Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives
 
This page intentionally

left blank
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Draft Resource Management iii

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents
 

Dear Reader Letter ....................................................................................................................... ix
 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... xi
 

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

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

2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
 

2.1.1. Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region ................................................... 3
 

2.2. Introduction to LUP Alternatives .................................................................................... 4
 

2.3. Alternative Development Process for the Nevada and Northeastern California
 

Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment ....................................................... 5
 

2.3.1. Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives ........................................................ 6
 

2.4. Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................................... 6
 

2.4.1. Alternative A: No Action ..................................................................................... 12
 

2.4.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 12
 

2.4.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 13
 

2.4.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 13
 

2.4.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 14
 

2.4.6. Alternative F ........................................................................................................ 15
 

2.5. Management Common to All Alternatives ................................................................... 15
 

2.5.1. BLM and Forest Service Vegetation Management .............................................. 16
 

2.5.2. Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy ................................ 18
 

2.5.3. Adaptive Management ......................................................................................... 19
 

2.6. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .......................................................... 21
 

2.6.1. Close All or Portions of Preliminary Priority or Preliminary General
 

Management Areas to Off-Highway Vehicle Use .............................................. 21
 

2.6.2. Elko County Sage-Grouse Plan ........................................................................... 22
 

2.6.3. Increased Grazing Alternative ............................................................................. 23
 

2.7. Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative ................................................... 23
 

2.8. Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 24
 

2.8.1. No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 24
 

2.8.2. Action Alternatives .............................................................................................. 41
 

2.9. Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 325
 

2.10. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats ................... 354
 

Table of Contents
This page intentionally

left blank
Draft Resource Management
 v

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement
 

List of Figures
 

Figure 2.1. Alternative A: Preliminary Priority and General Habitat .......................................... 354
 

Figure 2.2. Alternative B: Preliminary Priority and General Management Areas

Figure 2.5. Alternative E: Greater Sage-Grouse Management Areas Occupied and Suitable
 

....................... 354
 

Figure 2.3. Alternative C: Preliminary Priority Management Areas ........................................... 354
 

Figure 2.4. Alternative D: Preliminary Priority and General Management Areas ...................... 354
 

Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 354
 

Figure 2.6. Alternative F: Preliminary Priority and General Management Areas ....................... 354
 

Figure 2.7. Alternatives A, B, C, and F: Wild Horses and Burros ............................................... 354
 

Figure 2.8. Alternative D: Wild Horses and Burros .................................................................... 354
 

Figure 2.9. Alternative E: Wild Horses and Burros ..................................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.10. Alternative A: Livestock Grazing ........................................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.11. Alternative C Livestock Grazing ............................................................................. 355
 

Figure 2.12. Alternative A: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................ 355
 

Figure 2.13. Alternatives B and F: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management .... 355
 

Figure 2.14. Alternative C: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................ 355
 

Figure 2.15. Alternative D: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................ 355
 

Figure 2.16. Alternative E: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................ 355
 

Figure 2.17. Alternative A: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ...................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.18. Alternative B: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ...................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.19. Alternative C: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ...................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.20. Alternative D: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ...................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.21. Alternative E: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ...................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.22. Alternative F: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ....................................................... 355
 

Figure 2.23. Alternative A: Land Tenure ..................................................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.24. Alternative B: Land Tenure ..................................................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.25. Alternative C: Land Tenure ..................................................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.26. Alternative D: Land Tenure ..................................................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.27. Alternative F: Land Tenure ..................................................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.28. Alternatives A, B, and C: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ........................... 356
 

Figure 2.29. Alternative D: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ............................................ 356
 

Figure 2.30. Alternative E: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ............................................. 356
 

Figure 2.31. Alternative F: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance ............................................. 356
 

Figure 2.32. Alternatives A, B, and F: Utility-Scale Solar .......................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.33. Alternative C: Utility-Scale Solar ........................................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.34. Alternative D: Utility-Scale Solar ........................................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.35. Alternative E: Utility-Scale Solar ............................................................................ 356
 

Figure 2.36. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas ..................................................... 356
 

Figure 2.37. Alternative B: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.38. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.39. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas ..................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.40. Alternative F: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.41. Alternative B: Open to Oil and Gas, Leased, No New Surface Occupancy ........... 357
 

Figure 2.42. Alternative D: Open to Oil and Gas, Un-leased, No Surface Occupancy ............... 357
 

Figure 2.43. Alternative E: Open to Oil and Gas, Avoidance ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.44. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Geothermal ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.45. Alternative B: Open and Closed to Geothermal ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.46. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Geothermal ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.47. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Geothermal ...................................................... 357
 

List of Figures
vi Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Figure 2.48. Alternative F: Open and Closed to Geothermal ...................................................... 357
 

Figure 2.49. Alternative B: Open to Geothermal, Un-leased, No New Surface Occupancy ....... 357
 

Figure 2.50. Alternative D: Open to Geothermal, Leased, No Surface Occupancy .................... 357
 

Figure 2.51. Alternative E: Open to Geothermal, Avoidance ...................................................... 358
 

Figure 2.52. Alternative A: Locatable Minerals .......................................................................... 358
 

Figure 2.53. Alternatives B and F: Locatable Minerals ............................................................... 358
 

Figure 2.54. Alternative C: Locatable Minerals .......................................................................... 358
 

Figure 2.55. Alternative D: Locatable Minerals .......................................................................... 358
 

Figure 2.56. Alternative E: Locatable Minerals ........................................................................... 358
 

Figure 2.57. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales .................................... 358
 

Figure 2.58. Alternatives B and F: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales ........................ 358
 

Figure 2.59. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales .................................... 358
 

Figure 2.60. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales .................................... 358
 

Figure 2.61. Alternative E: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales .................................... 358
 

Figure 2.62. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals ........................ 358
 

Figure 2.63. Alternatives B and F: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals ............. 358
 

Figure 2.64. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals ......................... 358
 

Figure 2.65. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals ........................ 359
 

Figure 2.66. Alternative E: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals ......................... 359
 

Figure 2.67. Alternatives A, B, D, and E: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................. 359
 

Figure 2.68. Alternative C: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ....................................... 359
 

Figure 2.69. Alternative F: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................ 359
 

List of Figures
Draft Resource Management
 vii

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement
 

List of Tables

Table 2.1. USFWS-Identified Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Its Habitat and Applicable

BLM and Forest Service LUP Resource Programs for Addressing Threats ........................ 8
 

Table 2.2. Land Use Plans Considered in the No Action Alternative ............................................ 25
 

Table 2.3. Comparative Allocation Summary of Alternatives ....................................................... 33
 

Table 2.4. Description of Alternative Goals and Objectives ......................................................... 42
 

Table 2.5. Description of Alternative Actions ............................................................................... 91
 

Table 2.6. Proposed Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse ............................................... 323
 

Table 2.7. Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Use Levels if Not Meeting (or Not Making
 

Progress Toward) GRSG Objectives ................................................................................ 324
 

Table 2.8. Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 326
 

List of Tables
This page intentionally

left blank
Draft Resource Management 3

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

2.1. Introduction

The BLM and Forest Service developed this LUPA/EIS to provide management direction for

over 43 million acres of land administered by the BLM and Forest Service in the Great Basin

Region. This LUP/EIS analyzes alternatives that address threats to GRSG habitat identified in

the USFWS listing decision.

