on a wide variety of insects, including grasshoppers, beetles, weevils, ants, and bees, as

well as fruits and berries. The Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO 2012) analysis of bird

population responses to projected effects of climate change indicates Sage Thrasher is expected to

be most affected by projected losses in mountain sagebrush/mid-closed, big sagebrush/mid-open,

and salt desert shrub/late covers, and is expected to gain some birds in salt desert shrub/annual,

Wyoming big sagebrush/late, and greasewood/shrub/annual covers, for a total projected statewide

population loss of 21 percent.

Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of high-quality sagebrush shrubland suitable for sage thrasher

is attributed to fire, invasive plants, expansion of pinyon-juniper woodland into sagebrush, heavy

livestock grazing, and heavy OHV use (GBBO 2010).

Sage Sparrow

Strongly associated with sagebrush for breeding, sage sparrow is also found in saltbush brushland,

shadscale, antelope brush, rabbitbrush, mesquite, and chaparral (AOU 1998; Green and Smith

1981; Martin and Carlson 1998; Paige and Ritter 1998; Reynolds 1981). The species prefers

semi-open habitats with shrubs 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) tall (Martin and Carlson 1998). Sage

sparrow nests on the ground or in shrubs, up to about 1 meter (3.3 feet) above ground (Terres

1980). In the Great Basin, the species usually nests in living sagebrush, where cover is sparse

but shrubs are clumped, and avoids the southwestern side of plant (Petersen and Best 1985).

Placement may be related to density of vegetative cover over the nest, as sage sparrow will nest

higher in a taller shrub (Rich 1980). In-migration and wintering for the species also occurs in

arid plains with sparse bushes, grasslands, and open situations with scattered brush, mesquite,

and riparian scrub, preferring to feed near woody cover (Martin and Carlson 1998; Meents et al.

1982; Repasky and Schluter 1994). The GBBO analysis of bird population responses to projected

effects of climate change indicates sage sparrow populations are projected to be most affected by

reductions in mountain sagebrush/mid-closed and salt desert/mid-late covers, but are expected

to see population gains in salt desert/shrub/annual covers, for a projected statewide population

reduction of 20 percent (GBBO 2012). Sage sparrow is negatively affected by many factors that

fragment its habitat or alter its basic structure, including fire, cheatgrass invasion, heavy livestock

use, nest predation, expansion of pinyon-juniper woodland into shrubland, heavy OHV use

(GBBO 2010), urban and suburban development, and road and power line ROWs.

Pinyon Jay

The pinyon jay is found in pinyon-juniper woodland and less frequently in pine; in nonbreeding

season, it also inhabits scrub oak and sagebrush (AOU 1983). The species nests in shrubs or trees

(e.g., pine, oak, or juniper) about 5 to 30 feet above ground, when and where adequate numbers

of pine seeds are available. The species eats pinyon and other pine seeds, berries, small seeds,

and grain, as well as insects such as beetles, grasshoppers, caterpillars, and ants. Pinyon jay may

also eat bird eggs and hatchlings. The species lives in loose flocks of multiple breeding pairs and

their offspring from previous nesting seasons and communally stores large numbers of seeds. The

flock has an established home range but may wander to other areas in search of food. During

nesting season, flocks of yearlings may form. A GBBO radio-telemetry study found that foraging

pinyon jays appeared to favor transitional areas where pinyon-juniper woodland is interspersed

with sagebrush (GBBO 2012). During the daytime, jays were usually found within 2,600 feet of

woodland edge, and always within 1.2 miles of the edge. Roosting and nesting jays went deeper,

but usually no more than 1.8 miles into the woodland interior to denser tree stands. Jays were

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Species Accounts
Draft Resource Management 57

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

nearly always found in areas with diverse woodland canopy closure and age structure; they

were not observed in large contiguous areas of mature, dense woodland. Although very large

flocks have been reported elsewhere, telemetry studies most often observed smaller sub-flocks

(fewer than 30 birds) that periodically joined other subflocks to form flocks of 50 to 100 birds.

Sub-flock home ranges were less than 5,000 acres) in all cases. The GBBO analysis of bird

population responses to projected effects of climate change indicates pinyon jay populations

are projected to experience losses from habitat change in mountain sagebrush/mid-closed, big

sagebrush/shrub/annual, and pinyon-juniper, and they are expected to gain in Wyoming big

sagebrush/late, pinyon-juniper/late, and mountain sagebrush/late-open, for an overall projected

population decline of 19 percent (GBBO 2012).

Preliminary data suggest that pinyon jay declines may be at least partly related to substantial

increases in the acreage of closed-canopy mature (or senescent) woodland with a poor shrub

understory, coupled with a corresponding loss of mixed-age woodland mosaics with openings and

a complex shrubland edge. These landscape-scale changes are largely the result of altered fire

regimes, although grazing pressure and invasive plants may be contributing factors.

3.5.4. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate

Species

Current Conditions

Table 3-14, Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species, and Table 3-15,

Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species Minimal Overlap with

Planning Area, show federally listed, proposed, and candidate species in the planning area.

There are also several species of BLM and Forest Service sensitive species in the planning area.

Table 3-16, BLM and Forest Service Sensitive Species, lists BLM and Forest Service sensitive

species in the planning area.

Table 3.14. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species

Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat

in Planning Area

Birds

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

Candidate

Greater Sage-GrouseCentrocercus urophasianus Candidate

Reptiles and Amphibians

Columbia spotted frog

(Rana luteiventris)

Candidate

Warner sucker

Catostomus warnerensis

Threatened

Cui-ui

Chasmistes cujus

Endangered

Desert dace

Eremichthys acros

Threatened Yes

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed,

and Candidate Species
58 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat

in Planning Area

Lahontan cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi

Threatened

Clover Valley speckled dace

Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus

Endangered

Bull trout

Salvelinus confluentus

Threatened

Plants

Steamboat buckwheat

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae

Endangered

Sources: BLM 2011d; Forest Service 2011c

Table 3.15. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species Minimal

Overlap with Planning Area1

Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat

in Planning Area

Birds

Southwestern willow flycatcher1

Empidonax traillii extimus

Endangered Yes

Yuma clapper rail1

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

Endangered

Reptiles and Amphibians

Oregon spotted frog

Rana pretiosa

Candidate

Columbia spotted frog

(Rana luteiventris)

Candidate Yes

Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish

Cyrpinodon nevadensis mionectes

Endangered

Warm Springs pupfish

Cyrpinodon nevadensis pectoralis

Endangered

White River spinedace

Lepidomeda albivalis

Endangered Yes

Ash Meadows speckled dace

Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis

Endangered

Hiko White River springfish

Crenichthys baileyi grandis

Endangered Yes

Insects

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and

Candidate Species
Draft Resource Management 59

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat

in Planning Area

Carson wandering skipper

Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus

Endangered

Sources: BLM 2011d; Forest Service 2011c

1Species range either hypothetically or marginally overlaps with planning area boundary and/or range of

GRSG. Species will be excluded from further analysis.

Table 3.16. BLM and Forest Service Sensitive Species

Common Name Scientific Name BLM Forest Service

Mammals

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans x

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii x

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus x

Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus x

Pale kangaroo mouse Microdipodops pallidus x

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum x

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis x

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus x

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes x

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans x

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis x

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis x

Pika Ochotona princeps x

Western pipistrelle Parastrellus hesperus x

Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei x

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum x x

Fish Spring pocket gopher Thomomys sp x

San Antonio pocket gopher Thomomys sp x

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus x

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis x x

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii x

Townsend’s western big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii x

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus x

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum x x

California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana x

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis x

Birds

Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis x

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis x x

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus x x

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum x x

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus x x

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus x

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus x

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos x

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia x

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis x

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni x

Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus x

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed,

and Candidate Species
60 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Common Name Scientific Name BLM Forest Service

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus x

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus x

Juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi x

Bank swallow Riparia riparia x

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus x

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri x

Reptiles and Amphibians

Yosemite toad Bufo canorus x

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Rana sierrae x

Northern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus graciosus x

Fish

Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki utah x x

Meadow Valley wash desert sucker Catostomus clarkii ssp. 2 x

Wall Canyon sucker Catostomus murivallis x

Cui-ui Chasmistes cujus x

White River springfish Crenichthys baileyi baileyi x

Desert dace Eremichthys acros x

Independence Valley tui chub Gila bicolor isolata x

Newark Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp x

Hot Creek Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp x

Railroad Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp. 7 x

Northern leatherside chub Lepidomeda sp.+ x

Inland Columbia Basin redband

trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. x

Relict dace Relictus solitarius x

Moapa speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus moapae x

Monitor Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 5 x

Meadow Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 11 x

White River speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 7 x

Oasis Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 6 x

Pahranagat speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus velifer x

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus x

Plants

Meadow pussytoes Antennaria arcuata x

Eastwood milkweed Asclepias eastwoodiana x

Broad-pod freckled milkvetch Astragalus lentiginosus var. latus x

Lamoille Canyon milkvetch Astragalus robbinsii var. occidentalis x

Toquima milkvetch Astragalus toquimanus x

Currant milkvetch Astragalus uncialis x

Grouse Creek rockcress Boechera (=Arabis) falcatoria x

Ophir rockcress Boechera (=Arabis) ophira x

Upswept moonwort Botrychium ascendens x

Dainty moonwort Botrychium crenulatum x

Slender moonwort Botrychium lineare x

Moosewort Botrychium tunux x

Goodrich biscuitroot Cymopterus goodrichii x

Arid draba Draba arida x

Serpentine draba Draba oreibata var. serpentina x

Pennell draba Draba pennellii x

Nevada willowherb Epilobium nevadense x

Snake Mountain erigeron Erigeron cavernensis x

Sunflower Flat buckwheat Eriogonum douglasii var. elkoense x

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and

Candidate Species
Draft Resource Management 61

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Common Name Scientific Name BLM Forest Service

Toiyabe buckwheat Eriogonum esmeraldense var.

toiyabense

x

Lewis’s buckwheat Eriogonum lewisii x

Basin jamesia Jamesia tetrapetala x

Grimes lathyrus Lathyrus grimesii x

Maguire lewisia Lewisia maguirei x

Elegant penstemon Penstemon concinnus x

Mt. Moriah penstemon Penstemon moriahensis x

Bashful penstemon Penstemon pudicus x

Rhizome beardtongue Penstemon rhizomatosus x

Inconspicuous phacelia Phacelia inconspicua x

Small-flower phacelia Phacelia minutissima x

Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis x

Marsh’s bluegrass Poa abbreviata ssp. marshii x

Williams combleaf Polyctenium williamsii x

Sagebrush cinquefoil Potentilla johnstonii x

Nevada primrose Primula cusickiana var. nevadensis

(=P. nevadensis)

x

Nachlinger silene Silene nachlingerae x

Railroad Valley globemallow Sphaeralcea caespitosa var.

williamsiae

x

Alpine goldenweed Tonestus (=Haplopappus) alpinus x

Charleston ground daisy Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa x

Currant Summit clover Trifolium andinum var. podocephalum

Leiberg’s clover Trifolium leibergii

Rollins clover Trifolium macilentum var. rollinsii x

Sources: BLM 2011d; Forest Service 2011c

3.5.5. Management Indicator Species (Forest Service)

The NFMA directs the Forest Service to select appropriate species of plants, invertebrates, and

vertebrates as management indicator species to manage for maintenance and improvement of

important habitats on the forest. Requirements to identify and utilize management indicator

species in the decision area and project-level planning were identified under NFMA planning

regulations in 1982-219.19(a) (1). Management indicator species are species that respond

to habitat changes, are scarce or unique, are of high economic interest, or are listed as federal

or state threatened or endangered species. By monitoring and assessing population trends of

management indicator species, managers can determine if management actions are affecting

species populations and thereby habitats. A Forest Service-specific Management Indicator

Species Report is included in Appendix J, Forest Service Draft Management Indicator Species

Report and Draft Wildlife and Sensitive Plant Specialists Report, of this document.

3.6. Wild Horses and Burros

The BLM and Forest Service protect, manage, and control wild horses and burros in accordance

with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (PL 92-195, as amended by

Congress in 1976, 1978, 1996, and 2004; the Act). The Act mandates the BLM and Forest

Service to “prevent the range from deterioration associated with overpopulation” and “remove

excess horses in order to preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple

use relationships in that area.” FLPMA directs the BLM and Forest Service to manage wild

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Management Indicator Species (Forest Service)
62 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

horses and burros as one of numerous multiple uses and resources, including mining, recreation,

domestic grazing, and fish and wildlife. Wild horse and burro management is governed by 43

CFR Part 4700 (BLM) and 36 CFR Part 222 Subpart B (Forest Service). One of the BLM’s

and Forest Service’s top priorities is to ensure the health of the public lands so that the species

depending on them, including the nation’s wild horses and burros, can thrive. BLM and Forest

Service policies and regulations also direct that wild horses and burros are to be managed as

self-sustaining populations of healthy animals at minimal feasible levels.

Following passage of the Act, BLM HAs and HMAs and Forest ServiceWHBTs were identified

in the planning area as displayed on Figure 3-9, Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas, Herd

Management Areas, and Territories. Herd areas and territories are locations where wild horse and

burro populations were found when the Act was passed. HMAs and WHBTs are areas within

these identified herd areas, in their entirety or part, where it was established and affirmed through

LUPs that sufficient forage, water, cover, and space existed to support the long-term management

of healthy wild horse or burro populations.

(PDF Map 3–9)

Figure 3.9. Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas, Herd Management Areas, and Territories

Since the passage of the Act in 1971, management knowledge regarding wild horse population

levels has increased. For example, it has been determined that wild horses are capable of

increasing their numbers by 18 percent to 25 percent annually, resulting in the doubling of wild

horse populations about every 4 years (Wolfe et al. 1989; Garrott et al. 1991). This has resulted

in the BLM shifting program emphasis beyond just establishing an AML and conducting wild

horse gathers to include a variety of management actions that further facilitate the achievement

and maintenance of viable and stable wild horse populations and a “thriving natural ecological

balance.” Management actions resulting from shifting program emphasis include increasing

fertility control, adjusting sex ratio, and collecting genetic baseline data to support genetic health

assessments. The Forest Service has been a cooperating agency to these additional management

efforts.

Wild horses are a long-lived species with survival rates estimated between 80 and 97 percent

(Wolfe 1980; Eberhardt et al. 1982; Garrott and Taylor 1990). Wild horse numbers appear to

be limited principally by water availability and winter forage. Predation and disease have

not substantially regulated wild horse population levels within or outside the planning area.

Throughout the HMAs few predators exist to control wild horse populations. Some mountain lion

predation occurs but does not appear to be substantial. Coyotes are not prone to prey on wild

horses unless they are young or extremely weak. Being a non-self-regulating species, there would

be a steady increase in wild horse numbers for the foreseeable future, which would continue to

exceed the carrying capacity of the range. Animal movement and distribution are controlled by

fencing and the distribution of watering sources.

3.6.1. Current Conditions

Within the planning area, there are 6,373,200 acres of wild horse and burro herd areas, HMAs,

and WHBTs within PGH and PPH in the planning area. Table 3-17, Acres of Wild Horse and

Burro Areas and Territories in GRSG Habitat, displays data compiled in a baseline environmental

report produced by the US Geological Survey (USGS) for the BLM (Manier et al. 2013).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Conditions
Draft Resource Management 63

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.17. Acres of Wild Horse and Burro Areas and Territories in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 1,463,200 2,199,200 1,463,200 2,017,600

IV 601,400 1,177,200 257,800 701,100

V 1,399,600 2,002,900 139,500 1,447,800

Forest Service III 136,100 210,100 136,100 210,100

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

There are 70 herd areas and territories in the planning area. These areas overlap 2,232,500 acres

of PGH and 5,137,500 acres of PPH. These identified herd areas, in their entirety or part, were the

basis for current identified HMAs as established and affirmed through LUPs.

The BLM manages 62 HMAs and the Forest Service manages 14 active WHBTs in the planning

area, which overlap both PGH and PPH. Wild horse and burro populations in HMAs and WHBTs

are managed within AMLs and corresponding forage allocations (AUMs). The AML is defined as

the maximum number of wild horses that can be sustained within a designated HMA or WHBT

that achieves and maintains a thriving natural ecological balance. The AML for each HMA

and WHBT, in most cases, is expressed as a range with an upper and lower limit. The AUM

allocation for wild horses and burros in HMAs and WHBTs is based on the upper limit of the

AML range. Initial AMLs and the boundaries of each HMA and WHBT were established through

previous LUPs to ensure that public land resources, including wild horse habitat, are maintained

in satisfactory, healthy condition and that unacceptable impacts on these resources are minimized.

The AML ranges are based on best available science and rangeland monitoring studies. HMA

and WHBT acreages by habitat type along with current AMLs are shown in Table 3-18, Herd

Management Areas and Forest Service Territories in GRSG Habitat.

The HMAs, WHBTs, and associated wild horse and burro populations in the planning area are

managed within the established AML and management objectives identified within the LUP, herd

management area plan, or Territory Management Plan. The AML, objectives, and management

actions may be modified in future multiple-use decisions for the grazing allotments contained

within an HMA or WHBT.

Table 3.18. Herd Management Areas and Forest Service Territories in GRSG Habitat

Herd Management

Area or Wild Horse

and Burro Territory

BLM Field Office

or Forest Service

Ranger District

Acres Appropriate

Management

Level 1

Est. Pop.

No. Total PGH PPH 2

BLM California

Bitner Surprise 53,700 0 47,500 15-20 19

Buckhorn Surprise 76,300 0 57,900 59-85 172

Carter Reservoir Surprise 23,400 16,400 5,199 25-35 66

Coppersmith Surprise 73,100 3,300 56,100 50-75 75

Fort Sage 3 Eagle Lake 15,600 0 0 55-65 47

Fox Hog Surprise 127,100 0 120,600 120-220 162

High Rock Surprise 94,700 0 94,500 78-120 107

Massacre Lakes 4 Surprise 39,900 5,800 29,900 25-35 192

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Conditions
64 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Herd Management

Area or Wild Horse

and Burro Territory

BLM Field Office

or Forest Service

Ranger District

Acres Appropriate

Management

Level 1

Est. Pop.

No. Total PGH PPH 2

New Ravendale Eagle Lake 32,200 0 23,600 10-25 44

Nut Mountain Surprise 40,200 0 38,200 30-55 41

Twin Peaks Eagle Lake 756,300 45,300 529,900 448-758 H

72-116 B

1238 H

268 B

Wall Canyon Surprise 41,200 100 36,00 15-25 49

BLM Nevada

Antelope Schell 327,300 54,200 113,400 155-324 344

Antelope Valley Wells 504,100 67,00 94,100 150-259 662

Augusta Mountains Humboldt 177,600 31,000 6,800 185-308 387

Bald Mountain Mount Lewis 139,900 36,400 28,400 129-215 211

Black Rock Range East Black Rock 93,400 8,200 67,100 56-93 91

Black Rock Range

West

Black Rock 93,200 29,200 33,400 56-93 94

Buffalo Hills Black Rock 131,900 2,600 72,100 188-314 360

Calico Mountains Black Rock 160,800 9,700 135,700 200-333 329

Callaghan Mount Lewis 156,200 30,600 106,600 134-237 322

Clan Alpine Stillwater 302,200 9,800 49,300 619-979 600

Desatoya Stillwater 161,700 13,600 89,800 127-180 174

Diamond Mount Lewis 165,600 62,700 28,700 151 78

Diamond Hills North Tuscarora 71,600 8,400 17,300 37 37

Diamond Hills South Egan 19,300 4,500 9,600 10-22 46

Dogskin Mountains Sierra Front 6,500 5,100 0 10-15 26

Eagle Schell 660,300 88,700 137,400 100-210 626

Fish Creek Mount Lewis 252,800 48,100 52,700 107-180 256

Flanigan Sierra Front 17,100 0 13,400 80-125 119

Fort Sage 2 Sierra Front 2,000 0 1,600 36 80

Goshute Wells 267,300 17,300 0 74-123 398

Granite Range Black Rock 103,800 8,800 65,800 155-258 251

Hickison Mount Lewis 57,300 11,600 23,400 45 B 48 B

Hot Creek Tonopah 54,700 0 0 41 25

Jackson Mountains Humboldt 283,800 33,100 6,900 130-217 295

Little Fish Lake Tonopah 28,700 5,700 22,500 39 183

Little Humboldt Tuscarora 17,200 7,800 7,900 32-80 23

Little Owyhee Humboldt 457,800 101,200 345,700 194-298 289

Maverick-Medicine Tuscarora 323,500 112,600 101,400 166-276 586

New Pass-Ravenswood Mount Lewis 285,900 47,500 40,300 545-566 515

North Monitor Mount Lewis 11,500 0 6,800 8 22

Owyhee Tuscarora 339,100 70,700 264,00 139-231 142

Pancake Egan 849,600 233,900 90,100 240-493 1,081

Reveille Tonopah 105,500 23,500 0 83-138 137

Roberts Mountain Mount Lewis 100,000 5,000 81,800 150 307

Rock Creek Tuscarora 121,400 39,200 58,900 150-250 424

Rocky Hills Mount Lewis 84,000 35,900 25,300 86-143 97

Sand Springs West Tonopah 152,300 8,000 0 34-56 120

Saulsbury Tonopah 135,100 1,700 0 24-40 145

Seven Mile Mount Lewis 97,600 9,200 37,800 30-50 154

Seven Troughs Humboldt 148,900 26,500 9,800 94-156 H

28-46 B

366 H

98 B

Silver King Schell 575,500 129,700 34,500 60-128 314

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Conditions
Draft Resource Management 65

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Herd Management

Area or Wild Horse

and Burro Territory

BLM Field Office

or Forest Service

Ranger District

Acres Appropriate

Management

Level 1

Est. Pop.

No. Total PGH PPH 2

Snowstorm Mountains Humboldt 117,100 38,000 24,00 90-140 537

South Shoshone Mount Lewis 133,100 300 102,900 60-100 282

South Stillwater Stillwater 9,800 1,900 3,700 16 19

Spruce-Pequop Wells 240,700 83,600 14,800 48-82 380

Stone Cabin Tonopah 406,300 45,600 22,700 219-364 316

Tobin Range Humboldt 198,200 40,200 49,400 22-42 40

Triple B Egan 1,232,400 113,600 599,500 250-518 498

Warm Springs Canyon Black Rock 91,700 19,100 68,500 105-175 H

14-24 B

168 H

38 B

Whistler Mountain Mount Lewis 43,200 18,400 9,700 24 20

Forest Service

Butler Basin Austin 53,500 4,600 15,800 60-100 294

Cherry Spring Ruby Mountains 23,000 5,600 400 40-68 66

Dobbin Summit Austin 48,600 1,800 11,700 1-3 0

Hickison Austin 16,600 4,200 12,400 16-45 B 108 B

Kelly Creek Austin 20,800 200 3,100 8-16 34

Little Fish Lake Tonopah 84,800 4,500 39,900 81-93 251

Monitor Tonopah 338,900 45,300 13,100 51-90 330

Monte Cristo Ely 93,500 11,600 10,100 72-96 420

North Umberland Austin 12,400 2,900 2,100 3-8 17

Seven Mile Tonopah 6,000 100 600 1-3 35

Stone Cabin Tonopah 1,400 1,100 0 1-3 0

Toquima Tonopah 143,500 29,100 32,500 15-30 288

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Notes:

H = Wild Horse

B = Wild Burro

1AML and Population number refers to wild horses unless noted.

2Estimate population numbers as of February 2013.

3Fort Sage HMA lies in both CA and NV, each with separate established AML.

4Massacre Lakes HMA does not have an established AML. The plan is in progress but is not final.

The estimated population size of wild horses and burros within each HMA/WHBT is based on

helicopter inventories, which occur every two to three years. WHBTs within HMA/WHBT

Complexes are generally inventoried on the same schedule under cooperative agreement. These

population inventory flights provide information pertaining to population numbers, foaling rates,

distribution, and herd health. Population estimates in the planning area (February 2013) show a

total estimated population of over 17,300 horses and burros. Population estimates indicate that

the number of horses and burros substantially exceeds the aggregated AML (approximately 50

percent higher than established AML). Horse populations in 2013 were exceeding the AML in

35 of 62 HMAs and 10 of 14 active WHBTs. Various factors, including drought conditions,

historic grazing, wildfires, and uncontrolled wild horse and burro population growth, may

adversely affect habitat and, in some instances, herd health. As the populations of wild horses and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Current Conditions
66 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

burros continue to increase they tend to spread outside the boundaries of the HMA/WHBT in

search of sufficient water and forage resources and space which increases the habitat needs and

impacts within those areas.

Wild horses also compete with wildlife species for various habitat components, especially

when populations exceed AML, they expand beyond the boundaries of the HMA/WHBT, or

when habitat resources become limited (e.g., reduced water flows, low forage production, or

dry conditions).

Although determined by population monitoring, it is generally necessary to gather horses

and burros on a three- to four-year schedule to ensure that numbers remain within the AML.

Unfortunately, this has not been consistently possible because of insufficient funding and holding

space; therefore, AMLs are frequently exceeded. Following gathers, some animals are selected

for return to the HMA or WHBT; excess horses or burros are placed in the adoption program,

made available for sale, or in long-term holding. Wild horses that establish home ranges outside

of HMA, WHBT, or herd area boundaries are removed during gathers. Wild horses are removed

from private lands at the request of the landowner and after reasonable efforts to keep the animals

off private lands have failed.

Trends

Current conditions in the planning area show that wild horse populations continue to grow, often

exceeding AMLs, and continue to expand into areas outside of established boundaries. Wild

horses will continue to be removed to maintain AMLs and rangeland health.

3.7. Wildland Fire and Fire Management

Fire is an inherent component of ecosystems and historically has had an important role in

promoting plant succession and the development of plant community characteristics. Control

of fires and other land use practices during the last century has changed plant communities by

altering the frequency, size, and severity of wildfires.

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed by the Secretaries of the DOI and

the USDA in 1995 in response to dramatic increases in the frequency, size, and catastrophic

nature of wildland fires in the US. The 2001 review and update of the policy consisted of findings,

guiding principles, policy statements, and implementation actions, and replaced the 1995 Federal

Wildland Fire Management Policy. Known as the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy

(DOI et al. 2001), this update “recommends that federal fire management activities and programs

are to provide for firefighter and public safety, protect and enhance land management objectives

and human welfare, integrate programs and disciplines, require interagency collaboration,

emphasize the natural ecological role of fire, and contribute to ecosystem sustainability.” The

policy provides nine guiding principles fundamental to the success of the federal wildland fire

management program and the implementation of review recommendations. The Guidance for

Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Forest Service 2009d) is the most

recent guiding principle for these documents. These umbrella principles compel each agency

to review its policies to ensure compatibility.

The management of BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands include the control of wildfires,

the use of fire through prescribed burning, or the use of fire through the management of wildfires

in order to meet land management goals. Wildland fire management on BLM-administered and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
Draft Resource Management 67

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Forest Service-administered lands is guided by a Fire Management Plan (FMP) that considers

the three elements mentioned and includes firefighter and public safety and cost effectiveness.

Wildland fires occur from natural causes, such as lightning, or are human caused. Prescribed

fire is used for beneficial purposes (such as reducing hazardous fuel accumulation or restoring

ecosystem health) in a controlled manner under a specific prescription and planned effort.

Wildland fires can be managed for multiple objectives either by a full suppression response or

to achieve land management objectives or combinations of both. The response to a wildland

fire is based on an evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety; the circumstances under

which the fire has occurred, including weather and fuel conditions; natural and cultural resource

management objectives; and resource protection priorities.

Fire is a management tool used to maintain or increase age class diversity within vegetation

communities (e.g., big sagebrush/grassland); rejuvenate fire-dependent vegetation communities

(e.g., aspen); maintain or increase vegetation productivity, nutrient content, and palatability; and

maintain or improve wildlife habitat, rangeland, and watershed condition. Fire is also considered

a management tool for disposal of timber slash, seedbed preparation, reduction of hazardous fuel,

control of disease or insects, grazing management, thinning, or species manipulation in support

of forest management objectives.

Management activities utilize collaborative planning, fuels project prioritization and selection,

and community assistance actions to help mitigate wildland fire risks to communities and their

values; to protect and enhance threatened and endangered species and their habitat; and to ensure

that hazardous fuels reduction treatments and projects conform to and support Forest Management

Plan and LUP objectives. The actions that the BLM and Forest Service undertake and conduct

will be with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and documentation. BLM and Forest Service

staff must also determine whether such actions may affect cultural resources and endangered or

threatened species or their habitats. If the agency review reveals the potential for impacts, the

agency will follow proper consultation procedures; ensure the appropriate use of Fire Regime

Condition Class, LANDFIRE (USGS 2006a), or other local data to describe existing vegetative

condition; and ensure priority is given to planning those activities, projects, treatments, and

community assistance actions that best meet DOI and USDA priorities.

All hazardous fuels reduction activities include the following guiding principles:

● Employee and public safety is the first priority in every hazardous fuels reduction and
 

Community Assistance activity.
 

● The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent will
 

be identified and incorporated into the land use planning process and the fire management
 

program.
 

● Education and outreach efforts on wildfire risk mitigation will be developed and targeted
 

toward the public with emphasis on communities with high risk.
 

● Fire program managers will work with Line Managers, resource specialists, and cooperators

to identify treatment areas, develop plans, and implement fuels treatments and conduct

community assistance activities.

● The hazardous fuels reduction and Community Assistance program will comply with
 

applicable national, state, and local laws and regulations, and Departmental and BLM
 

manuals, policy, and direction.
 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
68 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

● Education plans and marketing strategies will be developed to increase awareness of, and the

need for, prescribed fire and other fuels treatments with internal and external audiences.

● Hazardous fuels reduction treatments are monitored to determine whether short- and long-term

(beyond three years) objectives are being met (effectiveness monitoring).

● Report on effectiveness of treatments when intersected by a wildfire.

● Community Assistance grant funding provided through Assistance Agreements and Contracts

to cooperating entities will be open to all eligible recipients.

Current Condition

In sagebrush ecosystems, fire has been identified as one of the primary factors linked to loss of

sagebrush-steppe habitat. Wildfire has been increasing the loss of habitat due to an increase in

fire frequency. This increase in fire frequency has been facilitated by the incursion of nonnative

annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass, into the sagebrush ecosystems (Miller and Eddleman

2000). In areas where cheatgrass invasion has occurred, fuel profiles have changed, resulting in

increased surface fire intensities, shorter fire return intervals, and larger fire sizes (Knapp 1996;

Epanchin-Niell et al. 2009; Rowland et al. 2010; Baker 2011; Condon et al. 2011). Without

sufficient rehabilitation efforts, these larger burned areas are prone to even more cheatgrass

invasion. This interaction of annual grasses and fire is apparent by the increase in the average

decadal acres burned within GRSG habitat.

In addition, suppression actions and some grazing practices in the early late 1800s and early

1900s have facilitated the expansion of native conifers into GRSG habitat by decreasing the fire

return interval (Miller and Rose 1999)., and Table 3-19, Acres of Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper

Interface in GRSG Habitat, and Figure 3-10, Areas with Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Conifer

Interface, display the extent of pinyon-juniper interface within GRSG habitat.

Table 3.19. Acres of Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Interface in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 394,000 751,400 394,000 539,200

IV 311,300 938,700 47,700 364,700

V 346,600 597,500 51,200 448,800

Forest Service III 86,800 247,000 86,800 124,000

IV 228,100 248,200 29,500 92,000

V 29,200 11,300 700 2,600

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 4,600 29,400 1,500 1,600

IV 11,100 10,000 100 200

V 8,100 44,000 1,500 33,400

Private III 32,000 217,400 32,000 48,800

IV 295,200 427,500 31,900 138,400

V 132,300 106,800 6,600 25,900

State III 0 47,100 0 400

IV 69,600 67,700 0 0

V 7,300 2,700 600 900

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
Draft Resource Management 69

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 2,900 6,400 0 0

V 10,100 61,200 10,100 61,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Includes the number of acres where sagebrush land cover occurs within 120 meters of pinyon-juniper land cover.

Fire Regime

Fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across the landscape in the

absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee

1993; Brown 1995). The natural or historical fire regimes are classified by number of years

between fires (frequency) and the severity of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation.

National and state BLM fire policy requires that current and desired resource conditions related to

fire management be described in terms of three condition classes and five fire regimes (Table

3-20, Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions, and Table 3-21, Fire Regime Condition Classes).

(PDF Map 3–10)

Figure 3.10. Areas with Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Conifer Interface

Table 3.20. Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions

Group Frequency Severity Severity Description

I 0-35 years Low/mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 75

percent of the dominant overstory vegetation; can include

mixed-severity fires that replace up to 75 percent of the over

story

II 0-35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75 percent of the

dominant over story vegetation

III 35-200 years Mixed/low Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity fires

IV 35-200 years Replacement High severity fires

V 200+ years Replacement/any

severity

Generally replacement-severity; can include any severity

type in this frequency range

Source: Hann et al. 2008

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
70 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.21. Fire Regime Condition Classes

Fire Regime

Condition Classes

Attributes

Condition Class 1 ● Fire regimes are within or near an historical range.

● The risk of losing key ecosystem components is low.

● Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by no more than one

return interval.

● Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioning

within an historical range.

Condition Class 2 ● Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range.

● The risk of losing key ecosystem components has increased to moderate.

● Fire frequencies have departed (either increased or decreased) from historical

frequencies by more than one return interval. This results in moderate changes to

one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape

patterns.

● Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range.

.

Condition Class 3 ● Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range.

● The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high.

● Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return

intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire

size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns.

● Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical range.

Source: Hann et al. 2008

The Fire Regime Condition Classification System measures the degree to which vegetation

departs from reference conditions, or how the current vegetation differs from a particular reference

condition. Departures from reference condition could be a result of changes to key ecosystem

components such as vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, fire frequency, fire severity,

and pattern, as well as other associated disturbances such as insects and disease mortality. The

classification system is used to categorize existing ecosystem conditions and to determine priority

areas for treatment as mandated by national direction (Hann and Bunnell 2001). While the fire

regime of a particular area is not likely to change except in the very long term, the condition class

can be changed through fire management and other vegetation management actions.

Extreme departure from the historic fire regime results in changes to one or more of the following

ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand

age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern;

and other associated disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought).

Vegetative condition class quantifies the amount that current vegetation has departed from the

simulated historical vegetation reference conditions. Three condition classes describe low

departure, moderate departure, and high departure. Vegetative condition class is calculated based

on changes to species composition, structural stage, and canopy closure using methods described

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
Draft Resource Management 71

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook (Hann et al. 2008). LANDFIRE

vegetative condition class (USGS 2006b) is based on departure of current vegetation conditions

from reference vegetation conditions only, whereas the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class

Guidebook approach includes departure of current fire regimes from those of the reference period.

Table 3-22, Fire Regime Groups in PPH and PGH, and Table 3-23, Condition Class in PPH and

PGH, summarize the current fire regime classification of all lands within GRSG habitat in the

planning area. Approximately 28 percent of the vegetation in GRSG habitat is Condition Class III

– highly departed, and 70 percent is Condition Class II – moderately departed.

Fuels Treatments

Prescribed fires and other fuels treatments have also occurred throughout the planning area as a

management tool for fuels, as well as to help meet resource management goals for other land

and resource uses such as vegetation and range management. Table 3-24, BLM Hazardous Fuels

Treatment (2008-2012), lists the amount of BLM treatments by type and how many acres were

treated, while Table 3-25, Forest Service Fuels Treatment (2008-2012), lists the amount of Forest

Service treatments by type and how many acres were treated.

Table 3.22. Fire Regime Groups in PPH and PGH (acres)

Fire Regime I II III IV V

PPH - BLM 39,490 21,288 3,937,121 6,484,328 806,379

PGH - BLM 28,981 10,319 1,342,977 2,415,454 600,523

PPH - Forest Service 20,237 14,680 393,007 693,884 33,311

PGH - Forest Service 5,208 2,092 186,280 291,643 42,169

PPH - Other 25,612 3,982 1,016,606 1,729,375 225,535

PGH - Other 17,535 982 240,848 554,261 141,062

Source: LANDFIRE Fire Regime Groups Layer (USGS 2006a), BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Note: Other represents tribal, other federal agencies, state, and private lands

Table 3.23. Condition Classes in PPH and PGH (acres)

Population Area Condition Class I Condition Class II Condition Class III

PPH - BLM 2,738,714 6,112,877 2,466,204

PGH - BLM 709,390 2,747,367 954,754

PPH - Forest Service 439,012 625,637 119,476

PGH - Forest Service 126,557 360,075 52,572

PPH - Other 745,562 1,420,459 792,305

PGH - Other 101,020 548,300 301,679

Source: LANDFIRE Vegetation Condition Class Layer (USGS 2006b), BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Notes: Other represents tribal, other federal agencies, state, and private lands.

Table 3.24. BLM Hazardous Fuels Treatments (2008-2012)

Treatment Type Number of Treatments Acres Treated

Prescribed Fire 72 11,940

Mechanical 351 98,459

Chemical 48 18,642

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
72 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Treatment Type Number of Treatments Acres Treated

Total 471 129,041

Source: National Fire Planning Operations Reporting System. Data included 2008 – 2012; BLM and

Forest Service GIS 2013

Note: A 1-mile buffer was used on the coordinates of the treatments

Table 3.25. Forest Service Fuels Treatments (2008-2012)

Activity Treatments Acres

Prescribed fire treatments 2,038 129,862

Mechanical treatments (not including pre-commercial or

commercial thinning activities)

1,656 100,711

Total 3,694 230,573

Source: Forest Service 2013b

Fire Occurrence

Between 2000 and 2012, over 2 million acres of GRSG habitat in the planning area were affected

by wildland fire (see Table 3-26, Acres of Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat).

Table 3.26. Acres of Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within PPH Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 120,400 96,400 120,400 55,400

IV 965,900 1,809,400 450,900 755,100

V 157,400 210,100 7,400 113,400

Forest Service III 5,800 3,700 5,800 200

IV 161,500 33,900 124,800 31,100

V 13,000 2,600 400 600

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 600 0 500

IV 82,400 58,100 1,200 0

V 600 14,000 500 1,300

Private III 97,000 24,600 97,000 15,800

IV 190,300 417,400 113,400 282,800

V 26,000 46,600 1,300 9,500

State III 0 7,500 0 0

IV 30,900 53,100 0 0

V 2,700 1,200 0 1,000

Other2 III 0 0 0 0

IV 100 700 0 100

V 900 15,900 900 15,900

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Acres calculated from wildland fires occurring between 2000 and 2012

2Other tribal and other federal

Wildfire has historically occurred in the planning area and tends to occur between late April

and September. Of the fires in PPH and PGH in the planning area, 83 percent were started by

lightning, and 91 percent of the acreages affected by fire were caused by lightning. Table 3-27,

Fire Occurrence (1992-2011), displays the size and number of fires by size class that have

occurred in the GRSG habitat in the planning area over the past twenty years. Table 3-28, Causes

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
Draft Resource Management 73

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

of Fires (1992-2011), displays the percent of human and lightning caused fire starts and acreage

burned by agency and habitat type.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
74 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.27. Fire Occurrence (1992 – 2011)

Population Areas A: 0 to 0.25

Starts/Acres

B: 0.26 to 9.9

Starts/Acres

C: 10 to 99

Starts/Acres

D: 100 to 299

Starts/Acres

E: 300 to 999

Starts/Acres

F: 1,000 to 4,999

Starts/Acres

G: 5,000+

Starts/Acres

PPH - BLM 971/102 419/868 189/6,333 78/13,896 58/30,888 53/119,454 36/1,035,225

PGH - BLM 697/72 244/458 83/3,229 32/5,958 29/16,656 38/85,437 22/788,988

PPH - Forest

Service

85/10 47/116 18/427 6/938 6/3,513 4/9,596 2/16,159

PGH - Forest

Service

39/4 25/56 7/251 1/155 3/1,876 5/10,690 3/104,017

PPH - Other 297/32 220/484 71/2,032 31/5,384 20/10,269 23/45,204 21/629,513

PGH - Other 149/16 113/206 38/1,404 12/2,109 9/4,713 14/30,311 10/236,382

Source: Short 2013; BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Note: One mile buffer from point of origin used to capture affected populations

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
Draft Resource Management 75

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.28. Causes of Fires (1992 – 2011)

Population Areas Human Starts/

Acres Natural Starts/Acres

Percent of Human

Starts/Acres

Percent of Natural

Starts/Acres

PPH - BLM 214/77,515 1,590/1,129,250 12%/41% 88%/59%

PGH - BLM 148/54,434 997/846,364 13%/6% 87%/94%

PPH - Forest Service 34/7,434 134/23,326 20%/24% 80%/76%

PGH - Forest Service 16/3,968 67/113,081 19%/3% 81%/97%

PPH - Other 206/23,675 477/669,243 30%/3% 70%/97%

PGH - Other 114/31,665 231/243,474 33%/67% 67%/88%

Total 732/198,691 3,496/2,008,413

Source: Short 2013; BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Note: “Other” represents other federal agencies, tribal, state, and private lands.