The LUPA/EIS complies with NEPA, which directs the BLM and Forest Service to “study,

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any

proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources...”

(NEPA Section 102[2][e]). At the heart of the alternative development process is the required

development of a reasonable range of alternatives. Public and internal (within BLM and Forest

Service) scoping (see Section 1.5, Scoping and Identification of Issues for Development of the

Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives) identified issues that present opportunities for alternative

courses of action, while the purpose and need for action described in Section 1.3, Purpose and

Need, provides sideboards for determining “reasonableness.”

This chapter details the No Action Alternative, which would continue the existing policies

of the BLM and Forest Service; five action alternatives; and the alternatives considered but

eliminated from detailed analysis. Figures located at the end of this chapter show where actions

are applicable. The alternatives respond to USFWS-identified issues and threats to GRSG and

its habitat. They create management consistency for GRSG and its habitat across the range of

the species, such that a potential listing for GRSG as threatened or endangered species under the

ESA in 2015 will be unnecessary.

2.1.1. Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region

The Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region includes public lands administered by the

BLM Nevada and BLM California, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands administered by

the Forest Service. This LUPA will amend 13 LUPs to provide consistent management of GRSG

habitat for all BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands included within the sub-region.

BLM

The Battle Mountain, Carson City, Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca BLM District Offices in Nevada

and the Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise BLM Field Offices in California administer the 11

pertinent RMPs being amended by this LUPA/EIS.

The Battle Mountain District encompasses approximately 10.5 million acres of public land within

Lander, Eureka, Esmeralda, and Nye Counties in Nevada. The Shoshone-Eureka and the Tonopah

RMPs will be amended by this LUPA/EIS.

The Carson City District encompasses approximately 5 million acres of public land in 11 counties

in western Nevada and eastern California. These include Carson City, Churchill, Douglas,

Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Storey, and Washoe Counties within Nevada, and Alpine, Lassen, and

Plumas Counties within California. The Carson City Consolidated RMP will be amended by

this LUPA/EIS.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Introduction
4 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

The Elko District encompasses approximately 7.5 million acres of public land within Elko,

Eureka, and Lander Counties in eastern Nevada. The Elko and Wells RMPs will be amended by

this LUPA/EIS.

The Ely District encompasses approximately 11.5 million acres of public land within Lincoln,

Nye, and White Pine Counties in eastern Nevada. The Ely RMP will be amended by this

LUPA/EIS.

The Winnemucca District encompasses approximately 11.2 million acres of public land within

Churchill, Humboldt, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe Counties in northwest Nevada. The Black

Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and Winnemucca

RMPs will be amended by this LUPA/EIS.

The Alturas Field Office encompasses over 503,460 acres of BLM-administered lands in

northeastern California. The geographic area includes public lands within Lassen, Modoc, Shasta,

and Siskiyou Counties, California. The Alturas RMP will be amended by this LUPA/EIS.

The Eagle Lake Field Office consists of over 1 million acres of BLM-administered lands in

northern California and Nevada. The geographic area includes public lands within and Lassen,

Plumas, and Sierra Counties, California, and Washoe County, Nevada. The Eagle Lake RMP

will be amended by this LUPA/EIS.

The Surprise Field Office encompasses approximately 1.2 million acres of BLM-administered

lands in northern California and Nevada. The geographic area includes public lands within

Lassen and Modoc Counties, California and Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada. The

Surprise RMP will be amended by this LUPA/EIS.

Forest Service

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest encompasses approximately 4.5 million acres of public

land within Churchill, Elko, Humboldt, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe Counties in Nevada and

a small portion of eastern California. The Toiyabe National Forest and the Humboldt National

Forest LUPs will be amended by this LUPA/EIS.

2.2. Introduction to LUP Alternatives

LUP decisions consist of identifying and clearly defining goals and objectives (desired outcomes)

for resources and resource uses, followed by developing allowable uses and management actions

necessary for achieving the goals and objectives. These critical determinations guide future land

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation actions to meet multiple use and

sustained yield mandates while sustaining land health.

Components of Alternatives

Goals are broad statements of desired (LUP-wide and resource- or resource-use-specific)

outcomes and are not quantifiable or measurable. Objectives are specific measurable desired

conditions or outcomes intended to meet goals. Goals and objectives can vary across alternatives,

resulting in different allowable uses and management actions for some resources and resource

uses. Forest Service objectives are also time specific.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Introduction to LUP Alternatives
Draft Resource Management 5

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Management actions and allowable uses are designed to achieve objectives. Management actions

are measures that guide day-to-day and future activities. Allowable uses delineate which uses

are permitted, restricted, or prohibited, and may include stipulations or restrictions. Allowable

uses also identify lands where specific uses are excluded to protect resource values, or where

certain lands are open or closed in response to legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements.

Implementation decisions are site-specific on-the-ground actions and are typically not addressed

in LUPs.

On Forest Service-administered lands, forest plans guide management activities and may contain

goals and objectives as well as S&Gs that provide direction for project planning and design.

Standards are mandatory constraints on decision making. Not meeting a standard would require a

site-specific forest plan amendment. A guideline is a constraint on decision making that allows

for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met.

Purpose of Alternative Development

Land use planning and NEPA regulations require the BLM and Forest Service to formulate

a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative development is guided by established planning

criteria (as outlined for the BLM at 43 CFR 1610).

The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 1501.2(c) state that federal agencies shall:

Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any

proposal which involves unresolved conflict concerning alternatives uses of available resources...