Trends

Recent scientific research has shown a trend towards increased large fire frequency, longer

wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons since the mid-1980s (Westerling et al. 2006).

The authors suggest that this may involve both climate change and previous land-use effects in

California. The spread of cheatgrass and other continuous annual grasses will continue to serve as

a catalyst for non-historic large fire growth in the planning area. Climate change may also alter

the range of invasive plants, potentially expanding this threat into more GRSG habitat.

In the absence of vegetation management, there is an increased potential for further loss of

biological diversity in the advent of future high-severity large fires that damage or eliminate

components of the ecosystem (Martin and Sapsis 1991). “No treatment” or “passive management”

can perpetuate the potential for high severity fire (Stephens et al. 2009), thereby increasing the

loss of habitat.

Funding for the hazardous fuels reduction program continues to fall. For fiscal year 2014, a

significant reduction will be seen in Nevada. The anticipated reduction in the hazardous fuels

program is between 47 and 56 percent. This lack of funding will result in Nevada not being able

to maintain full-time staff at current levels, allow for maintenance of ongoing fuels projects, or

start new projects. As such, projects to enhance GRSG habitat will be significantly reduced.

There is a cumulative fiscal impact of the combined costs of suppression, emergency

rehabilitation, and restoration of new large fire areas in combination with previous large fires.

Federal wildfire policy directs fire management programs to be economically viable based upon

values to be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. Federal agency

administrators are directed to reduce costs and increase efficiencies (Forest Service 2009d).

Figure 3-11, Areas with High Fire Probability, shows those areas of the sub-region with the

highest fire potential, while Table 3-29, Acres with High Probability for Wildland Fire in GRSG

Habitat, shows the acreage with a high probability for wildland fire within GRSG habitat in the

planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire and Fire Management
76 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.29. Acres with High Probability for Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres 1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within PPH

BLM III 1,990,900 4,583,100 1,990,900 3,590,800

IV 4,438,100 11,904,200 742,500 3,581,200

V 2,801,300 3,545,800 322,100 1,788,000

Forest Service III 78,900 280,500 78,900 124,600

IV 621,400 1,163,200 183,100 548,900

V 40,300 29,900 1,100 8,400

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 6,500 120,000 6,500 37,100

IV 301,900 487,200 1,900 1,700

V 77,000 351,100 19,700 258,600

Private III 315,200 1,137,600 315,200 416,800

IV 2,268,400 4,068,100 390,900 1,487,400

V 689,500 589,400 44,800 104,100

State III 100 191,000 100 2,900

IV 649,700 738,700 400 800

V 74,200 49,300 2,700 10,800

Other III 0 100 0 100

IV 26,300 62,000 0 100

V 47,100 293,200 46,700 293,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Derived from Forest Service FSim Burn data

Note: Other includes other federal agencies, tribal, state, and private lands.

(PDF Map 3–11)

Figure 3.11. Areas with High Fire Probability

3.8. Livestock Grazing

BLM

The primary laws that govern grazing on public lands are the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the

FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The BLM manages grazing lands

under 43 CFR Part 4100 and BLM Manuals and Handbooks.

In addition, the BLM must meet or ensure progress is being made toward meeting the BLM

Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Administration (Appendix K, Livestock

Grazing) for each allotment. Four fundamentals of rangeland health are listed in 43 CFR 4180.1.

They combine the basic precepts of physical function and biological health with elements of law

relating to water quality and plant and animal populations and communities. The fundamentals

provide the basis for the development and implementation of the standards for land health.

Standards and guidelines establish conditions needed to sustain public land health for soils,

riparian systems, upland vegetation, wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, and

water quality. Guidelines are livestock grazing management tools, methods, strategies, and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
Draft Resource Management 77

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

techniques designed to maintain or achieve healthy public lands as defined by the standards.

The S&Gs have been implemented through land health assessments, determination documents,

environmental assessments, permit renewals, and other permit changes. These standards not only

pertain to impacts associated with livestock grazing, but also to other rangeland impacts from such

activities as recreation, development activities, wildlife grazing, and wild horse management.

Sustainable livestock grazing and desired rangeland condition requires the collective management

of forage, water, soil, and livestock by the BLM and the livestock owners and operators.

Forest Service

The primary laws that govern grazing on lands administered by the Forest Service are the Organic

Administration Act of 1897, Granger-Thye Act of 1950, Multiple Sustained Yield Act of 1960,

FLPMA, Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources and Planning Act of 1974, NFMA, and Public

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The Forest Service manages livestock grazing under

direction in 36 CFR Part 222, Forest Service Manual 2200, and Forest Service Handbook 2209.

In addition, LUPs identify the suitability of land on Forest Service-administered units to produce

forage for grazing animals and establish programmatic direction for grazing activities, including

goals, objectives, desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements.

Although an area may be deemed suitable for use by livestock in a LUP, a project-level analysis

evaluating the site-specific impacts of the grazing activity, in conformance with NEPA, is required

in order to authorize livestock grazing on specific allotments.

Current Condition

Cattle are the primary grazers on Nevada BLM-administered lands of the planning area, in

identified or potential GRSG habitat; secondary grazers are sheep and some domestic horses. The

season of use within the planning area varies from seasonal to year-long.

Range improvements are present on public lands in the planning area. Structural range

improvements are fences and water developments, along with vegetation treatments, such as

seedings and invasive weed control. Fences are typically three- to four-strand barbed wire,

although other types of approved fences are present. Water developments are reservoirs,

developed springs, and wells. Developed springs and wells commonly include pipeline systems

that distribute water to one or more metal, fiberglass, or rubber-tire tanks. Reservoirs and

developed springs are typically located in drainages and depressions, while wells and their

associated delivery tanks are typically located on uplands. Noxious and invasive weeds are

controlled through IMP measures over the planning area.

Active grazing use, management actions, and long-term rangeland health in each allotment are

monitored and evaluated on an ongoing basis. Adjustments are made by agreement or decision, in

accordance with legislation, regulations, and policy, to ensure that public land resource values

are maintained or improved to meet LUP goals and objectives.

The primary management objectives for livestock grazing have been to improve rangeland health,

improve riparian functioning condition, and restore native plant communities. The BLM is

improving rangeland health by controlling animal numbers and season-of-use and by resting

severely damaged rangeland (principally caused by wildfires). Livestock grazing is monitored on

an ongoing basis to ensure that BLM land health standards are being achieved. Where progress is

lacking or inadequate, grazing practices are altered or other conditions are corrected to achieve

compliance. As elsewhere, forage production and availability are subject to substantial yearly

fluctuations. Droughts in particular necessitate use restrictions on annual grazing permits. Factors

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
78 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

of human and natural origin that interfere with land health restoration and threaten efforts to

achieve the desired future condition are as follows:

● Juniper encroachment in low sagebrush, big sagebrush, and oak woodland plant communities

● Sheet erosion and pedestal formation (formed where individual plants or plant clumps retain

soil while the intervening spaces are eroded)

● Competition from invasive weeds

● Decline in watercourse health and hydrologic function

● Decline in riparian vegetation, health, and function

● Soil trampling by feeding and traveling livestock, particularly along streambanks and in
 

riparian areas, and erosion from roads and trails (especially near watercourses and riparian
 

areas)
 

● Forage shrub decline due to drought

● Proliferation of exotic weeds, which are already established in most pastures (management
 

actions, including altered grazing practices, would increase the extent and health of native
 

perennial species, but they are not likely to restore complete dominance)
 

Current Livestock Management

Present management involves carefully adhering to permit stipulations, particularly regarding

livestock numbers and season-of-use restrictions. Grazing pressure is controlled with fencing,

herding, and strategic placement of water. Many allotments are managed with a combination of

rest and deferred grazing. This can include early-on and early-off grazing, delayed turnout, or a

modified annual season-of-use. Annual adjustments are made according to forage availability

and the prevalence of drought or above-average precipitation. Livestock are trucked or driven

overland to and from allotments and between pastures.

The BLM and its grazing permittees are maintaining or improving rangeland health so that forage

production is sustainable and ranching remains a viable occupation. Despite some inherent

difficulties, local ranchers have begun to employ new grazing strategies that are beginning to

show improvements in rangeland health. These changes have increased the extent and health of

sensitive riparian and upland vegetation. Techniques include shorter grazing seasons, modified

spring and summer grazing use, and intensive management of riparian areas and livestock

pastures. Livestock exclosures and riparian pastures (riparian areas fenced out to promote riparian

function) have been created to protect streams and riparian habitats. Improved fencing, frequent

herding and moving, and season-of-use adjustments have been used to protect sensitive areas and

to improve rangeland condition. Leaving greater amounts of residual vegetation has enhanced

hydrologic function and watershed condition by slowing runoff, increasing infiltration, reducing

erosion, and improving seedling establishment and ground cover.

BLM rangeland health information is separated into the Northeast California District and Nevada

BLM sections. The Northeast California District had access to more detailed information, while

the Nevada BLM information is more general. As an example, the data sets used for rangeland

health assessments are different, so the category definitions are also different.

BLM California

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
Draft Resource Management 79

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Rangeland Health Assessments

Rangeland health assessments are used to compare the current condition of grazing allotments to

rangeland health standards. Some factors of major importance to rangeland health are current

and historic grazing practices, juniper encroachment, and proliferation of noxious weeds. Once

evaluated, allotments are placed in one of four condition categories.

Northeastern California BLM currently permits approximately 172,231 AUMs on allotments in

GRSG habitat (Table 3-30, Northeastern California BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
80 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.30. Northeastern California BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat

BLM Field

Office

Category1 Category2 Category3 Category4

No. of

Allot-

ments

Acres No. of

Allot-

ments

Acres No. of

Allot-

ments

Acres No. of

Allot-

ments

Acres

Eagle Lake

1 53,500 24 764,599002 19,340

Alturas 17 154,707 16 66,923 46 184,052 10 20,586

Surprise

7 309,219 29 791,832 15 309,130

8 313,190

Total 25 517,426 69 1,623,354 61 493,182 353,116

Category 1—Areas where one or more standards have not been met, nor has significant progress been made

toward meeting the standards, and livestock grazing isa significant factor.

Category 2—Areas where all standards have been met or significant progress has been made toward meeting

the standards.

Category 3—Areas where one or more of the standards is not known, or the cause of the failure to meet the

standards is not known.

Category 4—Areas where one or more standards have not been met, nor has significant progress been made

toward meeting the standards due to causes other than (or in addition to) livestock grazing. (Allotments where

livestock grazing is the primary cause for failure are also included in Category 1).

Source: BLM 2008a, 2008b, 2008c

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
Draft Resource Management 81

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM Nevada

Of the grazing allotments on BLM-administered land in the Nevada portion of the planning

area, 555 contain some acreage of identified or possible GRSG habitat. Nevada BLM currently

permits approximately 1.8 million AUMs on allotments in GRSG habitat (Table 3-31, Nevada

BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
82 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.31. Nevada BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5

No. of

Allotments

Acres* No. of

Allotments

Acres* No. of

Allotments

Acres* No. of

Allotments

Acres* No. of

Allotments

Acres*

45 1,740,312 40 2,299,157 37 1,696,512 75 1,901,961 353 10,832,853

Category 1: Information Indicates Standards Met

Category 2: Determination Signed, Livestock a Causal Factor.

Category 3: Determination Not Signed but Information Indicates Possible Grazing Conflict

Category 4: One or More Standards Not Achieved; Livestock Not a Causal Factor

Category 5: Determination Not Complete

*Acres represent the approximate GRSG habitat acreage present within allotment perimeters.

Source: BLM 2012l

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
Draft Resource Management 83

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Forest Service

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest manages 225 grazing allotments in the planning area.
 

Of these, 219 allotments, or about 97 percent, contain GRSG habitat totaling about 1,664,568
 

acres. Livestock are permitted on Forest Service-administered lands under term grazing permits,
 

which cannot be leased in whole or part. A term grazing permit authorizes the number, kind, and
 

class of livestock as well as the period of use and grazing allotment on which livestock are
 

permitted to graze. Mostly cattle and sheep graze on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest from
 

early June to late September. Currently the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest permits 276,191
 

AUMs (386,570 Head Months), in the planning area, including 214,103 (165,297 Head Months)
 

for cattle, 61,600 (220,867 Head Months) for sheep and goats, and 488 (406 Head Months)
 

for horses and burros.
 

All allotments on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are managed under allotment
 

management plans or annual operation instructions that implement livestock grazing S&G of
 

the Humboldt or Toiyabe Forest LUPs, including forage utilization standards. Structural range
 

improvements help distribute livestock across the allotments and include fences, cattle guards,
 

corrals, pipelines, water troughs, wells, reservoirs, and ponds.
 

Planning Area

Table 3-32, Acres of Grazing Allotments in GRSG Habitat; Table 3-33, Acres of Allotments

Not Meeting Land Health Standards in GRSG Habitat; and Table 3-34, Miles of Fences in

GRSG Habitat, describe the current conditions affecting livestock grazing within the planning

area. Figure 3-12, Existing Lands Open to Livestock Grazing shows BLM- and Forest

Service-administered lands open to grazing and the relationship of PGH and PPH to existing

grazing allotments.

Table 3.32. Acres of Grazing Allotments in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 3,191,900 6,282,000 3,191,900 4,935,600

IV 4,670,700 13,408,800 763,800 3,566,300

V 4,051,000 5,056,400 473,000 2,806,900

Forest Service III 345,100 1,185,600 345,100 581,300

IV 1,050,800 1,566,700 164,200 587,000

V 109,800 60,000 7,500 22,700

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 5,500 5,300 5,500 3,500

IV 153,800 266,200 0 900

V 4,000 1,500 800 400

Private III 299,400 714,000 299,400 402,100

IV 1,201,300 3,044,600 306,700 1,255,200

V 768,400 575,700 39,300 125,000

State III 200 236,000 200 5,600

IV 257,900 693,600 400 800

V 21,100 25,300 500 7,200

Other III 0 100 0 100

IV 400 1,500 0 100

V 43,500 252,300 39,900 252,300

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
84 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.33. Acres of Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres 1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 654,600 965,400 654,600 877,700

IV 968,900 2,617,200 242,700 550,600

V 158,700 417,000 93,800 353,600

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Only includes allotments not meeting Land Health Standards with grazing as the causal factor.

*The Forest Service does not use the Land Health Concept.

Table 3.34. Miles of Fences in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Miles1

within PGH

Miles1 within

PPH

Miles1

within PGH

Miles1 within

PPH

BLM III 2,000 4,700 2,000 3,200

IV 7,200 16,100 400 2,400

V 3,600 4,000 500 1,900

Forest Service III 600 1,700 600 1,000

IV 1,900 2,800 200 700

V 200 100 0 100

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 100 0 0

IV 400 400 0 0

V 100 100 0 0

Private III 300 1,100 300 400

IV 3,900 7,400 300 1,400

V 1,400 1,000 100 200

State III 0 300 0 0

IV 500 1,200 0 0

V 100 100 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 100 300 100 300

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Derived from a dataset that identifies pasture and allotment borders on BLM- and Forest Service-administered

lands as potential fences.

Current use patterns vary based on local and regional plans, conditions, and grazing allotments.

Pastures on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands (management units) represent the

typical planning, leasing, and evaluation units used in grazing management across GRSG range.

Based on field office records of grazing allotments, allotments “not meeting wildlife land health

standards due to livestock grazing” influence GRSG habitats throughout Management Zone IV

and western portions of Management Zone III, although BLM-administered lands not meeting

wildlife land health standards due to livestock can be found throughout the range of GRSG.

Importantly, assessments for some lands were not available (some federal and all state, private,

and tribal lands), and conditions have changed since the data were gathered (assembled in 2008

using available data), so regional scale comparisons may be misleading. Contemporary, local data

should supersede this information in most cases.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
Draft Resource Management 85

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Approximately 6.6 million acres (10.42 percent) of BLM-administered GRSG range did not meet

land health standards, and 17.9 percent of priority habitats in Management Zones III and IV did

not meet these standards (Manier et al. 2013).

(PDF Map 3–12)

Figure 3.12.

3.9. Recreation

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Management of recreation is guided by BLM regulations and policies, federal and state laws,

current and emerging trends in public demand for recreational activities and opportunities, and an

area’s physical and natural surroundings. Current management direction is based on objectives in

LUPs and LUP amendments, activity-level plans, and recreation management guidance, including

Manual 8320 (BLM 2011e). The intent of the BLM’s recreation-focused laws, policy, and

guidelines is to meet public demand for outdoor land- and water-based recreation opportunities

while preventing or minimizing adverse impacts on the natural and cultural resources on

BLM-administered lands.

Recreation Management Areas

Recreation planning guidance and the definitions for recreation management areas (i.e., SRMAs

and extensive recreation management areas [ERMAs]) have changed since most LUPs in the

planning area were written.

Special Recreation Management Areas

Current BLM guidance identifies SRMAs as administrative units where the existing or proposed

recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique

value, importance, or distinctiveness, especially as compared with other areas used for recreation.

SRMAs are managed to protect and enhance a targeted set of activities, experiences, benefits,

and desired recreation setting characteristics. SRMAs may be subdivided into recreation

management zones to further delineate specific recreation opportunities. Within SRMAs,

recreation and visitor service management is recognized as the predominant land use planning

focus, where specific recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are managed

and protected on a long-term basis. SRMAs and recreation management zones must have

measurable outcome-focused objectives. Supporting management actions and allowable use

decisions are required to sustain or enhance recreation objectives, protect the desired recreation

setting characteristics, and constrain uses, including non-compatible recreation activities, that are

detrimental to meeting recreation or other critical resource objectives (e.g., cultural or threatened

and endangered species).

There are six SRMAs in the planning area. The largest single SRMA is the Black Rock High

Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), encompassing 1,205,040 acres. The Loneliest

Highway SRMA that follows US Highway 50 in the Ely District is 675,123 acres. The Egan Crest

SRMA, also in the Ely District, is 53,445 acres. There are three SRMAs in the Elko District:

Wilson Reservoir with 5,440 acres, South Fork Owyhee River with 3,500 acres, and Zunino/Jiggs

Reservoir with 800 acres.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation
86 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Current BLM guidance defines ERMAs as administrative units that require specific management

consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or recreation and visitor service program

investments. ERMAs are managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and

the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMAs is commensurate

with the management of other resources and resource uses. Supporting management actions and

allowable use decisions must facilitate the visitors’ ability to participate in outdoor recreation

activities and protect the associated qualities and conditions. Non-compatible uses, including

some recreation activities, may be restricted or constrained to achieve interdisciplinary objectives.

Planning guidance in place when most LUPs in the planning area were written directed that

all BLM-administered land not designated as an SRMA should be designated as an ERMA.

However, under current recreation guidance (BLM Manual 8320 – Planning for Recreation

and Visitor Services [BLM 2011e]), what were formerly the ERMAs would now be considered

“undesignated” (i.e., neither an ERMA nor an SRMA). As such, there are no areas in the planning

area designated as ERMAs.

BLM-Administered Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas

As described above, current recreation guidance (BLM 2011e), directs that what were formerly

ERMAs would now be considered “undesignated” (i.e., neither an ERMA nor an SRMA).

As such, approximately 36,062,995 acres in the planning area are “undesignated”. These

BLM-administered lands that are not designated as recreation management areas are managed

to meet basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs. Recreation is not

emphasized, but recreation activities may occur. The recreation and visitor services are managed

to allow recreation uses that are not in conflict with the primary uses of these lands. Management

actions and allowable use decisions may still be necessary to address basic recreation and visitor

services and resource stewardship needs.

Forest Service

The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 USC 528, Public Law 86-517) directs the

Forest Service to manage recreation as a resource on par with timber, water, and wildlife

resources. As the science of outdoor recreation management has evolved, managers have placed

more emphasis on providing for experience opportunities rather than specific recreation activities.

Accordingly, a primary objective of Forest Service recreation management is to provide and

secure an environment for visitors to achieve desired experiences while balancing other social,

economic, and environmental factors.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a widely used planning and management tool

used to delineate and define outdoor recreation settings and related experience opportunities. The

ROS arrays recreation settings on a spectrum from primitive to urban. A given ROS class or

category describes the level of development, use, and management that exists or is desired for the

area where that class is prescribed.

There are six ROS classes described in the LUPs: primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized,

semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. For each of these classes, the LUPs

also describe maximum-use level guidelines defined in terms of people at one time per trail

mile and per acre. For winter recreation (activities that require snow cover), two general ROS

classes are used: motorized and nonmotorized.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation
Draft Resource Management 87

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3-35, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes, summarizes the various ROS classes

within the planning area and in PGH and PPH.

Table 3.35. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes

ROS Class Acres within

PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres within Other Total Acres in

Planning Area

Primitive 22,824 67,316 413,732 503,873

Rural 1,633 8,756 739 11,129

Roaded Natural 113,885 276,588 478,171 868,645

Semi-Primitive Motorized 132,154 331,239 217,210 680,604

Semi-Primitive NonMotorized

268,795 498,903 1,671,839 2,439,538

Urban 0 198 0 198

Total 539,292 1,183,003 2,781,693 4,503,989

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

3.10. Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Travel and Transportation Management on BLM-Administered Lands

Travel and transportation are integral parts of virtually every activity that occurs on

BLM-administered lands. The BLM has taken a holistic approach to comprehensive travel and

transportation management (CTTM). It is an interdisciplinary approach to travel and transportation

planning and management that addresses resource uses and associated access to public lands and

waters, including motorized, non-motorized, mechanical, and animal-powered modes of travel.

Travel and transportation management planning means providing clear and specific direction that

addresses public and administrative access needs on the proper levels of land and water for all

modes of travel. The CTTM process addresses variability among landscapes, users’ interests,

equipment options, and cultural and biological resource constraints. The primary goal of CTTM

is to develop a systematic network of routes with appropriately designated uses that provides

opportunities for a diverse set of activities to occur on public lands, such as recreation, energy

development, grazing, and wildlife management. Travel management objectives serve as the

foundation for appropriate travel and access prescriptions.

There is considerable overlap between travel management and all other uses on BLM-administered

lands. For example, many people visit BLM-administered lands for recreation purposes. For

these visitors, a route system may serve as either a means to reach a destination where the activity

occurs (e.g., a road to a trailhead or parking area) or as the focus of the recreation activity itself

(e.g., a four-wheel driving, hiking, or horseback riding trail).

To reduce the duplication of narrative between travel management and the other sections of this

document, this section addresses only public travel and access (i.e., OHV management area

designations, route designations, types of travel, and seasonal area limitations). The interrelated

recreation components, such as OHV use, are addressed under Section 3.9, Recreation.

Modes of Travel

Visitors to public lands use roads and trails for a variety of activities involving various modes of

travel. Motorized travel in the planning area ranges from standard passenger vehicles driving on

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management
88 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

maintained roads to OHVs operating on primitive roads and trails. OHV is synonymous with

off-road vehicle, as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a):

Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: 1) Any nonamphibious

registered motorboat; 2) Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being

used for emergency purposes; 3) Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized

officer or otherwise officially approved; 4) Vehicles in official use; and 5) Any combat or

combat-support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies.

OHVs commonly used in the planning area include off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles,

utility terrain vehicles, jeeps, specialized 4-by-4 trucks, and snowmobiles. Other modes of travel

include mountain biking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, horseback riding, pack animal

driving, hiking, boating, hang-gliding, paragliding, ballooning, and wheelchairs. The type and

amount of use and the location of roads and trails influence physical, social, and administrative

recreation setting and the overall quality of the recreation experience.

Travel Designations

Executive Order 11644 and 43 CFR Part 8340 both require the BLM to designate all

BLM-administered lands nationally as open, closed, or limited for OHV use.

Open

Areas designated as Open are areas where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times

anywhere in the area. Use is subject to any operating regulations and vehicle standards established

in other parts of the CFR.

Limited

Areas designated as Limited are areas restricted at certain times, in certain areas, or to certain

vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within

the following categories: numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use;

permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and

trails; and other restrictions.

Closed

Areas designated as Closed are where cross-county motorized vehicle use is prohibited. OHVs

may be allowed in closed areas for certain reasons, but only with the approval of the authorized

officer.

Federal Regulations

Route designation criteria are described in 43 CFR 8342.1 and state:

The authorized officer shall designate all public lands as open, limited, or closed to off-road

vehicles. All designations shall be based on the protection of the resources of the public lands,

the promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts

among various uses of the public lands; and in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or

other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management
Draft Resource Management 89

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(b) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption

of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species

and their habitats.

(c) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other

existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure

the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account

noise and other factors.

(d) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive

areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines

that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic,

or other values for which such areas are established.

National Guidance

On a national level and in response to increasing demand for motorized and mechanized recreation

trails on public lands, the BLM first developed an OHV strategy and then a mountain bike strategy.

These strategies emphasize that the BLM should be proactive in seeking travel management

solutions that conserve natural resources while providing for ample recreation opportunities.

The BLM released the current version of the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, BLM

2005a) in March 2005. Guidance on determining Open, Limited, and Closed OHV Area

designations during the planning process was incorporated into the Comprehensive Trails and

Travel Management Section (Appendix C, Section II D).

Additional TTM guidance continued to be developed and culminated with the release of the

Travel and Transportation Management Manual (1626, BLM 2011f) in July 2011. Current policy

states that Open areas will be limited to a size that can be effectively managed and geographically

identifiable and that expansive open areas allowing cross-country travel will not be designated in

LUP revisions or new travel management plans.

The Travel and Transportation Handbook (H-8342, BLM 2012m) was released in March of

2012. It provides detailed guidance using the designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1 for area and

route selection. It includes guidance for developing other implementation plans including but

not limited to sign plans, education and outreach plans, law enforcement plans, and maintenance

plans.

Travel Management on Forest Service-Administered Lands

The Forest Service published its Travel Management Rule in 2005 (Forest Service 2005). It

required each national forest to designate roads, trails, and areas open or closed to motor vehicles.

Designations were made in accordance with criteria described in Executive Order 11644 and

included the type of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year for motor vehicle use. A given route,

for example, could be designated for use by motorcycles, ATVs, or street-legal vehicles. Once

designation was complete, the rule prohibited motor vehicle use off the designated system.

In addition to the CFR, the Forest Service developed CTTM planning guidance, including

the Travel Management Manual, FSM 7700 (Forest Service 2009e), and the Travel Planning

Handbook, FSH 7709.55 (Forest Service 2009f).

Federal Regulations

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management
90 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

The criteria for Forest Service route designation are found in 36 CFR 212.55 (a), General criteria

for designation of Forest Service-administered roads, Forest Service-administered trails, and areas

on Forest Service-administered lands and state:

In designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National

Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on

National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational

opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need

for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses

under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and

administration.

(b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph

(a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest

System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective

of minimizing:

(1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;

(2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;

(3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National

Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands;

(4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or

neighboring Federal lands. In addition, the responsible official shall consider:

(5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into

account sound, emissions, and other factors.

Current Condition

Travel planning is complete for all lands administered by the Forest Service in the planning area.

Forest Service-administered lands with a designated route system are considered the same as the

Limited designation on BLM-administered lands. Current Closed areas in the planning area are

generally designated Wilderness and some ACECs.

Current acreage for Open, Closed, and Limited OHV area designations for the planning area are

listed in Table 3-36, Travel Area Designations on BLM and Forest Service Lands. The majority

of acres in both PPH and PGH have an Open OHV area designation. Miles of roads, including

interstate and state highways, secondary roads, and local roads are listed in Table 3-37, Miles

of Roads in GRSG Habitat, and Table 3-38, Miles of Roads in GRSG Habitat. This does not

include two-track primitive roads. Inventory data for two-track primitive roads are incomplete at

this time. Miles and acres of railroads are shown in Table 3-39, Miles of Railroads in GRSG

Habitat, and Table 3-40, Acres of Railroads in GRSG Habitat.

Table 3.36. Travel Area Designations on BLM and Forest Service Lands1

Planning Area

(acres)

PPH (acres) PGH (acres)

Open 37,058,100 8,878,900 3,866,000

Closed 2,783,500 731,000 143,600

Limited 10,021,200 3,083,600 1,029,700

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management
Draft Resource Management 91

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Planning Area

(acres)

PPH (acres) PGH (acres)

TOTAL 49,862,800 12,693,500 5,046,300

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

1Acres rounded to nearest 100 acres

Table 3.37. Miles of Roads in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

BLM III 5,300 10,400 5,300 8,000

IV 6,500 18,900 900 3,400

V 5,900 5,200 400 1,900

Forest Service III 400 1,900 400 700

IV 1,200 1,900 200 500

V 400 200 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 100 900 0 100

IV 700 1,000 0 0

V 200 600 0 300

Private III 900 4,300 900 1,000

IV 7,200 8,700 800 2,000

V 2,900 1,600 100 300

State III 0 800 0 0

IV 1,300 1,800 0 0

V 200 100 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 100 100 0 0

V 100 500 100 500

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3.38. Acres of Roads in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

BLM III 56,900 115,700 56,900 85,800

IV 68,500 199,400 9,300 36,500

V 59,900 54,300 5,100 20,600

Forest Service III 4,400 20,900 4,400 7,300

IV 12,900 20,100 1,800 5,500

V 3,600 2,000 100 700

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 600 8,800 400 1,400

IV 8,000 11,200 0 100

V 2,200 6,900 200 4,300

Private III 9,800 56,800 9,800 12,200

IV 83,500 100,900 10,300 24,000

V 29,400 17,400 1,200 3,400

State III 0 9,400 0 200

IV 14,100 18,800 0 0

V 2,100 1,300 100 200

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management
92 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface

Management

Agency

Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 800 1,200 0 0

V 1,900 6,200 1,900 6,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Assumes footprint of 73.2 meters for interstate highways, 25.6 meters for paved primary and secondary highways,

and 12.4 meters for other roads, such as graded county roads. This does not include two track primitive roads.

Table 3.39. Miles of Railroads in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

BLM III 22 100 22 26

IV 100 100 40 45

V 0 27 0 27

Forest Service III 0 0 0 0

IV 1 0 0 0

V 1 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 100 0 0

IV 14 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 11 100 11 7

IV 300 100 100 60

V 17 0 0 0

State III 0 0 0 0

IV 12 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 2

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 3 0 3 31

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3.40. Acres of Railroads in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

BLM III 400 82 97 400

IV 400 100 200 400

V 100 0 100 200

Forest Service III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 400 0 0 400

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management
Draft Resource Management 93

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Private III 400 40 28 400

IV 400 400 200 400

V 0 0 0 0

State III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 7 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 11 100 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Assumes footprint of 9.4 meters

3.11. Land Use and Realty

The Lands and Realty Program secures and protects the American public’s rights, title, value, and

interests in its public lands, and authorizes a variety of uses on those public lands in order to meet

the needs of present and future generations. Lands and realty actions ensure that public lands

are managed to benefit the public.

Lands and realty actions can be divided between land tenure adjustments and land use

authorizations. Land tenure adjustments focus primarily on land acquisition and disposal

(including easement acquisition), while land use authorizations consist of ROWs, communication

sites, and other leases or permits. Wind and solar renewable energy development are also

authorized by ROW grants through the Lands and Realty Program but are addressed separately in

this document.

Forest Service forest plan prescriptions are similar to BLM ROW exclusion and avoidance areas.

Prescriptions can restrict or prohibit certain uses in a planning area. It should also be noted that

the Forest Service grants special use authorizations (granting ROWs, permits, easements, and

leases), while the BLM grants ROWs on their respective agency lands. Lastly, the Forest Service

completes land ownership adjustments (purchase, exchange, donation, and ROW acquisition),

while the BLM conducts land tenure adjustments (disposals and acquisitions).

LUP decisions related to land designations and land classifications, as well as limitations or

restrictions on land use authorizations, stipulations, or land tenure changes (acquisition or disposal

of BLM- or Forest Service-administered lands) in the planning area, could affect the Lands

and Realty Program.

Current Condition

The planning area includes land in Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, Plumas, Sierra, Nevada,

and Alpine Counties in northeastern California, as well as 16 of 17 counties in Nevada, except

Clark County in the southern part of the state. These lands are owned or administered by multiple

tribes; federal, state, and local agencies; and private landowners. The configuration of land

ownerships and their proximity to each other is an important factor when considering land tenure

adjustments and evaluating ROW applications. Table 1-1 shows the acreage and overall percent

ownership for each land owner in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
94 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3-41, Acres of GRSG Habitat within City Limits, through Table 3-46, Acres of ROW

Exclusion/Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat, list data compiled in a baseline environmental

report produced by the USGS and the BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acreages and

mileages are presented by surface management agency and their presence in PGH and PPH

in the planning area.

Table 3.41. Acres of GRSG Habitat within City Limits

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 2,200 4,100 2,200 100

IV 19,700 1,100 1,000 0

V 0 0 0 0

Forest Service III 0 0 0 0

IV 700 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 100 0 0

IV 100 0 100 0

V 100 0 0 0

Private III 12,300 51,500 12,300 1,100

IV 43,400 4,100 1,700 0

V 4,500 300 4,200 300

State III 0 1,500 0 0

IV 2,800 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3.42. Number of Communication Towers in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Number1

within PGH

Number1

within PPH

Number1

within PGH

Number1

within PPH

BLM III 53 116 53 77

IV 163 182 39 30

V 44 59 10 47

Forest Service III 3 38 3 19

IV 36 22 1 11

V 16 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 3 0 0

IV 51 11 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 41 258 41 35

IV 199 162 18 66

V 28 9 11 3

State III 0 13 0 0

IV 23 17 0 0

V 7 0 4 0

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
Draft Resource Management 95

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Number1

within PGH

Number1

within PPH

Number1

within PGH

Number1

within PPH

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 3 0 0 0

V 12 13 12 13

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Displays the number of Federal Communication Commission communication towers

Table 3.43. Acres of Transmission Lines in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

BLM III 14,500 37,900 14,500 23,100

IV 42,000 83,600 4,900 19,000

V 29,400 28,200 4,300 11,800

Forest Service III 400 2,600 400 1,400

IV 3,500 5,800 1,500 1,300

V 1,300 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 800 0 0

IV 4,700 10,700 0 0

V 900 0 100 0

Private III 3,500 43,600 3,500 2,800

IV 57,900 47,000 6,200 17,500

V 8,100 5,900 1,200 1,500

State III 0 6,500 0 0

IV 11,200 6,500 0 0

V 200 300 0 200

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 900 2,800 0 0

V 500 4,100 500 4,100

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Includes transmission lines greater than 115-kV

Table 3.44. Miles of Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

BLM III 100 100 58 69

IV 200 200 26 102

V 100 100 19 56

Forest Service III 0 1 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
96 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

Miles

within PGH

Miles

within PPH

Private III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

State III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3.45. Acres of Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone1 Planning Area1

Acres2

within PGH

Acres2

within PPH

Acres2

within PGH

Acres2

within PPH

BLM III 39,100 101,600 39,100 45,300

IV 90,200 131,900 8,900 54,000

V 57,900 79,300 9,500 40,100

Forest Service III 300 900 300 500

IV 300 900 100 0

V 5,700 100 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 300 0 0

IV 700 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 2,000 19,900 2,000 3,300

IV 21,900 34,000 5,500 18,000

V 7,900 6,700 1,700 1,700

State III 0 3,900 0 100

IV 6,800 4,100 0 0

V 0 1,900 0 200

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 10,700 0 10,700

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Includes Section 368 energy corridors

2Acreages calculated by buffering corridor centerlines with varying widths based on the corridor width itself.

Acreages may appear in ownership with no miles due to size of buffers.

Table 3.46. Acres of ROW Exclusion/Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

BLM and Forest Service ROW

Exclusion Areas

3,229,500 167,200 453,500

BLM and Forest Service ROW

Avoidance Areas

190,900 13,200 101,000

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
Draft Resource Management 97

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Land Tenure

Land ownership (or land tenure) adjustment refers to those actions that result in the disposal or

exchange of public land or the acquisition by the BLM of nonfederal lands or interests in land.

The FLPMA requires that public land be retained in public ownership unless, as a result of land

use planning, disposal of certain parcels is warranted. The FLPMA also requires that lands

disposed of through sale are specifically identified in the relevant LUP. California BLM has

historically processed more Land Exchanges than Land Sales. However in recent planning efforts,

California BLM has identified numerous parcels for disposals by sale. Since land sales take

considerably less time to process, the BLM has been using sales to dispose of land that is difficult

to manage. Since the mid-1990s Nevada BLM also moved to completing land sales instead

of land exchanges because of the reduced time and costs. The Ely RMP currently identifies

45,000 acres of public land for sale in potential GRSG habitat, pursuant to the White Pine County

Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of December 20, 2006. Acquisition of land and

interests in land are important components of the BLM’s land tenure adjustment strategy. Land

and interest in lands are acquired for the following purposes in the public interest:

● To improve management of natural resources through consolidation of federal, state, and
 

private lands
 

● To secure key property necessary to protect endangered species, promote biological diversity,

increase recreational opportunities, and preserve archeological and historical resources

● To implement specific acquisitions authorized or directed by acts of Congress

BLM-administered lands determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM.

The lands are not sold at less than fair market value. Lands suitable for sale must be identified in

a LUP. Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not identified in the current LUP require a

LUPA before a sale can occur.

Disposal

Disposal areas include tracts of land that are economically difficult to manage and parcels

that could serve important public objectives such as expansion of communities and economic

development. These lands are usually disposed by land sales or with public or private partners

that allow the surrounding lands to be managed more effectively.

Land exchanges are generally initiated in direct response to public demand or by the BLM to

improve management of the public lands. Lands need to be formally determined as suitable for

exchange. In addition, lands considered for acquisition would be those lands that meet specific

land management goals identified in the LUP. Nonfederal lands are considered for acquisition

through exchange of suitable public land on a case-by-case basis where the exchange is in the

public interest and where acquisition of the nonfederal lands will contain higher resource or public

values than the public lands being exchanged.

Acquisition

Acquisition of other agency or private lands can be pursued to facilitate various resource

management objectives. Acquisitions, including easements, can be completed through exchange,

Land and Water Conservation Fund purchases, condemnation, or donations.

Withdrawals

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
98 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Withdrawn lands are lands that are reserved and set aside from application of some, or all, of

the public land and mining laws in order to provide for a specific designated use or to protect

specific resource values such as waterpower, reservoir sites, designated recreation areas,

and Federal Reserve water rights (which may include a land withdrawal). The segregation

effects of withdrawals can vary in time and which agency is responsible for administrative

jurisdiction. The withdrawal may be extended, modified, or eliminated through revocation or

relinquishment. Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major

federal investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public health and

safety. Withdrawals that are authorized pursuant to FLPMA are limited to a 20-year term, after

which the holding agency must reapply for the withdrawal to be extended. Terms established for

legislative withdrawals are made at the discretion of Congress.

Land Use Authorizations

The most common form of authorization to permit uses of BLM-administered lands by

commercial, private, or governmental entities is the Title V FLPMA ROW. A ROW grant is

an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for projects such as roads, pipelines,

transmission lines, or communication sites. The ROW grant authorizes rights and privileges for a

specific use of the land for a specific period of time. Leases may also be authorized pursuant to

FLPMA. ROWs and leases are generally authorized for long-term land uses (three years or more),

and some ROWs, depending on the use, and permits (e.g., filming permits) are used to authorize

short-term uses (less than three years). All ROW applications will be reviewed using the criteria of

following existing corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs.

ROWs

The BLM’s objective is to grant ROWs to any qualified individual, business, or government entity

and to direct and control the use of ROWs on public lands in a manner that:

● Protects the natural resources associated with public lands and adjacent lands, whether private

or administered by a government entity

● Prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands

● Promotes the use of ROWs in common, considering engineering and technological
 

compatibility, national security, and area LUPs
 

● Coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions with local, state, Native American,

and other federal agencies; interested individuals; and appropriate quasi-public entities (43

CFR 2801.2)

Private individuals and groups, as well as various businesses and government entities, can hold

these authorizations.

ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas are established and designated in the governing LUP

to protect or minimize development of specific lands. See Table 3-46, Acres of ROW

Exclusion/Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat.

Exclusion areas are closed to any ROW development.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
Draft Resource Management 99

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Avoidance areas are open to ROW development as long as the project meets the ROW avoidance

stipulations in the governing LUP that identifies the criteria that must be met for the project to be

authorized on or across those lands.

Corridors

Utility corridors are identified during the planning process with the intent of concentrating utility

lines in manageable locations on BLM-administered lands. The corridors may contain power

lines, fiber-optic communication cables, and gas pipelines; they may also hold other ROWs that

may be pertinent to the operations, such as substations or regeneration stations. Identifying

corridors does not necessarily mandate that facilities be located within the corridor, especially if

they are not compatible with other resource uses, values, and objectives in and near the corridors,

or if the corridors are already at maximum capacity with existing structures. See Table 3-45,

Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat, for an overview of the number and acreages of utility corridors.

Communication Sites

Communication sites contain equipment for various public and private tenants, including phone

companies; local utilities; and local, state, and other federal agencies.

Leases and Permits

Leases may be authorized for use, occupancy, and development pursuant to Section 302 of

FLPMA as well as 43 CFR 2920. These are generally used for activities that cannot be authorized

as a ROW or a withdrawal.

Forest Service-Administered Lands

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Several aspects of public land management must be considered in the Land and Resource

Management Planning process, including land tenure adjustments (i.e., disposals, acquisitions,

and withdrawals), ROWs, and permits and leases.

Land Ownership Adjustment

Forest Service-administered lands are exchanged to achieve a desired national forest land

ownership pattern that supports forest land and resource goals and objectives, addresses

fragmentation, reduces future management costs, and responds to urban and community needs.

Lands are purchased primarily through revenues generated from sale of BLM Lands deposited

into a special account known as the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act account

or other similarly legislated land acts within the State of Nevada to protect critical resource

areas and provide increased public recreation opportunities. Land donations, when determined

to be in the public interest, are to consolidate Forest Service-administered lands and protect

critical resource areas. Acquisition of road and trail ROWs often provides legal public access

to Forest Service-administered lands that are otherwise inaccessible. Opportunities for land

ownership adjustments are equally distributed across the affected Ranger Districts on Forest

Service-administered lands.

The landowner must be willing to engage in a land ownership adjustment, and the Forest Service

ensures that market value is obtained for lands or interests in lands to protect the public and

private property owner’s interests. The Forest Service has identified parcels that meet the criteria

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
100 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

for land adjustment. Other parcels not presently identified are evaluated under the merits of each

proposal. Nonfederal lands are considered for acquisition through exchange of suitable public

land on a case-by-case basis. The objectives of the Forest Service land ownership adjustment

program are to achieve the optimum land ownership pattern for the protection and management of

resource uses, settle land title claims, and provide resource administrators with title information

about the use of and resources on the land they administer. One of the objectives in all land

exchanges is keeping the surface and subsurface or mineral estate intact on both the disposed and

acquired lands to benefit future owners and use of their land.

Purchase. Land purchase can be pursued to facilitate various resource management objectives.

Lands considered for purchase would be those lands that meet specific land management goals

identified in the Forest Plan. Most funding for purchases comes from the Southern Nevada Public

Land Management Act and similarly enacted lands acts generated funds in the State of Nevada.

Special Use Authorizations. SUAs (granting ROWs, permits, easement, and leases) on

Forest Service-administered lands are necessary for all improvements such as roads, trails,

telephone lines, power lines, pipelines, ditches, and fences over private or other lands not

administered by the Forest Service. The Forest Service grants special use authorizations on

Forest Service-administered lands and acquires ROWs acquisitions across private property when

there are willing private property owners. To the extent possible, linear ROWs, such as roads

and pipelines, are routed where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources,

taking into account the point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and need of the project.

Although established corridors exist, this does not preclude the location of transportation and

transmission facilities in other areas if environmental analysis indicates that the facilities are

compatible with other resource values and objectives. Further identification of corridors may

not necessarily mandate that transportation and transmission facilities be located within these

areas if they are not compatible with other resource uses, values, and objectives in and near the

corridors or if the corridors are saturated. SUAs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations

and other mitigating measures. Restrictions and mitigating measures may be modified on a

case-by-case basis, depending on impacts on resources. Areas closed to mineral leasing, having

an NSO restriction, or otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy are

generally avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs.

SUAs authorize and administer use of public lands by individuals, companies, organized groups,

other federal agencies and state or local levels of government in a manner that protects natural

resource values and public health and safety. They authorize uses that contribute to the nation’s

infrastructure for generating and transmitting energy resources, including electric transmission

facilities, oil and gas pipelines, hydropower facilities, and wind and solar facilities. They authorize

uses for communications, commerce, public health and safety, and homeland security, including

fiber-optic and wireless telecommunications, water development systems, and federal, state, and

local highways. Table 3-47, Number of Special Use Authorizations on the Humboldt-Toiyabe

National Forest, lists the number of each type of special use permit on the National Forest.

Table 3.47. Number of Special Use Authorizations on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Use Number of Permits

Power lines 73

Road permits 103

Ditches 23

Communication permits 158

Transmission lines 121

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
Draft Resource Management 101

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Use Number of Permits

Dams and reservoirs 15

Recreation residences 98

Club/cabins 4

Cultural Use 3

Oil and gas pipelines 6

Monument 2

Ski area 2

Target range 2

Concession campground 5

Resorts 6

Group use 8

Filming 15

Telephone 59

Weather monitoring stations 9

Water monitoring 6

Wells of spring developments 10

Stream gauging stations 5

Stock water 2

Research/education 35

Outfitters and guides 63

Recreation events 18

Organization camps 5

Fences 8

Other Improvements/permits 11

Warehouse/storage yards 6

Weir 4

Water Treatment 1

Visitor Center/museum 3

Military training 5

Hydroelectric project 1

Airport 1

Railroad 1

Water storage 17

Tramway 1

Debris/siltation impoundment 5

Disposal site 4

Total 924

Source: Forest Service 2013c

The 1986 amendment to FLPMA, known as the Ditch Bill, provides for permanent easement for

agricultural water systems in use before 1976. Water users had 10 years from passage of the bill

to apply for existing structures located on Forest Service-administered lands. Currently, 23

easements have been issued under this law, with an estimated 7 additional applications being

processed.

Recreation Residence Permits. There are three summer home groups with a total of 98 cabins

located on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. In many areas, this use has existed since 1925.

Permits for the recreation residences are issued for 20 years. The purpose was to encourage use of

the National Forests by allowing individuals to build cabins and occupy them for a portion of

the year. Several thousand permits were issued nationwide. The current national policy is not to

issue any additional permits but to continue to acknowledge the recreational values associated

with the existing recreation residences and to reissue existing permits when the current permit

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Use and Realty
102 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

tenure expires. It is the intent of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest to conduct the proper

environmental analysis and reissue existing permits when the current permit tenure expires.

Trends on BLM-Administered Lands

Land Tenure Adjustments

Field offices in California and Nevada have been consolidating their lands to benefit the public

and increase the economic viability of local communities. This includes acquiring lands to create

a more contiguous land base and disposing of lands that are difficult to manage and serve no

benefit to the public or the agency. Because of the large percentage of federal lands compared

with state, local government, or private lands, this is expected to continue well into the future.

Trends on Forest Service-Administered Lands

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

As opportunities for land adjustments become available and there is a willing seller, these

cases will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with consideration for resource values and land

adjustment priorities within the state given the limited funding available. Two land adjustments in

GRSG habitat are currently being evaluated on the Mountain City Ranger District – the disposal

of the Mountain City Administrative Site, and the Small Tract Sale at the Rizzi Ranch.

Special land use applications are increasing as more people make use of Forest

Service-administered lands. Recreational residence permits are anticipated as a flat trend because

current national policy is not to issue any additional permits, and to reissue existing permits when

the current permit tenure expires.

3.12. Renewable Energy Resources

The BLM and the Forest Service are working with local communities, state regulators, industry,

and other federal agencies in building a clean energy future by providing sites for environmentally

sound development of renewable energy facilities on public lands. Renewable energy on BLMand Forest Service-administered lands includes solar, wind, and biomass resources and siting of

transmission facilities necessary to deliver this renewable energy to the consumer. As demand

has increased for clean and viable energy to power the nation, consideration of renewable energy

sources available on public lands has come to the forefront of land management planning.

Renewable energy resources all have different requirements related to economic development;

however, some issues are common to all renewable energy resources, including distance to

existing power transmission facilities and compatibility with existing federal land use. Wind and

solar resource facilities are permitted with ROWs through the Lands and Realty Program.

In cooperation with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the BLM assessed renewable

energy resources on public lands in the western US (BLM and DOE 2003). The BLM reviewed

the potential for concentrated solar power, photovoltaics, wind, and biomass energy on BLM-,

Bureau of Indian Affairs-, and Forest Service-administered lands in the western US, except in

Alaska. In December 2005, the BLM signed a ROD for the Wind Programmatic EIS (BLM

2005b), and in October 2012, the BLM signed a ROD for Solar Energy Development in Six

Southwestern States (BLM 2012h).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy Resources
Draft Resource Management 103

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Although geothermal is a renewable energy source, it is managed as a leasable fluid mineral and

therefore is discussed in Section 3.12, Mineral Resources.

As of 2010, the BLM’s renewable energy policy is directed by the following regulations and

executive orders:

● The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title II, Sec. 211), which requires the DOI to approve at least

10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2015

● Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects, which requires federal

agencies to expedite review of energy project applications

● Secretarial Order 3285, which requires the DOI to identify and prioritize specific locations
 

best suited for large-scale renewable energy production
 

Additionally, the BLM has specific guidance for certain types of renewable energy. The primary

Instruction Memoranda are summarized here:

● IM 2011-061, Solar and Wind Energy Applications – Pre-Application and Screening
 

provides updated guidance on the review of ROW applications for solar and wind energy
 

development projects on public lands administered by the BLM. This IM updates the Solar
 

Energy Development Policy (IM 2011-003), issued October 7, 2010, and the Wind Energy
 

Development Policy (2009-043) issued December 19, 2008 (BLM 2010b).
 

● IM 2011-060, Solar and Wind Energy Applications – Due Diligence, provides updated
 

guidance on the due diligence requirements of ROW applicants for solar and wind energy
 

development projects on public lands administered by the BLM, and updates the Solar
 

Energy Development Policy (IM 2011-003) and the Wind Energy Development Policy (IM
 

2009-043) (BLM 2010c).
 

● IM 2011-059, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Utility-Scale Renewable

Energy Right-of-Way Authorizations (BLM 2011g). The purpose of this IM is to reiterate and

clarify existing BLM NEPA Policy to assist offices that are analyzing externally-generated,

utility-scale renewable ROW applications (BLM 2011g).

● IM 2011-003, Solar Energy Development Policy (BLM 2011h), establishes updated

policy for the processing of ROW applications for solar energy development projects on

BLM-administered lands and evaluating the feasibility of installing solar energy systems on

BLM administrative facilities and projects.

● IM 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy (BLM 2008i), provides updated guidance
 

on implementing the ROD for the Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development (BLM
 

2005b) and processing ROW applications for wind energy projects on BLM-administered
 

lands.
 

● IM 2004-227, Biomass Utilization Strategy (BLM 2004e), updated in July 2005, provides sets

of goals to help focus and increase utilization of biomass from BLM-administered lands. In

June 2005, the final rule in the Federal Register revised the authority of 48 CFR Part 1452

by adding 1452.237-71, which is a new contract clause for removal and utilization of woody

biomass generated as a result of land management service contracts whenever ecologically

and lawfully appropriate. The BLM issued IM 2009-120 in May 2009, which updated the

contract clause for utilization for woody biomass (BLM 2009c).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy Resources
104 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Section 501(a)(4) of the FLPMA, 43 USC 1761(a)(4) (FSM 2701.1, para. 15), authorizes the

Forest Service to issue ROWs for the use and occupancy of Forest Service-administered lands

for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005

recognizes the Forest Service’s role in meeting the renewable energy goals of the United States.

Consistent with Forest Service policies and procedures, the use and occupancy of Forest

Service-administered lands for renewable energy production, such as wind energy development,

are appropriate and will help meet the energy needs of the United States. Permits for solar energy

power facilities are issued only if non-Forest Service-administered lands are not available and if

adverse impacts can be minimized. Permits for geothermal energy power facilities are issued

only if feasibility studies have determined that it is not feasible to transmit geothermal water to a

power-generating facility on non-Forest Service-administered lands and if adverse impacts can

be minimized.

For BLM-administered lands, solar and wind projects are authorized via the ROW process.

Wind and solar renewable resource production are permitted with special use authorizations in

the Forest Service. ROW applications are generally accepted and processed on a first-come,

first-served basis. The ROW regulations (43 CFR 2804.23[c]) provide authority for offering

public lands under competitive bidding procedures for ROW authorizations. The BLM initiates

a competitive process if a land use planning decision has specifically identified an area for

competitive leasing. The BLM may also consider other public interest and technical factors

in determining whether to offer lands for competitive leasing. Competitive bidding follows

procedures required by 43 CFR 2804.23(c).

Current Condition

California and Nevada are at the forefront for permitting renewable energy on public lands. The

DOI has approved 91 renewable energy projects within California and Nevada, 21 of which

are located in the planning area. Renewable energy facilities in the planning area are shown

on Figure 3-13, Renewable Energy.

(PDF Map 3–13)

Figure 3.13. Renewable Energy

Wind Energy

California and Nevada have more than 150 megawatts of developed wind capacity. An additional

828 to 1,080 megawatts are slated for development by 2014. California and Nevada have the

potential to contribute nearly 1,080 megawatts of wind-generated energy. This amount of energy

would provide enough energy for over 250,000 homes in California and Nevada.

There are 114,936 acres of wind energy ROWs in the planning area (see Table 3-48, Acres

of Wind Energy Rights-of-Way in GRSG Habitat); however, there is currently one active

industrial-scale wind energy generation facilities in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy Resources
Draft Resource Management 105

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.48. Acres of Wind Energy ROWs in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres

within PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres

within PPH

BLM III 67,000 136,600 67,000 65,300

IV 296,500 580,600 700 900

V 138,000 300,300 41,500 199,700

Forest Service III 200 200 200 200

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 0 0 0

IV 200 1,700 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 3,800 5,500 3,800 5,400

IV 2,300 13,900 400 800

V 3,400 6,500 200 5,000

State III 0 100 0 0

IV 400 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 100 100

Source: Manier et al. 2013

In recent years, there has been new interest in wind-site testing, monitoring activities, and

development on public lands in California and Nevada. Since 2008, California and Nevada BLM

have received nine wind meteorological tower testing ROW applications. Most wind test ROWs

are located throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. These ROWs have an authorized

term of three years. When added together, the wind test ROWs encompass approximately 55,100

acres of BLM-administered lands.

Wind energy developments on Forest Service-administered lands have not been proposed as

of this time. Although the potential in the forest area for wind energy development is high in

many locations, the terrain and lack of accessibility to the grid makes it generally unsuitable

for development.

California and Nevada have received five wind energy turbine development ROW applications.

These application are in the planning process, have been rejected, or the applicant has withdrawn.

Solar Energy

Although there are solar projects located in California and Nevada, there are no solar energy

ROWs in the planning area (Manier et al. 2013).

Biomass

Currently, there is no significant commercial biomass energy economy for pinyon-juniper biomass

in the planning area other than for incidental use as a firewood fuel, for heating of a school

in White Pine County (BLM 2007d), and for a cogeneration biomass and geothermal plant in

Lassen County. An emerging market may exist within five to ten years as field portable energy

concentrating technology becomes available, longer-term and larger area land treatment contracts

are established that provide a commercially reliable source of pinyon-juniper feedstock, an

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy Resources
106 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

adequate land treatment and biomass transportation service industry is established, the creation

of a sustained pinyon-juniper biomass feedstock demand to support, and commercially viable

stationary plant or field mobile bioenergy generation facilities are developed.

Trends

Within California and Nevada, greater pressure to develop renewable energy resources on public

lands is expected to occur as a result of public energy policy coming from individual states or the

federal government. The development of more energy-efficient technologies for wind, biomass,

and solar power will continue to grow because of increasing regulation of other energy sources,

increased price of fossil fuels, and the increasing demand for energy products. The development

of these resources can diversify and improve the area’s energy reliability and will increase the

demand for more ROWs and facility authorizations.

The demand for renewable energy-related ROWs will likely increase nationally. The most likely

trend for using solar, wind, and biomass energy resources will be to continue to develop more of

these types of alternative sources and to develop ways to make them more efficient to take the

pressure off the fossil fuel resource and to be less dependent on nonrenewable energy sources.

3.13. Mineral Resources

Leasable Minerals

Leasable minerals, as defined by the Mineral Leasing Act (February 1920) and 43 CFR Parts

3000-3599 (1990), include leasable solid and leasable fluid minerals. Leasable fluid minerals

include oil, natural gas (including methane, coal bed natural gas, and carbon dioxide), and

geothermal resources. Leasable solid minerals include coal, native asphalt, phosphate, sodium,

potassium, and sulfur. The rights to explore for and produce these minerals on public land are

acquired through leasing.

In addition to the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act

of 1987 regulates oil and gas leasing activities on Forest Service-administered lands. This act

expands the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in the management of oil and gas resources

on Forest Service-administered lands. Without Forest Service approval, the BLM cannot issue

leases for oil and gas on Forest Service-administered lands. With the exception of geothermal

activities on unleased lands, the BLM must approve all surface-disturbing activities on Forest

Service-administered lands before operations commence. The BLM and Forest Service reserve

the right to require additional mitigation measures, in the form of COAs, at the time an APD is

approved if doing so is necessary for protection of other resources.

Fluid Leasable Minerals

Fluid leasable minerals are oil (including oil shale) and gas (including shale gas) and geothermal.

Leasable minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which

authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing system. Geothermal is also

governed by the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. The rights to explore for and

produce fluid minerals on public land may only be acquired through leasing.

Not all lands are open to fluid mineral leasing; BLM will not issue leases for lands within the

National Park System, National Recreation Areas, fish hatcheries or wildlife management areas

administered by the DOI, Indian trust or restricted lands within or outside the boundaries of

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
Draft Resource Management 107

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Indian reservations, Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas administered by BLM, Forest

Service, or other surface management agencies, or lands designated by Congress as wilderness

study areas. In addition, leases are not issued if it is determined by the BLM or Forest Service that

issuing the lease would cause unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands and resources.

Leases are issued through a competitive or noncompetitive process. Competitive leases are

offered through a bid process in areas nominated by interested parties. Noncompetitive leases are

issued over the counter after the competitive bidding process, if the parcels are not sold during the

competitive bid process. BLM leasing authority is in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of

1920, and associated 43 CFR Part 3100 for oil and gas and Part 3200 for geothermal. During

the leasing process, the BLM may apply lease stipulations. The Forest Service may also provide

stipulations to be added to a lease as a condition of their consent to leasing. A lease stipulation

is a provision that modifies standard lease rights. Stipulations are in addition to restrictions

applied to field operations by federal regulations and become part of the lease, superseding any

inconsistent provisions of the standard lease forms.

Fluid Mineral Stipulations

During the leasing process, the Forest Service and BLM may apply stipulations to leases in

order to provide protections for other resource values or land uses (e.g., cultural resources and

wildlife) by establishing authority for timing delays, site changes, or the denial of operations

within the terms of the standard lease contract. There are three types of stipulations: NSO, CSU,

TL. These are defined as follows:

● No Surface Occupancy (NSO). On lands covered by the NSO stipulation, use or occupancy of

the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is prohibited to protect identified

resource values. Fluid minerals could be leased, but the leaseholder/operator would have to

use off-site methods such as directional drilling to access the mineral resource. NSO is the

most restrictive type of stipulation.

● Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Under the CSU stipulations, use and occupancy is allowed

(unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special

operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. While less restrictive than an NSO, a

CSU stipulation allows the BLM or surface managing agency to require special operational

constraints, to shift the surface-disturbing activity, or to require additional protective measures

(e.g., special construction techniques for preventing erosion in sensitive soils) to protect the

specified resource or value.

● Timing Limitations (TLs). A TL stipulation prohibits surface use during specified time

periods to protect identified resource values. This stipulation does not apply to the operation

and maintenance of production facilities unless the findings of analysis demonstrate the

continued need for such mitigation and that less stringent, project-specific mitigation measures

would be insufficient.

Most but not all stipulations attached to leases at the time of sale have a provision, specified in the

individual LUP, for granting exceptions, modifications, or waivers. An exception is a case-by-case

exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation continues to apply to all other sites within the

leasehold to which the restrictive criterion applies. A modification is a fundamental change to the

provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease. A modification

may, therefore, include an exemption from or alteration to a stipulated requirement. Depending

on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all other sites within the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
108 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

leasehold to which the restrictive criteria applied. A waiver is a permanent exemption from a

lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere within the leasehold.

In addition to the designations and stipulations described above, federal regulations give the

BLM the authority to ensure that oil and gas activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes

impacts on other resources and resource uses and protects human health and safety. These

protections are accomplished through the BLM’s inspection and enforcement program, as well

as through the attachment of COAs to each APD approved. This is in conjunction with the

NEPA process and during review of individual applications for permit to drill and of sundry

notices submitted in conjunction with proposed changes in well pad design and operation. These

COAs typically include BMPs and other required mitigation measures, including attachment

of TLs up to 60 days in duration.

The federal fluid mineral regulations do not allow the BLM to attach new stipulations to a lease

after its issuance, without the consent of the lessee. Similar, the BLM may not apply COAs and

other post-leasing restrictions that result in de facto application of a new lease stipulation. Thus,

for example, the BLM cannot apply a project-specific COA that is equivalent to an NSO on the

lease since such restriction would violate the valid existing property rights conveyed with the

leasehold.

Table 3-49, Stipulations Related to GRSG and Its Habitat, shows stipulations applicable to

actions on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands.

Solid (Non-energy) Leasable Minerals

Solid leasable minerals are coal, sodium, potash, and phosphate. Similar to fluid leasable

minerals, discussed above, non-energy leasable minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing

Act of 1920, as amended, which authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing

system. The basic process starts with a prospecting permit under 43 CFR Part 3500 that allows

surface disturbance to determine if a valuable mineral exists. If the permittee demonstrates the

discovery of a valuable deposit of the leasable mineral for which the BLM issued the permit, the

BLM may issue a preference right lease to that permittee without competition.

The rules for leasing coal (43 CFR Part 3400) are significantly different from those of the other

solid minerals but will not be discussed further in this LUPA/EIS because there are no leasable

coal deposits in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
109 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.49. Stipulations Related to GRSG Habitat

Stipulation

Type

Elko District

Office

Ely District Office Winnemucca District

Office

Battle Mountain

District Office

Carson City

District Office

Northern CA

Field Office

Forest Service

Seasonal Seasonal

restrictions

from

disturbance in

GRSG crucial

winter habitat

apply during

the period

November

1 to March

15. This

stipulation

does not apply

to operating

facilities.

No surface activity

would be allowed

within winter

range for GRSG

from November 1

through March 31.

Exception: An

exception to this

stipulation may be

granted by the BLM

Authorized Officer,

in consultation

with NDOW,

if the operator

submits a plan that

demonstrates that

impacts from the

proposed action

are minimal or

can be adequately

mitigated.

NV-WDO-WILD-02,

TL (2002/2008)

Timing limitations on

known or potential

GRSG habitat. Prior

to entry on any lease

areas which include

known or potential

habitat, the lessee

(operator) shall contact

the appropriate BLM

Field Office to discuss

any proposed activities.

During the times

specified below, avoid

all development or

exploration activities

within known or

potential nesting,

brood-rearing, and

winter habitat, and

within 1 kilometer

Tonopah: No surface

use is allowed during

the following time

period(s). This

stipulation does not

apply to operations

and maintenance of

production facilities.

GRSG winter habitat

from February 15 to

May 15.

Mount Lewis: Same

as seasonal range.

Seasonal

restriction on

activities from

March 1 to July

30 on GRSG

habitat in the Pine

Nut Mountains.

Alturas:

NSO within

1⁄4-mile of active

GRSG leks.

Seasonal

restrictions from

March 1-June

15 within GRSG

habitat.

From March

1 to June 15,

maintenance

would not be

permitted between

3:00 am and 9:00

am.

Exhaust noise

from pump jacks

must be muffled so

Stipulation:

Controlled Surface

Use

Objective: To

require that activities

be located and/or

designed to avoid

or minimize the

potential for adverse

effects on GRSG

summer habitat and

to ensure that the

viability of GRSG

is not adversely

affected.

Waiver: None

Exception: None

Modification: A

modification of the

Modification:

The boundaries

of the stipulated

area may be

modified if the BLM

Authorized Officer,

in consultation with

NDOW, determines

that portions of

the area no longer

contain GRSG

winter habitat.

The dates for the

timing restriction

may be modified

(0.6 mile) of known

or potential habitat

(PMUs). The times

specified are per

interim Nevada

Guidelines or as

determined by Field

Office and Wildlife

personnel.

Nesting habitat and

brood-rearing habitats:

April through August

as not to exceed 75

decibels measured

at 30 feet from

the source of the

noise. Exceptions

to thisrequirement

will be considered

for areas of no

or low GRSG

strutting activity,

or unoccupied

habitat, including

leks.

Eagle Lake:

stipulation may be

granted if new habitat

studies or surveys

show that a portion

of the area does

not contain summer

habitat or the habitat

is not occupied; the

SLT would then

apply.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
110 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Stipulation

Type

Elko District

Office

Ely District Office Winnemucca District

Office

Battle Mountain

District Office

Carson City

District Office

Northern CA

Field Office

Forest Service

if new information

indicates the dates Winter habitats: No Stipulations.

are not valid for the October through

leasehold. March. Surprise:

Waiver: The

stipulation may Within 0.30 mile

be waived if the

BLM Authorized

Officer, in

of leks, reduce

human activity in

early morning and

consultation

with NDOW,

determines that the

late evening from

March 1to May

15.

entire leasehold

no longer contains

winter range for

GRSG.

Brood Seasonal No Stipulation. Timing limitations on Tonopah: No No Stipulation. Alturas: Stipulation: Timing

Rearing protection known or potential Stipulation. Limitation: March 15

from GRSG habitat. Prior Seasonal to July 15.

disturbance. to entry on any lease Mount Lewis: Same restrictions from

Seasonal areas which include as seasonal range. March 1 to June Objective: To protect

restrictions known or potential 15 within GRSG occupied or potential

from habitat, the lessee habitat. habitat for nesting and

disturbance (operator) shall contact early brood-rearing.

on GRSG the appropriate BLM From March

brood rearing Field Office to discuss 1 to June 15, Waiver: None.

areas apply

within 0.5

any proposed activities.

During the times

maintenance

would not be Exception: None.

mile or other

appropriate

distance

based on

site-specific

conditions

from 5/15

to 8/15,

inclusive.

This

specified below, avoid

all development or

exploration activities

within known or

potential nesting,

brood-rearing, and

winter habitat, and

within 1 kilometer

(0.6 mile) of known

or potential habitat

permitted between

3:00 am and 9:00

am.

Eagle Lake:

NA

Surprise:

Modification: A

modification of the

Stipulation/Lease

Restriction may be

granted if new habitat

studies or surveys

show that a portion

of the area does not

contain nesting/early

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
111 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Stipulation

Type

Elko District

Office

Ely District Office Winnemucca District

Office

Battle Mountain

District Office

Carson City

District Office

Northern CA

Field Office

Forest Service

restriction

does not apply

(PMUs). The times

specified are per Within 0.30 mile

brood rearing habitat

or the habitat is not

to operating

facilities.

interim Nevada

Guidelines or as

determined by Field

of leks, reduce

human activity in

early morning and

occupied; the SLT

would then apply.

Office and Wildlife

personnel.

Nesting habitat and

brood-rearing habitats:

April through August

Winter habitats:

October through March

late evening, from

March 1 to May

15.

GRSG Leks Seasonal

protection

from

disturbance.

No Surface

Occupancy

is permitted

within 0.5

mile, or

other lesser,

appropriate

distance,

based on

site-specific

conditions of

GRSG leks.

No surface use

would be allowed

within 0.25 mile of

a GRSG lek.

Exception: An

exception to this

stipulation may be

granted by the BLM

Authorized Officer,

in consultation

with NDOW,

if the operator

submits a plan that

demonstrates that

impacts from the

proposed action

would not affect

breeding activity

nor degrade the

integrity of the

habitat associated

with the GRSG lek.

No surface occupancy

within 3.3 kilometers

(2 miles) of known leks

at all times.

Tonopah: No surface

use is allowed within

0.25 mile radius of

a GRSG lek(s). All

valleys throughout the

BLM Battle Mountain

Resource Area. This

stipulation does not

apply to operations

and maintenance of

production facilities.

No surface activity is

allowed within two

miles of a GRSG

lek from March 1

through May 15. This

stipulation does not

apply to operations

and maintenance of

production facilities.

Spring

restrictions on

GRSG strutting

grounds north

of Cold Springs

in the Dixie and

Edwards Creek

Valley Area.

Alturas:

Seasonal

restrictions from

March 1 to June

15 within GRSG

habitat.

From March

1 to June 15,

maintenance

would not be

permitted between

3:00 am and 9:00

am.

Exhaust noise

from pump jacks

must be muffled

so as not to exceed

75 decibels,

measured at 30

feet from the

Stipulation: No

Surface Occupancy

- 3 kilometers radius

buffer around leks.

Objective: To

preclude disturbance

to all leks.

Waiver: None.

Exception: None.

Modification: A

modification of the

Stipulation/Lease

Restriction may be

granted if field studies

show that a lek is

not active (has not

been used in the last 5

years); the SLT would

then apply.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
112 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Stipulation

Type

Elko District

Office

Ely District Office Winnemucca District

Office

Battle Mountain

District Office

Carson City

District Office

Northern CA

Field Office

Forest Service

Modification:

The boundaries

of the stipulated

area may be

modified if the BLM

Authorized Officer,

in consultation with

NDOW, determines

that portions of

the area can be

occupied without

adversely affecting

the GRSG lek.

Waiver: The

stipulation may

be waived if the

BLM Authorized

Officer, in

consultation

with NDOW,

determines that

the lek has been

inactive for at least

five consecutive

years or the habitat

has changed such

that there is no

likelihood the lek

would become

active.

Mount Lewis: Same

as Seasonal Range.

source of noise.

Exceptions to this

requirement will

be considered

for areas of no

or low GRSG

strutting activity,

or unoccupied

habitat, including

leks.

Eagle Lake:

No Stipulation.

Surprise:

Within 0.30 mile

of leks, reduce

human activity in

early morning and

late evening from

March 1 to May

15.

Source: BLM and Forest Service 2008, Forest Service 2007b

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
Draft Resource Management 113

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals include, but are not limited to, gold, silver, platinum, copper, lead, zinc,

magnesium, nickel, tungsten, bentonite, uranium, vanadium, and uncommon varieties of mineral

materials.

Acquisition of locatable minerals is executed by staking a mining claim over the deposit and

acquiring the necessary permits to explore or mine. Within a mining claim, the surface lands

remain open to the public for other multiple uses. Placer claims, which are for minerals found in

geologic sediments rather than in veins, are also managed under the General Mining Law of 1872.

Miners locate claims in order to develop the mineral values in a specified area. For operations

other than casual use, the claimant is required to submit a Notice or a Plan of Operations.

Regulations require the claimant to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the land. The

BLM may recommend closures to mineral entry (a land use planning decision) by petitioning the

Secretary of the Interior to withdraw areas from further location of mining claims or sites. The

Forest Service may also ask that lands be withdrawn from mineral entry by a request through the

BLM to the Secretary of the Interior.

Mineral Materials

Mineral materials are common varieties of construction materials and aggregates such as sand,

stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, petrified wood, roadbed, and ballast material that may be

disposed of under the Mineral Materials Sale Act of 1947. Mineral materials are sold at a fair

market value or through free use permits to governmental agencies. Local government agencies

and non-profit organizations may obtain these materials free of cost for community purposes.

County and state road construction divisions are significant users of gravel and sand resources.

These operations can occur for a specific time frame or can be permitted for a 10-year term. The

BLM sells material out of community pits at fair market value using a mineral material negotiated

contract or cash sale. The Forest Service also disposes of mineral materials by free use or sale.

Disposal of mineral materials is discretionary.

The BLM administers all federally owned minerals that lie beneath both federal and non-federal

lands. For this LUPA, the BLM and Forest Service are not making decisions on federal minerals

beneath surfaces managed by other federal agencies; therefore, only federal minerals beneath

BLM-administered, Forest Service-administered, private, and state surface are discussed in

Chapters 3 and 4 as being part of the decision area.

Current Conditions

Leasable Minerals

Oil and Gas

There are two major oil- and gas-producing basins in the planning area: Railroad Valley and Pine

Valley. Both valleys currently have production in oil only. These areas are described below.

Ely District Office. The highest oil producing region in Nevada is Railroad Valley, much of which

is located in the Ely District Office. Railroad Valley is an elongated valley trending north to south;

it is approximately 80 miles long and up to 20 miles wide. Railroad Valley is the predominant

oil-producing valley in Nevada. The Grant Canyon No. 3 well in Railroad Valley was one of the

most prolific onshore oil wells in the continental United States, flowing up to 4,300 barrels of

oil per day (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology undated). In addition to the high potential

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
114 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

area of Railroad Valley, much of the Ely District Office is identified as moderate potential and

low potential for petroleum. Recent interest has focused on and will likely continue to focus on

the Chainman Shale and the Pilot Shale. As a result, drilling on federal mineral estate in the Ely

District Office is expected to increase. Much of the moderate to high potential areas identified for

petroleum in the Ely District Office are identified as GRSG habitat.

Battle Mountain District Office. A portion of the Railroad Valley, described above, lies in the

Battle Mountain District Office; this portion is not identified as GRSG habitat. In addition to

the high potential area of Railroad Valley, a small portion of the remaining area of the Battle

Mountain District Office is identified as moderate potential and low potential for petroleum. The

areas within the Battle Mountain District Office that contain GRSG habitat are identified as

moderate to low potential for petroleum. Recent interest has focused on, and will likely continue

to focus on, the Chainman Shale and the Pilot Shale. As a result, drilling on federal mineral estate

in the Battle Mountain District Office is expected to increase.

Elko District Office. The second highest oil-producing region in Nevada is Pine Valley, which is

located in the Elko District Office. Pine Valley is an elongated valley trending north to south; it is

approximately 30 miles long and 15 miles wide. Pine Valley lies in Eureka County. Production of

oil in Pine Valley has been declining over recent years. Oil and gas operators have not indicated

an interest in drilling new wells in Pine Valley. To the east and northeast of Pine Valley is an area

identified as moderate potential for the presence of petroleum. There are plans to explore for oil

to the west of the City of Wells and in the valleys west of the Ruby Mountains, targeting the Elko

formation. As a result, drilling on federal mineral estate in the Elko District Office is expected

to increase. Much of the moderate-to-high-potential areas identified for petroleum in the Elko

District Office are identified as GRSG habitat.

In 2007, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest issued a ROD which specified lands in the White

Pine and Grant-Quinn Divisions that are available for oil and gas leases and the conditions

controlling those leases (Forest Service 2007b). The decision makes available 255,603 acres of

Forest Service-administered lands in the planning area for oil and gas leasing. This decision does

not authorize specific lease activities in specific areas. A separate analysis compliant with the

NEPA and a separate decision will be necessary to authorize those activities.

As shown on Table 3-50, Acres Open to Oil and Gas Leasing in GRSG Habitat, and Table 3-51,

Acres Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing in GRSG Habitat, the majority of the planning area is open

to oil and gas leasing; 87 percent is open while only 13 percent is closed. There are currently

4,664,700 acres of lands open to oil and gas leasing in PGH and 11,397,200 acres open in PPH.

Table 3.50. Acres Open to Oil and Gas Leasing in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 3,032,100 6,067,200 3,032,100 4,762,700

IV 4,662,800 12,348,100 743,000 3,467,600

V 4,118,400 4,399,200 399,700 2,103,400

Forest Service III 0 610,900 0 0

IV 240,200 234,200 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
Draft Resource Management 115

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 19,900 0 0

IV 500 10,300 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 0 191,500 0 0

IV 173,100 275,900 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

State III 0 46,200 0 0

IV 8,600 20,400 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Assumes footprint of 9.4 meters

Table 3.51. Acres Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 167,700 222,700 167,700 196,200

IV 261,500 1,304,200 27,000 230,100

V 78,300 818,700 77,800 817,300

Forest Service III 68,400 115,800 68,400 115,800

IV 4,600 69,600 4,500 69,600

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 200 0 200 0

IV 442,300 637,300 0 0

V 600 4,700 600 4,700

Private III 5,000 8,400 5,000 8,100

IV 9,800 26,500 2,600 11,500

V 2,100 25,400 2,100 25,200

State III 0 0 0 0

IV 9,300 21,600 0 0

V 700 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 700 0 700

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Assumes footprint of 9.4 meters

As shown by the data on Table 3-52, Acres of Oil and Gas Leases in GRSG Habitat, there are

more than 1,586,200 acres of authorized oil and gas leases in PPH and PGH. As shown in Table

3-53, Acres of Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production in GRSG Habitat, there are 4,400 acres

held by production in PPH and PGH.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
116 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.52. Acres of Oil and Gas Leases in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 499,400 1,175,600 499,400 816,800

IV 74,500 215,700 28,900 199,800

V 0 0 0 0

Forest Service III 0 52,100 0 0

IV 3,800 1,700 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 100 0 100 0

IV 900 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 12,600 31,200 12,600 9,700

IV 21,000 28,500 5,000 13,900

V 0 0 0 0

State III 0 2,000 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3.53. Acres of Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 1,300 18,400 1,300 3,100

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Forest Service III 0 13,200 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 0 7,300 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

State III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3-54, Acres of Oil and Gas Wells in GRSG Habitat, shows the acres of wells in the planning

area. Figure 3-14, Existing Oil and Gas Leases and Wells, shows the oil and gas lease areas and

the oil and gas leases in production in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
Draft Resource Management 117

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.54. Acres of Oil and Gas Wells in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 200 1,100 200 400

IV 0 100 0 100

V 0 0 0 0

Forest Service III 0 100 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 400 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 0 1,300 0 0

IV 100 100 0 100

V 0 0 0 0

State III 0 400 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Assumes footprint of 62 square meters per well

Oil and Gas Potential

Swings in the natural gas market price are the likely driver in the industry’s interest for oil and gas

leases and the resulting requests for leasing and for filing of APDs. As prices rise, more interest in

oil and gas development is expected (BLM 2009a).

Geothermal Resources

Geothermal resources are significant within portions of the planning area. In recent years,

industry has focused its exploration and utilization efforts in Nevada more so than in any other

state. As a result several geothermal power plants have been constructed. Recently completed

geothermal power plants in Nevada include the McGinness Hills Geothermal Power Plant

(45-megawatt capacity) and the Jersey Valley Power Plant (15-megawatt capacity). In addition,

there are six geothermal power plants approved or pending approval within the planning area

that have not been constructed. These plants have the potential to produced approximately 285

megawatts. Figure 3-15, Existing Geothermal Leases and Power Plants, shows the lease areas

and geothermal power plants in the planning area.

(PDF Map 3–14)

Figure 3.14. Existing Oil and Gas Leases and Wells

(PDF Map 3–15)

Figure 3.15. Existing Geothermal Leases and Power Plants

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
118 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

In 2012, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest issued a ROD that identified approximately 4,000

acres on the Austin/Tonopah Ranger Districts and 3,500 acres within the Ely Ranger District that

are available for geothermal leasing. Under this decision, the Forest Service will consent to lease

Forest Service-administered Lands with an NSO stipulation applicable to PGH and PPH.

As shown by the data on Table 3-55, Acres of Geothermal Resource Potential in GRSG Habitat,

the majority of the planning area is open to geothermal leasing; 88 percent is open while only 12

percent is closed. There are 4,664,700 acres open to geothermal leasing in PGH and 11,397,200

acres in PPH.