The basic goal of alternative development is to produce distinct potential management scenarios

that:

● Address the identified major planning issues

● Explore opportunities to enhance management of resources and resource uses

● Resolve conflicts among resources and resource uses

● Meet the purpose of and need for the LUP or LUPA

Pursuit of this goal provides the BLM, Forest Service, and the public with an appreciation for

the diverse ways in which conflicts regarding resources and resource uses might be resolved,

and offers the BLM State Directors and Forest Service Forest Supervisor a reasonable range of

alternatives from which to make an informed decision. The components and broad aim of each

alternative considered for the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region GRSG LUPA/EIS

are discussed below.

2.3. Alternative Development Process for the Nevada and

Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan

Amendment

The Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region GRSG LUPA/EIS planning team employed

the BLM planning process (outlined in Section 1.4, Planning Process) to develop a reasonable

range of alternatives for the LUPA/EIS. The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and

the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 1500 in the development of alternatives

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative Development Process for the Nevada

and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse

Land Use Plan Amendment
6 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

for this draft LUPA/EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives.

Where necessary to meet the planning criteria, to address issues and comments from cooperating

agencies and the public, or to provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the alternatives include

management options for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the

applicable LUP. Since this LUPA/EIS will specifically address GRSG conservation, many

decisions within existing LUPs that do not impact GRSG are acceptable and reasonable; in these

instances, there is no need to develop alternative management prescriptions.

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to identify significant issues

deserving of detailed study to help identify alternatives. The planning team developed planning

issues to be addressed in the LUPA/EIS, based on broad concerns or controversies related to

conditions, trends, needs, and existing and potential uses of planning area lands and resources.

All comments were reviewed to determine whether they identified significant issues or unresolved

conflicts.

2.3.1. Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

Between May and September 2012, the planning team (BLM, Forest Service, and cooperating

agencies) met to develop management goals and to identify objectives and actions to address the

goals. The various groups met numerous times throughout this period to refine their work. As

outcomes of this process, the planning team:

● Developed one No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and two preliminary action alternatives.

The first action alternative (Alternative B) is based on A Report on National Greater

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (NTT 2011), and the second action alternative

(Alternative C) is based on a proposed alternative submitted by conservation groups

● Customized the goals, objectives, and actions from the NTT-based alternative (Alternative
 

B) to develop a third action alternative (Alternative D) that strives for balance among
 

competing interests
 

● Incorporated proposed GRSG protection measures recommended by state governments as
 

a fifth alternative (Alternative E)
 

● Separated Alternative C into two distinct alternatives and developed Alternative F, the sixth

alternative, which includes similar goals, objectives, and actions as Alternative C; however,

it contains elements submitted by the conservation groups

Each of the preliminary action alternatives was designed to:

● Address the 13 planning issues (identified in Section 1.5.2, Issues Identified for Consideration

in the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs)

● Fulfill the purpose and need for the LUPA (outlined in Section 1.3, Purpose and Need)

● Meet the multiple use mandates of the FLPMA (43 CFR 1716), MUSYA and NFMA

2.4. Alternatives Considered in Detail

The five resulting action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F) offer a range of possible

management approaches for responding to planning issues and concerns identified through public

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
Draft Resource Management 7

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

scoping, and to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution in the planning area.

While the goal is the same across alternatives, each alternative contains a discrete set of objectives

and management actions constituting a separate LUPA. The goal is met in varying degrees, with

the potential for different long-range outcomes and conditions.

The relative emphasis given to particular resources and resource uses differs as well, including

allowable uses, restoration measures, and specific direction pertaining to individual resource

programs. When resources or resource uses are mandated by law or are not tied to planning

issues, there are typically few or no distinctions between alternatives.

The action alternatives are directed towards responding to USFWS-identified issues and threats

to GRSG and their habitat. Table 2-1, USFWS-Identified Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and

Its Habitat and Applicable BLM and Forest LUP Resource Programs for Addressing Threats,

identifies the threats throughout all of the GRSG planning sub-regions and the applicable BLM

and Forest Service resource programs in LUPs for addressing the threats.

The meaningful differences among the alternatives are described in Section 2.8, Comparison of

Alternatives. This section also provides a complete description of the proposed decisions for each

alternative, including the project goal and objectives, management actions, and allowable uses for

individual resource programs. Figures at the end of this chapter provide a visual representation

of differences between alternatives. In some instances, varying levels of management overlap a

single area, or polygon, due to management prescriptions from different resource programs. In

instances where varying levels of management prescriptions overlap a single polygon, the stricter

of the management prescriptions would apply.

PPMAs and PGMAs are based on mapping of PPH and PGH, as described in 1.1.1, BLM and

Forest Service Habitat Mapping. PPMAs and PGMAs vary by alternative, based on management

objectives. Alternatives B and F include all mapped PPH and PGH within PPMAs and PGMAs.

Alternative C combines PPH and PGH into PPMAs. Alternative D adjusts the delineation of

PPH and PGH to reflect existing land uses, use authorizations, land allocations, and habitat

considerations; it adds or subtracts mapped PPH or PGH to create PPMAs and PGMAs across

the sub-region. Alternative E creates Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs), which include

occupied, suitable, and potential habitat and nonhabitat. The effects of these variations on PPMA,

PGMA, and SGMA acreages are reflected in Table 2-3.

The USFWS developed the COT Report (USFWS 2013a), which identifies key areas across the

landscape considered “necessary to maintain redundant, representative, and resilient populations.”

The USFWS identified these priority areas for consideration (PACs) with the respective state

wildlife management agencies. Within the sub-region, PACs are not coincident with PPH and

PGH or with PPMA/PGMAs, with the exception of the SGMAs identified in Alternative E,

the state-provided alternative. PPH and PGH were mapped in a separate process, using the

criteria identified in Chapter 3. PACs do not include all PPH and PGH but do include additional

areas of potential habitat and nonhabitat. The COT recognizes these differences in mapping

and acknowledges the potential for future modifications or additions of PACs through ongoing

interagency coordination and the results of the LUP planning process.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail
8 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 2.1. USFWS-Identified Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Its Habitat and Applicable BLM and Forest Service LUP

Resource Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

COT Report-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

Applicable BLM/Forest

Service LUP Resource

Program for Addressing

the Threat

Decisions Made Under the

BLM Resource Programs

Directions Made Under Forest

Service LRMP Resource

Programs

Wildland Fire Fire Wildland Fire Management Changes to fire management

strategies; identify areas

suitable/unsuitable for wildland

fire use; identify priority areas

for suppression

Similar

Invasive Species Nonnative, Invasive Plants

Species

Vegetation Weed control, suppression,

or eradication via natural

processes; restrictions

on allowable uses; active

management or treatment

Similar

Range Management Allowable use restrictions Similar

Fire Management Active management or treatment See Wildland Fire

Recreation Restrictions and best

management practices (BMPs)

associated with Special

Recreation Permits (SRPs)

Similar

Oil and Gas

For wind energy

development,

see Infrastructure – power

lines/pipelines, roads

Energy Development Lands and Realty

Management

Issue ROW grant; identify ROW

avoidance or exclusion areas

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

Fluid Minerals Identify open and closed areas

to fluid mineral leasing; Identify

open areas with no surface

occupancy (NSO), controlled

surface use (CSU), and timing

limitation (TL) stipulations

Identify Stipulationsfor Resource

Protection

Prescribed Fire Sagebrush Removal Vegetation Management Identify vegetation treatment

areas, Conduct vegetation

treatments

Establish Desired Future

Condition as Objective for

Treatment

Wildland Fire Management Establish fire management

strategies; identify areas suitable

and unsuitable for prescribed

fire use

See Wildland Fire

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail
9 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

USFWS-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

COT Report-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

Applicable BLM/Forest

Service LUP Resource

Program for Addressing

the Threat

Decisions Made Under the

BLM Resource Programs

Directions Made Under Forest

Service LRMP Resource

Programs

Grazing Grazing Range Management Identify acres closed to livestock

grazing; establish animal

unit-months (AUMs); manage

grazing systems; conduct range

improvements; identify season

of use; identify stocking rates

Identify Suitable and Nonsuitable

acres

Identify Use Rates

Provide Standards and Guidelines

for range Improvements

Wild Horse and Burro

Management

Identify herd management areas

(HMAs) and wild horse and

burro territories (WHBTs)

Manage Populations Levels

Special Status Species Identify habitat management Similar

Vegetation Management Identify vegetation treatment

areas, Conduct vegetation

treatments

Establish Desired Future

Condition as Objective for

Treatment

See Grazing Management

(above)

Range Management

Structures

Range Management See Grazing above Same

No similar threat identified Free-Roaming Equid

Management

Wild Horse and Burro Identify HMAs and WHBTs See above

Conifer Encroachment Pinyon-Juniper Expansion Wildland Fire Management Active management or treatment See Wildland fire

Vegetation Management Identify vegetation treatment

areas, conduct vegetation

treatments

Establish Desired Future

Condition as Objective for

Treatment

Agriculture &

Urbanization

Agricultural Conversion

and Ex-Urban Development

Lands & Realty Identify retention, disposal, and

acquisition areas (specifically

addressed in Alternative E and

displayed in the amelioration

threat table)

Similar

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail
10 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

USFWS-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

COT Report-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

Applicable BLM/Forest

Service LUP Resource

Program for Addressing

the Threat

Decisions Made Under the

BLM Resource Programs

Directions Made Under Forest

Service LRMP Resource

Programs

Hard Rock Mining Mining Lands and Realty Petition to withdraw lands from

locatable mineral development;

establish terms, conditions, or

special considerations

Recommend areas for withdrawal

Lands and Realty Identify open and closed areas

to mineral materials disposal;

establish terms, conditions, or

special considerations

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

Lands and Realty Identify open and closed areas

to non-energy leasable minerals;

establish terms, conditions, or

special considerations

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

See Infrastructure, Roads Recreation Recreation See Infrastructure – roads

(below); Issue SRPs

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

Infrastructure

● Power lines/pipelines

Infrastructure Lands and Realty - Utilities Issue ROW grant; identify ROW

avoidance or exclusion areas;

identify utility corridors

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

● Roads

● Communication sites

● Railroads

● Range improvements

(see below)

Lands and Realty –

Communication Sites

Issue ROW grant; Identify ROW

avoidance or exclusion areas

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

Comprehensive Trails and

Travel Management –

Roads

Identify motorized and

nonmotorized travel routes

and areas, including areas open,

limited, or closed to OHVs

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

Lands and Realty -

Railroads

Issue ROW grant; Identify ROW

avoidance or exclusion areas

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

Infrastructure – Range

Improvements

Range Management

Structures

All applicable programs Authorize installation or

removal of structural range

improvements. Installation or

removal of structural range

improvements.

Provide Standards and Guidelines

for range Improvements

Comprehensive Trails and

Travel Management

Installation or removal of fences,

culverts, or stream crossings

Identify Standards and

Guidelines for Resource

Protection

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail
11 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

USFWS-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

COT Report-Identified

Threats to GRSG and

Their Habitat

Applicable BLM/Forest

Service LUP Resource

Program for Addressing

the Threat

Decisions Made Under the

BLM Resource Programs

Directions Made Under Forest

Service LRMP Resource

Programs

Water Developments No similar threat identified All applicable programs Identify number, location,

and type of range water

developments

Provide Standards and Guidelines

for range Improvements

Climate Change No similar threat identified There is no BLM resource

planning program for

addressing this threat to

GRSG and its habitat.

Proposed climate

change management is

incorporated in other

resource programs

throughout Chapter 2.

Not applicable 1. Identify Desired Future

Condition for Vegetation

to provide for a resilient

vegetation community

2. Identify Standards

and Guidelines for

implementation of

vegetation treatments

3. Development Adaptive

Management Strategy

Weather No similar threat identified There is not a resource

program in the BLM

RMPs for addressing this

USFWS-identified threat.

Not applicable Same

Predation No similar threat identified All applicable programs Establish design features

and BMPs to reduce avian

predator perching and nesting

on structures

Similar

Disease No similar threat identified All applicable programs Establish design features and

BMPs to reduce risk for West

Nile virus

Similar

Hunting No similar threat identified There is no resource

program in the BLM

RMPs for addressing this

USFWS-identified threat

Not applicable Very Limited

Contaminants No similar threat identified Mineral Resources Plan of Operation requirements Similar

Public Health and Safety Remediate and resolve illegal

dumping

Similar

Source: USFWS 2010, 2013

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail
12 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

2.4.1. Alternative A: No Action

Alternative A meets the CEQ requirement that a No Action Alternative be considered. This

alternative continues current management direction and prevailing conditions derived from the

existing field/district office and forest planning documents. Goals and objectives for resources and

resource uses are based on the most recent LUP decisions, along with associated amendments,

activity- and implementation-level plans, and other management decision documents. Laws,

regulations, and BLM and Forest Service policies that supersede LUP decisions would apply. The

No Action Alternative highlights those decisions that can be shown to have a direct effect or link

to conserving or restoring GRSG habitat or sagebrush vegetation communities that support GRSG

throughout its life cycle. Because there are few management decisions that are common to all 13

LUPs, a summary of the general management per threat is discussed.