Table 3.55. Acres of Geothermal Resource Potential in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1 within

PPH

BLM III 3,199,800 5,991,200 3,199,800 4,944,800

IV 4,927,900 13,710,800 769,900 3,609,900

V 4,196,700 5,117,600 477,600 2,820,300

Forest Service III 356,200 781,900 356,200 596,500

IV 1,111,800 1,613,800 187,000 591,800

V 114,900 62,200 7,700 23,200

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 29,100 118,600 14,600 53,800

IV 522,500 633,600 2,100 1,900

V 101,800 717,100 24,900 461,400

Private III 384,800 966,500 384,800 537,700

IV 3,414,800 4,890,200 434,700 1,558,700

V 1,199,000 798,000 56,300 167,200

State III 200 151,600 200 5,600

IV 835,800 1,019,400 400 800

V 115,800 64,900 5,600 11,000

Other III 0 100 0 100

IV 31,400 62,900 0 100

V 79,800 337,500 76,100 337,500

Source: Manier et al. 2013

As shown by the data on Table 3-56, Acres of Geothermal Leases in GRSG Habitat, there are

1,107,200 acres of authorized geothermal leases in the planning area. Of these leases, 37,936

acres are in production status. Within GRSG habitat there are 108,800 acres of geothermal leases

in PPH and 60,800 acres in PGH.

Table 3.56. Acres of Geothermal Leases in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 52,100 72,600 52,100 72,200

IV 16,600 56,400 7,700 36,100

V 31,200 10,600 600 500

Forest Service III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
Draft Resource Management 119

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 0 0 0

IV 100 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Private III 600 200 600 200

IV 1,300 1,400 600 1,300

V 600 300 100 0

State III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 100 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Geothermal Potential

The planning area has significant geothermal potential. Based on USGS data, there is particularly

high potential within northeastern portions of the planning area (Williams et al. 2008). However,

the BLM has seen a decrease in geothermal activities recently.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Identified solid leasable minerals in the planning area include potassium and sodium. Within the

planning area there are 3,660 acres of approved solid leasable leases and prospecting permits.

None of these permits are located within PGH or PPH (BLM 2013b).

While solid leasable minerals are present in the planning area, they are not a significant resource

and there is no significant production of these minerals underway. However, several BLM

districts have seen an increase in application submittals. There are 41 pending prospect permit

applications (81,302 acres) (BLM 2013b) in the planning area. Thirty of these pending permits are

within the Battle Mountain District Office and total 58,908 acres. None of the pending permits are

in PGH or PPH. There is one prospecting permit application (2,560 acres) pending for phosphate

within the Elko District Office that is located in both PGH and PPH.

Ten pending prospecting permits for potassium are within the Winnemucca District Office (19,834

acres). Portions of these leases are also located within PGH and PPH.

Locatable Minerals

Mineral exploration and the development of locatable mineral deposits are non-discretionary

actions allowed under the General Mining Law of 1872 on all BLM-administered and Forest

Service-administered lands, unless they are withdrawn from mineral entry by Secretarial Public

Land Order (PLO) or an act of Congress. Subject to valid existing rights, these areas are

withdrawn from further location of mining claims or sites. Stipulations do not apply to locatable

mineral development. However all operations under a BLM Plan or Forest Service Plan of

Operations are required to follow the performance standards in 43 CFR 3809.420 or 36 CFR

228.8. To restrict locatable mineral development, the BLM or Forest Service must petition the

Secretary of the Interior for withdrawal actions with subsequent validity exams for existing claims.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
120 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Mineral exploration and the development of locatable mineral deposits are allowed unless

they are withdrawn from mineral entry by Secretarial PLO or an act of Congress. There are

6,547,200 acres withdrawn from further location of mining claims or sites in the planning area.

The remaining 43,321,500 acres in the planning area are open to locatable mineral exploration

and development (Table 3-57, Locatable Minerals).

Table 3.57. Locatable Minerals

Planning Area (acres) PPH (acres) PGH (acres)

Petition for withdrawal from locatable

mineral entry

6,547,200 1,296,100 374,700

Open to locatable mineral exploration or

development

43,321,500 11,397,200 4,664,700

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Gold, silver, and copper are the primary mineral resources found in the planning area, and are

therefore the focus of discussion for this section.

Table 3-58, Acres of Locatable Mineral Claims in GRSG Habitat, lists data compiled in a baseline

environmental report produced by the USGS for the BLM (Manier et al. 2013). Acres are

presented by surface management agency and their presence in PGH and PPH in the planning area.

Table 3.58. Acres of Locatable Mineral Claims in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 377,700 762,500 377,700 688,700

IV 189,900 462,100 137,000 230,800

V 39,900 70,100 31,300 68,600

Forest Service III 44,200 42,400 44,200 39,700

IV 56,500 113,700 18,600 87,800

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 100 0 0

IV 400 500 0 0

V 300 900 100 900

Private III 56,900 106,400 56,900 97,500

IV 80,200 139,200 40,800 105,200

V 3,000 3,500 2,200 3,200

State III 0 3,400 0 0

IV 3,400 3,600 0 0

V 100 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM administers 49,868,700 acres of federal mineral estate in the planning area.

Mining claims for gold, silver, and copper are found throughout the planning area. The largest

concentration of mining claims is located in the north-central portion of Nevada.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
Draft Resource Management 121

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Conditions on Forest Service-Administered Lands

Mining claims for gold, silver, and copper may be found throughout the planning area. However,

mining projects are not as common on Forest Service-administered land as on BLM-administered

land.

Trends on BLM-Administered Lands

The price of gold, silver, and copper have risen over the last few years, and there is increased

interest in developing ore deposits for these minerals and expanding existing mines within the

decision area, particularly within Nevada. The number of Notices and Plans of Operations

reviewed by the California and Nevada BLM is shown in Table 3-59, Notices and Plans of

Operations Reviewed by the California and Nevada BLM.

Table 3.59. Notices and Plans of Operations Reviewed by the California and Nevada BLM

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

California

Notices 23 26 5 13 14 24 35 21

Plans 20 6 12 5 13 19 9 14

Nevada

Notices 182 146 207 136 149 233 217 318

Plans 42 22 11 11 16 37 46 50

Source: BLM 2012n

This table does not show a defined trend for the number of Notices and Plans of Operation being

reviewed by the California BLM. However, the number of Notices and Plan of Operations being

reviewed by the BLM in Nevada show a general increase. This increase may be explained by the

increase in the price of gold, silver, and copper.

Trends on Forest Service-Administered Lands

The majority of development on Forest Service-administered lands has been in the form of

exploration projects. The trend for locatable mineral development has remained fairly constant

between 2006 and 2013 and is expected to remain constant.

Mineral Materials

Mineral materials include sand, gravel, and construction materials that are sold or permitted under

the Materials Act of 1947. Mineral materials are sold at a fair market value or through free use

permits to governmental agencies. Local government agencies and non-profit organizations may

obtain these materials free of cost for community purposes. The sale or disposal of mineral

materials is discretionary. The BLM and Forest Service may choose to not allow mineral material

production to protect resources. County and state road construction divisions are significant

users of gravel and sand resources. Sand and gravel, as construction aggregate, is an extremely

important resource. The extraction of the resource varies directly with the amount of development

nearby (e.g., road building and maintenance, and urban development), as sand and gravel is

necessary for that infrastructure development. Even more so than other resources, however, the

proximity of both transportation and markets are key elements in the development of a deposit.

California and Nevada are producers of significant quantities of construction sand and gravel,

crushed stone, dimension stone, and common clays. Occurrence potential for these resources and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources
122 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

other mineral materials spans the states of California and Nevada, with heavier concentrations on

the northern half of the state.

Conditions on BLM- and Forest Service-Administered Lands

Sand and gravel are the primary mineral materials found in the planning area, and are therefore

the focus of discussion for this section. Table 3-60, Acres of Mineral Material Disposal Sites in

GRSG Habitat, lists data compiled in a baseline environmental report produced by the USGS

for the BLM. Acres are presented by surface management agency and their presence within

PGH and PPH in the planning area.

Table 3.60. Acres of Mineral Material Disposal Sites in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

Acres

within PGH

Acres within

PPH

BLM III 377,700 762,500 377,700 688,700

IV 189,900 462,100 137,000 230,800

V 39,900 70,100 31,300 68,600

Forest Service III 44,200 42,400 44,200 39,700

IV 56,500 113,700 18,600 87,800

V 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 0 100 0 0

IV 400 500 0 0

V 300 900 100 900

Private III 56,900 106,400 56,900 97,500

IV 80,200 139,200 40,800 105,200

V 3,000 3,500 2,200 3,200

State III 0 3,400 0 0

IV 3,400 3,600 0 0

V 100 0 0 0

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

V 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Trends on BLM- and Forest Service-Administered Lands

In remote areas, an increased demand for future mining of mineral materials is unlikely in areas

identified as PPH or PGH. In nearby urban areas such as Elko, Winnemucca, and Reno, demand

will continue to be significant, with long-term concerns regarding the availability of mineral

materials in future decades.

3.14. Special Designations

(Including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wilderness

Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, National Conservation Areas,

National Historic Trails, Byways, and Wild and Scenic Rivers)

This section discusses existing conditions for the following BLM special designation areas:

ACECs, Wilderness, WSAs, NCAs, NHTs, byways, and WSRs.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Designations
Draft Resource Management 123

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

The following areas are considered special designations on Forest Service-administered lands

and are discussed in this section: Wilderness, inventoried roadless areas, special interest areas,

and research natural areas (RNAs).

Table 3-61, Conservation Areas in GRSG Habitat, summarizes special designations that overlap

GRSG habitat in the planning area. Special designations in the planning area are shown on

Figure 3-16, Special Designations and Other Important Resources.

Table 3.61. Conservation Areas in GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management

Agency

Management

Zone

Management Zone Planning Area

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

Acres1

within PGH

Acres1

within PPH

BLM III 130,800 170,900 130,800 145,000

IV 741,400 1,510,700 22,700 121,500

V 955,900 1,400,900 74,100 821,900

Forest Service III 56,200 93,900 56,200 93,800

IV 3,000 26,600 2,600 26,100

V 100 0 100 0

Tribal and Other

Federal

III 3,700 11,000 3,700 10,100

IV 254,800 76,000 0 0

V 74,900 695,700 23,900 448,300

Private III 500 12,900 500 600

IV 164,300 124,800 0 0

V 13,400 11,700 200 5,700

State III 200 6,900 200 5,300

IV 16,600 22,500 0 0

V 5,300 2,900 5,300 2,900

Other III 0 0 0 0

IV 1,500 0 0 0

V 800 2,200 800 2,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Includes ACECs, USFWS wildlife refuges, national conservation easements, National Park System units,

BLM National Landscape Conservation System units, conservation areas on private and state property, and

congressionally designated Wilderness.

(PDF Map 3–16)

Figure 3.16. Special Designations and Other Important Resources

3.14.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

An ACEC is defined in FLPMA Section 103(a) as an area on BLM-administered lands where

special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or

processes, or to protect life and ensure safety from natural hazards. BLM regulations for

implementing the ACEC provisions of FLPMA are found in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), and guidance is

provided in BLM Manual 1613 (BLM 1988b).

ACECs differ from some other special management designations in that designation by itself does

not automatically prohibit or restrict other uses in the area. The special management attention is

designed specifically for the relevance and importance values and, therefore, varies from area to

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
124 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

area. Restrictions that arise from an ACEC designation are determined at the time the designation

is made and are designed to protect the relevance and importance values or serve the purposes

for which the designation was made. The BLM identifies goals, standards, and objectives for

each proposed ACEC as well as general management practices and uses, including necessary

constraints and mitigation measures. In addition, ACECs are protected by the provisions of

43 CFR 3809.1-4(b)(3), which requires an approved plan of operations for activities resulting

in more than five acres of disturbance under the mining laws.

RNAs are areas where natural processes are allowed to predominate, and that are preserved for

the primary purposes of research and education. Under current BLM policy, RNAs must meet the

relevance and importance criteria of ACECs and are, therefore, designated as ACECs. Under

current guidelines, ACEC procedures also are used to designate outstanding natural areas (ONAs).

Current Condition

There are 23 currently designated ACECs, RNAs, and ONAs in the planning area that contain

GRSG habitat. These ACECs, RNAs, and ONAs are shown on Table 3-62, Designated Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern in GRSG Habitat.

Appendix L, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Report, details the evaluation of relevance

and importance criteria for ACECs nominated as part of this effort.

Table 3.62. Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in GRSG Habitat

Name District Total Acres Relevant and Important

Value(s)

Acres within

PGH

Acres

within PPH

Ash Valley Northern

California

1,200 Threatened and Endangered

Vegetation

500 0

Baking Powder Flat Ely 13,640 Vegetation 3,041 481

Bitner Northern

California

1,900 Cultural and Wildlife 0 1,900

Bruneau/Jarbidge River Jarbidge 11,412 Wildlife and Cultural 6,608 3,357

Buffalo Creek Canyons Northern

California

35,700 Scenic and Cultural Values 0 35,700

Blue Mass Ely 950 Cultural and Scenic 7 0

Condor Canyon Ely 4,500 Spinedace Critical Habitat 1,700 1,100

Eagle Lake Basin Northern

California

30,500 Cultural and Wildlife 5,500 0

High Rock Canyon Winnemucca 5,700 Cultural, Scenic, Wildlife 300 5,200

Lower Smoke Creek Northern

California

900 Watershed and Cultural 100 800

Massacre Rim Northern

California

48,200 Cultural and Wildlife 1,900 46,200

Mountain Peaks Northern

California

3,800 Scenic and Vegetation 0 2,800

North Dry Valley Northern

California

10,200 Cultural, Geologic, Wildlife 0 9,900

Old Growth Juniper Northern

California

3,100 Vegetation 0 1,400

Owyhee River/Big Horn

Sheep*

Owyhee 3 Wildlife 3 0

Pine Dunes Northern

California

2,900 Geologic and Vegetation 0 2,900

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Draft Resource Management 125

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name District Total Acres Relevant and Important

Value(s)

Acres within

PGH

Acres

within PPH

Rahilly-Gravelly Northern

California

900 Cultural and Vegetation 0 900

Schlesser Pincushion Ely 4,930 Threatened and Endangered

Vegetation

126 0

Shoshone Ponds Ely 1,200 Vegetation and Threatened and

Endangered Fish

0 300

Snake Creek Indian

Burial Cave

Ely 40 Cultural 13 0

White River Valley Ely 12,900 Vegetation 7 0

Willow Creek Northern

California

2,200 Scenic and Cultural 20 1,600

Yankee Jim Northern

California

1,700 Cultural and Vegetation 0 1,700

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

*Nevada Acreage

3.14.2. Wilderness

In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577), establishing a national

system of lands for the purpose of preserving a representative sample of ecosystems in a natural

condition for the benefit of future generations. Wilderness areas are generally defined as natural

environments that have not been significantly modified by human activity.

With few exceptions, most designated wilderness areas in Nevada have been managed as

Wilderness Study Areas since 1979. Through congressional action regarding the establishment of

NCAs or through proposed county land bills, some WSAs have been designated as wilderness.

Designation has not been limited to WSAs; also included are several areas that were not

previously managed for wilderness.

Current Condition

Currently, there are 37 Wilderness Areas (20 managed by the BLM and 17 managed by the Forest

Service) with GRSG habitat in the planning area. Refer to Table 3-63, Wilderness Areas, for

information on BLM and Forest Service Wilderness Areas in GRSG habitat.

Table 3.63. Wilderness Areas

Name Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

BLM Wilderness

Becky Peak 18,100 3,200 1,100

Bristlecone 14,100 900 20

Calico Mountains 65,000 6,400 32,600

East Fork High Rock Canyon 52,600 100 52,400

Far South Egans 36,300 0 2,700

Fortification Range 30,500 200 200

Goshute Canyon 42,500 4,700 9,000

Government Peak 6,300 0 200

High Rock Canyon 46,600 20 46,500

High Rock Lake 58,400 3,900 43,600

Highland Ridge 68,500 800 1,900

Little High Rock Canyon 48,700 20 48,600

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness
126 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Mount Grafton 78,700 4,400 12,700

North Black Rock Range 30,600 16,800 12,600

North Jackson Mountains 23,400 6,200 0

Pahute Peak 56,900 1,400 12,800

Parsnip Peak 43,500 2,200 5,000

South Egan Range 67,100 1,900 1,500

South Jackson Mountains 54,500 3,200 0

White Rock Range 24,200 0 3,600

Forest Service Wilderness

Alta Toquima 35,500 8,200 3,000

Arc Dome 120,500 10,000 38,800

Bald Mountain 19,400 500 3,000

Currant Mountain 36,700 500 200

Currant Mountain Addition 10,600 2,900 1,400

East Humboldt 32,300 600 3,100

High Schells 121,500 11,000 4,800

Jarbidge 64,300 10 2,400

Jarbidge Addition 46,100 1,500 14,500

Mt. Moriah 71,400 1,700 1,000

Red Mountain 20,500 0 500

Ruby Mountain 92,100 6,600 700

Santa Rosa-Paradise Peak 32,000 600 6,100

Shellback 36,100 400 9,800

South Warner 124,900 70 0

Table Mountain 92,400 2,800 19,800

White Pine Range 40,000 4,700 1,400

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

3.14.3. Wilderness Study Areas

In 1976, Congress directed the BLM through Section 603(a) of FLPMA to identify those lands

with wilderness character as potential areas to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation

System. Within a 15-year time frame, BLM was to provide to Congress recommendations of

lands which consisted of:

...those roadless areas of five thousand acres or more and roadless islands of

public lands, identified during the inventory required by Section 201(a) of this act

as having wilderness characteristics described in the Wilderness Act of September

3, 1964 and shall from time to time report to the President his recommendation

as suitability or non-suitability of each such area or island for the preservation of

wilderness...

Since that time, these lands now identified as Wilderness Study Areas (except those that have

been released from Wilderness study by Congress) are managed in accordance with Section

603(c) of FLPMA, in a manner so as not to impair their suitability for preserving wilderness. The

BLM’s policy on managing WSAs is set forth in BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness

Study Areas (BLM 2012d).

The BLM manages approximately 47 million acres of public lands in Nevada. A statewide

inventory resulted in approximately 5,170,000 acres in 110 areas being designated as Wilderness

Study Areas in 1979-1980. Since the inception of the WSAs, various congressional actions

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Study Areas
Draft Resource Management 127

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

have addressed 45 WSAs (2,055,005 acres). These have been added to the National Wilderness

Preservation System as designated wilderness.

Current Condition

Throughout the planning area, there are 38 BLM Wilderness Study Areas that contain GRSG

habitat. There are an additional 19 WSAs that do not contain GRSG habitat and will not be

addressed further in this document. Only those WSAs that contain GRSG habitat are shown in

Table 3-64, Wilderness Study Areas. All WSAs are managed under specific guidance regarding

activities and other resource management actions which is provided in BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Under this guidance, all activities are required to meet

non-impairment criteria, meaning that all uses and facilities must be temporary and not create

surface disturbance, unless one of the seven classes of allowable exceptions exists.

Table 3.64. Wilderness Study Areas

Name Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Wilderness Study Areas

Alder Creek 5,200 2,200 0

Antelope Range 83,700 9,400 15,100

Augusta Mountains 88,100 11,600 0

Bad Lands 9,300 0 9,300

Blue Lakes 20,000 5,400 1,100

Bluebell 54,400 4,700 0

Buffalo Hills 45,700 0 45,400

Cedar Ridge 9,500 4,100 1,100

China Mountain 10,200 100 8,300

Clan Alpine Mountains 195,800 9,600 13,300

Desatoya Mountains 51,000 2,300 18,100

Disaster Peak 12,500 2,500 9,200

Dry Valley Rim 70,600 2,100 70,600

Fandango 43,400 2,600 6,700

Goshute Canyon 300 0 0

Goshute Peak 70,100 6,600 0

Job Peak 89,600 5,200 26,800

Kawich 67,900 13,700 1,000

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ISA 11,900 4,300 7,500

Little Humboldt River 41,200 17,000 18,000

Massacre Rim 100,700 11,100 88,300

Morey Peak 19,200 3,300 1,200

Mountain Meadow ISA 20 20 0

North Fork of the Little Humboldt River 69,600 100 66,200

Owyhee Canyon 21,500 5,400 16,000

Park Range 48,800 10,800 0

Poodle Mountain 141,700 2,800 101,000

Red Spring 7,600 2,500 10

Roberts Mountain 15,200 6,100 1,500

Rough Hills 6,500 100 6,400

Sheldon Contiguous 222300 0 23,500

Simpson Park 49,300 50 19,500

Skedaddle 600 0 500

South Fork Owyhee River 7,800 30 5,600

South Pequop 40,300 9,400 200

South Reveille 115,400 200 0

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Study Areas
128 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Tobin Range 13,100 7,600 2,300

Twin Peaks 70,500 13,100 50,600

Wall Canyon 46,300 200 46,300

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

3.14.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wild and Scenic Rivers are rivers or river sections designated by Congress under the authority

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSR Act; Public Law 90-542, as amended; 16

USC1271-1287). This designation is to preserve the river or river section in its free-flowing

condition, preserving water quality and protecting its outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs)

and tentative classification. River segment ORVs may include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish

and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The BLM’s policy goal for suitable rivers

is to manage their free-flowing condition, water quality, tentative classification, and any ORVs

until Congress designates the river or releases it for other uses.

There are two suitable Wild and Scenic River segments that are within the State of Nevada or are

managed by Nevada BLM. Of these river segments, approximately 3 miles of the East Fork of the

Carson River in California is managed by the BLM Carson City District. This river segment was

determined to be suitable with a tentative classification of Scenic in the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest

Management Plan for the Sierra Nevada Division (Carson and Bridgeport Ranger Districts).

The BLM has determined Twelve-mile Creek in the northwestern corner of the state as suitable

with a tentative classification of Recreational under the Lakeview RMP (Oregon) and the Surprise

RMP (California). The creek enters into Nevada for approximately 2 miles before crossing

back into Oregon.

Both of these river segments have been designated as suitable through the land use planning

process and are documented through their respective LUPs but have not been designated into

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The East Fork of the Carson River does not

cross GRSG habitat. The Twelve Mile creek segment in northwestern Nevada is tentatively

classified as recreational. Potential impacts on the corridor of the river segment through proposed

GRSG habitat improvement or restoration projects would not affect the management or tentative

classification of the river segment. Both of these river segments are determined to be suitable

but have not been designated into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and will not be

analyzed further in this document.

3.14.5. Other Special Designations

National Conservation Areas

National Conservation Areas (NCAs) are a component of the BLM’s National Landscape

Conservation System . Generally, NCAs are managed to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance

the objects and values for which the unit was designated. The objects and values often include

scientific, cultural, ecological, historical, and recreational aspects.

There are three NCAs within the state of Nevada: Black Rock Desert – High Rock Canyon

Emigrant Trails NCA, Red Rock Canyon NCA, and Sloan Canyon NCA. Of these three NCAs,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild and Scenic Rivers
Draft Resource Management 129

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

only Black Rock Desert – High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA contains GRSG habitat. The

other two NCAs do not contain GRSG habitat and will not be analyzed further in this document.

The Black Rock Desert–High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trail NCA was designated by Congress in

2000 and encompasses approximately 1.2 million acres of public lands administered by BLM (PL

106-554, Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area

Act of 2000). Included in this acreage is approximately 380,000 acres of designated wilderness.

The focal point of the NCA is the Applegate/Nobles emigrant trails. Other resources of national

significance include pre-history, paleontology, wildlife, and wild horses. The most prominent

visual aspect of the NCA is the Black Rock Desert Playa.

There are approximately 381,282 acres of GRSG habitat within the NCA. Of that acreage, 53,649

acres are PGH, and approximately 327,633 acres are PPH.

National Scenic and Historic Trails

An NHT is congressionally designated as an extended, long-distance trail, not necessarily

managed as continuous. It follows as closely as possible and practicable the original trails or

routes of travel of national historic significance. The purpose of an NHT is to identify and protect

the historic route and the historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. An NHT is

managed to protect the nationally significant resources, qualities, values, and associated settings

of the areas through which such trails may pass, including the primary use or uses of the trail.

While National Scenic and Historic Trails cross lands managed by different agencies, trails

and trail segments that cross BLM-administered lands are managed in accordance with BLM

Manual 6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or

Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation, which mandates that the BLM establish

NHTs Management Corridors (BLM 2012e) These corridors are to be established in order to assist

in the management of the resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use

or uses for which the NHT was designated by Congress. The designation of NHTs Management

Corridors in the future will encompass lands that may include GRSG habitat and will include

management decisions and actions that likely will have positive effects on GRSG populations.

Within Nevada, there are two national historic trails in the planning area, the California NHT and

the Pony Express NHT, which cross lands that contain GRSG habitat.

California National Historic Trail. More than 250,000 emigrants traveled from Missouri to

California during the 1840s and 1850s. More than 1,000 miles of trail ruts and traces can still

be seen across 10 states on the California NHT. Congress designated nearly 2,000 miles of

historic trail that was once the primary “road” taken by farmers, enterprising business managers,

gold-seekers, and fortune hunters who chose to make a new life on the California frontier (NPS

2012). Approximately 2,113 miles of the California NHT fall within the planning area.

Pony Express National Historic Trail. The Pony Express NHT was used to carry the nation’s mail

from Missouri to California on horseback in the unprecedented time of only ten days. The relay

system became the nation’s most direct and practical means of east-west communications before

the telegraph, and it played a vital role in aligning California with the Union in the years just before

the Civil War. Approximately 419 miles of the Pony Express NHT fall within the planning area.

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail is administered by the

Forest Service. The Forest Service partners with the BLM, NPS, California State Parks, and the

Pacific Crest Trail Association to provide effective management and protection of the trail (Forest

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Other Special Designations
130 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Service 2012e). Approximately 200 miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail fall within

the planning area. The trail does not traverse any PPH or PGH in the planning area.

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that meet the

minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act. Inventoried Roadless

Areas may contain improvements such as motorized trails, fences, outfitter camps, and evidence

of historical logging activities. As required by 36 CFR 219.17, inventoried roadless areas are

identified during Forest Plan development or revision and are qualified for study if they meet

the following criteria:

● They are 5,000 acres in size or larger.

● They are less than 5,000 acres, but contiguous to an existing Wilderness Area.

● There are no classified roads (A classified road was defined at the time of inventory as a road

constructed or maintained for long-term highway vehicle use. Therefore, inventoried roadless

areas may contain motorized and non-motorized trails and user created roads).

3.15. Water Resources

Water resources include surface and groundwater sources, including streams, springs, riparian

areas, and wetlands. Factors such as the amount of precipitation and run-off, water storage

and withdrawals, pollution from outfalls, soil erosion, and overall conditions of the uplands

and riparian areas affect surface water resources. Recharge, withdrawal, and infiltration of

contaminants affect groundwater resources. The BLM and Forest Service management decisions

regarding energy development, lands and realty actions, grazing, recreation, and forestry can

result in potential impacts on water resources.

Water quality on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands is regulated by the Clean Water

Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Land Health Standards, the Watershed Conservation

Practices Handbook, and other laws, regulations, and policy guidance at the federal, state,

and local levels. The CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq.) requires maintenance and restoration of

the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of waters of the US. Sections 208 and 319 of

the CWA recognize the need for control strategies for nonpoint source pollution. Soil and

water conservation practices and BMPs are recognized as the primary control mechanisms for

nonpoint source pollution on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands. The

EPA supports this perspective in their guidance, “Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality

Standards” (EPA 1987).

Current Condition

Overview

Surface water and groundwater discharged in the region originate from precipitation. Precipitation

that falls to the land surface might infiltrate the soil or bedrock and recharge the groundwater

system, evaporate, be transpired by plants, or flow as runoff through drainages. Surface water

runoff that originates at higher mountain elevations generally flows in well-defined channels

cut into bedrock in the mountain blocks; the runoff then discharges onto alluvial fans at the

valley margin. Several potential outcomes exist for runoff that flows from the mountain blocks

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
Draft Resource Management 131

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

and into the valley bottom. As surface water moves from the mountains into the valley setting,

it is continually removed from the surface-water system by a variety of processes, including

infiltration as recharge to groundwater (as seepage into fractures in bedrock or permeable

sediments in the drainage channel, into alluvial fans at the margins of the mountain fronts, or into

basin-fill sediments in the central portions of the valley); removed from the system by evaporation

or transpired by plants (both in the channel, in ponds or lakes, and at playas in the valley bottom);

and diversion for irrigation or other beneficial uses.

Perennial surface water is supported by groundwater discharge in this region. Springs that

discharge groundwater at the land surface can collect into channels to form perennial streams.

Periodic rain storms and snow melt generate runoff that contributes to temporary stream-flow

increases. However, a consistent base flow for streams and springs in the region observed even

after prolonged dry periods is maintained by the discharge from the groundwater system.

Within the planning area, the major water features are streams, lakes, wetlands, playas, and dry

lakes. Streams can be ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial. Ephemeral streams do not flow

during an average water year, but do flow in response to large precipitation events. Intermittent

streams flow during spring runoff for an average water year, but generally dry up later in the

summer. Perennial streams contain some water all year for an average water year. Lakes can be

permanent or temporary. Wetlands and floodplains vary in extent and depth throughout the

year. Permanent waters can also be in the form of ponds and reservoirs developed for human

or livestock consumption.

Surface Water

The US is divided and subdivided into successively smaller hydrologic units called regions,

sub-regions, accounting units (or basins), and cataloging units (or sub-basins). Each of these

hydrologic units is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code consisting of between two and

eight digits. The fourth level of classification (the cataloging unit or sub-basin) is represented by

an eight-digit hydrologic unit code. Table 3-65, Hydrologic Sub-basins in the Planning Area, lists

the sub-basins in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
132 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.65. Hydrologic Sub-basins in the Planning Area

Sub-basin Name

8-Digit

Hydrologic

Unit Code

Number

Total Sub-basin

Size (acres)

Sub-basin Size

in Planning Area

(acres)

BLM/Forest ServiceAdministered Lands

in Sub-basin in

Planning Area

(acres)

Length of

Streams in

Sub-basin in

Planning Area

(miles)

Length of Streams

Crossing BLM/Forest

Service-Administered

Lands in Sub-basin in

Planning Area (miles)

Alvord Lake 17120009 96,800 97,100 84,900 200 100

Big Chico Creek-Sacramento

River

18020157 300 2,300 0 0 0

Bruneau 17050102 511,300 433,200 80,500 800 200

Butte 18010205 151,200 150,700 17,300 100 30

Butte Creek 18020158 600 700 0 0 0

Cactus-Sarcobatus Flats 16060013 616,000 616,500 599,600 1,500 1,400

Carson Desert 16050203 1,391,500 1,392,000 547,400 2,700 1,000

Crowley Lake 18090102 40,900 40,900 3,900 100 0

Death Valley-Lower Amargosa 18090203 195,200 195,400 195,100 400 400

Diamond-Monitor Valleys 16060005 1,997,600 1,999,000 1,426,100 3,300 2,200

Dixie Valley 16060001 2,585,600 2,587,300 2,262,800 5,400 4,700

Dry Lake Valley 16060009 1,388,600 1,388,400 1,507,200 3,200 3,200

East Branch North Fork Feather 18020122 658,800 657,700 600 28,100 0

East Little Owyhee 17050106 441,200 446,300 433,100 1,100 1,100

East Walker 16050301 445,400 445,400 177,000 700 200

Escalante Desert 16030006 68,700 69,000 67,700 200 200

Eureka-Saline Valleys 18090201 4,400 4,400 4,100 0 0

Fish Lake-Soda Spring Valleys 16060010 1,572,300 1,573,400 1,366,600 3,900 3,500

Gabbs Valley 16060002 1,331,300 1,332,100 1,139,500 2,600 2,300

Goose 17040211 204,700 205,500 177,200 400 300

Goose Lake 18020001 232,800 227,500 900 0 0

Granite Springs Valley 16050104 1,063,600 1,063,700 737,200 2,000 1,400

Guano 17120008 268,400 260,300 55,700 500 100

Hamlin-Snake Valleys 16020301 818,500 822,700 699,800 1,800 1,400

Honey-Eagle Lakes 18080003 1,793,600 1,794,200 720,700 3,000 1,100

Hot Creek-Railroad Valleys 16060012 2,973,300 2,975,000 2,405,600 7,300 6,000

Lake Tahoe 16050101 87,400 87,500 2,500 200 0

Little Humboldt 16040109 1,139,000 1,139,900 747,000 2,500 1,600

Little Smoky-Newark Valleys 16060006 924,200 924,700 881,400 1,600 1,500

Long-Ruby Valleys 16060007 2,633,100 2,633,600 2,074,800 5,000 3,400

Lost 18010204 1,099,300 1,086,800 25,100 2,500 20

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
133 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Sub-basin Name

8-Digit

Hydrologic

Unit Code

Number

Total Sub-basin

Size (acres)

Sub-basin Size

in Planning Area

(acres)

BLM/Forest ServiceAdministered Lands

in Sub-basin in

Planning Area

(acres)

Length of

Streams in

Sub-basin in

Planning Area

(miles)

Length of Streams

Crossing BLM/Forest

Service-Administered

Lands in Sub-basin in

Planning Area (miles)

Lower Humboldt 16040108 1,659,200 1,660,100 824,800 3,600 1,600

Lower Pit 18020003 1,056,500 1,054,100 121,800 0 200

Lower Quinn 16040202 2,095,400 2,095,900 3,069,700 4,700 4,300

Lower Virgin 15010010 470,800 471,100 512,500 1,500 1,400

Madeline Plains 18080002 539,000 538,900 266,300 600 300

Massacre Lake 16040204 829,500 829,600 714,400 1,700 1,200

McCloud 18020004 77,000 75,500 0 0 0

Meadow Valley Wash 15010013 1,570,700 1,570,100 1,829,700 4,900 4,700

Middle Carson 16050202 531,100 531,000 322,200 800 400

Middle Fork Feather 18020123 735,900 734,700 11,900 0 50

Middle Humboldt 16040105 2,045,900 2,047,500 1,192,100 4,800 2,300

Middle Owyhee 17050107 1,000 1,900 1,000 0 0

Mono Lake 18090101 78,100 78,100 0 100 0

Muddy 15010012 316,700 316,700 433,600 1,000 900

North Fork American 18020128 200 300 0 0 0

North Fork Feather 18020121 553,800 550,900 700 0 0

North Fork Humboldt 16040102 638,800 639,100 393,900 1,700 900

Northern Big Smoky Valley 16060004 1,220,400 1,221,400 765,700 2,000 1,100

Northern Great Salt Lake

Desert

16020308 253,500 257,600 164,900 600 400

Pilot-Thousand Springs,

Nevada, Utah

16020307 941,600 942,700 582,400 2,300 1,300

Pine 16040104 643,300 643,700 532,400 1,200 1,000

Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes 16050103 886,900 886,600 340,600 1,800 700

Ralston-Stone Cabin Valleys 16060011 1,765,000 1,766,400 1,408,900 5,400 4,500

Reese 16040107 1,521,100 1,522,300 1,062,400 2,700 2,000

Rock 16040106 580,100 580,500 374,000 1,800 1,100

Salmon Falls 17040213 781,200 781,800 604,400 1,400 1,000

Sand Spring-Tikaboo Valleys 16060014 1,209,500 1,210,000 1,132,000 3,000 2,700

Smoke Creek Desert 16040203 1,575,500 1,575,700 1,832,200 3,500 3,000

South Fork Humboldt 16040103 835,500 835,900 441,000 1,700 700

South Fork Owyhee 17050105 1,037,200 1,039,000 584,400 2,400 1,200

Southern Big Smoky Valley 16060003 1,311,100 1,312,000 1,017,900 3,500 3,000

Southern Great Salt Lake

Desert

16020306 429,400 431,100 351,500 1,100 900

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
134 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Sub-basin Name

8-Digit

Hydrologic

Unit Code

Number

Total Sub-basin

Size (acres)

Sub-basin Size

in Planning Area

(acres)

BLM/Forest ServiceAdministered Lands

in Sub-basin in

Planning Area

(acres)

Length of

Streams in

Sub-basin in

Planning Area

(miles)

Length of Streams

Crossing BLM/Forest

Service-Administered

Lands in Sub-basin in

Planning Area (miles)

Spring-Steptoe Valleys 16060008 3,403,400 3,402,500 2,926,300 7,200 5,800

Surprise Valley 18080001 579,500 580,100 259,600 1,200 400

Thomes Creek-Sacramento

River

18020156 0 400 0 0 0

Thousand-Virgin 16040205 568,000 567,600 209,500 1,200 400

Truckee 16050102 711,300 712,900 107,100 1,700 100

Upper Amargosa 18090202 165,200 165,400 154,200 300 200

Upper Carson 16050201 362,000 368,100 93,500 800 100

Upper Humboldt 16040101 1,761,900 1,762,600 752,800 5,000 1,900

Upper Owyhee 17050104 357,600 358,600 54,000 800 100

Upper Pit 18020002 1,718,900 1,716,000 259,100 0 700

Upper Quinn 16040201 1,905,100 1,906,800 1,426,900 3,000 2,100

Upper Yuba 18020125 350,500 350,100 0 0 0

Walker 16050303 572,200 572,300 240,600 900 300

Walker Lake 16050304 517,200 517,300 237,200 700 300

Warner Lakes 17120007 114,600 106,500 71,700 100 100

West Walker 16050302 404,500 404,700 125,100 600 100

White 15010011 1,798,300 1,798,600 1,764,200 4,500 4,000

TOTAL 70,216,700 70,145,900 48,012,400 168,900 96,800

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
Draft Resource Management 135

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Surface water resources in the planning area include intermittent washes, perennial streams,

ponds or reservoirs, playas, and springs. In terms of streams, ephemeral drainages represent the

predominant feature type based on miles of streams in the project area. Projects for irrigation,

livestock, human use, and flood control have significantly altered natural flow regimes, resulting

in changes to habitat conditions, channel stability, and timing of sediment and organic-material

transport. Stream flow has been altered by management activities such as water impoundments,

water withdrawal, road construction, vegetation manipulation, grazing, wildland fire activities,

and timber harvesting.

Most surface runoff in the planning area is from snowmelt or rainfall at the higher elevations,

producing peak discharges in the spring and early summer. Many of the streams in the

lower-elevation semiarid areas are either intermittent, with segments of perennial flow near

springs, or ephemeral, with flow only during spring runoff and intense summer storms. Estimated

miles of perennial streams are 15,488 and intermittent streams are 130,353. Perennial and

intermittent stream reaches were defined by the USGS National Hydrography Dataset.

Water developments, such as troughs for livestock, are not influential sources of water for GRSG.

However, water developments provide additional and alternative sources of water for wildlife

and livestock and can decrease the use of riparian areas as water sources, thereby resulting in

improved meadow conditions.

Groundwater

Groundwater resources in the planning area include local basin-fill aquifers, deep, regional

aquifers and, in some areas, geothermal aquifers. Figure 3-17, Conceptual Groundwater Flow

System, shows a conceptual model of a groundwater flow system typically found within the

planning area (Welch et al. 2007).

Groundwater is primarily used for irrigation, domestic use, and livestock use in the planning

area. The quality of the groundwater is a function of the chemical makeup of the underground

formation containing the water. Most of the planning area contains good quality water, but the

water is usually hard and contains moderate amounts of dissolved minerals.

Springs and seeps occur in areas where water from aquifers reaches the surface. Many springs

begin in stream channels; others flow into small ponds or marshy areas that drain into channels.

Some springs and seep areas form their own channels that reach flowing streams, but other springs

lose their surface expression and recharge alluvial fill material or permeable stratum.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
136 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Source: Welch et al. 2007

Figure 3.17. Conceptual Groundwater Flow System

Springs and seeps are important to aquatic habitats because of the perennial base flow they

provide. The outflow from springs in summer usually helps to maintain lower water temperatures.

In winter, especially in small streams, base flow helps to maintain an aquatic habitat in an

otherwise frozen environment. Approximately 16,700 springs have been inventoried in the

planning area. Many of these springs have been disturbed either by management activities that

have affected the volume of water available to the vegetation and soils where springs begin, or by

activities that have affected the vegetation and soils directly. Activities such as livestock or wild

horse grazing and watering, recreation use, mining, road construction, and vegetation management

have affected spring systems in the past. Activities such as well drilling or blasting can affect

springs by reducing the amount of water in their aquifers or by affecting subsurface flow patterns.

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

As described in Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands, riparian areas are ecosystems that

occur along rivers, streams, or water bodies. Although these areas represent only 5 percent of the

planning area, riparian habitats play an integral role in restoring and maintaining the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of water resources (Fitch and Ambrose 2003).

Condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands varies throughout the planning area (refer to

Table 3-13, Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Goals for Rangeland Health Standards,

and discussion in Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands).

Water Quality

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
Draft Resource Management 137

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

The water quality standards for the State of Nevada and the State of California support other

federal laws such as the CWA, the Water Resources Planning Act, the Pollution Prevention Act,

and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Water quality, as defined by the CWA, includes all of the physical, biological, and chemical

characteristics that affect existing and designated beneficial uses. Water that does not meet these

standards is considered impaired. The states of Nevada and California are required to identify

impaired surface water bodies under Section 303(d) of the CWA. There are approximately 4,076

miles of Section 303(d)-listed streams and water bodies within the planning area.

The most common impairments for Section 303(d)-listed waters in the planning area include

pH, phosphorus, mercury, iron, zinc, temperature, and arsenic. Most of these heavy metals are

found naturally in planning area soils and geology. High concentrations in surface waters could

be a result of non-point source pollution due to land use practices resulting in increased erosion

or mining or could be naturally occurring. High temperatures and nutrient concentrations are

typically a result of decreased riparian function, which could be a result of land use practices

resulting in increased erosion, including roads and livestock use.

Causes of stream degradation include removal of riparian vegetation and destabilization of stream

banks. Removal of riparian vegetation and the shade it provides contributes to elevated stream

temperatures (Rishel et al. 1982; Brown 1983; Beschta et al. 1987). Channel widening can

similarly increase solar radiation loading. The principal source of heat energy delivered to the

water column is solar energy striking the stream surface directly (Brown and Krygier 1970). The

ability of riparian vegetation to shade the stream throughout the day depends on vegetation

height, width, density, and position relative to the stream, as well as the direction of stream

flow; streamside vegetation provides less shade on a north or south flowing stream than on an

east or west flowing stream.

The land use most commonly associated with stream degradation in the planning area is

livestock grazing. Other land uses associated with degraded streams include roads, trails, water

withdrawal, reservoir storage and release, altered physical characteristics of the stream, and

wetlands alteration.

Water Availability

Water availability can vary on a yearly basis depending on the amount of water recharged and

the amount of water used in the planning area. Since most of the water in the planning area

originates from precipitation, yearly climatic conditions play an important role in the amount of

water available in these systems. This in turn determines available riparian habitat and conditions,

particularly in systems that are more dependent on snowmelt and local precipitation events. See

Section 3.21, Climate Change, for more information on past and current precipitation conditions.

The amount of water used in the planning area is dependent on the quantity of water appropriated

in water rights through Nevada and California water law.

Water Rights

The right to use surface and groundwater and management of water appropriations in the planning

area is administered by the Nevada Division of Water Resources in Nevada and the California

State Water Resources Control Board in California. The BLM authorizes the use of water on

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
138 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM-administered lands if the applicant has been permitted by the BLM to apply the water to

beneficial use.

The Nevada State Engineer’s duty is to conserve, protect, manage, and enhance the state’s water

resources for Nevada’s citizens through the appropriation and reallocation of the public waters.

All water within the boundaries of the state, whether above or beneath the surface of the ground,

belongs to the public and is subject to appropriation for beneficial uses. Nevada issues water

rights for various beneficial uses for both groundwater and surface water. Since Nevada is based

on prior-appropriation and beneficial use, this system of water allocation controls who uses how

much water, the types of uses allowed, and when those waters can be used. Often referred to as

‘First in time, First in right’, the first individual to put a water body to beneficial use is considered

the senior water-rights holder and the first one allowed to use the water. Water available above

the senior water-rights holder’s appropriation would then be made available to subsequent

water-rights holders based on priority date. Consumptive water uses within the planning area

include agricultural, municipal, mining and milling, industrial, stock watering, and wildlife uses.

Since all water within the state is available for appropriation, Nevada water law does not

necessarily protect riparian habitat or unappropriated surface waters. The water law allows

for the capture of natural groundwater discharge so long as the amount captured is not greater

than the perennial yield for the basin. Additionally, any appropriated surface water rights can

be diverted, resulting in a reduction in riparian conditions. The Nevada State Engineer does

recognize that a water right does not give the holder automatic ingress or egress across public,

private, or corporate lands. Additionally, a water right permit does not waive the requirements

that the permit holder obtain other permits from federal, state, and local agencies.

Within the State of Nevada, wildlife is considered a beneficial use for water rights, and the BLM

and Forest Service hold wildlife water rights not only to provide a watering source for wildlife

but also to maintain wildlife habitat. However, a water right is not required on surface waters to

allow for a wildlife use. Nevada Revised Statute 533.367 requires all permit holders for springs

or seeps to allow access to wildlife that customarily use it. The BLM usually only applies for

a wildlife water right if it wants to develop the source, such as put in a trough or well, or if it

feels a water right is necessary to protect the source and the associated habitat. Wildlife guzzlers

and other types of precipitation collectors do not currently require a water right in the State

of Nevada (Masto 2011).

In Nevada, the BLM and Forest Service have been precluded from being able to apply for

water rights for stock watering use in most cases. Under Nevada water law, the Nevada State

Engineer will issue a permit to appropriate water for the purpose of watering livestock only to

permit applicants who are legally entitled to place livestock on the lands for which the permit is

sought, and who own or have an interest in the livestock (Nevada Revised Statute 533.503). In

addition, new regulations tying appurtenance to ownership of livestock is set forth in Nevada

Revised Statute 533.040. These changes in state law apply to any water application processed by

the Nevada State Engineer after June 12, 2003. Water developments such as troughs for livestock

are not influential sources of water for GRSG. However, water developments provide additional

and alternative sources of water for wildlife and livestock and can decrease the use of riparian

areas as water sources (Wyman et al. 2006).

The California Doctrine is a system of water rights that recognizes both appropriative and riparian

rights. The California Supreme Court has held that a riparian’s rights are superior to the rights

of an appropriator except in cases where the water had been appropriated before the riparian

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
Draft Resource Management 139

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

acquired the patent to his land, and after the passage of the 1866 Mining Act that recognized

appropriation. Generally, a reasonable use by a riparian will trump an appropriative right so

long as the patent to the riparian parcel was acquired from the United States prior to the date of

appropriation. In 1928, the California Constitution was amended to require all water use in

California to be “beneficial and reasonable.” Generally today, a riparian user cannot defeat an

appropriative right unless the riparian user proves the appropriation is causing undue interference

with the riparian’s reasonable use of the water.

3.16. Soil Resources

The BLM and Forest Service land management and resource use decisions influence long-term

soil health, stability, and productivity. Many management activities and resource uses depend

on suitable soils for the type, location, and use level of that resource, including livestock

grazing, mineral activities, fire management, road and travel management (including OHV use),

recreation, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, special status species, fisheries, water quality, and

forestry. Consequently, soil attributes and conditions are important to BLM and Forest Service

management decisions.

Soils are defined by the interaction of the processes that form them, including parent material

(geology), climate, topography, biologic organisms, and time. Of these, soil surveys indicate that

climate and topography have the primary influences on soil formation (NRCS 2000).

Soils are classified by their degree of development into distinct layers/horizons and their dominant

physical and chemical properties. These characteristics are used to groups soils into 1 of 12 orders

that are based on defining soil properties, such as organic matter, dominant sediment particle (silt,

sand, or clay), amount of mineral material present, water and temperature regimes, and unique

properties such as salt content or volcanic ash layers. These soil characteristics, in combination

with climate, determine whether sagebrush can exist in a given location and which variety of

sagebrush communities are able to thrive. Since the presence of GRSG is dependent upon the

presence of sagebrush, and sagebrush type and viability are dependent on soil type and quality,

soils are an important element in GRSG habitat.

Current Condition

Soil Productivity

Soil productivity in the planning area varies widely due to the diversity of soils and site

characteristics, specifically differences in elevation and slope gradient. Some of the most

productive soils are found in well-drained valley bottoms, toe-slopes, benches, and broad ridge

tops. On uplands where rainfall is moderate to low, medium-textured soils may produce favorable

conditions, depending on land uses such as livestock grazing. Soils that feature shallow claypans,

hardpans, or salts pose substantial constraints to land use and management.

Management practices affect the ability of soils to maintain productivity by influencing

disturbances such as displacement, compaction, erosion, and alteration of organic matter and

soil organism levels. When soil degradation occurs in semi-arid, high desert regions, natural

processes are slow to return site productivity. Prevention of soil degradation is far more costand time-effective than remediation or waiting for natural processes. Management practices such

as proper stocking rates for livestock, rotation of grazing, periodic rest from grazing, improved

design, construction and maintenance of roads, selective logging, rehabilitation of unneeded

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil Resources
140 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

surface disturbance, restricting vehicles to roads and trails, rehabilitating mined areas, and control

of concentrated recreational activities have reduced erosion effects and improved soil conditions.

Soil Erosion

Erosion is a continuing natural process that can be accelerated by human disturbances. Factors

that influence soil erosion include soil texture, structure, length and percent of slope, vegetative

cover, and rainfall or wind intensity. Soils most susceptible to erosion by wind or water are

typified by bare or sparse vegetative cover, non-cohesive soil particles with low infiltration rates,

and moderate to steep slopes. The semi-arid planning area has between 17,730,500 acres of native

vegetation and 189,200 acres of non-native vegetation, allowing the soils to erode naturally in

wind and during infrequent rain events.

Soil Types

When making land management decisions based on soil-related hazards or limitations, the BLM

evaluates soil surveys available from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soils are

mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas, which are geographically

associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology,

climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA 2012). Each soil

survey describes the specific properties of soils in the area surveyed and shows the location of

each kind of soil on detailed maps. The BLM evaluates soil map units to make management

decisions that would likely affect soils. Each soil survey applicable to the planning area describes

soil map units by the individual soil or soils that make up the unit.

3.17. Cultural Heritage Resources

The term cultural resource refers to historic or architectural objects, sites, structures, or places with

potential public and scientific value, including locations of traditional cultural, ethnic, or religious

significance to a specific social or cultural group. Cultural resources are located, classified,

ranked, and managed in order to identify, protect, and utilize them for public benefit. Fragile

and irreplaceable, cultural resources represent an integral part of American heritage. Cultural

resources represent physical locations of human activity, occupation, or use identified through

field inventories, historical documentation, or oral evidence (BLM Manual 8110, Identifying and

Evaluating Cultural Resources [BLM 2004f]). Archaeological resources are a subset of cultural

resources that include any material remains of human life or activities that are at least 50 years old,

and are of archaeological interest (as defined in 43 CFR 7.3). Native American religious concerns,

a critical element noted in Appendix 5 of the BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1 (BLM 2008e),

are addressed in Section 3.17, Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns).

In the study area, prehistoric or historic cultural resource sites, structures, or objects listed in

or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are managed as directed by

36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, and the statewide Protocol

Agreements between the BLM and the Nevada and California State Historic Preservation Offices.

These regulations and protocols stipulate that cultural resources must be assessed for integrity of

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property may be

considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places if it retains sufficient

integrity of these elements and meets certain criteria outlined in National Register Bulletin 15

(NPS 1997). As listed in 36 CFR Part 60, historic properties (including prehistoric and historic

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Heritage Resources
Draft Resource Management 141

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

archaeological sites and places considered important to Native Americans) must meet a specific

set of criteria, described below:

● The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and

culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association

● Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
 

of our history
 

● Association with the lives of persons significant in our past

● Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,

or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction

● Yielding, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (NPS 1997)

Current Condition

Cultural resources, including historic properties (those eligible for the National Register) are

known to exist in the study area. Potential impacts on cultural resources are unknown, and will be

determined through future NEPA analysis and decision-making to implement the management

goals and objectives set forth in the ROD. All future project-related activities analyzed in order to

implement the goals and objectives set forth in the ROD will be in compliance with Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Statewide Protocol Agreements of Nevada and

California. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted in this planning document, and cultural

resources are not brought forward for detailed analysis in Chapter 4.

3.18. Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious

Concerns)

Numerous laws and regulations require consideration of Native American concerns and interests

during the federal planning process. These include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,

as amended; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended; Executive Order

13007, Indian Sacred Sites; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Tribal

Governments; Executive Order 3317, DOI Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes; the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, as amended; the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act, as amended; the 2012 MOU Regarding Interagency Coordination and

Collaboration for the Protection of Indian Sacred Sites; BLM Manual 8160, Native American

Coordination and Consultation (BLM 1990d); BLM Handbook H-8120-1, Guidelines for

Conducting Tribal Consultation (BLM 2004g); USDA Department Regulations 1340-007 and

1350-002; Forest Service Manual FSM 1500, External Relations (Forest Service 1990); Forest

Service Handbook Direction FSM 1509 (Forest Service 2004b); NEPA; and FLPMA. These laws,

regulations, policies, and executive orders provide consultation requirements and procedural

guidance to ensure that the consultation process demonstrates “that the responsible manager has

made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain and consider appropriate Native American input

in decision making” (BLM 1994).

Current Condition

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American

Religious Concerns)
142 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Paleontological Context

GRSG bones and feathers have been found in archaeological and paleontological contexts

dating back 14,000 years in the Great Basin, including the Nevada and Northeastern California

Sub-region. The oldest, well-dated GRSG bones (circa 14,000 years ago) come from the Paisley

Caves in south-central Oregon (Jenkins et al. 2012). Although the GRSG bones from this time

period cannot be confidently attributed to human hunting, humans were occupying the site

beginning about 14,000 years ago, and thus GRSG hunting was a possibility near these caves. In

addition, bones of the GRSG were the most common bird remains found at Smith Creek Cave

in east-central Nevada (122 elements; Howard 1952). Most of these bones likely date to circa

14,000 to 12,000 years ago based on dating other faunal elements at the site, but the GRSG

bones have not been directly dated at this time.

The oldest GRSG bones definitely deposited by Native Americans in an archaeological context

come from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter in eastern Nevada (Hockett 2007), and the Paisley

Caves in Oregon (Hockett and Jenkins, in press). Bonneville Estates Rockshelter is located in

eastern Nevada along the Nevada-Utah border. Burned GRSG bones with stone tool cut marks

were found lying next to hearths dating back 12,000 years ago. GRSG were one of the most

common animals exploited at this time near the rockshelter. Also common in the Bonneville

Estates Rockshelter deposits of this time were bones of pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis),

suggesting that mature stands of sagebrush once grew near the site. The flat shoreline terraces

created by the Late Pleistocene high stands of Lake Bonneville (circa 17,000 to 12,000 years ago)

in this region probably created ideal habitats for leks, and the Native Americans who occupied

the shelter hunted GRSG off these ancient leks (Hockett 2007).

Burned GRSG bones in an undisputed cultural context dating to circa 12,000 years ago were also

discovered recently at the Paisley Caves (Hockett and Jenkins, in press). Of similar age (Late

Pleistocene-Early Holocene, circa 11,000 to 9,500 years ago) are the GRSG bones recovered

from Danger Cave, Utah, located along the Nevada-Utah border north of Bonneville Estates

Rockshelter (Jennings 1957; Parmalee 1988a), and those recovered from the Connley Caves in

south-central Oregon (Grayson 1977). At the Connley Caves, Grayson (1979) also argued that

Native Americans hunted GRSG off leks based on the ratio of female to male bones identified.

Also noteworthy in the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene deposits at Danger Cave was the

recovery of a bone and feathers of the sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus).

These data suggest that GRSG have been present in the study area, particularly in northern and

eastern Nevada, for at least the past 14,000 years. Native Americans began hunting GRSG at

least 12,000 years ago. The known distribution of GRSG between circa 14,000 to 9,500 years

ago included habitats that currently do not support GRSG due to a lack of suitable sagebrush

habitat (such as near Bonneville Estates Rockshelter), as well as habitats that continue to support

sagebrush and GRSG (such as near Smith Creek Cave). During the relatively cool and moist

climates of the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene, sagebrush habitats that supported active GRSG

populations were present across northern and eastern Nevada.

Following the cool and moist Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene climatic phase, the Great Basin

experienced a 4,000-year warm and relatively dry climatic phase during the Middle Holocene

(also referred to as the Altithermal) between circa 9,500 to 5,100 years ago. This period witnessed

a contraction, but not necessarily a complete extirpation, of sagebrush habitat near Bonneville

Estates Rockshelter and the Paisley Caves that earlier supported GRSG. This climatic phase also

witnessed the northern migration of single-needle pinyon pine from areas to the south currently

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious

Concerns)
Draft Resource Management 143

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

occupied by the Mojave Desert, as well as an expansion of Utah juniper trees, creating the classic

pinyon-juniper habitat of central Nevada. Dated GRSG bones are rare for this period. However,

following a several-millennia absence from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, GRSG were once

again hunted by Native Americans and deposited in the rockshelter approximately 7,000 years

ago (Hockett 2007). Middle Holocene-aged GRSG remains were also recovered from Hogup

Cave, northwestern Utah, near the study area (Baldwin 1970; Parmalee 1970).

The Late Holocene Great Basin (circa post-5,100 years ago) experienced a generally cooler

and wetter climate compared with the Middle Holocene, but several significant sub-climatic

phases have been identified. These include the Early Late Holocene (circa 5,100 to 3,500 years

ago; generally cool), Neoglacial or Neopluvial (circa 3,500 to 2,650 years ago; generally cool

and wet), Late Holocene Drought (circa 2,650 to 1,650 years ago; generally warm and dry),

Medieval Climatic Anomaly (circa 1,650 to 650 years ago; generally warm and wet), Little

Ice Age (circa 650 to 250 years ago; generally cool), and Industrial/Modern (250 years ago to

present; increasingly warm).

GRSG dated to the Late Holocene in Nevada and surrounding regions include those recovered

from the Early Late Holocene deposits of Mineral Hill Cave in central Nevada (Hockett

and Dillingham 2004; James 2004), and those recovered from the Early Late Holocene,

Neoglacial/Neopluvial, and Medieval Climatic Anomaly deposits in Hogup Cave in northwestern

Utah (Baldwin 1970; Parmalee 1970). In addition, undated Late Holocene specimens have been

recovered from Last Supper Cave and Hanging Rock Shelter, both located in the Black Rock

Desert region of northwestern Nevada (Grayson and Parmalee 1988; Parmalee 1988b).

Ethnographic Context

During the Industrial/Modern climatic phase of the past 250 years, GRSG were a common food in

the diet of northeastern California and Nevada Native Americans, including the Northern Paiute,

Western Shoshone, Pit River, Achumawi, and Atsugewi (Fowler 1986; Garate 1975; Gilmore

1953; Olmstead and Stewart 1978; Steward 1941, 1943; Stewart 1941). Hunting of GRSG was

generally done in the spring at leks. Deadfalls, hunting blinds, nooses, snares, and even nets

with associated brush wings were all commonly used (Steward 1941; Steward 1943). In some

cases, a hunter wore a deer or antelope costume to hunt GRSG (Kelly 1932). There are cursory

ethnographic reports of GRSG hunting for the following Paiute bands: Agai-Panina (Summit

Lake Paiutes), Atsa’kudökwa-tuviwarai (Fort McDermitt Paiutes), Kidü- dökadö/Gidü’tikadü

(Fort Bidwell Paiutes), Kuyu-dökadö (Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe), Küpa-dökadö (Lovelock

Colony), Pakwi-dökadö (Walker Lake Paiutes), Sawa’waktödö-tuviwarai (Winnemucca Colony),

Tagö-töka (Duck Valley Paiutes), Tasiget-tuviwarai (Reno-Sparks Indian Colony), Toe- dökadö

(Fallon Paiutes), Tövusi- dökadö (Yerington Paiutes), and Wada- dökadö (Burns Paiutes) (Deur

2010; Fowler 2002; Kelly 1932; Stewart 1941). Steward (1941) has cursory accounts of GRSG

hunting amongst Western Shoshoni bands located at Battle Mountain, Egan, Elko, Ely, Hamilton,

Ione Valley, Morey, Ruby Valley, and Snake River.

Quantitative information on the significance of GRSG in the Northern Paiute and Western

Shoshone diet, past or present, is lacking. While the bird was hunted in the spring, the meat was

dried and could be eaten as long as supplies lasted. Kelly (1932), reaffirmed by Deur (2010), notes

GRSG was and is the most commonly hunted bird by the Kidü- dökadö. Amongst the Toe- dökadö,

it is a favorite due to its size and flavor, but they were no longer common in the Stillwater Range

(Fowler 2002). In addition to being a food source, GRSG wings were used as fans in hunting, and

the feathers were used on the ends of arrows by several Paiute and Western Shoshoni bands.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American

Religious Concerns)
144 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Hunting for the Native Americans in northeastern California and Nevada served more than a

means of providing food. As noted by Deur (2010), Hanes (1982, 1995), and Walker and Deward

(2010), hunting is a way in which Native Americans preserve part of their cultural traditions.

Hunting in traditional areas is an active way of maintaining a tie to their past and a means of

preserving cultural traditions. During the hunt, children are taught traditional knowledge and

practices by their parents and elders. Hunting is also a means of cementing social relationships:

after a successful hunt, the game is shared between the young hunters, their parents, and their

extended family.

Sage-Grouse also play prominent roles in some oral traditions. For example, the GRSG has a

significant role in Northern Paiute oral traditions. Fowler (2002) and Kelly (1938) collected

several variants explaining how the GRSG saved fire during the world flood. The GRSG, the only

bird (or animal in other variants) to survive the flood, protected a fire on a mountain top, so that

the succeeding animals and humans could have it when the flood waters receded. In the Owens

Valley Paiute story of how pine nuts came to the world, the GRSG is a minor character which

helps with the theft of the pine nuts (Steward 1936).

Leks are also considered important cultural sites by the Northern Paiutes and Western Shoshone

since the strutting is the basis of the Round Dance (also called Circle Dance; Bengston 2006).

Round Dance locations may or may not be near leks. The timing and meaning of the Round

Dance varies across the Great Basin, but the dance is tied to marking seasonal subsistence

activities and is imbued with cosmological ideas related to renewal of the world and human’s

relationships to the Creator/God (Hultkrantz 1986).

Summary of Archaeological, Paleontological, and Ethnographic Evidence for Sage-Grouse in

the Study Area

In general, archaeological and paleontological evidence suggest that GRSG populations

expanded and contracted across the Great Basin for at least the past 14,000 years in response to

climatic conditions that were either favorable or unfavorable to sagebrush. Sage-Grouse bones

and feathers have been recovered across the entire study region at various times in the past.

Sage-Grouse have been hunted in the study area for the past 12,000 years, and were actively

hunted by Native American families at historic contact. Sage-Grouse, therefore, have been hunted

by Native Americans in the study area from the Late Pleistocene through the Industrial/Modern

climatic phases.

Consultation with Modern Native American Tribes

Letters requesting a consultation meeting to discuss the details of the GRSG planning efforts,

including a fact sheet about the LUPA/EIS effort and maps showing GRSG preliminary habitat

and management units, were sent to the tribes listed in Table 3-66, Tribal Consultation and

Outreach Efforts for the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS.

Each of the tribes listed in Table 3-66 were also invited to participate in the planning effort

as cooperating agencies. Table 3-66 summarizes the tribes consulted, as well as the results

of the joint consultation efforts by the BLM and the Forest Service. Although the process of

participating in the effort as a cooperating agency is not formal government-to-government

consultation, both efforts to outreach and solicit comments by the BLM and the Forest Service

and suggestions from tribes (government-to-government consultation and participating as a

cooperating agency) are included in Table 3-66.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious

Concerns)
145 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.66. Tribal Consultation and Outreach Efforts for the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region Sage-Grouse

LUPA/EIS

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

Battle Mountain

Band

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/5/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

7/25/2012 – Consultation with Battle Mountain Band (Vice Chair and tribal

members), BLM Battle Mountain District (Doug Furtado and Tim Coward),

and Forest Service (Steve Williams)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Tribe mentioned concerns that disturbance from people and

crows eating eggs are affecting GRSG populations.

Yomba 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Shoshone

6/5/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

6/8/2012 – Consultation with Yomba Shoshone (Chair and tribal members),

BLM Battle Mountain District (Chris Cook and Tim Coward), and Forest

Service (Steve Williams)

No GRSG-related comments received.

Fallon Paiute 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/12/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

7/17/2012 – Consultation with Fallon Paiute (Vice Chair and tribal members),

BLM Carson City District (Teresa Knutson and Susan McCabe)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Tribe expressed concerns about restricted access to pine nutting

areas. Tribal members sometimes access pine nutting areas by

OHVs and 4-wheel drive vehicles. Tribe expressed concerns

that the current drought and jets breaking the sound barrier may

disrupt GRSG especially during hatching season.

Reno-Sparks

Indian Colony

(RSIC)

11/17/2011– Consultation with RSIC (Michon Eben, Cultural Resource

Director), and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

3/1/2012 – Phone Conversation with RSIC (Michon Eben) and BLM Carson

City District (Jim Carter)

4/6/2012 – Consultation with RSIC ( Michon Eben, Cultural Resource

Director) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

6/12/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent – Carson City District

7/2/2012 - Update on EIS sent.

9/19/2012 - Consultation with RSIC ( Michon Eben, Cultural Resource

Director) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

No GRSG-related comments received.

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Tribe has concerns with GRSG habitat.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American

Religious Concerns)
146 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

2/1/2013 - Consultation with RSIC (Michon Eben, Cultural Resource Director)

and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum, Sharynn Blood, and Marilla

Baker)

Walker River 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Paiute

6/12/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

6/29/2012 – Consultation with Walker River Paiute (Vice Chair and tribal

members), BLM Carson City District (Teresa Knutson and Susan McCabe)

No GRSG-related comments received.

Washoe 11/1/2011 – Consultation with Washoe Tribe (Darrel Cruz, Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer), and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Sharynn Blood)

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

2/29/2012 – Phone conversation with Washoe Tribe (Darrel Cruz, Washoe

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer) and BLM Carson City District (Jim Carter)

3/2/2012 - Phone conversation with Washoe Tribe (Marie Barry, Washoe

Environmental Director) and BLM Carson City District (Jim Carter)

4/18/2012 - Update on EIS sent and phone call.

6/12/2012 – Consultation Invitation Letter sent by Carson City BLM.

7/2/2012 - Update on EIS sent by Eagle Lake Field Office.

11/13/2012 - Consultation with Washoe Tribe (Darrel Cruz, Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer), BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Sharynn Blood)

No GRSG-related comments received.

Signed MOU as a cooperating agency. Comments received on

May 8, 2013. Tribe is concerned about invasive species, as

well as the impact of tree thinning projects on juniper trees.

Juniper trees are important to the tribe.

Tribe is very concerned about GRSG habitat.

Tribe has previously commented on GRSG and habitat for

Pine Nut Plan Amendment, and hopes those comments will be

moved forward during BLM’s GRSG planning efforts.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Yerington Paiute 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

3/1/2012 – Phone Conversation with Yerington (Shelly Pugh) and BLM Carson

City District (Jim Carter)

6/12/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No further contacts.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American ReligiousConcerns)
147 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

Duck Valley

Sho-Pai

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

6/26/2012 – Consultation with Duck Valley Sho-Pai (Chairman, Vice-Chair,

tribal facilitator, tribal members) and Forest Service (Jeanne Higgins)

8/3/2012 – 2nd Consultation invitation letter sent by Elko BLM

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Tribe is concerned that cattle grazing and military flights

negatively impact GRSG populations. In particular, sonic

booms from military jets adversely impact GRSG eggs and

breeding at leks.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Te-Moak Tribe 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

8/3/2012 – 2nd Consultation invitation letter sent by Elko BLM

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Wells Band 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

8/3/2012 – 2nd Consultation invitation letter sent by Elko BLM

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

South Fork Band 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

8/3/2012 – 2nd Consultation invitation letter sent by Elko BLM

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Elko Band 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

8/3/2012 – 2nd Consultation invitation letter sent by Elko BLM

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency

No GRSG-related comments received.

Goshute Tribe 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

2/10/2012 – Consultation with Goshute Tribe (Chair and tribal members) and

BLM Utah (Kevin Oliver and Quincy Bahr) and BLM Ely District (Elvis Wall)

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

7/6/2012 - Consultation with Goshute Tribe (Chair, Vice Chair, and tribal

members), BLM Ely District (Michael Herder and Elvis Wall), and Forest

Service (Jose Noriega)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Tribe identified GRSG habitat on the reservation. Tribe was

concerned that Nevada BLM and Utah might not have a

consistent approach toward GRSG management. Tribe was

concerned how the GRSG plan would affect grazing. Tribe

supports efforts to enhance GRSG habitat.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American

Religious Concerns)
148 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

Duckwater 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

7/2/2012 - Consultation with Duckwater Tribe (Chair and tribal members),

BLM Ely District (Rosemary Thomas, Miles Kreidler, and Elvis Wall)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Ely Shoshone 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/6/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

7/10/2012 - Consultation with Ely Shoshone Tribe (Chair and tribal members),

BLM Ely District (Rosemary Thomas and Elvis Wall)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Tribe noted that there are GRSG habitat areas within

the reservation lands. Tribe expressed concerns that the

undertaking might restrict their access to pine nutting areas

and wild game hunting through road closures. Tribe expressed

concern that GRSG are a hunted species while at the same time

their numbers are dwindling.

Pyramid Lake

Paiute

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

2/29/12; 3/1/2012 – Left phone messages regarding letter of 12/7/2011

4/26/12 – Consultation with Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (Chair and tribal

members) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

6/8/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

6/27/2012 - Consultation with Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (Chair and tribal

members), BLM Winnemucca District (Mark Hall)

7/2/2012 – Update on EIS sent.

1/23/2013 – Consultation with Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (Chair, Vice Chair,

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, tribal members) and BLM Eagle Lake

Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

Signed MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Tribe asked if it is possible to manage for both cattle and birds.

BLM responded that it should be possible.

Tribe indicated that GRSG was a sacred bird, but they needed

to balance this interest with economic reality of grazing and

energy development. Tribe hopes the EIS will result in better

grazing management practices. Corvids and raptors nesting on

utility and transmission lines are negatively impacting GRSG

populations.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American ReligiousConcerns)
149 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

Summit Lake 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency Signed MOU as a cooperating agency. Comments received

Paiute

6/8/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

7/21/2012 - Consultation with Summit Lake Paiute Tribe (Chair and tribal

members), BLM Winnemucca District (Gene Seidlitz and Mark Hall)

on May 8, 2013. Tribe is concerned that current planned

projects involving road realignments and land acquisition to

expand reservation boundaries may be impacted. Tribe is

concerned that restrictions may be placed on tribal members

observing lekking behavior for traditional cultural practices.

Tribe believes wild horses are impacting GRSG leks, and

additional conservation measures may be necessary to reduce

these impacts.

Tribe indicated they would work with the USFWS to complete

a GRSG survey and banding of birds on their reservation

lands. Tribe feels that OHV use is negatively impacting GRSG

populations.

Fort McDermitt 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

6/8/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

6/18/2012 – Consultation with Fort McDermitt Tribe (Chair and tribal

members, Forest Service (Jeff Ulrich)

7/17/2012 - Consultation with Fort McDermitt Tribe (Chair and tribal

members), BLM Winnemucca District (Gene Seidlitz, Mark Hall, and Kathy

Ataman)

Tribe expressed desire to be more involved in the EIS process,

especially the Governor’s alternative.

Tribe has particular concerns with GRSG populations in the

Double H Mountains. Tribe has multiple needs; they recognize

that cattle ranching can pose a threat to GRSG, yet they rely

on ranching activities as well. GRSG holds a special role for

the tribes in traditional culture. Tribe is concerned that NDOW

allows GRSG to be hunted while their numbers are in decline.

Lovelock 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Colony

6/8/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

9/19/2012 - Consultation with Lovelock Colony (Chair), BLM Winnemucca

District (Ken Loda and Mark Hall)

No GRSG-related comments received.

Winnemucca

Colony

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

6/8/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American

Religious Concerns)
150 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

Pit River Tribe 10/6/2011 – Consultation invitation letter sent

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

1/5/2012 – Consultation with Pit River Tribe (Chair, Vice-Chair, and tribal

members), BLM Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Redding Field Offices (Tim Burke,

Ken Collum, Jennifer Mata, Dennis Benson, Eric Ritter, Jack Scott, Sharynn

Blood, Charlie Wright, Randy Chatterton, Jim Hunt, and Dereck Wilson)

4/5/2012 - Consultation with Pit River Tribe (Chair, Vice-Chair, and tribal

members), BLM Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Redding Field Offices (Tim Burke,

Ken Collum, Jennifer Mata, Eric Ritter, Jack Scott, and Sharynn Blood)

7/5/2012 - Consultation with Pit River Tribe (Chair, Vice-Chair, and tribal

members), BLM Alturas and Eagle Lake Field Offices (Tim Burke, Ken

Collum, Jack Scott, Sharynn Blood, Spencer Pelton, Jen Rovanpera, and Devin

Snyder)

10/4/2012 - Consultation with Pit River Tribe (Chair, Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer, and tribal members), BLM Alturas and Eagle Lake Field

Offices (Tim Burke, Ken Collum, Jack Scott, Sharynn Blood, Jen Rovanpera,

Rich Estabrook, and James Haerter)

2/7/2013 – Consultation with Pit River Tribe (Chair and tribal members), BLM

Alturas and Eagle Lake Field Offices (Tim Burke, Ken Collum, Jack Scott,

Sharynn Blood, Jen Rovanpera, and Emily Jennings)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

One tribal member noted that wind farms do not seem

conducive to GRSG habitat. Another tribal member discussed

porcupines and GRSG and the irony of forest management

plans. The Forest Service used to kill porcupines because they

were killing the juniper trees. Now the Forest Service is killing

the juniper trees to conserve water. She then wondered what

would be next-would they then plant trees that need water?

Klamath Tribes 12/7/2011 Invitation as cooperating agency

2/1/2012- Consultation with Klamath Tribe (Perry Chocktoot, Klamath Tribes

cultural and Heritage Department Director),

BLM Alturas Field Manager (Tim Burke)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency and no specific

comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American ReligiousConcerns)
151 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

Susanville

Indian Rancheria

(SIR)

8/3/2011 – Consultation invitation letter sent

8/3/2011 – Consultation with SIR (Chair, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,

tribal members) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn

Blood)

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

10/20/2011 – Consultation with SIR (Chair, Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer, tribal members) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and

Sharynn Blood)

1/6/2012 - Consultation with SIR (Chair, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,

tribal members) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum, Sharynn

Blood, Charlie Wright, Randy Chatterton, Dereck Wilson, and Jim Hunt)

1/10/2012 - Consultation with SIR (Chair, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,

tribal members) and BLM Alturas Field Office (Tim Burke and Jack Scott)

4/6/2012 - Consultation with SIR (Chair and tribal members) and BLM Eagle

Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

7/6/2012 - Consultation with SIR (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and tribal

members) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

10/5/2012 - Consultation with SIR (Chair and Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

1/16/2013 - Consultation with SIR (Tribal members) and BLM Eagle Lake

Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

4/12/2013 – Consultation with SIR (Vice Chair, Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer, tribal members) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Sharynn Blood)

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Signed MOU as a cooperating agency. No GRSG-related

comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American

Religious Concerns)
152 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe Letters Sent, Phone Calls Made, Consultation Meetings Held Results

Greenville

Rancheria

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

5/8/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

5/18/2012 Consultation with Greenville Rancheria (Lacie Miles, Environmental

Director) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Ken Collum and Sharynn Blood)

7/2/2012 – Update on EIS sent.

10/11/2012 – Consultation with Greenville Rancheria (Lacie Miles,

Environmental Director) and BLM Eagle Lake Field Office (Sharynn Blood)

1/25/2013 – Update on EIS sent.

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No comment received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Hanylekim

Maidu

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

(Not Federally

Recognized)

7/2/2012; 11/30/2012; 1/30/2013 – Updates on EIS Sent No GRSG-related comments received.

Fort Bidwell

Tribe

12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency

1/21/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

11/14/2012 – Consultation with Fort Bidwell Tribe (Tribal members), and

BLM Surprise Field Office (Tim Burke)

3/9/2013 – Consultation with Fort Bidwell Tribe (tribal members), and BLM

Surprise Field Office (Tim Burke)

Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Tribe commented that the EIS sounded like a good idea.

No GRSG-related comments received.

No GRSG-related comments received.

Cedarville 12/7/2011 – Invitation as cooperating agency Did not sign MOU as a cooperating agency.

Rancheria

1/3/2012 – Consultation invitation letter sent

2/28/2013 – Consultation with Cedarville Rancheria (Tribal Administrator and

tribal members), and BLM Surprise Field Office (Tim Burke)

No GRSG-related comments received.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests (including Native American ReligiousConcerns)
Draft Resource Management 153

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribal concerns are summarized below. The implications of each of the six alternatives analyzed

in this LUPA/EIS to these concerns are discussed in Chapter 4.

● Fort McDermitt Tribe is especially concerned with GRSG populations in the Double H
 

Mountains.
 

● Summit Lake Tribe is concerned that proposed road realignment projects near their reservation

that were planned prior to the GRSG planning efforts may be negatively impacted by

management actions within occupied habitat.

● Summit Lake Tribe is concerned that the GRSG planning efforts will negatively impact
 

plans to expand their reservation boundaries because their reservation is surrounded by
 

priority habitat.
 

● Access to pine nutting areas used by tribes needs to be maintained.

● Access to leks needs to be maintained, as tribal traditional practices include observing lekking

behavior.

● Tribes are concerned how the GRSG planning efforts will affect grazing, as some tribes
 

raise cattle as an economic benefit.
 

● Crows and ravens are eating GRSG eggs, negatively affecting GRSG populations.

● Raptors roosting and perching on transmission lines are negatively affecting GRSG
 

populations.
 

● Drought is negatively affecting GRSG populations.

● Four-wheel drive and OHVs creating new roads are negatively affecting GRSG populations.

● In some areas, low-flying jets breaking the sound barrier are negatively affecting GRSG
 

populations by adversely affecting egg development and leks.
 

● Wind farms are not conducive to GRSG populations.

● Tribes cannot understand why licenses to hunt GRSG are approved, while GRSG numbers
 

are dwindling.
 

3.19. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (BLM)

The LUPA/EIS for GRSG Planning is limited to making land use planning decisions specific to

the conservation of GRSG habitats. No decisions related to the management of LWCs will be

made as part of this planning effort; therefore, management of LWCs is considered outside the

scope of this LUPA process.

As part of the original FLPMA Section 603-mandated inventories, inventories that were

conducted during past LUP revisions and amendment efforts, and through other various LWC

inventory updates that have recently taken place. Inventories for wilderness characteristics were

conducted between 2008 and 2013 and reflect the most up-to-date LWC baseline information for

this planning area. For inventories that were conducted after 2011, findings were documented

following guidance in IM 2011-154, Requirement to Conduct and Maintain Inventory Information

for Wilderness Characteristics and to Consider Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Land

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (BLM)
154 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Use Plans, which is now encompassed in BLM Manuals 6310 and 6320 (BLM 2012f, BLM

2012g). LWC inventories will be updated for any site-specific project NEPA analyses that are

conducted in the planning area to determine if a project will have impacts on LWCs identified

through previous or updated inventory efforts.

Beginning in 2009, Nevada BLM updated several inventories for wilderness characteristics

associated with specific energy-related projects. These projects include Ruby Pipeline Project,

China Mountain Wind Energy Project, Gateway West Transmission Line Project, Spring Valley

Wind Project, McGinness Hills Geothermal Project, and Crescent Dunes Solar Project. In

addition, some citizen wilderness proposals and recently acquired lands have been inventoried

for wilderness characteristics. However, these inventories are limited in scope and location

within the state. Approximately 583,199 acres in 14 units have been determined to possess

wilderness characteristics and are identified as LWCs. This data is shown in Table 3-67, Lands

with Wilderness Characteristics, below.

Table 3.67. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics and GRSG Habitat in the Planning Area

District Unit Name LWC (acres) PGH (acres) PPH

(acres)

Winnemucca Buckhorn Peak 23,399 521 20,538

Granite Peak 43,202 7,514 10,370

Bluewing Mountains 25,651 0 0

Fence Maker 50,282 0 0

N. Sahwave Mountains 45,687 0 0

Tobin Range 33,854 3,498 25,794

Warm Springs 18,058 2,784 15,036

Northern

California

Hart Mountain 30,916 0 30,899

Lost Creek 46,571 0 35,664

Crooks 129,015 33,111 87,485

Pinto Springs 18,804 0 18,776

Calcutta 65,260 2,359 63,847

Antelope 52,500 0 52,422

Total 583,199 49,787 360,831

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

With the issuance of BLM manuals 6310 and 6320, districts undergoing LUP revision are directed

to include analysis and management decisions regarding lands with wilderness characteristics.