Goals and objectives for BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands and mineral estate

would not change. Appropriate and allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to activities

such as mineral leasing and development, recreation, construction of utility corridors, and

livestock grazing would also remain the same. The BLM and Forest Service would not modify

existing or establish additional criteria to guide the identification of site-specific use levels for

implementation activities.

2.4.2. Alternative B

GRSG conservation measures in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation

Measures (NTT 2011) were used to form BLM and Forest Service management direction under

Alternative B. Management actions by the BLM and Forest Service in concert with other federal,

state, and local agencies, tribes, and private land owners play a critical role in the future trends

of GRSG populations. To ensure BLM and Forest Service management actions are effective

and based on the best available science, the BLM’s National Policy Team created the NTT in

August 2011. The BLM’s objective for chartering this planning strategy effort was to develop

new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through LUPs, to conserve and restore GRSG and its

habitat on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long

term. Conservation measures in the report are applied to GRSG PPMAs and to a lesser extent to

PGMAs. The alternative includes all mapped PPH and PGH (Section 1.1.1) within PPMAs and

PGMAs, with no adjustments. PPMAs have the highest conservation value to maintaining or

increasing GRSG populations. The complete NTT report can be reviewed online at:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/programs/wildlife.Par.73607.File.dat/

GrSGTechTeamReport.pdf.

The BMPs proposed in the NTT report are included as required design features (RDFs) as part

of Alternative B and are listed in Appendix A, Required Design Features, of this document.

The RDFs mirror the NTT BMPs with one exception: the locatable mineral BMPs are carried

forward as BMPs because the General Mining Act of 1872 prevents the agencies from imposing

use restrictions on mining claims.

Management actions from the NTT Report concerning coal are not applicable to the Nevada and

Northeastern California Sub-region since there are no reasonably developable coal resources

within the planning area. Accordingly, the portion of the NTT Report that addresses coal leasing

will not be carried forward as part of Alternative B.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative A: No Action
Draft Resource Management 13

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

2.4.3. Alternative C

During scoping individuals and conservation groups submitted management direction

recommendations for protection and conservation of GRSG and its habitat. The recommendations,

in conjunction with resource allocation opportunities and internal sub-regional BLM and Forest

Service input, were reviewed to develop BLM and Forest Service management direction for

GRSG under Alternative C. Management actions under Alternative C are applied to PPMAs and

focus on the complete removal of livestock grazing from the landscape to alleviate threats to

GRSG. PPMAs include both PPH and PGH.

2.4.4. Alternative D

Alternative D is the BLM and Forest Service, Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region’s

adjustments alternative, which emphasizes balancing resources and resource use among

competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource

values, while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant,

wildlife, and fish habitat. This alternative, which designates and applies management to PPMAs

and PGMAs, seeks to provide a balanced level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of

resources and services to meet ongoing programs and land uses.

The alternative adjusts the delineation of PPMAs and PGMAs to reflect existing land uses, use

authorizations, land allocations, and habitat considerations. Areas of PPH next to large-scale

mining or EIS level mine expansions, or within developed utility/transportation corridors would

be managed as PGMA. PGH in designated wilderness or within wilderness study areas would

be managed as PPMA. Mapped PPH in the isolated and highly fragmented Northwest Interior

population would be managed as PGMA.

PGH in an area of high potential for ensuring genetic connectivity across the I-80/checkerboard

land ownership corridor would be managed as PPMA. The alternative provides for up to 10

percent adjustment in PPMAs and PGMAs to adapt to changing conditions such as climate

change, wildfire, and population dynamics (e.g., genetic and seasonal range connectivity), which

may change due to habitat conditions or new information.

This alternative seeks to provide for no unmitigated loss to occupied GRSG habitat, as described

below.

Continued losses of GRSG habitat through natural events such as wildfire are expected to

continue. Therefore, it is incumbent on the BLM and Forest Service to minimize loss of habitat or

habitat functionality arising from discretionary agency actions or authorizations.

The concept of “no unmitigated loss” includes a suite of actions that can be taken to off-set or

restore direct and indirect disturbances on GRSG habitat. This includes conducting restoration

or other appropriate actions (e.g., fence marking to reduce collision risk, and avian predator

diverters) in advance of or concurrent with human activities that disrupt GRSG behavior, remove

habitat or degrade habitat quality, and/or functionality.

These actions include:

● Siting activities in landscapes that do not provide habitat currently and are not likely to be
 

restorable to habitat
 

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative C
14 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

● Rejecting use applications or nominations that cannot be adequately mitigated and where the

agencies have discretion to do so

● Applying RDFs and mitigation measures at a level that will offset immediate and long-term

effects of the disturbance

Mitigation of anthropogenic uses would be accomplished by specific measures that include:

● On-site measures to minimize disturbance footprints and taking actions to restore the

disturbed areas concurrently (such as revegetation and weed treatments while burying power

lines or pipelines)

● Off-site mitigation agreements developed cooperatively with Nevada wildlife and
 

conservation agencies for BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands in Nevada
 

● Prescribed mitigation ratios to offset the immediate and long-term effects of the disturbance

● Conducting restoration in advance of disturbance (such as through the State of Nevada’s
 

mitigation banking process)
 

● Coordination with the state(s) on required restoration (disturbance credits)

Mitigation of natural disturbances would include:

● Taking actions to prevent or reduce human-caused wildfire ignitions

● Conducting treatments (e.g., creating fuel breaks) to prevent and reduce the spread of wildfires

and to augment fire suppression tactics

● Conducting restoration treatments in areas burned (including post-fire uses, such as grazing

management)

● Conducting treatments to control the spread and dominance of cheatgrass

● Applying habitat restoration or enhancement treatments, such as seeding/planting of perennial

grasses, forbs, and shrubs to improve habitat conditions

Because the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region GRSG LUPA/EIS is predominantly

written in BLM planning language, an appendix (Appendix B, Forest Service Alternative D

Language) has been added to the document that lays out the BLM and Forest Service proposed

alternative in Forest Service nomenclature.