Currently, Carson City District, Battle Mountain District, and the Southern Nevada District are in

the draft RMP phase and are in the process of implementing wilderness characteristic inventories.

Elko District is not yet scheduled to initiate the RMP revision process and has not initiated an

inventory. Winnemucca District released the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in September 2013 and

has completed an area-specific inventory district-wide. The Ely District (Nevada) and Eagle

Lake Field Office and Surprise Field Office (California) completed their RMPs in 2008 (BLM

2008d, BLM 2008b, BLM 2008c). These three offices did not include an inventory of wilderness

characteristics or make management decisions regarding wilderness characteristics in their land

use planning. However, LWC inventories will be updated for any site-specific NEPA analyses

of the planning area to determine if a project will have impacts on LWCs identified through

previous or updated inventorying.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment
 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (BLM)
 
Draft Resource Management 155

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

To date, none of the lands identified as having wilderness characteristics have been designated

as being managed for those characteristics within a final LUP , nor is there a GIS database on a

statewide basis available for GIS supported analysis.

3.20. Visual Resources

Visual resources refer to the visible features on a landscape (e.g., land, water, vegetation, animals,

and structures). These features contribute to the scenic or visual quality and appeal of the

landscape. Visual impact is the creation of an intrusion or perceptible contrast that affects the

scenic quality of a landscape. A visual impact can be perceived by an individual or group as either

positive or negative, depending on a variety of factors or conditions (e.g., personal experience,

time of day, and weather or seasonal conditions; BLM 1984).

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Visual Resource Inventory

Visual resource inventory involves identifying the visual resources of an area and assigning them

to inventory classes using the BLM's visual resource inventory process. The process involves

rating the visual appeal of a tract of land, measuring public concern for scenic quality, and

determining whether the tract of land is visible from travel routes or observation points. This

process is described in detail in BLM Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM

1986b).

The results of the visual resource inventory become an important component of the LUP for the

area. The LUP establishes how BLM-administered lands will be used and allocated for different

purposes, and it is developed through public participation and collaboration. Visual values are

considered throughout the LUP process, and the area's visual resources are then assigned to the

management classes with established objectives.

Based on the three inventory components (scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance zones), lands in

the planning area are placed into one of four classes. These class assignments are informational

and provide the basis for considering visual values during the LUP process.

Visual Resource Management System

The BLM VRM system categorizes visual land values into four distinct classes. These classes

provide direction as to the amount of surface or landscape disturbance that is considered

acceptable within each of these classes. The most restrictive class in terms of visual impacts is

VRM Class I, and the least restrictive class is VRM Class IV. The objectives for each of these

classes is as follows:

● Class I. The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This

class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited

management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very

low and must not attract attention.

● Class II. The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Any changes must repeat the

basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of

the characteristic landscape.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
156 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

● Class III. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate.

Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual

observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features

of the characteristic landscape.

● Class IV. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require
 

major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the
 

characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view
 

and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to
 

minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and
 

repeating the basic elements.
 

The analysis of a visual contrast rating process is used to resolve visual impacts. The process of a

visual contrast rating, which involves comparing the project features with the existing landscape

features using basic elements of form, line, color, and texture, is described in detail in BLM

Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating (BLM 1986c).

Forest Service

Historically, the Forest Service managed visual quality using the Visual Management System. The

key component of the Visual Management System is the establishment of visual quality objectives.

Visual quality objectives consist of five levels: preservation, retention, partial retention,

modification, and maximum modification.

● Preservation – Allows ecological change only. Management activities are prohibited except

for very low visually impacting recreation facilities.

● Retention – Management activities may not be visually evident. Contrasts in form, line, color,

and texture must be reduced during or immediately following the management activity.

● Partial Retention – Management activities must remain visually subordinate to the

characteristic landscape. Associated visual impacts in form, line, color, and texture must be

reduced as soon after project completion as possible or at a minimum within the first year.

● Modification – Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape.

However, landform and vegetation alterations must borrow from naturally established form,

line, color, or texture so as to blend in with the surrounding landscape character. The objective

should be met within one year of project completion.

● Maximum Modification – Management activities including vegetation and landform

alterations may dominate the characteristic landscape. However, when viewed as background

they must visually appear as natural occurrences within the surrounding landscapes or

character type. When viewed as foreground or middle ground, they may not appear to

completely borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture. Alterations may

also be out of scale or contain detail which is incongruent with natural occurrences as seen in

foreground or middle ground. Reduction of contrast should be accomplished within five years.

With an amendment to the Forest Service Manual Chapter 2380 in 2003, the Forest Service

began transitioning from the Visual Management System to the Scenery Management System.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
Draft Resource Management 157

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Many national forests still use the Visual Management System as they transition to the newer

scenery management system.

Current Conditions

BLM LUPs and Forest Service Forest Management Plans have identified the visual resource

management decisions in each respective document for those BLM districts and Forest Service

Ranger districts in the planning area. Some of these planning documents are subject to on-going

revision and others have recently been completed. All activities that affect GRSG habitat are

subject to the management decisions in these LUPs.

3.21. Air Quality

Meteorological and topographical characteristics in the planning area and the surrounding lands

affect the transport, deposition, and dispersion of emissions in the planning area and region.

Both emissions and management decisions within the area influence air quality throughout the

region, not just within the planning area boundaries. This section describes the existing air quality

conditions within the planning area.

Current Condition

The EPA has the primary responsibility for regulating air quality, including seven criteria air

pollutants subject to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pollutants regulated

under the NAAQS include carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone

(O3), particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate

matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In

addition, California and Nevada have established state standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and

California has established state standards for sulfates (SO42-) and vinyl chloride (chloroethene).

Two additional pollutants, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are

regulated separately because they significantly contribute to ozone formation in the atmosphere.

Air quality is determined by pollutant emissions and emissions characteristics, atmospheric

chemistry, dispersion meteorology, and terrain. Air quality related values include the effects

on soil and water, such as sulfur and nitrogen deposition and lake acidification, and aesthetic

effects, such as visibility.

In addition to EPA federal regulations, air quality is also regulated by individual state and local

air quality management districts. In Nevada, the Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau

of Air Quality Planning (BAQP) and Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC) implement air

pollution controls for all of the state except for Clark and Washoe Counties. These two counties

have their own air regulatory agencies to implement air pollution controls for their respective

air districts (counties). These agencies are the Clark County, Health District, Air Pollution

Control Division (CCDAQ) and the Washoe County, District Health Department, Air Quality

Management Division (WCAQMD). In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

and 35 local air district agencies, covering the entire state, implement air pollution controls within

the state. Within the planning area, only two California air quality management districts are

involved. They are the Lassen County Air Pollution Control District (LCAPCD) and the Modoc

County Air Pollution Control District (MCAPCD). All of these agencies develop state- and air

district-specific regulations and issue air quality permits for significant pollutant emission sources.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
158 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

In the planning area, there is only one locality that is not in compliance with the NAAQS

(federal standards). The WCAQMD is classified as nonattainment (at or above the regulatory

level) for the federal and Nevada PM10 standards (150 μg/m3 concentration in ambient air).

The WCAQMD encompasses all of Washoe County, Nevada; however, the actual sub-area

which is in nonattainment is the smaller Reno Planning Area (see Figure 3-18, Designations

for the Particulate Matter PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards). The balance of the

WCAQMD is in attainment of the federal and Nevada standards. The two California counties in

the planning area are in attainment (below the regulatory level) for all of the NAAQS. However,

they are in nonattainment of the California PM10 standard of 50 grams per cubic meter.

Figure 3.18. Designations for the Particulate Matter PM10National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

The northern three-quarters of the WCAQMD (Washoe County) contains GRSG habitat, but does

not show any significant levels of the federal or Nevada regulated pollutants. The Reno Planning

Area portion of the WCAQMD does not contain any GRSG habitat and, consequently, the

elevated levels of PM10 will not impact any known habitat of concern. Portions of LCAPCD and

MCAPCD (California counties of Lassen and Modoc) do contain GRSG habitat, but since these

air pollution control districts meet the NAAQS (federal standards), the measured PM10 levels

are not considered harmful to the GRSG habitat in these areas.

Ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are the most common air pollution emissions

of concern in the planning area. Significant levels of these emissions commonly occur at or

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
Draft Resource Management 159

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

downwind of major metropolitan areas and industrial developments (e.g., mining, oil and gas

operations, etc.). Their concentrations, although oftentimes significant onsite, are generally

mitigated through dispersion downwind before reaching significant amounts of GRSG habitat.

There is little information concerning the effects of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) or ozone

on GRSG habitat.

3.22. Climate Change

Climate represents the long-term statistical characterization of daily, seasonal, and annual weather

conditions such as temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, cloud cover, solar radiation, and

wind speed and direction. Climate is the composite of generally prevailing weather conditions

of a particular region throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. A region’s climate is

affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents.

Climate is both a driving force and a limiting factor for biological, ecological, and hydrologic

processes, as well as for resource management activities such as disturbed site reclamation,

wildland fire management, drought management, rangeland and watershed management, and

wildlife habitat administration. Climate also influences renewable and nonrenewable resource

management, affecting the productivity and success of many management activities on public

lands. Incorporating effective application of climate information into public lands programs,

projects, activities, and decisions authorizing use of the public lands is critical for effective

management.

In January 2009, the DOI issued Amendment 1 to Secretarial Order 3226 to provide guidance

on how bureaus and offices can respond to emerging climate change issues. One of the tasks

within the Order requires each bureau and office within the department to consider and analyze

the potential climate change impacts in planning exercises and when making decisions affecting

department resources (Kempthorne 2009).

The BLM is currently developing its climate change adaptation strategy to provide guidance on

how to fulfill the mandate of amendment. This strategy is due to the DOI in September 2013. The

current proposal would require additional strategies to be set at the ecoregional scale.

USDA Departmental Regulation 1070-001 establishes a department-wide policy to integrate

climate change adaptation planning and actions into USDA programs, polices, and operations.

The Forest Service has established a national strategy for dealing with climate change. The

strategy has two components: 1) Facilitated Adaptation, which refers to actions to adjust to and

reduce the negative impacts of climate change on ecological, economic, and social systems; and

2) Mitigation, which refers to actions to reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases

so as to decrease inputs to climate warming in the short term and reduce the effects of climate

change in the long term.

To implement this strategy, the Forest Service is integrated these two components into all its

programs. The Forest Service has established a Climate Change Resource Center to assist Forest

Service resource managers and decision makers who need information and tools to address

climate change in planning and project implementation on national forests.

Current Condition

The CBR Ecoregion is a large arid and semi-arid area covering approximately 10,855,900 acres

of PPH and PGH within the decision area in Nevada, Utah, and California. Considered a cool

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
160 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

or high elevation desert ecoregion, the CBR receives low annual precipitation with an average

ranging from 7 to 12 inches per year (WRCC 2013; Fiero 1986). Precipitation typically falls

during the winter as snow in higher elevations, with occasional rain storms during the summer

and fall. The amount of precipitation can vary widely throughout the seasons, where a few wet

seasons will be followed by several years of drought. Climatic conditions of the eastern Sierra

Nevada and western Great Basin are influenced by the rain shadow effect. The rain shadow effect

results in relatively little precipitation due to the topography of the Sierra Nevada mountain

range causing the prevailing winds to lose their moisture before reaching the Sierra Front. This

topography-influenced weather pattern is repeatedly seen on the leeward side of other mountain

ranges. Occasional summer thunderstorms can cause flash flooding and debris flows. Temperature

ranges within the ecoregion typically depend on elevation, where higher elevation areas tend to

be cooler than lower elevation areas. Fall precipitation influences the soil moisture conditions

prior to formation of the snowpack and explains, in part, the effectiveness of the snowpack in

producing runoff. The daily diurnal temperature variation can range in excess of 50°F (Fiero

1986). The wide daily ranges in temperature are a result of strong surface heating during the day

and rapid nighttime cooling because of the dry air. Wind conditions reflect the elevation change

and temperature gradient between basin and range. Predominately westerly winds disperse air

pollution (e.g., wildland and prescribed fires from California and poor air quality from the

Truckee Meadows population center) over the Great Basin.

Over the past 100 years, this ecoregion has observed vast changes in weather, vegetation cover,

and wildfire, suggesting a change in the ecoregion’s climate regime. Tang and Arnone (2013)

studied trends in surface air temperatures and extreme temperatures between 1901 and 2010. The

analysis showed that the annual average daily minimum temperature increased considerably

between 1901 and 2010, while the daily maximum temperature increased only slightly, resulting

in a considerable decrease in the daily diurnal temperature during the study period. Precipitation

in the CBR has increased overall over the past 100 years; however, timing of precipitation has

changed, resulting in increased streamflows (Baldwin et al. 2003; Chambers 2008). Additionally,

there has been a decline in the snowpack within the area since the 1950s, with less precipitation

coming as snow and an earlier spring resulting in higher streamflows and impacting plant

phenology (Mote et al. 2005; Chambers 2008).

Changes in temperature and precipitation across the CBR have resulted in changes to vegetation

cover and wildfire regimes. Much of the area has seen changes in species composition, moving

from one vegetation type to another and increasing quantities of invasive species. Many areas

once dominated by sage-brush have seen increasing stands of pinyon-juniper as well as cheatgrass

(see Section 3.3, Vegetation). Changes in wildfire regimes throughout the CBR are considered to

be a result of changing vegetation communities as well as years of fire suppression by humans.

With increasing invasive species, fires in the area tend to be flashy and large in size (see Section

3.7, Wildland Fire and Fire Management).

Climate Change Forecast

Nevada and eastern California are home to some of the driest and warmest climates, most

mountainous regions, and fastest growing metropolitan areas of the United States. Throughout

Nevada and eastern California snow-dominated watersheds provide most of the water supply for

both human and environmental demands. Increasing demands on finite water supplies have

resulted in the need to better monitor drought and its associated hydrologic and agricultural

impacts (McEvoy et al. 2012). The sequence of climate conditions presents variability amongst

water years. Current climate conditions will depend on the continued annual variability in

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
Draft Resource Management 161

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

precipitation as it relates to groundwater recharge and soil stabilization due to the duration of

snow cover and the vegetation’s response (Germino 2012; Wilcox et al. 2012).

The USDA provides water supply outlook for the western United States, including selected

Streamflow forecasts, summary of snow accumulation to date, and storage in larger reservoirs.

These data are monitored and utilized as a tool for projected forecasts of the Great Basin. Most of

the usable water in the western states originates as mountain snowfall and accumulates during

winter and spring, several months before the snow melts and appears as streamflow. Since the

runoff from precipitation as snow is delayed, estimates of snowmelt runoff can be made well in

advance of its occurrence. The forecasts of natural runoff in this outlook are based principally

on measurements of precipitation, snow water equivalent, and antecedent runoff. Forecasts

become more accurate as more of the data affecting runoff are measured. All forecasts assume

that climatic factors during the remainder of the snow accumulation and melt season will interact

with a resultant average effect on runoff. Early season forecasts are therefore subject to a greater

change than those made on later dates (USDA 2013).

Current conditions show most of the planning area within drought conditions for seven of the past

ten years (Redmond 2013; Drought Monitor Archives 2013). Precipitation during this period was

below average with the exceptions of 2004, 2005, and 2010, which all had higher than average

precipitation. Mean average temperature has also been above average for nine of the past ten

years with the exception of 2011, which was below average. The year 2012 was the second

warmest year on record, with average daily temperatures around 51.8°F. The 2013 water year is

proving to be one of the driest years on record, with no major winter snow accumulations since

early January. Current stream flow forecasts show most of the major river systems in the planning

area will be at 25 to 50 percent of average for 2013 (USDA 2013).

Climate change was analyzed in the CBR REA (Comer et al. 2012a) based on the current

conditions within the area. This assessment consisted of a trend analysis using PRISM and

EcoClim datasets to describe natural climate variability over a baseline, from 1900 to 1980,

producing 80 years of climate data, and the use of several global climate models analyzed for the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007; Comer et al.

2012a) to project if future climate change values exceeded natural variability. These models were

run at two different timescales to display future forecasts, near term (2025) and future (2060).

Although climate models have improved over the past few decades, understanding of climate

processes is still lacking, resulting in the use of various assumptions during model construction.

Public criticism regarding the use of modeled predictions from climate change models still

occurs, with most frequent dispute being that the models are unreliable for use in public policy

and project impact analysis. Reichler and Kim 2008 compared 57 different climate models and

measured model performance and ability to predict current climate regimes. The study concluded

that current models, although not perfect, are much more accurate than their predecessors, and

that an increased level of confidence can be places on their predictions (Reichler and Kim 2008).

Results for precipitation suggest no strong trend toward either wetter or drier conditions in any

month for the CBR. With the exception of a slight increase in summer monsoon rains toward the

south and east, there were no significant forecasted trends in precipitation for any other months in

either the near term (2020s) or midcentury (2050s) projections (Comer et al. 2012).

Results for temperature showed increases in daily maximum temperature, particularly during the

summer months from July to September for 2025 and in July and August for 2060. Table 3-68,

Temperature Variations in the Planning Area, lists the summary of areal extent of climate change

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
162 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

for individual variables that have at least two standard deviations of projected change from the

baseline (1900 to 1979) mean (Comer et al. 2012a). The greatest changes were typically seen at

the southern end of the study area near the Great Basin/Mojave transitional area. Model forecasts

for minimum temperatures show a considerable change in both rate and magnitude over most

of the study area. July through September showed the greatest degree of change over most of

the area (Figure 3-19, Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Change (degrees F)

by the 2020s, for July, August, and September and Figure 3-20, Forecasted Monthly Maximum

Summer Temperature Increases (degrees F) for 2060, for July and August). Potential effects of

these forecasts on the landscape could include increased fuel loads in higher elevations, increased

frequency and duration of droughts, expansion of invasive species in higher elevations, increased

wind erosion, and changes in wildfire regimes (Comer et al. 2012a).

Table 3.68. Temperature Variations in the Planning Area

Variable (Month, 2060

Forecast)

%of Area

with Value >

2 Standard

Deviation

Departure

Mean Departure

from Baseline (°F)

Grid Cells > 2 Standard Deviation

(StDev) Departure Forecast 2060

Min

(°F)

Max

(°F)

StDev

January Min Temp 0.2% 7.67 6.24 8.77 0.57

March Min Temp 0.6% 5.62 4.67 6.97 0.50

April Min Temp 8.9% 4.94 3.68 6.71 0.39

May Max Temp 0.005% 5.57 5.57 5.57 NA

May Min Temp 4.4% 4.52 3.79 6.26 0.31

June Max Temp 6.6% 6.52 5.43 9.06 0.39

June Min Temp 54.6% 5.42 4.24 8.22 0.47

July Max Temp 90.5% 5.51 4.25 8.70 0.45

July Min Temp 90.6% 6.03 4.17 9.47 0.59

August Max Temp 85.1% 6.14 4.46 8.59 0.39

August Min Temp 93.9% 6.76 4.71 9.76 0.55

September Max Temp 9.5% 6.09 5.07 7.46 0.42

September Min Temp 90.6% 6.77 4.98 10.12 0.56

October Max Temp 0.6% 7.16 5.68 8.33 0.46

October Min Temp 61.2% 5.76 4.33 8.27 0.58

November Min Temp 0.1% 5.39 4.57 5.87 0.36

December Min Temp 0.1% 6.05 5.43 7.57 0.62

Source: Comer et al. 2012a

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
Draft Resource Management 163

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Figure 3.19. Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Change (degrees F) by

the 2020s, for July, August, and September (Comer et al. 2012a)

Figure 3.20. Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Increases (degrees F) for

2060, for July and August (Comer et al. 2012a)

In addition to the forecast modeling for temperature and precipitation, climate envelope models

were also developed in the REA analysis to indicate magnitudes and directions of shifts in climate

regimes based on current distribution of conservation elements. One of the specific conservation

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
164 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

elements analyzed in the REA was for GRSG occupied habitat for the timeframe of 2060. This

analysis shows that most of the analysis area will see a loss in habitat, with only a relatively small

proportion of current distribution forecasted to retain the climate regime close to that currently

supporting this species (Comer et al. 2012a).

Other climate change-related studies in the Nevada planning area are as follows:

● NDOW recently completed a habitat assessment and species vulnerability assessment to

climate change as part of their updated Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (NDOW 2013). NDOW

contracted with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to complete predictive modeling of climate

change effects on Nevada’s vegetative communities.

● The Nevada Natural Heritage Program conducted a wildlife species vulnerability analysis

using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index evaluation program (Young et al.

2011) to determine which wildlife species exhibited characteristics that might uniquely hinder

their adaptation to climate change, including but not limited to general mobility, physiological

challenges, and dependence on certain vegetation types or plant species.

● The GBBO developed data-supported climate change predictions for Nevada’s breeding birds

using point-count data from the Nevada Bird Count, a 10-year database with georeferencing

and coarse-scale habitat association capability. Avian Species of Conservation Priority

occurrences in the Nevada Bird Count were geospatially attached to the LANDFIRE map

used by TNC to generate the habitats analysis. Results from the TNC analysis were then

evaluated regarding potential consequences for Nevada’s breeding birds, and avian species

responses were predicted (NDOW 2013).

● The Connectivity Assessment Group provided an avian climate change analysis to the Nevada

Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) revision process that evaluated possible patterns of movement

on the landscape of priority birds based on the availability and connectivity of suitable habitats

as currently understood versus climate change projections in habitat shifts (NDOW 2013).

The results that follow are taken verbatim from the NWAP (NDOW 2013).

Predicted Climate Change Effects

Big Sagebrush Steppe

The Big Sagebrush Steppe currently occurs predominantly in the northern regions: Black Rock,

Owyhee, and Elko. In those regions, Big Sagebrush Steppe is relatively intact (more than 75

percent in characteristic classes), but in the Black Rock Plateau and Owyhee Desert regions,

sagebrush steppe is heavily weighted in percentage toward the mid-closed class with shrub

cover ranging between 31 and 50 percent. In the Elko region, Big Sagebrush Steppe occurs

predominantly in the mid-open class under 30 percent shrub cover. The percentage that would

roughly represent its mid-closed class in reference condition (18 percent) is currently classified as

rabbitbrush (early shrub, 22 percent). The open bunchgrass-dominated stage is largely deficient

under current conditions. The 50-year climate change projections predict increases in transition to

uncharacteristic classes for these regions: 26 percent in Elko, 45 percent in Black Rock, and 54

percent in Owyhee. Increases in the annual grass class are predicted to stay below 20 percent for

each of these regions and tree encroachment (above 20 percent cover) is predicted to occur in

about 14 percent of the Black Rock and Owyhee regions, but only 1 percent in the Elko region.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
Draft Resource Management 165

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

TNC climate change modeling predicts the appearance of Big Sagebrush Steppe in several regions

south of the Columbia Plateau in 50 years, including the Calcareous Ranges, Eastern Sierra,

Eureka, Humboldt Ranges, Lahontan Basin, Toiyabe, Tonopah, and Walker Corridor. Predicted

acreages gained in each region are presented in Appendix G of the NWAP. Big Sagebrush

Steppe will be converted primarily from the Montane Big Sagebrush Mountain above what is

now the 14-inch precipitation elevation. These converted acreages will be significantly invaded

with annual grasses, ranging anywhere from 36 to 84 percent in uncharacteristic classes, mostly

occurring in the shrub-annual-perennial class. All but Eastern Sierra (36 percent) will be over

50 percent invaded.

Big Sagebrush Upland

Big Sagebrush Upland occurred in all 13 regions evaluated by TNC. In reference condition, Big

Sagebrush Upland should exhibit 84 to 86 percent of its total acreage in the early, mid-open, and

mid-closed classes. The early class (10 to 80 percent grass, 0 to 10 percent shrub) is almost

non-existent throughout its range, deficient anywhere from 75 to 100 percent in all regions. Most

regions also exhibit a significant transition from the mid-open class to the mid-closed and late

open/closed classes, indicating that sagebrush age in this biophysical setting is weighted toward

the high end with little natural rejuvenation. This is because throughout most of this biophysical

setting, stand-clearing events (e.g., fire) are almost always significantly followed by the invasion

of annual grasses.

Significant transitioning into uncharacteristic classes (U-classes) has already occurred in most

of those regions (Appendix G of the NWAP), particularly the northern half of the state, where

percentage in U-classes currently range from 41 to 81 percent, with the exception of the Owyhee

(23 percent) and Eastern Sierra (20 percent) regions. In the three southern regions and the Walker

Corridor, U-class percentages currently range from 8 to 34 percent.

Climate change modeling indicated that the greatest increases in U-class percentages would occur

in those southern regions not currently so advanced in transition, ranging from 13 to 57 percent.

The remaining 8 northerly regions increased in U-class percentage less than 10 percent in 50

years with climate change.

Low-Black Sagebrush

The Low-Black Sagebrush biophysical setting occurs in all 13 regions evaluated by TNC. In

reference condition, Low-Black Sagebrush should exhibit 15 to 20 percent in the early class, 40 to

50 percent in the mid-open class, and 30 to 40 percent in the late-open/closed classes. Typically,

low-black sagebrush in current condition exhibit a healthy 40 to 75 percent in the mid-open class,

but early and late classes are invaded by annual grasses with some tree encroachment occurring

on the eastern and western borders of the state.

Climate change modeling indicated that 4 of the 13 regions would increase in uncharacteristic

class percentages over 10 percent in 50 years (Appendix C of the NWAP), four would increase

over 20 percent, and 4 would increase over 30 percent, with the Mojave region transitioning to a

47 percent into U-classes. The eastern side of the state (Elko, Calcareous, and Clover regions)

would experience relatively small increases but are largely transitioned to U-classes already (60 to

75 percent). The Black Rock and Owyhee regions would remain relatively intact, starting below

25 percent currently and experiencing 12 to 13 percent increases in U-classes in 50 years.

Low Sagebrush Steppe

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
166 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

The Low Sagebrush Steppe biophysical setting occurs at high elevations in 9 of the 13 regions,

absent in the Lahontan Basin, Walker Corridor, Tonopah, and Mojave regions. Low Sagebrush

Steppe currently exists in relatively good condition in its northern range (Black Rock, Owyhee,

Elko regions) with less than five percent in uncharacteristic classes. Throughout the rest of its

Nevada range, the type is already heavily invaded by annual grasses and/or tree-encroached.

Climate change modeling indicated that the northern regions with good condition Low Sagebrush

Steppe listed above would transition 12 percent or less to U-classes in 50 years (Appendix C of

the NWAP). Across the rest of its range, the type would not transition much further into U-classes,

but in the Eureka and Toiyabe regions where current U-class percentage already tops 80 percent,

the remaining amount would transition to U-class, while the Humboldt Ranges are predicted to

lose their Low Sagebrush Steppe acreages completely in 50 years.

Montane Sagebrush Steppe Mountain

The Montane Sagebrush Steppe Mountain biophysical setting occurs in all 13 regions above the

14-inch precipitation zone and constitutes the upper-elevation element of what is commonly

referred to in Nevada as mountain big sage. The type is currently significantly departed from

reference conditions in most regions throughout the state without a strong pattern of departure

comparable between regions or regional trends (e.g., north, south, east, or west) that can be

generally represented. U-class percentages range from 17 (Owyhee Desert) to 81 (Appendix C

of the NWAP) percent. Characteristic classes which should be ranging around 45 percent in the

mid-open class are weighted more in the mid-closed and late classes in 10 of 13 regions. Acreage

in the early class is almost non-existent, reflecting the continued lack of enough fire activity. The

biophysical setting is very productive and should easily recover from fire.

Climate change projections predicted all but 2 regions (Owyhee and Eastern Sierra) would be

over 40 percent transitioned to uncharacteristic classes in 50 years. The largest transitions tended

to occur in the southerly regions (Mojave, Clover, Calcareous, Tonopah, and Walker Corridor).

Climate change modeling predicted significant conversion of this to either Big Sagebrush Upland

or Big Sagebrush Steppe. Predicted losses by region are reported in Appendix G of the NWAP.

Predicted losses in the Montane Sagebrush Steppe mostly run between 18 and 22 percent of

its current totals in all regions, with the exceptions of the Elko and Mojave regions (12 and

14 percent, respectively).

Wyoming Big Sage

Wyoming Big Sage occurs in all the evaluated regions except the Mojave. Currently the type is

significantly departed from reference conditions in all regions except the Owyhee Desert, where

only one percent was classified in any uncharacteristic class (Appendix C of the NWAP). With

respect to the distribution of the type between characteristic classes in the Owyhee, there is no

early class, and significant invasion by annual grass or juniper encroachment is not yet occurring.

All other regions are currently exhibiting greater than 50 percent of their acreage of Wyoming

Big Sage in uncharacteristic classes, some as high as 90 percent. For most regions, the bulk of

the U-class acreage occurs in the tree-annual grass class. In the Elko region, most of the U-class

acreage occurs in rabbitbrush. Both are rather unfriendly habitats to sagebrush-associated wildlife

species. Eastern Sierra, Eureka, Humboldt, and Owyhee Desert regions were predicted to increase

in U-class percentage over 10 percent in 50 years with climate change. Only Owyhee, Elko, and

Eastern Sierra will remain under 60 percent transitioned to U-classes in 50 years.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
Draft Resource Management 167

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Possible Wildlife Responses to Climate Change

Sagebrush communities in their characteristic forms provide essential habitat elements for wildlife

in several critical ways. The shrub component provides essential nesting structure, protection from

the elements (thermal cover), and protection from predators (escape cover). The native grass/forb

understory provides food for herbivorous/granivorous species, including the important upland

forbs for early GRSG brood-rearing immediately after hatch. Rodents such as sagebrush vole,

pale and dark kangaroo mouse, and Wyoming ground squirrel are dependent on the herbage, fruits,

and seeds of native grasses and forbs. The native understory is also important to the sustenance

of abundant, diverse arthropod communities important as food sources for reptiles such as the

greater and pygmy short-horned lizards, insectivorous mammals such as Merriam’s, Preble’s,

and Inyo shrew, as well as all the brood-rearing songbirds including Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s

Sparrow, Sage Sparrow, and Loggerhead Shrike. In turn, several of these species are preyed upon

by predators, including Burrowing Owl, Ferruginous Hawk, Bald Eagle, and Prairie Falcon.

Predicted high ecological departure in sagebrush communities suggests disruption of many

ecological processes required by wildlife species. Primary threats to ecological integrity are the

invasion of annual grasses and exotic forbs via wildfire, land disturbance, and the encroachment

of pinyon and juniper trees from their characteristic sites primarily through natural seed dispersal

and fire suppression. Invasive grasses and forbs change the community through the eventual

replacement of the native understory with species whose seeds and herbage are of less nutritional

value and are available in nutritious form for a shorter period of time compared with the native

understory. Eventually, through the change in fire regime facilitated by annual grass/exotic forb

build-up and their better recovery advantage after fire, the shrub component can be lost and the site

converted to annual grass/exotic forbs with little natural recovery potential. Tree encroachment

will start a disruptive process that several sagebrush breeding birds, including Sage Thrasher,

Brewer’s Sparrow, and Sage Sparrow, avoid in surprisingly early stages of advancement–as low

as 6 percent tree cover for Sage Thrashers (Reinkensmeyer 2000) and around 15 percent for

Brewer’s Sparrow (CalPIF 2005). GBBO bird response analysis predicted that among three

species, Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, and Sage Sparrow, Sage Sparrow demonstrated the

greatest negative sensitivity to presence of trees, with reductions in densities ranging between

87 and 89 percent from absence of trees to presence of trees (NDOW 2013). Similarly, the

Connectivity Study Group Report predicted a 29 percent reduction in area occupied by Sage

Thrasher, 18 percent reduction in area occupied by Sage Sparrow, and an 11 percent reduction

in area occupied by Brewer’s Sparrow as pinyon-juniper woodland expanded (Fleishman et

al. 2012). Small mammal and reptile response to tree encroachment into sagebrush has been

less studied, but intuition would suggest that these species would maintain their occurrence as

long as a native understory and some of the shrub component persist. Tree encroachment can

reach a point to where the understory is deprived of sufficient water by the tree root systems and

disappears, as reflected in the Uncharacteristic Tree-encroached class description for several

sagebrush communities in this analysis.

An evaluation of the relative values of the different classes of sagebrush leads to the identification

of uncharacteristic classes that will have definite impacts on wildlife’s ability to stay on the

landscape. For the purposes of this analysis, the following classes have been identified as

unsatisfactory to sagebrush-associated wildlife: annual grassland, early shrub (rabbitbrush),

tree-annual grass, and tree-encroached. The characteristic early classes (usually resultant from a

stand-changing event such as wildfire or applied management) can be expected to be abandoned

by shrub-associated wildlife species for the first 12 or so years, but since this is a natural

rejuvenation process and the sagebrush community is on track for natural succession, it is a

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
168 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

stage that results in long-term benefits for the sagebrush wildlife community. The depleted and

shrub-annual grass-perennial grass classes will likely continue to hold the shrub-nesting birds

such as Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, and Sage Sparrow which seem to be non-responsive

to changes in understory condition as long as the shrubs persist, particularly in their mature

stages. GRSG should conceivably find the depleted and shrub-annual grass-perennial grass

classes acceptable as wintering habitat as the understory would be under the snow, but assign

lower suitability to the depleted class during nesting summer foraging. The lack of understory

impacts nesting success through increased nest predation (Coates and Delehanty 2010) and lack

of herbaceous material and associated herbivorous insects would impact brood nutrition in the

first few weeks after hatch (Klebenow and Gray 1968; Gregg et al. 2008). Ground-dwelling small

mammals and reptiles may be negatively impacted by the loss of understory in the depleted

classes, but necessary research is lacking.

Cumulative increases in the annual grass, early shrub, and tree-encroached classes of sagebrush

types after 50 years of climate change consistently averaged between 10 and 25 percent when

determined for each region, with some notable exceptions. In the Mojave region where sagebrush

types are more typically montane or associated with montane dry washes, and largely restricted to

the Spring Mountains and Sheep Range, the cumulative increase in wildlife-unfriendly sagebrush

classes reached 58 percent for Big Sagebrush Upland (affecting 9,200 acres), 64 percent for

Low/Black Sagebrush (affecting 90,000 acres), and 65 percent for Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Mountain (affecting 8,300 acres). The bulk of these increases were predicted to occur in the early

shrub class (rabbitbrush), presumably following wildfire. The Lahontan region was predicted to

transition an average of 46 percent of all its sagebrush communities to unsuitable classes in 50

years, while the Humboldt Ranges were predicted to transition 34 percent and the Clover region

30 percent to unsuitable classes. Large transitions in the Lahontan and Humboldt Ranges regions

might particularly affect Sage Sparrow, a species associated more prevalent with Wyoming

Big Sage biophysical setting than other types of sagebrush. Pygmy rabbits might particularly

suffer range retractions in the 2 regions where nearly all types of big sagebrush were predicted to

transition over 40 percent to unsuitable classes.

Generally, sagebrush-associated species in Nevada could experience a 10 to 30 percent decrease

in acres of suitable habitat over the next 50 years with climate change. GBBO bird population

modeling predicted a 14 percent reduction in statewide population for Brewer’s Sparrow, 20

percent for Sage Sparrow, and 21 percent for Sage Thrasher based on the TNC climate change

analysis. Whether or not populations will be able to adjust to greater densities in reduced suitable

habitat, thus maintaining their current levels, remains to be seen and should be monitored.

Evidence suggests that nesting sagebrush songbirds do have demographic capabilities to nest at

densities higher than they typically do when unstressed for space (GBBO 2010). How mammals

and reptiles might respond to such reductions is largely unknown and should be monitored.

3.23. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Due to the nature of social, economic, and environmental justice conditions, the social and

economic analysis is based on a somewhat different area of analysis than is used for other

resources. Specifically, the socioeconomic study area is made up of counties within the Nevada

and Northeastern California Sub-region that contain GRSG habitat and within which social and

economic conditions might reasonably be expected to change based on alternative management

actions. In addition, the BLM reviewed the need to include additional counties that may not

contain habitat, but are closely linked from an economic and/or social perspective to counties

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 169

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

that do contain habitat. This latter category includes what are sometimes called “service area”

counties, or counties from which businesses operate that regularly provide critical economic

services, such as recreational outfitting or support services for the livestock grazing sector, within

the counties that contain habitat (METI Corp/Economic Insights of Colorado 2012). Including

service area counties could be important because a change in economic activity in a county

containing habitat may result in changes in economic activity within service area counties as well.

The socioeconomic study area contains 12 counties, all containing GRSG habitat: 2 in California

(Lassen and Modoc) and 10 in Nevada (Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln,

Nye, Pershing, Washoe, and White Pine).

The BLM considered whether there would be a secondary study area, made up of counties

providing services to the primary study area, or linked through commuter patterns. Table

3-69, Commuter Patterns in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010, shows the share of workers

employed in a given county of the socioeconomic study area that reside in the same county. It

also shows other counties that provide labor to the county. The table shows that no labor market

in the socioeconomic study area relies on a county outside the socioeconomic study area for a

considerable share of the workers employed. Some counties (not shown in Table 3-69) do depend

considerably on Washoe County as a source of employment (e.g., Storey County) but because this

link is mostly to Reno, which is expected to be less impacted by management alternatives than

rural areas of Washoe County, counties economically connected to Reno were not included in a

secondary study area. Because the BLM also found no evidence of important service areas outside

the counties already included in the study area, no secondary study area has been identified.

Table 3.69. Commuter Patterns in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010

Geographic Area of

Employment

Live in Same Area of

Employment

Other Counties Where Considerable Share of

Workers Live

Primary Socioeconomic Study Area

Lassen County, California 75.7% Shasta (3.4%), Plumas (3.1%), Washoe, Nevada

(2.6%)

Modoc County, California 63.3% Siskiyou (10.0%), Klamath, Oregon (7.5%), Shasta

(4.7%), Lassen (2.5%)

Churchill County, Nevada 70.6% Washoe (9.2%), Lyon (6.6%), Clark (2.1%)

Elko County, Nevada 75.3% Washoe (2.9%), Humboldt (2.5%), Clark (2.4%),

Tooele, Utah (2.4%), Twin Falls, Idaho (2.2%)

Eureka County, Nevada 25.3% Elko (56.0%), Lander (10.6%)

Humboldt County, Nevada 64.2% Elko (11.7%), Washoe (5.8%), Pershing (3.9%),

Lander (3.8%)

Lander County, Nevada 56.8% Elko (18.3%), Humboldt (11.8%), Washoe (2.4%)

Lincoln County, Nevada 73.2% Clark (15.1%), White Pine (2.2%)

Nye County, Nevada 70.1% Clark (19.8%)

Pershing County, Nevada 59.0% Washoe (9.6%), Humboldt (9.2%), Clark (5.1%),

Lyon (4.7%), Churchill (3.4%), Carson City (2.7%)

Washoe County, Nevada 80.6% Clark (4.0%), Lyon (3.1%), Carson City (2.8%),

Douglas (2.0%)

White Pine County, Nevada 75.7% Elko (9.3%), Clark (4.3%)

Source: US Census Bureau 2012a

Table 3-70, BLM and Forest Service Plans within the Socioeconomic Study Area, Management

Units, and Counties, shows the planning documents that may be altered by the Nevada and

Northeastern California Sub-region GRSG planning process and the counties containing GRSG

habitat within the area encompassed by those plans. Although Table 3-70 shows additional

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
170 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

counties (other than the 12 counties listed above), the BLM’s analysis of habitat and cross-county

labor flows indicates that any economic or social effects in these additional counties resulting from

actions analyzed in this LUPA/EIS are likely to be small relative to the 12 study area counties.

Table 3.70. BLM and Forest Service Plans within the Socioeconomic Study Area,

Management Units, and Counties

Agency Plan or Document Management Unit Counties

BLM Battle Mountain RMP Battle Mountain District Office

(Mountain Lewis and Tonopah Field

Offices)

Lander, Eureka, Nye, Esmeralda

(Nevada)

Black Rock Desert

National Conservation

Area RMP (2004)

Surprise Field Office, Winnemucca

District Office (Black Rock, Humboldt

River Field Offices)

Humboldt, Pershing, Washoe

(Nevada)

Carson City RMP Carson City District Office (Sierra

Front, Stillwater Field Offices)

Washoe, Storey, Carson City,

Douglas, Lyon, Churchill, Mineral,

Nye (Nevada); Sierra, Alpine,

Plumas, Lassen (California)

Elko RMP (1987) Elko District Office (Tuscarora, Wells

Field Offices)

Elko, Eureka, Lander (Nevada)

Ely RMP (2008) Ely District Office (Egan, Schell,

Caliente Field Offices)

White Pine, Lincoln, Nye (Nevada)

Wells RMP (1985) Elko District Office (Tuscarora, Wells

Field Offices)

Elko (Nevada)

Winnemucca RMP Winnemucca District Office (Black

Rock, Humboldt River Field Offices)

Humboldt, Pershing, Washoe, Lyon,

Churchill (Nevada)

Alturas RMP (2008) Alturas Field Office Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou

(California)

Eagle Lake RMP

(2008)

Eagle Lake Field Office Lassen, Plumas, Sierra (California);

Washoe (Nevada)

Surprise RMP (2008) Surprise Field Office Modoc, Lassen (California);

Washoe, Humboldt (Nevada)

Forest

Service

Humboldt National

Forest LRMP (1986)

Ely, Jarbidge, Mountain City, Santa

Rosa Ranger Districts

Nye, Elko, White Pine, Humboldt,

Toiyabe National

Forest LRMP (1986)

Austin, Bridgeport, Carson, Tonopah,

Spring Mountains National Recreation

Area Ranger Districts

Nye, Lander, Mineral, Lyon,

Eureka, Washoe, Douglas, Clark,

Lincoln, Carson City (Nevada);

Mono, Alpine, Sierra, Nevada,

Lassen, El Dorado (California)

Current Condition

Social Conditions

Social conditions concern human communities, including towns, cities, and rural areas, and the

custom, culture, and history of the area as it relates to human settlement, as well as current

social values.

Population and Demographics

Table 3-71, Population Growth, 1990-2010, shows current and historic populations in the

socioeconomic study area. While the population of California grew at nearly the same rate as the

United States as a whole between 1990 and 2010 (24.1 percent and 25.0 percent, respectively),

the population in Nevada increased by 124.7 percent over the same time period. Both states

experienced a higher percentage of population growth from 1990 to 2000 than from 2000 to

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 171

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

2010. From 2000 to 2009, natural increase (births minus deaths) has accounted for 26 percent of

Nevada’s population growth, and net migration has accounted for about 74 percent. In contrast,

about 90 percent of California’s population growth is due to natural increase, while only 10

percent is due to net migration (US Census Bureau 2009). Population growth between 1990

and 2010 within the separate counties of the socioeconomic study area ranges from a low of

negative 7.8 percent growth in Lander County, Nevada, to a high of 147.2 percent growth in Nye

County, Nevada. Washoe County, Nevada, which is by far the most populated county in the

socioeconomic study area, grew 65.5 percent over the 1990 to 2010 time period.

Table 3.71. Population Growth in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 1990-2010

Geographic Area 1990 2000 2010 Percent

Change

(1990-2010)

Lassen County, California 27,598 33,828 34,895 26.4

Modoc County, California 9,678 9,449 9,686 0.1

Churchill County, Nevada 17,938 23,982 24,877 38.7

Elko County, Nevada 33,463 45,291 48,818 45.9

Eureka County, Nevada 1,547 1,651 1,987 28.4

Humboldt County, Nevada 12,844 16,106 16,528 28.7

Lander County, Nevada 6,266 5,794 5,775 -7.8

Lincoln County, Nevada 3,775 4,165 5,345 41.6

Nye County, Nevada 17,781 32,485 43,946 147.2

Pershing County, Nevada 4,336 6,693 6,753 55.7

Washoe County, Nevada 254,667 339,486 421,407 65.5

White Pine County, Nevada 9,264 9,181 10,030 8.3

Socioeconomic Study Area 399,157 528,111 630,047 57.8

California 29,811,427 33,871,648 37,253,956 25.0

Nevada 1,201,675 1,998,257 2,700,551 124.7

United States 248,790,925 281,421,906 308,745,538 24.1

Sources: US Census Bureau 1990, 2000, 2010a

With a population of 225,221, Reno, Nevada, is the largest city in the socioeconomic study area

(US Census Bureau 2010a). Reno is the county seat of Washoe County (NACO 2012) and the

third largest city in Nevada, after Las Vegas and Henderson. Reno is serviced by three major

highways, the Union Pacific railroad, and a number of trucking and airline carriers. Reno’s

economy is based predominantly in the trade and service sector, with approximately 65 percent

of the workforce employed in these occupations. In 2005, Inc. magazine named Reno number

one on its list of the “Best Places to Do Business in America,” based on job growth figures from

274 metropolitan areas (City of Reno 2012). With a population of 90,264, Sparks, Nevada, is

part of the Reno-Sparks Metropolitan Area. Sparks was reported as the fastest growing city in

Nevada between 1999 and 2008. Two large suburbs, Sun Valley (population: 19,299) and Spanish

Springs (population: 15,604), are north of Reno and part of the Reno-Sparks Metropolitan area.

The GRSG habitat within Washoe County is predominantly found to the north of the Reno-Sparks

Metropolitan area.

With a population of 17,947, the largest California city in the socioeconomic study area is

Susanville. Susanville, the county seat of Lassen County, California (NACO 2012), is a

former mining town. Susanville is also home to two California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation facilities: High Desert State Prison and California Correctional Center.

Communities of Place, below provides more information about additional cities and towns in the

socioeconomic study area, as well as the character and history of the counties. Table 3-72,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
172 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Demographic Characteristics, Share in Total Population (percent), 2010, shows age and gender

characteristics of the population in each county of the socioeconomic study area.

California, Nevada, and the socioeconomic study area generally follow the same trends as the

country as a whole, with women comprising approximately 50 percent of the population and an

age demographic of 20 to 64 for approximately 60 percent of the population. Of the counties

within the socioeconomic study area, Lassen County, California, and Pershing County, Nevada,

have the populations with the highest percentage of males, both at least 14 percentage points

higher than the national average. Of the counties within the socioeconomic study area, Lassen

County, California, and Pershing County, Nevada, also have the highest percentages of working

age individuals, both at least 5 percentage points higher than the national average. On the other end

of the spectrum, Lincoln County, Nevada, and Nye County, Nevada, have the lowest percentages

of working age individuals, both at least 6 percentage points lower than the national average.

Table 3.72. Demographic Characteristics of the Socioeconomic Study Area, Share in Total

Population (percent), 2010

Geographic Area Women 20 to 64 Years

of Age

Under 20 Years

of Age

65 Years of

Age or Older

Lassen County, California 35.8 69.4 20.6 10.0

Modoc County, California 49.6 56.5 23.8 19.7

Churchill County, Nevada 49.7 57.3 27.5 15.2

Elko County, Nevada 48.1 59.3 32.2 8.5

Eureka County, Nevada 47.3 61.1 26.0 12.9

Humboldt County, Nevada 47.6 60.0 29.8 10.2

Lander County, Nevada 49.3 57.9 30.3 11.8

Lincoln County, Nevada 46.2 52.4 29.5 18.1

Nye County, Nevada 49.5 53.9 22.7 23.4

Pershing County, Nevada 36.8 65.3 21.7 13.0

Washoe County, Nevada 49.5 61.3 26.6 12.1

White Pine County, Nevada 43.4 61.7 23.4 14.9

Socioeconomic Study Area 48.3 60.8 26.5 12.8

California 50.3 60.5 28.1 11.4

Nevada 49.5 60.7 27.3 12.0

United States 50.8 60.1 26.9 13.0

Source: US Census Bureau 2010b

Interest Groups and Communities of Place

There is a range of interest groups in the socioeconomic study area, and the positions advanced

by these groups include both overlapping and divergent interests. These groups sometimes

define or measure sustainable use or resource conservation differently, and these definitions and

measures of sustainability sometimes result in different conclusions about how land and resources

should be managed.

There are also groups that represent coalitions of interest groups. Identification of these groups is

intended to inform on the different interests in the study area and not to suggest that different

interests necessarily conflict. Furthermore, groups and individuals often value various interests. A

list of interest groups that have requested to receive a copy of the Draft LUPA/EIS is provided in

Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination. Interest groups within the socioeconomic study area

include, but are not limited to, the following: federal agencies, state agencies, county agencies,

local agencies, congressional representatives, local representatives, academic institutions, civic

organizations, local chambers of commerce, environmental groups, land conservation groups,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 173

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

outdoors and sporting groups, local school boards, farm associations, Native American groups

and tribal governments, and various business groups. Specific types of business interest groups

include, but are not limited to, the following: real estate, tourism, mineral extraction, textile

manufacturing, crop and livestock farming, and news media.

Residents of Nevada’s cities and towns view federal lands as an invaluable open space resource

for urban dwellers. For example, the Washoe Comprehensive Plan recognizes the numerous

scenic, natural, and cultural values that make Washoe County an attractive and exciting place to

visit (Washoe County 2005a). Convenient access to public lands for recreational purposes is one

of the area’s most attractive features and forms an important element in the personal lifestyle of

numerous county residents. The Policies and Action Programs section of the Washoe County

Comprehensive Plan includes a policy statement that expresses the intention to maintain the rural

character of the planning area and protect its scenic resources, wilderness areas, and natural

habitats generally (Washoe County 2005a).

Churchill County’s economy is primarily based on agriculture, while also having a strong military

presence (BLM 2013c). Churchill County is home to the Naval Air Station Fallon, which hosts

over 3,000 military, civilian employees, and Department of Defense contractors (CNIC undated).

Churchill County is also an important producer of renewable energy, generating almost three

quarters of the geothermal energy produced in the study area (see Table 3-80, Geothermal

Electrical Generation: Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources).

Churchill County’s Master Plan states that its natural areas, historical and archaeological sites,

and developed recreational facilities are valued and used by the residents and provide significant

potential for increasing the tourism economy (Churchill County 2010). A community needs

survey was completed in 2004. Of the respondents, 52 percent indicated that parks and recreation

were “very important,” while 38 percent ranked parks and recreation as “important.” Economic

strategy workshops conducted for the BLM’s Carson City District LUP and EIS revealed the

importance placed by participants on agriculture, military defense, and geothermal energy. They

were also interested in maintaining the rural character of the area, although more health care and

recreation infrastructure were identified as needed (BLM 2013c).

According to the December 2010 Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource

Management Plan (Elko County 2010), open space and recreational opportunities are critical

to Elko County’s economic, historical, and cultural identity. Elko County has a diversified

economy built on mining, ranching, recreation, and tourism. Recreational opportunities include

opportunities to camp, hike, fish, and hunt, among other activities. Elko County also hosts

many annual recreational, historical, cultural, and ethnic special events and attractions. Elko

County embraces the multiple use concept of public land management and expects federal land

management agencies to maximize public access and usage of lands while still addressing

environmental concerns. Mining and cattle ranching are two particularly important economic

activities for the county (Elko County 2010). Nearly 73 percent of Elko County is under federal

management (Elko County 2010). In 2010, Elko County prepared a study titled “The Impact of

Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County, Nevada,” presented as Appendix E of the

Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan. This study shows that

because a large share of personal income in the county is derived from activities on federal lands

or directly from the federal government, changes in federal policies can have considerable impact

on the economy of the county (Leaming 2010).

Humboldt County, which is located to the east of Elko County, is sparsely populated, with most of

its population living in the only incorporated city, Winnemucca (BLM 2010d). Public ownership

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
174 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

accounts for 80 percent of Humboldt County land use. Less than 1 percent of the land is urban or

developed land. According to the Humboldt County Regional Master Plan, Humboldt County

typifies a rural intermountain western county. Its economy is derived substantially from natural

resource extraction, primarily mining and agriculture, with mining being the single greatest

concentration of resources. Mining-related boom-and-bust cycles have dominated Humboldt’s

history, and Humboldt’s County Regional Master Plan aims at a more diversified economy

(Humboldt County 2002).

The Pershing County economy is dominated by mining. The long-term goals of Pershing County,

as indicated in the 2002 Master Plan, focus on maintaining a rural character while supporting the

existing agricultural and mining industries. The plan advocates concentrating growth in existing

developed areas and balancing growth with the desire to protect agricultural and open space land

uses. Overall, Pershing County is in a similar position as surrounding rural Nevada and California

counties in its desire to preserve a rural quality of life while promoting reasonable increases in

population and economic diversity. Counties like Pershing County are highly susceptible to

industry-specific fluctuations due to their less diverse economies. Local mines and the state prison

account for nearly half of the county’s total employment base. A change in mining regulations

could impact the county financially (TMRPA 2010).

Within Eureka, Lander, and Nye Counties, specific groups to whom management of public lands

is of particular interest include, but are not limited to, local governments and school districts,

ranchers (including those with livestock grazing permits), local sportsmen, mineral claims holder

and mineral estate owners, oil and gas leaseholders, and renewable energy leaseholders. Eureka

and Lander are among the least populated counties in the study area. Mining is a particularly

important part of Eureka and Lander’s economies. However, with mining jobs often filled by

residents of neighboring counties, and with the boom-and-bust cycles common to mining-related

economies, agriculture has been vital as a steady economic force for the local labor force

through the decades (BLM 2011i). In Nye County, various service sectors such as retail trade

and professional and technical services are also of particular importance for employment (see

Appendix M, Detailed Employment and Earnings Data). According to information provided by

the county, local communities and private landowners adjacent to public lands are concerned about

the lack of private land available for commercial and residential development or other economic

or social uses. In addition, local private landowners are concerned about how the development

of public lands may impact the quality or quantity of local natural resources, particularly water.

Additional issues of importance to landowners include rural lifestyle preservation, OHV, and

other recreational opportunities (Nye County 2012). Furthermore, special interest groups and

individuals who represent resource conservation or resource use perspectives constitute another

community with a specific interest in public land management. Various individuals and groups at

the local, regional, and national levels are interested in how the BLM administers public lands.

Many of their concerns regard wildlife, water quality, and visual quality. They value public lands

for open space, wildlife, recreation, and scenic qualities among other aspects (BLM 2011i).

Local residents and organizational interests in Lincoln and White Pine Counties have a strong

and often direct relationship with BLM administration of public lands. Many residents of these

counties are at least partially dependent on public lands for their economic livelihood (e.g.,

ranchers who maintain and operate livestock grazing permits, commercial big game hunting

guides and outfitters, individuals employed in mining, and the staff of the agencies themselves).

Some long-time residents see these uses of the land as part of their local customs and culture,

which they believe ensures them to at least some preferential consideration. In turn, the revenues

generated by those activities help support their local businesses and the function of local

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 175

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

government. Maintaining and expanding economic uses of the public lands are important for

these stakeholders (BLM 2007e).

Another major stakeholder group in Lincoln and White Pine Counties is comprised of local

residents who express strong attachments to the public lands for various recreation pursuits and

the contributions of such pursuits to their quality of life. These pursuits include rock-hounding,

hunting, wildlife viewing, backcountry touring, four-wheeling, OHV use, and camping. Proximity

and ready access to these opportunities, which are ancillary attributes of the rural character

and lifestyle of the area, are also key factors influencing their choice to live in the area. Along

with factors such as affordable housing and Nevada’s favorable personal income tax structure,

local economic development interests are promoting outdoor opportunities to recruit retirees

and others, whose residency choices are largely independent of a specific work site or location,

to move to the area (BLM 2007e).

In some areas of the socioeconomic study area, historic, economic, and cultural connections

with activities taking place on public lands (e.g., timber production and the livestock industry)

may be in a state of transition. For example, the Lassen County General Plan notes that Lassen

County has a strong and favorable historic, economic, and cultural connection with timber

production, agriculture, and the livestock industry (Lassen County 1999; BLM 2007f). The plan

notes that attitudes and values are subject to compromise because of economic changes and

shifting demographics. As people from suburban and urban areas seek out rural communities and

accept government, service, or other non-agricultural jobs, they often have different values and

expectations regarding resource use and open space (BLM 2007f).

The issue of livestock grazing on federal lands is often cited in rural western communities

as epitomizing the relationship of public land use with the lifestyle and economics of these

communities (BLM 2007f). A number of ranching operations in Lassen County rely heavily on

public grazing allotments. The agricultural element of the Lassen County General Plan states

that the economic viability of these operations is substantially dependent on the continued

and productive use of public rangeland, and that there is a direct relationship between federal

grazing privilege and the economic viability and real estate value of dependent ranches. The plan

maintains that if grazing allotments were no longer available or rendered uneconomical due to

unreasonable grazing fees, extensive management requirements, or excessively reduced capacity,

the home ranches that depend on public land grazing allotments would lose their economic

viability (Lassen County 1999). This could cause or contribute to the failure of small ranching

operations that, in addition to the tragic consequences for the families involved, contribute to

the trend to convert valuable agricultural land to other, non-productive – but more lucrative –

non-agricultural uses. The Lassen County Board of Supervisors firmly believes that such losses

to the agricultural base erode basic values and lifestyles cherished by most county residents

(Lassen County 1999; BLM 2007f).

Modoc County is mostly a rural county with a population of less than 10,000 that developed based

on livestock farming, logging, mining, wildlife, and the railroad industries. Modoc County’s

Comprehensive LUP states that federal and state lands occupy over three quarters of the county

and that the economy of the county depends on commercial and business activities operated

on those lands, including cutting, mining, livestock grazing, and commercial and recreational

activities. Land use policies include an expectation that private economic activity will be fostered

both on private and public lands, including but not limited to agriculture, sustainable forestry,

recreation, mining, and transportation (Modoc County 1995).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
176 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Comments received in response to the Scoping Report and the June 2012 Economic Strategies

Workshop for this planning effort reflected many of the themes discussed above (BLM and Forest

Service 2012; BLM 2012o). Residents expressed strong support for multi-use management

strategies that would maintain or expand access to public lands for grazing, mining, and renewable

energy development. Many expressed concern that placing constraints on these existing activities,

as well as activities that may occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, might create economic

hardship within their communities and alter traditional cultural values and lifestyles. Some

voiced broader concerns about the effects of restricted access to public lands on domestic energy

production and the prices of minerals and materials.

Participants in the Economic Strategies Workshop also requested that the BLM address a variety

of specific concerns in its analysis of the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region,

including potential nonanthropogenic impacts on GRSG habitat, major development projects

likely to occur within the socioeconomic study area in the reasonably foreseeable future, and

potential economic impacts on the hunting and fishing industries.

County Land Use Plans

Federal land administered by the BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies in the socioeconomic

study area is intermingled with state and private lands. County governments have land use

planning responsibility for the private lands located within their jurisdictions. County-level LUPs

were identified for nine of the twelve counties within the socioeconomic study area (Lassen

County 1999; Churchill County 2010; Elko County 2010; Eureka County 2010; Humboldt County

2002; Lander County 2010; Lincoln County 2007; Nye County 2011; Pershing County 2002).

Of the nine counties with identified LUPs, six of the plans (Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt,

Lander, and Nye) include some economic development component, such as promotion of specific

industrial sectors and natural resource uses.

Economic Conditions

Economic analysis is concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods

and services. This section provides a summary of economic information, including trends and

current conditions. It also identifies and describes major economic sectors in the socioeconomic

study area that can be affected by management actions. Economic activities that rely or could

rely on public lands, such as recreation and livestock grazing, are the economic activities that are

most likely to be affected.

Economic Sectors, Employment, and Personal Income

The distribution of employment and income by industry sector within the socioeconomic study

area is summarized in Table 3-73, Employment by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area,

and Table 3-74, Labor Income by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area (2010 dollars).

See Appendix M for equivalent data by county.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
177 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.73. Employment by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area

1

Socioeconomic Study Area Absolute Percentage of total Percent

Change

2001-2010

2001 2010 Change

2001-2010

2001 2010

Total Employment (number of jobs) 330,259 361,315 31,056 100.0% 100.0% 9.4%

Non-services related 55,921 49,848 -6,073 16.9% 13.8% -10.9%

Farm 5,070 4,785 -285 1.5% 1.3% -5.6%

Forestry, fishing,& related activities 1,142 1,087 -56 0.3% 0.3% -4.9%

Mining (including oil and gas) 9,893 13,224 3,331 3.0% 3.7% 33.7%

Construction 23,414 17,542 -5,871 7.1% 4.9% -25.1%

Manufacturing 16,402 13,210 -3,192 5.0% 3.7% -19.5%

Services related 228,845 258,194 29,349 69.3% 71.5% 12.8%

Utilities 1,459 1,057 -402 0.4% 0.3% -27.6%

Wholesale trade 13,717 11,769 -1,948 4.2% 3.3% -14.2%

Retail trade 34,985 36,558 1,573 10.6% 10.1% 4.5%

Transportation and warehousing 12,271 14,615 2,345 3.7% 4.0% 19.1%

Information 5,146 4,136 -1,010 1.6% 1.1% -19.6%

Finance and insurance 13,455 19,855 6,400 4.1% 5.5% 47.6%

Real estate and rental and leasing 12,579 21,710 9,131 3.8% 6.0% 72.6%

Professional and technical services 17,486 21,581 4,094 5.3% 6.0% 23.4%

Management of companies and enterprises 2,311 4,712 2,401 0.7% 1.3% 103.9%

Administrative and waste services 17,304 19,658 2,354 5.2% 5.4% 13.6%

Educational services 1,986 3,790 1,804 0.6% 1.0% 90.8%

Health care and social assistance 22,746 29,561 6,814 6.9% 8.2% 30.0%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 11,050 11,387 337 3.3% 3.2% 3.0%

Accommodation and food services 48,134 40,376 -7,758 14.6% 11.2% -16.1%

Other services, except public administration 14,216 17,430 3,214 4.3% 4.8% 22.6%

Government 44,539 51,877 7,338 13.5% 14.4% 16.5%

Federal

2 8,101 10,065 1,964 2.5% 2.8% 24.2%

State

2 10,406 14,498 4,092 3.2% 4.0% 39.3%

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
178 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Socioeconomic Study Area Absolute Percentage of total Percent

Change

2001-2010

2001 2010 Change

2001-2010

2001 2010

Local2 20,700 26,386 5,686 6.3% 7.3% 27.5%

Sources: Headwaters Economics 2012; BEA 2012a.

Note: because government employment includes estimate of data not disclosed for state and local employment in two counties

in the study area, the sum of local, State and Federal employment is less than the total government employment shown, and

slightly underestimate State and local government employment.

1US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis , data for employment and earnings are used in this chapter

and in Appendix M. Bureau of Economic Analysis data reflects place of work (not necessarily residence). Proprietor’s

employment and earnings are counted, although not employment and earnings of unpaid family members and volunteers. For

further methodological details, please see http://www.bea.gov/regional/methods.cfm

2The values for “Government” differ from the sum of the values for “Federal,” “State,” and “Local” because the “Government”

line provided by Headwaters Economics includes estimates for nondisclosed data, whereas the three following lines do not.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
179 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.74. Labor Income by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area (2010 dollars)

Socioeconomic Study Area

Absolute (Millions) Percentage of total

1

Percent Change

2001 2010 2001-2010 Change

2001-2010 2001 2010

Total Labor Earnings $15,908.7 $16,676.0 $767.3 100.0% 100.0% 4.8%

Non-services related $3,466.5 $3,279.3 -$187.3 21.8% 19.7% -5.4%

Farm $119.9 $177.0 $57.2 0.8% 1.1% 47.7%

Forestry, fishing,& related activities $40.6 $29.3 -$11.3 0.3% 0.2% -27.8%

Mining (including oil and gas) $820.7 $1,200.6 $379.8 5.2% 7.2% 46.3%

Construction $1,390.1 $1,008.2 -$381.8 8.7% 6.0% -27.5%

Manufacturing $1,095.3 $864.2 -$231.2 6.9% 5.2% -21.1%

Services related $9,871.3 $10,204.5 $333.2 62.0% 61.2% 3.4%

Utilities $157.7 $119.8 -$37.9 1.0% 0.7% -24.0%

Wholesale trade $842.8 $774.5 -$68.3 5.3% 4.6% -8.1%

Retail trade $1,182.1 $1,116.3 -$65.8 7.4% 6.7% -5.6%

Transportation and warehousing $648.1 $765.7 $117.6 4.1% 4.6% 18.1%

Information $293.8 $199.6 -$94.1 1.8% 1.2% -32.0%

Finance and insurance $902.3 $763.3 -$139.0 5.7% 4.6% -15.4%

Real estate and rental and leasing $283.3 $328.7 $45.4 1.8% 2.0% 16.0%

Professional and technical services $1,052.4 $1,169.1 $116.7 6.6% 7.0% 11.1%

Management of companies and

enterprises

$291.0 $452.2 $161.2 1.8% 2.7% 55.4%

Administrative and waste services $557.6 $638.7 $81.1 3.5% 3.8% 14.6%

Educational services $157.4 $212.4 $55.0 1.0% 1.3% 35.0%

Health care and social assistance $1,251.3 $1,627.1 $375.8 7.9% 9.8% 30.0%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation $322.4 $281.7 -$40.7 2.0% 1.7% -12.6%

Accommodation and food services $1,497.8 $1,161.2 -$336.7 9.4% 7.0% -22.5%

Other services, except public

administration

$431.3 $594.1 $162.8 2.7% 3.6% 37.8%

Government

2 $2,766.3 $3,482.1 $715.7 17.4% 20.9% 25.9%

Federal $608.7 $887.0 $278.3 3.8% 5.3% 45.7%

State $718.9 $884.7 $165.8 4.5% 5.3% 23.1%

Local $1,162.7 $1,657.4 $494.7 7.3% 9.9% 42.5%

Non-labor Income $7,447.5 $10,030.7 $2,583.2 29.8% 35.3% 34.7%

Dividends, interest, and rent $5,279.8 $6,013.1 $733.3 24.4% 24.1% 13.9%

Personal current transfer receipts

3 $2,167.7 $4,017.6 $1,849.9 10.0% 16.1% 85.3%

Contributions to government social

insurance

4

$1,626.1 $1,718.2 $92.1 7.5% 6.9% 5.7%

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
180 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Socioeconomic Study Area

Absolute (Millions) Percentage of total1

Percent Change

2001 2010 2001-2010 Change

2001-2010 2001 2010

Total Personal Income5 $24,982.3 $28, 424.9 $3,442.6 100% 100% 13.8%

Sources: Headwaters Economics 2012; BEA 2012a. Values reported in 2001 dollars were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer

Price Index (BLS 2012a).

1Industry earnings are reported as a share of total labor earnings. Adjustment for residence; dividends, interest, and rent; personal current

transfer receipts; and contributions to government social insurance are reported as a share of personal income.

2The values for “Government” differ from the sum of the values for “Federal,” “State,” and “Local” because the “Government” line

provided by Headwaters Economics includes estimates for nondisclosed data, whereas the three following lines do not.

3“Personal current transfer receipts” are benefits received by persons for which no current services are performed. They are payments by

government and business to individuals and institutions, such as retirement and disability insurance benefits.

4“Contributions for government social insurance” consists of payments by employers, employees, the self-employed, and other individuals

who participate in the following government programs: Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Medicare; unemployment

insurance; railroad retirement; pension benefit guarantee; veterans’ life insurance; publicly administered workers’ compensation; military

medical insurance; and temporary disability insurance (BEA 2012b).

5Total personal income is reported by place of residence.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 181

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Employment results for the socioeconomic study area as a whole are driven in large part by

Washoe County, which accounted for about 70 percent of the study area jobs in 2010. The largest

industry sector in the socioeconomic study area is the services-related sector, which comprised

71.5 percent of total employment in the socioeconomic study area in 2010. This reflects a growth

rate of 12.8 percent since 2001 (compared with an overall employment growth rate of 9.4

percent since 2001). Compared with the services-related sector, the government sector and the

non-services-related sector represented much lower levels of employment, 14.4 percent and 13.8

percent, respectively. Within the services-related sector, the accommodation and food services

industry (11.2 percent) and retail trade industry (10.1 percent) accounted for the largest share of

employment in 2010, followed by the health care and social assistance industry (8.2 percent). The

industries that demonstrated the largest growth between 2001 and 2010 were the management of

companies and enterprises industry, with an increase of 103.9 percent; the educational services

industry, with an increase of 90.8 percent; and the real estate and rental and leasing industry,

with an increase of 72.6 percent. Eight industries declined in employment levels from 2001 to

2010, including the accommodation and food services industry (16.1 percent decline) and farm

industry (5.6 percent decline).

Appendix M provides county-level employment figures for 2010. The greatest difference in

industry proportion between counties in 2010 was in the mining industry, which contributed just

0.6 percent of total employment in Washoe County, Nevada, but contributed a much higher share

in Eureka County, Nevada (79.6 percent); Lander County, Nevada (44.1 percent); Humboldt

County, Nevada (18.9 percent); and Pershing County, Nevada (16.2 percent). Mining in Eureka

County employs residents not only of Eureka but also of neighboring counties, notably Elko.

Note that the data source does not release employment data in three of the counties to protect

business confidentiality.

The percentage of employment generated by the accommodation and food services industry also

varied across the counties in the socioeconomic study area, from 1.3 percent in Eureka County,

Nevada, to 21.6 percent in Elko County, Nevada. The retail trade industry, which is another

recreation-related industry like accommodation and food services, also varied in importance across

counties, contributing a low 1.1 percent of employment in Eureka County, Nevada, and higher

shares in Lincoln County, Nevada (11.2 percent); Humboldt County, Nevada (11.5 percent); and

Nye County, Nevada (11.8 percent). The arts, entertainment, and recreation industry contributed a

consistently low share of employment in all counties (no more than 5.5 percent in any county).

Farming also contributed a relatively low share of employment in most counties (with a low of

0.2 percent in Washoe, Nevada), although the industry did support a high of 12.7 percent of

employment in Modoc County, California. See Appendix M for individual county detail.

With respect to personal earnings, the services-related sector accounted for the largest share (61.2

percent) of labor income in the socioeconomic study area in 2010, followed by the government

sector (20.9 percent) and the non-services-related sector (19.7 percent). In 2010, the individual

industries that generated the largest shares of personal earnings were the local government

industry (9.9 percent); the healthcare and social services industry (9.8 percent); and the mining

trade industry (7.2 percent). The management of companies and enterprises industry, the farming

industry, and the mining industry showed strong growth since 2001 (a percent change of 55.4

percent, 47.7 percent, and 46.3 percent, respectively); these were the three highest growth rates

between 2001 and 2010. During the same time period, the information industry and the forestry,

fishing, and related activities industry experienced declines of 32.0 percent and 27.8 percent,

respectively, the greatest declines of all the industry sectors.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
182 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Appendix M provides county-level labor earnings figures for 2010. The county-by-county

patterns are similar to those for employment, with relatively more variation in mining-related

income; mining contributed the most to earnings in Eureka County, Nevada, at 92.1 percent,

followed by Lander County, Nevada, at 66.8 percent. Mining labor earnings in Eureka and

Lander Counties reflect, in part, labor earnings of residents in neighboring counties. At the other

end of the range, mining contributed a negligible amount (less than $50,000) to earnings in

Modoc County, California. Earnings from the mining sector were left undisclosed in 3 of the

12 counties due to confidentiality requirements. The share of earnings from the farm industry

varied across the 12 counties in the study area. In Washoe County, Nevada, the farm industry

accounted for zero percent of earnings, while farming in Modoc County, California provide 22.1

percent of earnings. The proportion of the county-level labor earnings from the accommodation

and food services industry and the retail trade industry, which are both influenced by recreation

and travel, differed by county. Accommodation and food services generated 13.2 percent of

earnings in Elko County, Nevada, but only 0.2 percent in Eureka County, Nevada. Retail trade

provided a maximum of 7.3 percent of earnings in Churchill and Nye Counties, but only 0.2

percent in Eureka County, Nevada. The arts, entertainment, and recreation industry was not a

major contributor to earnings in any of the counties.

Table 3-75, Annual Unemployment, 2007 – 2011, presents the unemployment rates for each

county in the Socioeconomic Study Area, as well as the rates for the 12 counties aggregated

and the states of California and Nevada. The data show that the socioeconomic study area has

experienced rates of unemployment that are about equal to or lower than those of California

and Nevada for each of the years listed. At the county level, in 2011, the unemployment rate

ranged from a low of 6.0 percent in Eureka County, Nevada, to a high of 16.5 percent in Nye

County, Nevada.

Table 3.75. Annual Unemployment within the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2007 – 2011

Geographic Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Churchill County, Nevada 4.5% 6.3% 8.9% 10.6% 11.0%

Elko County, Nevada 3.4% 4.5% 6.5% 7.4% 7.1%

Eureka County, Nevada 4.3% 5.5% 6.8% 7.6% 6.0%

Humboldt County, Nevada 3.7% 5.2% 7.5% 8.1% 7.2%

Lander County, Nevada 3.4% 4.6% 6.0% 7.1% 6.6%

Lassen County, California 8.2% 9.5% 12.6% 14.0% 13.5%

Lincoln County, Nevada 4.4% 5.8% 9.2% 12.6% 13.7%

Modoc County, California 8.0% 9.6% 12.3% 14.4% 14.9%

Nye County, Nevada 6.8% 10.2% 14.3% 16.5% 16.5%

Pershing County, Nevada 5.1% 7.3% 10.0% 10.9% 11.7%

Washoe County, Nevada 4.5% 7.1% 11.4% 13.1% 13.1%

White Pine County, Nevada 3.8% 4.9% 7.2% 8.8% 8.4%

Socioeconomic Study Area 4.7% 7.0% 10.8% 12.4% 12.3%

California 5.4% 7.2% 11.3% 12.4% 11.7%

Nevada 4.7% 7.0% 11.6% 13.7% 13.5%

Source: BLS 2012b

Recreation

Approximately 52,600 jobs (24.6 percent of total employment in 2010) in the socioeconomic

study area are related to travel and tourism (Headwaters Economics 2012). This estimate is based

on data from the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns and includes industrial sectors

that, at least in part, provide goods and services to visitors, the local economy, and the local

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 183

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

population. It includes both full- and part-time jobs. Most of these jobs are concentrated in the

“accommodation and food services” sector. In 2010, the socioeconomic study area’s proportion

of travel and tourism-related jobs was 9.5 percentage points higher than the national average of

15.1 percent. Jobs related to travel and tourism are more likely to be seasonal or part-time and

more likely to have lower average annual earnings than jobs in non-travel and tourism-related

sectors. The average annual wage per travel- or tourism-related job was $20,823 (2010 dollars)

in the socioeconomic study area in 2011, compared to $48,787 for jobs not related to travel

and tourism (Headwaters Economics 2012). 1

Although much of the recreation use on BLM-administered lands is dispersed and far from

counting devices (e.g., trail registers, fee stations, or vehicle traffic counters), approximations

of the number of visitors to BLM-administered land can be obtained from the BLM Recreation

Management Information System (RMIS) database, in which BLM recreation specialists provide

estimated total visits and visitor days to various sites2.Table 3-76, Estimated Annual Visits by

Planning Unit, summarizes BLM visitation data within the study area for fiscal year (FY) 2011

(i.e., the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011) and Forest Service visitation data from Round

2 of the National Visitor Use Monitoring program (NVUM).

Table 3.76. Estimated Annual Visits by Planning Unit

Planning Unit Number of Visits

Carson City District Office 1,007,842

Caliente Field Office 30,073

Egan Field Office 1,034,655

Schell Field Office 160,867

Black Rock Field Office 110,772

Humboldt River Field Office 240,248

Mount Lewis Field Office 97,814

Tonopah Field Office 160,358

Tuscarora Field Office 951,100

Wells Field Office 280,945

Alturas Field Office 33,401

Eagle Lake Field Office 174,433

Surprise Field Office 75,400

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 1,796,132

Total 6,154,040

Source: Data for BLM field offices is for fiscal year (FY) 11 (BLM 2012p); data for

the Routt National Forest is for FY07 (Forest Service 2012f). FY11 is the year ending

September 30, 2011.

Note: For the Carson City District Office, recreation data were not available by Field

Office (Stillwater and Sierra Front).

Visitor expenditures can be approximated using the RMIS data in conjunction with data from

Forest Service, which has constructed recreation visitor spending profiles based on years of

survey data gathered through the Forest Service NVUM. Although the data are collected from

National Forest visitors, the analysis that follows is based on the NVUM profiles because the

BLM has no analogous database. The profiles break down recreation spending by type of activity,

day use versus overnight use, local versus non-local visitors, and “non-primary” visits (i.e.,

1All dollar values were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a).
 2 In RMIS, a visit is defined as the entry of any person onto lands or related waters administered by the BLM for any time
 

period. A same day reentry, negligible transit, and entry to another recreation site or detached portion of the management
 

area on the same day are considered a single visit. RMIS defines a visitor day as equivalent to twelve visitor hours.
 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
184 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

incidental visits where the primary purpose of the trip was other than visiting public lands). Table

3-77, Visitor Spending from Recreation on BLM and Forest Service Land in Socioeconomic

Study Area, FY 2011, summarizes individual and party visits and expenditures by trip type

and estimated direct expenditure.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
185 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.77. Visitor Spending from Recreation on BLM and Forest Service Land in Socioeconomic Study Area, FY 2011

Trip Type Percent of

Visits1

Estimated

Number of

Individual

Visits

Average

Party Size1

Estimated

Number of

Party Visits

Estimated

Party

spending per

visit (2010 $)1

Estimated

direct

expenditure

(Millions $)

Non-local Day Trips 10 489,675 2.5 195,870 $63.68 $12.5

Non-local Overnight

on Public Lands

9 464,057 2.6 178,483 $237.27 $42.3

Non-local Overnight

off Public Lands

14 753,798 2.6 289,922 $522.63 $151.5

Local Day Trips 49 3,302,861 2.1 1,572,791 $33.56 $52.8

Local Overnight on

Public Lands

4 228,200 2.6 87,769 $165.14 $14.5

Local Overnight off

Public Lands

1 97,463 2.4 40,610 $216.48 $8.8

Non Primary Visits 13 817,986 2.5 327,194 $376.62 $23.2

Total 6,154,040 2,692,639 $405.6

1Visits on BLM-administered land estimated using the national average distribution of trip types for all National Forests

(White and Gooding 2012). Visits on Forest Service land by trip type are provided in NVUM (Forest Service 2012f).

Estimated party spending per visit is converted from 2009 to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
186 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

As Table 3-77 shows, the estimated total visitor spending on BLM-administered and Forest

Service-administered lands in the socioeconomic study area was about $405.6 million in FY 2011.

It is important to note that this includes expenditures from local residents and from visitors whose

use of public lands was incidental to some other primary purpose.

Grazing

Farming, including ranching (livestock grazing), employed approximately 4,785 people in the

socioeconomic study area in 2010, accounting for 1.3 percent of total employment. This includes

labor of farm proprietors, although not of unpaid family labor. The average annual wage for a

farm job (including ranching) in the socioeconomic study area was $27,965 in 2010. This was

lower than the average annual wage for a non-farm job ($41,963; Headwaters Economics 2012).

Table 3-78, Farm Earnings Detail, 2010 (2010 dollars), presents the proportion of personal

income originating from farm earnings and the farm cash receipts from livestock received in 2010

throughout the socioeconomic study area and Nevada and California as a whole.3

Table 3.78. Farm Earnings Detail within the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010 (2010 dollars)

Geographic Area

Farm

Earnings as

Share of All

Earnings

Agriculture

and Forestry

Support

Activities

Earnings as

Share of All

Earnings1

Farm Cash

Receipts

(Millions)

Share of

Farm Cash

Receipts

from

Livestock

Share of

Farm Cash

Receipts

from Crops

Estimated

Share of

Earnings from

Livestock3

Lassen County,

California

5.0% (D) $81.9 32.9% 67.1% 1.6%

Modoc County,

California

22.1% 3.3% $112.1 33.3% 66.7% 7.4%

Churchill County,

Nevada

2.3% (D) $69.4 82.8% 17.2% 1.9%

Elko County,

Nevada

1.4% (D) $63.6 96.6% 3.4% 1.4%

Eureka County,

Nevada

1.2% (D) $24.1 37.3% 62.7% 0.4%

Humboldt County,

Nevada

3.8% (D) $80.8 41.6% 58.4% 1.6%

Lander County,

Nevada

2.3% (D) $19.2 52.6% 47.4% 1.2%

Lincoln County,

Nevada

0.9% (D) $16.6 54.3% 45.7% 0.5%

Nye County,

Nevada

3.1% (D) $64.2 95.0% 5.0% 2.9%

Pershing County,

Nevada

7.7% (D) $42.6 53.4% 46.6% 4.1%

Washoe County,

Nevada

0.0% (D) $20.9 47.2% 52.8% 0.0%

White Pine County,

Nevada

1.6% (D) $17.2 77.0% 23.0% 1.2%

3 All dollar values were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a). Please note that farm

cash receipts vary considerably from year to year and that the primary purpose of the table is to highlight relative,

representative shares of earnings and the relative importance of crops and livestock.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 187

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Geographic Area

Farm

Earnings as

Share of All

Earnings

Agriculture

and Forestry

Support

Activities

Earnings as

Share of All

Earnings1

Farm Cash

Receipts

(Millions)

Share of

Farm Cash

Receipts

from

Livestock

Share of

Farm Cash

Receipts

from Crops

Estimated

Share of

Earnings from

Livestock3

Socioeconomic

Study Area

1.1% 3.3% $612.6 57.4% 42.6% 0.6%

California 1.2% 0.5% $38,176.9 27.7% 72.3% 0.3%

Nevada 0.2% 0.0% $556.5 60.7% 39.3% 0.1%

Sources: Headwaters Economics 2012; BEA 2012a. Values reported in 2001 dollars were converted to 2010

dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a).