2.4.5. Alternative E

Alternative E is based on the State of Nevada’s Conservation Plan for GRSG in Nevada (State of

Nevada Alternative, Management Actions for the Conservation of the GRSG in the Nevada and

Northeastern California Sub-region [State of Nevada 2012]; see Appendix C, State of Nevada

Alternative) and would apply to all BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands in Nevada. The

State of California did not submit a proposal for a complete alternative and as such, Alternative E

would only apply to BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands in Nevada. If this alternative

was selected as the preferred alternative, then BLM- and Forest Service -administered lands in

California would be managed as described under the No Action Alternative (current management

actions). The goals, objectives, and actions under Alternative E reflect concurrent state-level

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative E
Draft Resource Management 15

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

planning efforts for the protection of GRSG and its habitat. State-level planning efforts focus

on all lands within the state, regardless of ownership. The actions are applied to federal lands

if the federal agencies have the authority to implement them.

The Nevada State Plan identifies 15 Sage-Grouse management areas (SGMAs) located across

the state. The SGMA map defines the overall area where the state would like resources to be

managed to maintain and expand GRSG populations. SGMAs include PPH and PGH within areas

defined as occupied and suitable habitat; they also include potential habitat and nonhabitat. The

State of Nevada SGMA map is based on the best biological information and knowledge at this

time, taking into account the 85 percent breeding bird density, NDOW PPH and PGH maps, and

areas of known resource conflicts.

Key elements of this alternative are:

● Achieving “no net loss” of GRSG habitat by implementation of a strategy to avoid, minimize

and mitigate impacts on GRSG

● Establishing the Conservation Credit System

● Establishing the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team

2.4.6. Alternative F

Alternative F is based on recommendations submitted by individuals and conservation groups

for the protection and conservation of GRSG and its habitat. Alternative F includes goals and

objectives that:

● Increase GRSG populations to a level where they are viable and secure from local extirpation

events and, eventually, to a level that allows for an annual harvest surplus

● Restore and maintain sagebrush steppe to its ecological potential in priority, general, and
 

restoration GRSG habitat
 

● Establish a system of sagebrush reserves to anchor recovery efforts by protecting the highest

quality habitats

Management Actions provide for the protection of GRSG habitat. Alternative F differs from

Alternative C on issues relating to grazing, wild horse and burro management, lands and realty,

and minerals. Management actions for the conservation of GRSG habitat under Alternative F

apply to GRSG PPMAs and PGMAs, which are mapped as in Alternative B.

2.5. Management Common to All Alternatives

Allowable uses and management actions from existing LUPs that remain valid are not subject to

modification based on management actions identified in the selected alternative. The effects of

the allowable uses and management action are included in the cumulative effects analysis. Other

decisions are common only to the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F). Common

management actions include:

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative F
16 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

● Conserve, enhance, and restore the sagebrush ecosystem on which GRSG populations
 

depend, to maintain or increase their abundance and distribution, in cooperation with other
 

conservation partners
 

● Manage GRSG as a BLM sensitive species and as a Forest Service Management Indicator
 

Species (MIS)
 

● Comply with state and federal laws, regulations, policies, and standards, including the
 

multiple use mandates of FLPMA and NFMA
 

● Implement actions originating from laws, regulations, and policies and conform to day-to-day

management, monitoring, and administrative functions not specifically addressed

● Recognize valid existing rights, which include any leases, claims, or other use authorizations

established before a new or modified authorization, change in land designation, or new or

modified regulation is approved; existing fluid mineral leases are managed through Conditions

of Approval (COAs) applied at the time the BLM and Forest Service approve an Application

for Permit to Drill (APD)

● Collaborate with adjacent landowners, federal and state agencies, tribes, communities, other

agencies, and other individuals and organizations, as needed, to monitor and implement

decisions to achieve desired resource conditions

● Provide for human safety and property protection from wildfire and then set priorities to

protect communities, infrastructure, improvements, and natural and cultural resources, based

on values to be protected, human health and safety, and costs

● Apply RDFs (Appendix A) and other site-specific mitigation measures to all resource uses to

promote rapid reclamation, maximize resource protection, and minimize soil erosion

● Incorporate the Regional Mitigation Strategy, as outlined in Appendix D

● Implement management action within Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), lands with wilderness

characteristics (LWCs), or other special designated areas to be consistent with policies

and procedures that have been established to maintain the current physical setting and

characteristics of these units

● Refrain from managing existing federal and state road easements as GRSG habitat and

exempt them from the management actions associated with PPMA and PGMA; any new

modification or adjustments outside of the existing easement would be subject to the proposed

management actions

Actions taken or authorized by the BLM and Forest Service during LUP implementation

would comply with standard practices and RDFs. Therefore, these practices and guidelines are

considered part of each alternative.

2.5.1. BLM and Forest Service Vegetation Management

Under all alternatives, the BLM and Forest Service will implement a vegetation management

program that addresses all programs that rely on healthy plant species and communities to meet

their objectives. The BLM and Forest Service’s overarching goal for vegetation management is,

through an interdisciplinary collaborative process, to plan and implement a set of actions that

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

BLM and Forest Service Vegetation Management
Draft Resource Management 17

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

improve biological diversity and ecosystem function and promote and maintain native plant

communities that are resilient to disturbance and invasive species (BLM 2007a).

The BLM and Forest Service vegetation management strategies common to all alternatives will

take into account the condition and use of public lands. These strategies will focus on restoring

sites that will most benefit from treatments. The appropriate treatments to improve the likelihood

of restoration success will be selected, treatments will be monitored to better understand what

treatments are successful or unsuccessful, and information about treatment activities will be

conveyed to the BLM and Forest Service and the public.

BLM vegetation treatment policies are an outcome of the Vegetation Treatments Programmatic

EIS released in October 2007 (BLM 2007a). The programmatic EIS contains broad regional

descriptions of resources, environmental impact analysis, and BLM-wide decisions on herbicide

use and other available tools for vegetation management, and provides a programmatic USFWS

ESA Section 7 consultation. All implementation-level activities carried out under this plan will

tier to the Vegetation Treatments Programmatic EIS, to the extent it applies.

Across all alternatives for weed management in the Nevada and Northeast California Sub-region,

the BLM and Forest Service will work closely with local and state agencies to manage and treat

weeds on public lands. The BLM and Forest Service will participate in exotic plant pest councils,

state vegetation and noxious weed management committees, state invasive species councils,

county weed districts, and weed management associations.

When developing mitigation and prevention plans for activities on public lands under all

alternatives, the BLM and Forest Service will address conditions that enhance invasive species

abundance. These conditions include excessive disturbance associated with road maintenance,

grazing that fails to meet standards, and high levels of recreational use. Also, restoration activities

will be evaluated as to their ability to maintain invasive annual grass cover below manageable

thresholds. The BLM and Forest Service will apply active treatments to remove invasive annual

grass and maintain sagebrush/perennial grass communities.

The BLM will also participate in the National Early Warning and Rapid Response System for

Invasive Species. The goal of this system is to minimize the establishment and spread of new

invasive species through a coordinated framework of public and private processes.

The BLM and Forest Service will also coordinate with and solicit input from, as appropriate,

resource advisory groups and nongovernmental organizations, including BLM Resource Advisory

Councils (RACs), the Western Governors’ Association, the National Association of Counties,

the Western Area Power Administration, the National Cattlemen’s Association, the National

Wool Growers Association, the Society of American Foresters, and the American Forest and

Paper Association.

Under all alternatives for fire management/fuels reduction, the BLM and Forest Service will

participate with the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, a cooperative, interagency organization

dedicated to achieving consistent implementation of the goals, actions, and policies in the

National Fire Plan and the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.

As directed by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the BLM and Forest Service will develop an

annual program of work that prioritizes authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects designed to

protect at-risk communities or watersheds. In accordance with the Act, funding priority is given to

communities that have adopted Community Wildfire Protection Plans or that have taken measures

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

BLM and Forest Service Vegetation Management
18 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

to encourage willing property owners to reduce fire risk on private property. All prescribed

burning is coordinated with state and local air quality agencies to ensure that local air quality is

not significantly impacted by BLM and Forest Service activities.

Effectiveness monitoring of vegetation treatments is usually done at the local project

implementation level. Monitoring of invasive plant treatment effectiveness can range from site

visits to compare the targeted population size against pre-treatment inventory data, to comparing

pre-treatment and post-treatment photo points, to more elaborate transect work, depending on the

species and site-specific variables.

2.5.2. Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

The BLM’s planning regulations, specifically 43 CFR 1610.4-9, require that LUPs establish

intervals and standards for monitoring based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions. LUP

monitoring is the process of tracking the implementation of LUP decisions (implementation

monitoring) and collecting the data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the LUP

decisions (effectiveness monitoring). For GRSG, these types of monitoring are also described

in the criteria found in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing

Decisions (USFWS and NOAA 2003). One of the criteria under this policy is to evaluate whether

the provisions for monitoring and reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance

with the implementation schedule) and effectiveness (based on evaluation of quantifiable

parameters) of the conservation effort are provided.

A guiding principle in the BLM National Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy (DOI 2004) is that

“the Bureau is committed to GRSG and sagebrush conservation and will continue to adjust and

adapt our National Sage-Grouse Strategy as new information, science, and monitoring results

evaluate effectiveness over time.” In keeping with the WAFWA Sage-Grouse Comprehensive

Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) and the GRSG Conservation Objectives: Final Report

(USFWS 2013a), the BLM and Forest Service will monitor implementation and effectiveness

of conservation measures in GRSG habitats.

On March 5, 2010, USFWS’ 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were posted as a Federal Register

notice (USFWS 2010a). This notice stated: “...the information collected by BLM could not be

used to make broad generalizations about the status of rangelands and management actions. There

was a lack of consistency across the range in how questions were interpreted and answered

for the data call, which limited our ability to use the results to understand habitat conditions

for Sage-Grouse on BLM lands.”

Standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach

(within and across jurisdictions) will resolve this situation.

The BLM, Forest Service, and other conservation partners use the resulting information to guide

implementation of conservation activities.

Monitoring strategies for GRSG habitat and populations must be collaborative, as habitat

occurs across jurisdictional boundaries (52 percent on BLM-administered lands, 31 percent on

private lands, 8 percent on Forest Service-administered lands, 5 percent on state lands, and 4

percent on tribal and other federal lands; USFWS 2010a), and state fish and wildlife agencies

have primary responsibility for population-level wildlife management, including population

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning

Strategy
Draft Resource Management 19

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

monitoring. Therefore, population efforts will continue to be conducted in partnership with state

fish and wildlife agencies.

The BLM and Forest Service framework will describe the process that the BLM and Forest

Service will use to monitor implementation and effectiveness of LUPA decisions. The monitoring

framework will include methods, data standards, and intervals of monitoring at broad and mid

scales; consistent indicators to measure and metric descriptions for each of the scales (see

Appendix E, Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework Plan); analysis and reporting

methods; and the incorporation of monitoring results into adaptive management. The need for

fine-scale and site-specific habitat monitoring may vary by area depending on existing conditions,

habitat variability, threats, and land health. Indicators at the fine and site scales will be consistent

with the Habitat Assessment Framework; however, the values for the indicators could be adjusted

for regional conditions.

More specifically, the framework discusses how the BLM and Forest Service will monitor

and track implementation and effectiveness of planning decisions (e.g., tracking of waivers,

modifications, and site-level actions). The two agencies will monitor the effectiveness of LUPA

decisions in meeting management and conservation objectives. Effectiveness monitoring includes

monitoring disturbance in habitats, as well as landscape habitat attributes. To monitor habitats,

the BLM and Forest Service will measure and track attributes of occupied habitat, priority

habitat, and general habitat at the broad scale, and attributes of habitat availability, patch size,

connectivity, linkage/connectivity habitat, edge effect, and anthropogenic disturbances at the

mid-scale. Disturbance monitoring will measure and track changes in the amount of sagebrush

in the landscape and changes in the anthropogenic footprint, including changes in density of

energy development. The framework also includes methodology for analysis and reporting for

field offices, states, ranger districts, BLM districts, National Forests, and forest regions, including

geospatial and tabular data for disturbance mapping (e.g., geospatial footprint of new permitted

disturbances) and management action effectiveness.

The monitoring data will provide the indicator estimates for adaptive management. The BLM and

Forest Service will adjust management decisions through an adaptive management process, and

in accordance with applicable law.

2.5.3. Adaptive Management

Adaptive Management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource management decision

making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions

and other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances

scientific understanding and helps adjust resource management directions as part of an iterative

learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability

in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but

rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself,

but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. On February 1, 2008, the

DOI published its Adaptive Management Implementation Policy (DOI 2008). The adaptive

management strategy presented within this EIS complies with this policy.

In relation to the BLM and Forest Service’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy,

adaptive management will help identify if GRSG conservation measures presented in this EIS

contain the needed level of certainty for effectiveness. If principles of adaptive management

are incorporated into a conservation measure (to ameliorate threats to a species), then there

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Adaptive Management
20 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

is a greater likelihood that the conservation measure will be effective in reducing threats to

that species. The following provides the adaptive management strategy for the Nevada and

Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-region LUPA/EIS.

Adaptive Management and Monitoring

This EIS contains a monitoring framework plan (Appendix E) which includes an effectiveness

monitoring component. The agencies intend to use the data collected from the effectiveness

monitoring to identify any changes in habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the

plan and other range-wide conservation strategies (DOI 2004; Stiver et al. 2006; USFWS 2013a).

When available from WAFWA and/or state wildlife agencies, information about population trends

will be considered with effectiveness monitoring data (taking into consideration the lag effect

response of populations to habitat changes [Garton et al. 2011]). The information collected

through the monitoring framework plan outlined in Appendix E will be used by the BLM

and Forest Service to determine when adaptive management hard and soft triggers (discussed

below) are met.

Adaptive Management Plan

The BLM and Forest Service will develop an adaptive management plan to provide certainty that

unintended negative impacts on GRSG will be addressed before consequences become severe

or irreversible and to provide regulatory certainty to the USFWS that appropriate action will be

taken. This adaptive management plan will:

● Identify science-based soft and hard adaptive management triggers applicable to each
 

population or subpopulation within the planning area
 

● Address how the multiple scale data from the Monitoring Framework Plan (Appendix E) will

be used to gauge when adaptive management triggers are met

● Charter an adaptive management working group to assist with responding to soft adaptive
 

management triggers
 

The State of Nevada is updating a plan to provide more details on changes to management

actions as a result of the monitoring. The BLM will evaluate the state’s monitoring and adaptive

management plan to the extent possible.

Adaptive Management Triggers

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes

are needed in order to continue meeting GRSG conservation objectives. The BLM and Forest

Service will use a continuum of trigger points (soft and hard triggers), which will enhance the

BLM’s and Forest Service’s ability to effectively manage GRSG habitat. The soft and hard

triggers that will be delineated in the adaptive management plan will (at a minimum):

● Be based upon the best available science

● Tied to the populations/demographics

● Take into account the importance of various seasonal habitat types

● Not be limited to a single time “window”

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Adaptive Management
Draft Resource Management 21

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Soft triggers indicate when the BLM or Forest Service will consider adjustments to

resource/resource use management. An adaptive management working group will help identify

the causal factors as to what prompted the soft adaptive management trigger. The group will

also provide recommendations to the appropriate BLM or Forest Service authorizing official

(decision maker) regarding the applicable management response to address this trigger (e.g.

effective mitigation, restoration, reclamation, and in some instances, a land use plan amendment

or revision). When organizing the adaptive management working group, the BLM and Forest

Service will invite participation from BLM, Forest Service, USFWS, local governments, and

applicable state fish and game agencies.

Hard triggers indicate when the BLM/Forest Service will take immediate action to stop the

continued deviation from conservation objectives. These actions could include one or more of

the following (which may require subsequent NEPA analysis):

● Temporary closures (in accordance with 43 CFR Part 8364.1, and as directed under BLM
 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-035)
 

● Immediate implementation of interim management policies and procedures through the BLM

or Forest Service directives system

● Initiation of a new LUP Amendment to consider changes to the existing LUP decisions

2.6. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

The following alternatives were considered but were not carried forward for detailed analysis

because (1) they would not fulfill the requirements of FLPMA, NFMA or other existing laws or

regulations, (2) they did not meet the purpose and need, (3) they were already part of an existing

plan, policy, or administrative function, or (4) they did not fall within the limits of the planning

criteria. FLPMA requires the BLM and Forest Service to manage the public lands and resources

in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

2.6.1. Close All or Portions of Preliminary Priority or Preliminary

General Management Areas to Off-Highway Vehicle Use

Through this LUPA, the BLM has identified, but has not studied in detail, an alternative to

designate new area closures for OHV use within PPMAs and/or PGMAs. However, as explained

more fully below, the BLM has analyzed alternatives to designate all areas within PPMAs and

PGMAs as “limited” to OHV use if not already closed by existing planning efforts. Further,

subsequent Travel Management Plans will be developed to identify specific routes within limited

areas that will be closed and eliminated in order to protect and conserve GRSG and its habitat.

These plans should be completed within five years of the ROD. Finally, BLM has analyzed

existing OHV area closures within PPMAs and PGMAs as part of the No Action alternative and

as a decision common to all alternatives. The following provides the BLM’s rationale:

● There are areas within PPMAs and PGMAs that are currently closed to OHV use (e.g.

Congressional designations, including Wilderness Areas). While these areas were closed to

OHV use for purposes other than GRSG conservation, the BLM will analyze the impacts that

these closures have on protection of GRSG and GRSG habitat. These closures are analyzed in

the No Action alternative and will be carried forward across all alternatives in this LUPA/EIS.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
22 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

● This LUPA/EIS is considering eliminating cross-country travel by analyzing limiting travel to

existing roads and trails, as no new areas will be designated as open to OHV use. In at least

one alternative, all existing areas that are designated as open will become limited.

● For BLM-administered lands in Nevada, routes in PPH and PGH are being inventoried,

based on coordinated efforts between the BLM and USFWS staff. (Route inventories for

BLM-administered lands in California and Forest Service-administered lands in both Nevada

and California are complete.) Once the inventories are complete, the BLM will initiate travel

and transportation planning, which will undergo a NEPA analysis and will include public

involvement. Through subsequent travel and transportation planning, the BLM will identify

and consider closing specific existing routes that may be affecting GRSG habitat. Any

decision to close routes to OHV use in the travel and transportation plans would be based on

consideration of the habitat objectives and the overall goal of conserving, enhancing, and/or

restoring sagebrush ecosystems upon which GRSG populations depend.

● Each District in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has completed its travel management

plans. This included inventorying, notifying the public, and complying with NEPA. The travel

management analyses disclosed the effects on GRSG. The decisions identified which travel

routes are open to vehicle use and which routes are being closed to public motorized vehicles.

● During the LUP revision/amendment process, travel and transportation area decisions
 

(open, limited, or closed) would be revisited at the local level based on existing inventory
 

information associated with a myriad of resources and resource uses.
 

● During the public scoping period for this LUPA, there were no specific areas identified for
 

closure to carry forward for detailed analysis.
 

For the reasons identified above, this subject was not carried forward for detailed analysis.

2.6.2. Elko County Sage-Grouse Plan