1This division is the finest resolution of data provided by the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic

Analysis that includes agricultural services.

2(D) indicates that the value is not released to the public by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, to avoid disclosure

of confidential information.

3Calculated by multiplying the share of farm earnings by the share of cash receipts from livestock.

Table 3-78 shows that the relative contribution of farm earnings varies substantially across

the counties in the socioeconomic study area and that the share of farm earnings is greatest in

Modoc County (22.1 percent), Pershing County (7.7 percent), and Lassen County (5.0 percent).

Farm earnings in all other counties in the socioeconomic study area made up less than four

percent of total earnings. Table 3-78 also shows that the relative contribution of farm earnings

from livestock varies substantially across the counties in the socioeconomic study area and that

the share of farm earnings from livestock is greatest in Elko County (96.6 percent), Nye County

(95.0 percent), Churchill County (82.8 percent), and White Pine County (77.0). Farm earnings

from livestock in all other counties in the socioeconomic study area made up less than 54.3

percent of the total farm earnings. The right-most column of Table 3-78 combines the information

on relative contribution from livestock with the information on farm earnings as a share of all

earnings. This should be interpreted as an approximate measure; even so, it is useful to identify

counties in which livestock grazing contributes the greatest portion of overall earnings: Modoc in

California, and Pershing and Nye in Nevada.

Table 3-79, Active and Billed Animal Unit Months (AUMs), provides information on active

and billed AUMs on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered land for each of the

BLM field offices and National Forest areas. The estimated gross receipts data in the table are

calculated from data from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which publishes annual

gross receipts for cow-calf operations for different production regions across the country (USDA

ERS 2012). Gross receipts reflect the sales value for output from cow-calf operations. The BLM

calculated a ten-year inflation-adjusted average value per cow-calf operation from the Economic

Research Service budgets, then converted that information to a per-AUM figure based on average

forage requirements for a cow, including other livestock (e.g., bulls and replacement heifers) that

are needed to support the production from the cow (Workman 1986). Based on these calculations,

the BLM estimates that ten-year average gross receipts in the socioeconomic study area come to

$50.24 per AUM (2010 dollars), which is reflected in the table below. Because sheep are a small

share of the livestock, any difference in gross receipts between cow and sheep operations have

little impact on the overall receipt estimates.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
188 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

The data in the table help to demonstrate the importance of livestock grazing throughout the

socioeconomic study area, although there is more grazing on federal lands in some counties

than in others. For example, the importance of grazing on federal lands in Elko County is

supported by Table 3-79 (Tuscarora and Wells Field Offices) and existing studies (e.g., Alevy et

al. 2007). Between 2000 and 2011, billed AUMs decreased by approximately 20.4 percent on

BLM-administered lands in the planning area and by approximately 3.6 percent on the portion of

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in the planning area. Billed AUMs fluctuate considerably, and

grazing has actually increased in some areas during

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
189 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.79. Active and Billed Animal Unit Months (AUMs)

Geographic

Area

Active (2011)% Billed

(2011)

Billed

(2011)

Cattle (%) Sheep

(%)

Other

(%)

Allotments Acres per

AUM

Gross Receipts

(millions)

Alturas Field

Office

51,918 58% 30,185 100% 0% 0% 138 8.8 $2.6

Black Rock Field

Office

55,619 93% 51,580 94% 6% 0% 11 33.5 $2.8

Caliente Field

Office

170,614 32% 53,776 96% 3% 1% 97 29.5 $8.6

Eagle Lake Field

Office

51,958 63% 32,531 90% 10% 0% 53 19.2 $2.6

Egan Field Office 147,479 39% 58,076 75% 24% 0% 64 24.5 $7.4

Humboldt River

Field Office

279,331 70% 195,806 96% 4% 0% 95 26.5 $14.0

Mount Lewis

Field Office

250,371 73% 182,630 89% 11% 0% 60 17.3 $12.6

Schell Field

Office

199,641 42% 83,623 57% 43% 0% 71 12.4 $10.0

Sierra Front Field

Office

57,560 53% 30,409 88% 12% 0% 42 19.9 $2.9

Stillwater Field

Office

101,117 60% 60,925 99% 0% 0% 36 38.6 $5.1

Surprise Field

Office

87,857 74% 64,828 95% 5% 0% 49 16.5 $4.4

Tonopah Field

Office

134,092 64% 85,800 100% 0% 0% 31 45.4 $6.7

Tuscarora Field

Office

372,320 64% 239,593 97% 2% 0% 142 8.0 $18.7

Wells Field

Office

320,578 67% 216,229 92% 8% 1% 97 13.1 $16.1

HumboldtToiyabe National

Forest

276,191 85% 234,786 79% 21% 0% N/A N/A $13.9

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
190 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Geographic

Area

Active (2011) % Billed

(2011)

Billed

(2011)

Cattle (%) Sheep

(%)

Other

(%)

Allotments Acres per

AUM

Gross Receipts

(millions)

Total 2,556,646 $128.4

Sources: BLM 2012l; Forest Service 2012g, 2013d; Workman 1986; USDA ERS 2012

N/A - Not available

Gross receipts are calculated based on active AUMs and ten-year average expenditures, as described in the text.Note: For the

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, active AUMs are for 2013. Active and billed AUMs are estimates for the portion of the National Forest

in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 191

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

this period (e.g., Wells Field Office). It is important to remember, as well, that the data are only

for forage values on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered land; forage on other

public lands, and private lands, contribute additional values to the socioeconomic study area, as

well as fiscal revenues. The economic analysis of the alternatives, presented in Chapter 4,

addresses additional indirect contributions of livestock grazing (as well as other resource uses) to

the regional economy and compares impacts of the alternatives with one another.

this period (e.g., Wells Field Office). It is important to remember, as well, that the data are only

for forage values on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered land; forage on other

public lands, and private lands, contribute additional values to the socioeconomic study area, as

well as fiscal revenues. The economic analysis of the alternatives, presented in Chapter 4,

addresses additional indirect contributions of livestock grazing (as well as other resource uses) to

the regional economy and compares impacts of the alternatives with one another.

In addition to contributing additional forage for raising livestock, making public lands available

for grazing provides additional benefits to the holders of federal permits. Research has

demonstrated that in most cases, grazing permits increase the property value of the ranch holding

the permit. Various factors have been explored to explain this effect. Significantly, the research

has found that the added forage and relatively low permit fees for grazing on BLM- and Forest

Service-administered lands do not entirely explain the increase in property value associated with

the permit itself. Research has found that the added acreage associated with a public land permit

is perceived as adding semi-private open space to the property and thus increases the value of the

ranch. Examples of this research include Rimbey et al. (2007) and Torell et al. (2005). However,

since the federal government retains ownership of the lands, it should be noted that any premium

to property values is a result of amenity perception rather than ownership, since any public land

grazing permit is associated with publicly, not privately, owned land.

Forestry and Wood Products

Timber-related industries in the socioeconomic study area employed over 655 people in 2010,

approximately 0.3 percent of total employment, according to the US Census Bureau County

Business Patterns. No county had more than 50 timber jobs, except for Washoe County, which

had 597, making up 90 percent of the socioeconomic study area’s timber labor force. These

estimates include both full- and part-time jobs and reflect three timber-related industries: growing

and harvesting, sawmills and paper mills, and wood products manufacturing. The share of

timber-related jobs in the socioeconomic study area (0.3 percent) was 0.5 percentage points lower

than the national average of 0.7 percent (Headwaters Economics 2012).

Average annual earnings for timber-related jobs tend to be higher than for non-timber jobs.

However, the average annual wage per timber related job in the socioeconomic study area in 2010

was $39,532 (2010 dollars), compared to $41,840 for non-timber jobs.

Collection of wildlings (live transplants) and woody biomass, cutting of Christmas trees, and

use of wood for posts are all allowed on BLM-administered lands with a permit or through

purchase. Permits are also available on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered

lands for collection of firewood. The collection of pinyon pine nuts and campfire wood are

also allowed (BLM 2012o).

Renewable Energy Resources

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
192 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

There is one active solar energy project in the Battle Mountain portion of the planning area, in

Nye County, with production of approximately 110 megawatts anticipated for 2013 (BLM 2011j).

There is also a solar power plant located in Churchill County, Nevada, which is forecasted to

produce 43 million kilowatt-hours of energy per year (ENEL Green Power 2013).

There are four wind projects in the monitoring stage in the Battle Mountain portion of the

planning area. Meteorological towers are located in Nye County, Esmeralda County, and Lander

County (BLM 2011j). Currently, at least eight project areas have been proposed for wind energy

development in the Ely planning area, but these are still in the wind energy monitoring phase

(BLM 2007d; BLM 2013c). There has been some interest in developing wind energy within the

Winnemucca planning area. Current activity includes placement of meteorological towers (BLM

2010d). BLM deferred the final decision on a proposed commercial-scale wind energy project,

located in part in Elko County, until the completion of the GRSG LUPA/EIS process (BLM

2012q). As of April 2013, there were two wind testing projects authorized by the BLM in the

Eagle Lake Field Office and a development project waiting for authorization. In the Surprise

Field Office there were three wind testing projects authorized and one additional testing project

waiting for authorization (BLM 2013c).

Geothermal resources in Nevada provide an important economic contributor to the state; by some

estimates, the geothermal industry in Nevada could be worth up to $22.5 billion over the next 30

years, and 86 planned or developing geothermal power plants in Nevada have the potential to

add nearly 3,700 megawatts of power, enough to power 2.6 million homes (Geothermal Energy

Association 2010). According to the Geothermal Energy Association (a trade association), 20

recipients in Nevada were awarded a combined $73.6 million in Department of Energy funding

via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other appropriations. The Geothermal

Energy Association reports that as of 2010, the State of Nevada had generated over $44 million

from BLM geothermal leasing activities, and that the State of Nevada and counties with

geothermal resources should receive an additional $12.9 million from recent (as of 2010) BLM

leases. According to the trade association, this could create significant economic activity for

rural counties with geothermal resources, as well as environmental benefits from corresponding

reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (Geothermal Energy Association 2010).

Table 3-80, Geothermal Electrical Generation: Sales Volume and Sales Value from

BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011, provides sales volume and sales value for geothermal

resources managed by the BLM, using data from the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue

(ONRR). The data underscore the importance of geothermal resources on BLM-administered

resources in Churchill County, in particular.

Table 3.80. Geothermal Electrical Generation: Sales Volume and Sales Value from

BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011

County Sales Volume (kWh) Sales Value (Millions)

Churchill 734,107,309 $33.9

Eureka 3,131,249 $0.1

Humboldt 110,920,485 $8.7

Lander 54,289,404 $2.2

Pershing 27,597,213 $0

Washoe 89,784,995 $1.3

Total 1,019,830,655 $46.2

Source: ONRR 2012

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 193

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

As of 2007, the Battle Mountain planning area had 86 authorized geothermal leases covering

97,005 acres, two pending geothermal applications covering 12,137 acres, one recently permitted

plan of development for geothermal leasing, and one existing geothermal plant. About 20 percent

of the lands within the Battle Mountain District are potentially valuable geothermal resource

areas, located mainly in the Esmeralda and Lander Counties. Pending lease application sites

cover less than one percent of the potentially valuable lands and are located in Nye County

and Lander Counties (BLM 2011j).

There are no known geothermal resource areas in the Ely planning area and only one active

geothermal lease (BLM 2007d). In the Elko planning area, the Beowawe geothermal power

station (Eureka County) started producing energy in 2006 (NV Energy 2013), and the

32-megawatt Tuscarora project (Elko County) was completed in 2012 (Ormat 2012).

Geothermal energy resource exploration and development has increased in the Winnemucca

planning area. As of 2006, there were 109 geothermal leases, 5 pending geothermal applications,

and 6 Known Geothermal Resource Areas within the planning area. Two large and one small

geothermal exploration projects were permitted in 2006 and 2007. In addition, there were three

power plants and two vegetable dehydration plants in operation within the planning area, ranging

in generation capacity from 5.8 to 30 megawatts (BLM 2010d). In the Eagle Lake planning area,

Honey Lake Power, which is located in Lassen County, is currently using a combination of

biomass resources and geothermal sources in the Wendel-Amadee Known Geothermal Resource

Area to generate up to 30 megawatts of electrical power per year (Greenleaf Power 2013; BLM

2007e). In the near future, at least one other geothermal facility will likely be developed in the

Known Geothermal Resource Area (BLM 2007e). Although geothermal leasing is encouraged,

activity is sporadic to nonexistent in the Surprise planning area (BLM 2007f).

In many areas there are warm springs used for pools, spas, and space heating (Nevada Bureau of

Mines and Geology 2000).

Biomass technology is currently being used in the Ely planning area for heating one of the White

Pine County schools (BLM 2007d). As previously noted, the Honey Lake Power Plant, in

Lassen County, is a cogeneration biomass and geothermal plant (Greenleaf Power 2013; BLM

2007f). The BLM is currently cooperating with Modoc County on a biomass study area for use

of juniper for biomass fuel (BLM 2012r), and other individual projects for use of biomass are

under development in Modoc County.

As previously mentioned, collection of firewood is allowed on BLM-administered and Forest

Service-administered lands with a permit. Although use of wood for heating is relatively low

among households (1.8 percent in California and 1.3 percent in Nevada; US Census Bureau

2011), its use can be much more important in rural areas. In Modoc County, 37.5 percent of

households use wood as heating fuel and in Lassen County, 30.1 percent do so (US Census

Bureau 2011). Census data show that wood for heating grew faster between 2000 and 2010 than

other heating fuels and is more likely to be relied upon by low and middle income families

(Alliance for Green Heat 2011).

Mining and Minerals

The overall value of mineral and energy production in Nevada reached an all-time high of $7.72

billion in 2010. Nevada led the nation in the production of gold, barite, and gypsum, and was

the only state that produced magnesite, lithium, and two types of specialty clays, sepiolite and

saponite (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010). Locatable minerals (such as gold and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
194 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

gypsum) may occur on private or public lands. Those under federal lands (and those owned by

the federal government under private or state lands) require the establishment and maintenance of

a mining claim (and payment of maintenance fees).

In 2010, Nevada’s production of gold, valued at $6.5 billion, was 73 percent of the total gold

production in the United States, helping to make the United States the third largest gold producer

in the world. Nevada alone accounted for 7 percent of world production of gold. Gold mining is

heavily located in the northern and central part of the state, particularly Elko, Eureka, and Lander

Counties. In 2010, Nevada’s largest gold operations included Barrick Gold Corporation’s mines

(1.2 million ounces) and Newmont Mining Corporation’s mines (0.9 million ounces) on the Carlin

trend in Eureka and Elko Counties; Barrick Gold Corporation’s Pipeline and Cortez Hills mines

(1.1 million ounces) in Lander County; Newmont’s Twin Creeks mine (0.45 million ounces) in

Humboldt County; and the Kinross-Barrick Smoky Valley joint venture Round Mountain mine

(0.4 million ounces) in Nye County. Combined, Barrick and Newmont accounted for 81 percent

of Nevada gold production in 2010 (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010). In counties

with relatively small populations (e.g., Eureka), smaller mines can be of particular importance

due to the share of the labor force employed.

Nevada’s silver production in 2010, which totaled 7.36 million ounces, was generally a co-product

or byproduct of gold mining and was produced at a value of $149 million. Nevada’s silver

production in 2010 accounted for 18 percent of the US total and 1 percent of the world total.

With a ratio of value (i.e., average price of gold to average price of silver) of 61:1 in 2010, only

those deposits with more than 61 times as much silver as gold can be considered primary silver

deposits. Only one such deposit, the Coeur Rochester Mine in Pershing County, was being mined

in Nevada in 2010, with a silver-to-gold production ratio of 210:1 and total silver production of

2.0 million ounces. The Coeur Rochester Mine produced 27 percent of Nevada’s silver in 2010

(Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010).

Other mineral production values in Nevada in 2010 include the following: copper, $438 million;

barite, $49 million; gypsum, $12 million; and petroleum, $27 million (Natural Resource Industry

Institute 2011; Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010).

In 2010, Nevada’s copper production was dominated by the Robinson copper-gold-silvermolybdenum mine, operated by Quadra Mining Ltd. near Ely in White Pine County. Byproduct

copper was also produced at Newmont’s Phoenix project near Battle Mountain in Lander County.

One major contributor to the production of molybdenum in Nevada in 2010 was the Golden

Phoenix’s Ashdown Mine in northwestern Humboldt County, producing approximately 350

thousand pounds valued at $5.6 million (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010).

Table 3-81, Oil Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011,

provides sales volume and sales value for oil resources managed by the BLM, underscoring the

importance of oil resources in Nye County, in particular.

Table 3.81. Oil Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011

County Sales Volume (bbl) Sales Value (Millions)

Eureka 41,362 $3.6

Nye 369,908 $29.8

Total 411,270 $33.4

Source: ONRR 2012

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 195

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3-82, Mining Sector Employment by County, provides data on the number of jobs in the

mining sector by county within the Socioeconomic Study Area.

Table 3.82. Mining Sector Employment by County

Geographic Area Number of Jobs Percentage of Total

Employment

Lassen County, California 2 0.1%

Modoc County, California 72 5.3%

Churchill County, Nevada 75 1.4%

Elko County, Nevada 4,203 22.2%

Eureka County, Nevada 769 76.9%

Humboldt County, Nevada 1,949 31.7%

Lander County, Nevada 309 24.3%

Lincoln County, Nevada 26 4.2%

Nye County, Nevada 755 10.8%

Pershing County, Nevada 226 24.5%

Washoe County, Nevada 354 0.2%

White Pine County, Nevada 880 35.1%

Socioeconomic Study Area 9,620 4.5%

California 21,425 0.2%

Nevada 10,922 1.1%

US 581,582 0.5%

Source: Headwaters Economics 2012

Mineral production in the socioeconomic study area employed approximately 9,620 people in

2010, making up 4.5 percent of total employment, which is 4 percentage points higher than the

national average of 0.5 percent (Headwaters Economics 2012). This estimate is based on data

from the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns and a selection of industrial sectors that

includes oil and gas extraction, coal mining, metals mining, nonmetallic minerals mining, and

other mining-related industries. The estimate includes both full- and part-time jobs. It is shown

here because it has fewer data gaps (data not disclosed for confidentiality reasons, estimated here

by Headwaters Economics 2012) than the data provided in Appendix N, Non-Market Valuation

Methods. Appendix N, Table N-1 shows Bureau of Economic Analysis data for comparison.

Though the proportion of employment associated with mining industries varied by county,

every county had some percentage of employment coming from a mining industry. The lowest

percentages of mining employment were found in Lassen County (0.1 percent) and Washoe

County (0.2 percent), and the highest percentages of mining employment were found in Eureka

County (76.9 percent), White Pine County (35.1 percent), and Humboldt County (31.7 percent).

The percentage of mining employment on total employment in Eureka and Elko Counties does

not appropriately capture the fact that many of those employed in the mining sector in Eureka

County actually reside in Elko County, which is also an important service area for mining

activities in nearby counties (Elko County 2003; Leaming 2010).

In 2010 in Nevada, the average annual earnings per mining-related job were substantially higher

than the average annual earnings per non-mining job: $83,377 (2010 dollars) compared to

$39,369 (Headwaters Economics 2012).

Other Values

Public lands provide a range of goods and services that benefit society in a variety of ways. Some

of these goods and services, such as timber and minerals, are bought and sold in markets, and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
196 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

hence have a readily observed economic value (as documented in the sections above); others have

a less clear connection to market activity, even though society derives benefits from them. In

some cases, goods and services have both a market and a non-market component value to society.

This section provides an overview of several “non-market” values described through a qualitative

and quantitative economic valuation analysis.

The non-market values associated with public lands can be classified as values that derive

from direct or indirect use (e.g., recreation) and those that do not derive from use, such as

existence values held by the general public from self-sustaining populations of GRSG. This

section and the related appendix describe the use and non-use economic values associated with

recreation, populations of GRSG, and land that is currently used for livestock grazing and

ranch operations. The sections that follow discuss each of these values in turn. Appendix N

provides more discussion of the concepts and measurement of use and non-use non-market

values. It is important to note that these non-market values are not directly comparable to

previous sections that describe output (sales or expenditures) and jobs associated with various

resource uses on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands (see Appendix N

for more information).

Values Associated with Recreation

Actions that promote the conservation of GRSG habitat may result in changes in recreation

activity, by changing opportunities or access for different recreational activities. Opportunities for

some activities such as wildlife viewing may increase as the amount of habitat may increase for

species that depend on public lands, including GRSG. Analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental

Consequences, addresses this issue for each of the management alternatives. This section

documents baseline non-market values visitors receive associated with recreation activities. This

is measured by what economists call consumer surplus, which refers to the additional value that

visitors receive over and above the price they pay. Appendix N provides an explanation of

consumer surplus. Fees to use public lands for recreation are typically very low or non-existent,

so the value people place on public land recreation opportunities is not fully measured simply by

the entrance fees people pay.

Economists estimate the consumer surplus from recreation by measuring how the variation in

visitors’ travel costs corresponds to the number of visits taken. This “travel cost method” has

been developed extensively in academic literature and is used by federal agencies in economic

analyses; the method is explained more fully in Appendix N. Conducting original travel cost

method studies can be time-consuming and expensive; for this project, the BLM and Forest

Service relied on estimates of consumer surplus from prior recreation studies in the same

geographic region, using an established scientific method called “benefit transfer.” Based on the

studies reviewed and cited in Appendix N, visitors to natural areas, such as lands managed

by the BLM and Forest Service, gain values (in excess of their direct trip cost) ranging from

approximately $32 per day for camping to about $175 per day for mountain biking.

To calculate the aggregate “consumer surplus” value of recreation in the study area, the BLM

multiplied this per-day value of recreation by the estimated number of visitor days associated with

each activity type. Visitation estimates by activity are derived based on the BLM RMIS database

and the Forest Service NVUM for the study area.

Accounting for the value per day and the number of days, the total non-market value of recreation

on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in the study area was estimated to be

about $285 million per year (see Appendix N for details). Based on the quantity of recreational

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 197

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

trips and the economic value of each type of activity, the largest annual non-market values are

associated with hunting, camping, OHV use, hiking, and pleasure driving. These categories

omit downhill skiing, because there is little or no overlap between GRSG habitat and lands

used for downhill skiing. Analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, addresses how

recreational visits and total non-market value for recreation may change under the alternatives

being considered.

Values Associated with Populations of Sage-Grouse

The existence and perseverance of the ESA and similar acts reflects the values held by the

American public associated with preventing species from going extinct. Economists have

long recognized that rare, threatened, and endangered species have economic values beyond

those associated with active use through viewing. This is supported by legal decisions and

technical analysis (see Appendix N for details), as well as a number of conceptual and empirical

publications that refine concepts and develop methods to measure these non-use or existence

values.

The dominant method uses surveys to construct or simulate a market or referendum for protection

of areas of habitat, or changes in populations of species. The survey asks the respondent to

indicate whether they would pay for an increment of protection, and if so how much they would

pay. Economists have developed increasingly sophisticated survey methods for non-use value

over the last two decades to improve the accuracy of this method. Appendix N offers an in-depth

discussion of this method of value estimation.

Original surveys to estimate non-use values are complex and time-consuming; rather than perform

a new survey, the BLM and Forest Service reviewed existing literature to determine if there were

existing non-use value studies for GRSG. No existing studies on valuation specific to GRSG

were found. However, there are several studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals,

for bird species that the BLM judged to have similar characteristics with GRSG, including

being a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered and being a hunted species. These

studies find average stated willingness to pay of between $15 and $58 per household per year in

order to restore a self-sustaining population or prevent regional extinction (see Appendix N for

details). These values represent a mix of use and non-use values, but the non-use components

of value are likely to be the majority share, since the studies primarily address species that are

not hunted. Since GRSG protection is a public good available to all households throughout the

intermountain west, if similar per-household values apply to the species the aggregate regional

existence value could be substantial.

Values Associated with Grazing Land

Public land managed for livestock grazing provides both market values (e.g., forage for livestock)

and non-market values, including open space and western ranch scenery, which provide value to

some residents and outside visitors, and may also provide some value to the non-using public

(e.g., the cultural icon of the American cowboy). Many people who ranch for a living or who

otherwise choose to live on ranches value the ranching lifestyle in excess of the income generated

by the ranching operations. This could be seen as a non-market value associated with livestock

grazing. On the other hand, some residents and visitors perceive non-market opportunity costs

associated with livestock grazing. Although some scholars and policy makers have discussed

non-market values associated with livestock grazing, the process for incorporating these values

into analyses of net public benefits remains uncertain, and the BLM and Forest Service did not

attempt to quantify these values for the present study.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
198 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Furthermore, some of the lifestyle value of ranching is likely to be captured in markets, such as

through the property values of ranches adjacent to public lands with historic leases or permits

for grazing on public land. Economists typically use a method called the hedonic price method

to estimate values associated with particular amenities; this method may be used to explain

the factors that influence the observed sale prices of ranch land. Appendix N provides more

information about this method, as well as additional information to address potential non-market

values associated with grazing.

Fiscal

Nevada has no corporate or personal income taxes and is a right-to-work state4.

California receives approximately 85 percent of its own-source revenue from four sources:

personal income tax, sales and use tax, corporate tax, and major motor vehicle-related levies

(California Legislative Analyst’s Office 2007). Though California does not impose a statewide

severance tax, there is a small statewide assessment on oil and gas produced in California. The

assessment rate is established each year and is imposed on each barrel of oil and each 10,000

cubic feet of natural gas produced. The assessment rate for FY 2010 was $0.0880312 (California

Department of Conservation 2010).

Nevada’s counties receive roughly a third of their revenues from local taxes, a third from

intergovernmental transfers from the state government, and a third from charges for services and

utility revenues. Transfers from federal governments contribute approximately 5 percent of

county revenues. Property taxes account for roughly three-quarters of local tax receipts, with

much of the rest collected through sales taxes (US Census Bureau 2010d). Public elementary and

secondary schools received, in 2008-2009, approximately 60 percent of their resources from local

sources (property taxes and other), 30 percent from state sources and 10 percent from federal

funds (National Center for Education Statistics 2012).

In California, counties receive a little over 40 percent of their revenues from intergovernmental

transfers (mostly from the state), 30 percent from local taxes, and the rest from charges for

services and utility revenues. Transfers from federal governments contribute approximately 5

percent of county revenues. California charges a property tax on possessory interests (private

interests on public lands) such as grazing on public lands (California State Board of Equalization

2012). In Nevada, property taxes account for roughly three-quarters of local tax receipts,

with much of the rest being collected through sales taxes (US Census Bureau 2010d). Public

elementary and secondary school received funding for 2008-2009 from 57 percent state sources,

30 percent local sources (mostly property taxes), and 13 percent federal funds (National Center

for Education Statistics 2012).

Federal payments to states, counties, and public schools associated to the presence of federal

lands in Nevada and California include Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Forest Service

revenue transfers, federal mineral royalties and fees for grazing, recreation, and rents on ROWs.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes are federal government payments based on the presence of all federal

lands (not just BLM-administered lands) within each county. Table 3-83, Payments in Lieu of

Taxes Received in the Socioeconomic Study Area by County, 2010, shows the PILT payments

each county received in 2010. The non-taxable status of federal lands is of interest to local

governments, which must provide public safety and other services to county residents. BLM

revenue-sharing programs provide resources to local governments in lieu of property taxes

4 States where employment may not require membership in labor unions or payment of fees to labor unions.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
199

2010

Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

because local governments cannot tax federally owned lands the way they would if the land were

privately owned. PILT payments have been reauthorized by Congress since 1976, and values

vary between authorization cycles (DOI 2012). Full funding of PILT depends on legislation

(e.g., between FY 2008 and FY 2013), without which it is an appropriated program that may be

less than fully funded (NACO 2013).

Table 3.83. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Received in the Socioeconomic Study Area by County,

Geographic Area PILT (Thousands of dollars)1

Lassen County, California $1,092

Modoc County, California $572

Churchill County, Nevada $2,089

Elko County, Nevada $2,649

Eureka County, Nevada $275

Humboldt County, Nevada $1,641

Lander County, Nevada $806

Lincoln County, Nevada $773

Nye County, Nevada $2,810

Pershing County, Nevada $906

Washoe County, Nevada $3,198

White Pine County, Nevada $1,108

Socioeconomic Study Area $17,918

Source: DOI 2012

1Includes payments received from BLM, Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation,

National Park Service, and USFWS.

Since 1908, the Forest Service pays 25 percent of its receipts to states for use on roads and schools

in the counties where national forests are located. The decline in the sale of timber from federal

lands over time has led to the decline in these payments. Although the Secure Rural Schools and

Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 has attempted to limit this decline (Congressional

Research Service 2012), this legislation expires at the end of the current fiscal year (i.e., September

2013). There is the potential for decreases in payments to states, should legislation for Secure

Rural Schools or similar support fail to be reauthorized; uncertainty remains about reauthorization

of this legislation or funding for 2014, and in years beyond 2014. In Fiscal Year 2012, Nevada

received approximately $3.6 million in Forest Service payments (Forest Service 2013e).

Federal mineral royalties are typically paid on leasable minerals, with a portion redistributed to

states and counties. Locatable minerals do not pay federal royalties. Extraction of locatable

minerals from federal lands does pay state sales and use taxes. Nevada also charges a 5-percent

net proceeds of mines tax on locatable minerals, which is distributed between the Nevada General

Funds and the counties from which the minerals were extracted (Nevada Mining Association

2010).

BLM and Forest Service Expenditures and Employment

BLM and Forest Service offices provide a direct contribution to the economy of the local and

surrounding area. BLM and Forest Service operations and management make direct contributions

to area economic activity by employing people who reside within the area and by spending

on project related goods and services. Contracts for facilities maintenance, shuttling vehicles,

and projects contribute directly to the area economy and social stability. Table 3-84, BLM

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
200 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Employment and Related Expenditures in the Socioeconomic Study Area, provides available

information on the BLM and Forest Service expenditures, including both labor and non-labor

expenditures.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice pertains to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment

means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear

a disproportionate share of the adverse environmental consequences resulting from industrial,

municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs

and policies (BLM 2005a). The BLM incorporates environmental justice into its planning process,

both as a consideration in the environmental effects analysis and by ensuring a meaningful role in

the decision-making process for minority and low-income populations.

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to “identify and address the disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities

on minority populations and low-income populations.” The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook

(BLM 2005a) reiterates BLM’s commitment to environmental justice – both in providing

meaningful opportunities for low-income, minority, and Tribal populations to participate in

decision-making, and to identify and minimize any disproportionately high or adverse impacts

on these populations.

Table 3.84. BLM Employment and Related Expenditures in the Socioeconomic Study Area

Agency Office Employment, 2011 (FTEs)

Non-labor Expenditures,

2011

(2010 dollars)

BLM Alturas Field Office 27.9 $951,520

Eagle Lake Field Office 47.1 $2,317,077

Surprise Field Office 30.8 $764,032

Battle Mountain District Office 39.7 $4,871,061

Mountain Lewis Field Office 23.5 $6,116

Tonopah Field Office 21.7 $2,887

Carson City District Office 68.8 $6,499,975

Sierra Front Field Office 21.6 $633,825

Stillwater Field Office 20.3 $345,758

Elko District Office 81.7 $5,079,293

Tuscarora Field Office 21.8 $208,103

Wells Field Office 18.7 $198,417

Ely District Office 75.6 $8,681,938

Caliente Field Office 13.8 $425,115

Egan Field Office 16.7 $666,103

Schell Field Office 20.6 $326,489

Winnemucca District Office 58.0 $5,743,305

Black Rock Field Office 7.3 $1,163,939

Humboldt River Field Office 34.8 $746,276

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 201

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Agency Office Employment, 2011 (FTEs)

Non-labor Expenditures,

2011

(2010 dollars)

Forest Service Humboldt -Toiyabe National

Forest

238 $19,421,940

Source: BLM 2012s; Forest Service 2013f; 2013g. Values reported in 2001 dollars (BLM) or 2011 dollars

(Forest Service) were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a).FTE =

Full-time equivalent employees (hours worked in relation to hours in a full-time schedule).

According to the CEQ Environmental Justice Guidance Under the NEPA (CEQ 1997), “minority

populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected

region exceeds 50 percent; or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected region is

meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or

other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.” The same document states that, “In identifying

low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals

living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or

Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental

exposure or effect.”

Additionally, the same guidance (CEQ 1997) advises that “In order to determine whether

a proposed action is likely to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on low-income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes, agencies

should identify a geographic scale, obtain demographic information on the potential impact area,

and determine if there is a disproportionately high and adverse effect onto these populations.

Agencies may use demographic data available from the Bureau of the Census to identify the

composition of the potentially affected population. Geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and

income, as well as a delineation of tribal lands and resources, should be examined.”

Minority Populations

Table 3-85, Population Race and Ethnicity, 2010, summarizes the percentage of the population

made up of ethnic minority groups in each county of the socioeconomic study area, as well as

Nevada, California, and the United States as a whole.

Each county in the socioeconomic study area has a lower minority population than California,

Nevada, and the United States. All counties in the socioeconomic area have a higher Alaska

Native or American Indian population than the United States as a whole. The minority population

ranges from a low of 12.1 percent in Lincoln County, Nevada, to a high of 33.9 percent in

Washoe County, Nevada.

Low-income Populations

Table 3-86, Low-Income Populations, 2006-2010 Average, summarizes the percentage of the

population below poverty level in each county of the socioeconomic study area, as well as

California, Nevada, and the United States as a whole. Following the Office of Management and

Budget’s Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by

family size and composition to detect what part of the population is considered to be in poverty

(US Census Bureau 2012b).

Within the economic study area, the percentage of the population below the poverty line ranges

from a low of 7.1 percent in Elko County, Nevada, to a high of 18.9 in Nye County. Of the

10 Nevada counties in the socioeconomic study area, 7 counties have a higher percentages of

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
202 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

residents below the poverty line than Nevada overall (11.9 percent). Both California counties

have a higher percentage of residents below the poverty line than California as a whole (13.7

percent). Both California and Nevada have a lower percentage of residents below the poverty line

than the United States as a whole (13.8 percent).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
203 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.85. Population Race and Ethnicity, 2010

Geographic Unit

Analyzed

Total Population Percent of Total Population

White Black or

African

American

Alaska Native

or American

Indian

Asian Native

Hawaiian &

Other Pacific

Islander

Other

Race

Two or

More

Races

Hispanic or

Latino1

Total Minorities2

Lassen County,

California

34,895 73.2 8.1 3.5 1.0 0.5 10.2 3.5 17.5 32.4

Modoc County,

California

9,686 83.5 0.8 3.8 0.8 0.2 7.0 3.8 13.9 20.9

Churchill County,

Nevada

24,877 82.0 1.6 4.5 2.7 0.2 4.8 4.2 12.1 23.4

Elko County,

Nevada

48,818 79.4 0.8 5.3 0.9 0.1 10.3 3.2 22.9 30.9

Eureka County,

Nevada

1,987 89.3 0.1 2.4 0.9 0.0 5.1 2.2 12.0 16.3

Humboldt County,

Nevada

16,528 79.0 0.5 4.2 0.7 0.1 12.7 2.8 24.4 31.0

Lander County,

Nevada

5,775 84.0 0.3 4.2 0.4 0.0 8.6 2.5 21.1 26.2

Lincoln County,

Nevada

5,345 91.1 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.3 2.2 2.3 6.2 12.1

Nye County,

Nevada

43,946 85.9 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.5 5.2 3.5 13.6 20.9

Pershing County,

Nevada

6,753 81.9 3.7 3.2 1.3 0.1 6.7 3.1 22.3 31.7

Washoe County,

Nevada

421,407 76.9 2.3 1.7 5.2 0.6 9.5 3.8 22.2 33.9

White Pine

County, Nevada

10,030 85.5 3.9 4.2 1.0 0.1 2.8 2.5 13.2 23.7

Socioeconomic

Study Area

630,047 78.3 2.4 2.4 3.9 0.5 8.9 3.6 20.6 31.4

California 37,253,956 57.6 6.2 1.0 13.0 0.4 17.0 4.9 37.6 59.5

Nevada 2,700,551 66.2 8.1 1.2 7.2 0.6 12.0 4.7 26.5 45.7

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
204 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Geographic Unit

Analyzed

Total Population Percent of Total Population

White Black or

African

American

Alaska Native

or American

Indian

Asian Native

Hawaiian &

Other Pacific

Islander

Other

Race

Two or

More

Races

Hispanic or

Latino1

Total Minorities2

United States 308,745,538 72.4 12.6 0.9 4.8 0.2 6.2 2.9 16.3 36.0

Source: US Census Bureau 2010b.

1. Individuals who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino might be of any race; the sum of the other percentages under the “Percent of Total Population”

columns plus the “Hispanic or Latino” column therefore does not equal 100 percent, and the sum of the percentages for each racial and ethnic category does not

equal the percentage of “total minorities.””.

2. The total minority population, for the purposes of this analysis, is the total population for the geographic unit analyzed minus the non-Latino/Hispanic

white population.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Draft Resource Management 205

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 3.86. Low-Income Populations, 2006-2010 Average

Geographic Unit Analyzed Percent Population Below

Poverty Level

Lassen County, California 14.2

Modoc County, California 18.4

Churchill County, Nevada 8.8

Elko County, Nevada 7.1

Eureka County, Nevada 16.2

Humboldt County, Nevada 12.0

Lander County, Nevada 12.2

Lincoln County, Nevada 10.6

Nye County, Nevada 18.9

Pershing County, Nevada 13.7

Washoe County, Nevada 12.6

White Pine County, Nevada 15.5

Socioeconomic Study Area 12.7

California 13.7

Nevada 11.9

United States 13.8

Source: US Census Bureau 2010d

To ascertain whether there are disproportionate effects of the alternatives on low-income

populations, data on effects by each alternative will be reviewed and reported in Chapter 4.

Tribal Populations

In 2010, Nevada’s Native American population was approximately 32,000, and Washoe County

had the largest Native American population of all the counties in the socioeconomic study area

(approximately 7,000 people; US Census Bureau 2010b). There are 32 reservations and colonies

in Nevada belonging to the tribes listed in Table 3-87, Federally Recognized Tribes of Nevada

(Nevada Indian Territory 2012).

Table 3.87. Federally Recognized Tribes of Nevada1

Tribe In Primary Study Area

Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe Yes

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe Yes

Ely Shoshone Tribe Yes

Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe Yes

Ft. McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe Yes

Ft. Mojave Tribe No

Confederated Tribes of Goshute Yes

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe No

Lovelock Indian Colony Yes

Moapa Band of Paiutes No

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Yes

Reno Sparks Indian Colony Yes

Hungry Valley Community Yes

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe Yes

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Yes

Battle Mountain Band Yes

Elko Band Yes

South Fork Band Yes

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
206 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Tribe In Primary Study Area

Wells Band Yes

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe No

Walker River Paiute Tribe No

Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California No

Carson Indian Colony No

Dresslerville Indian Colony No

Stewart Indian Colony No

Woodfords Indian Colony No

Winnemucca Colony Council Yes

Yerington Paiute Tribe Yes

Yomba Shoshone Tribe Yes

Source: Nevada Indian Territory 2012

1There are no additional state-recognized tribes in Nevada (NCSL 2013).

In California, Lassen County is home to the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and Modoc County is

home to the Alturas Rancheria, Cedarville Rancheria, Fort Bidwell Reservation, and Pit River

Tribe of California (BIA 2012). Several Native American tribes and groups in Nevada and

California have historically used GRSG as a food source, including at least the Achumawi,

Western Shoshone, Northern Paiute, and Washoe (Heizer 1978; D’Azevedo 1986). See Section

3.17, Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns), for further details.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment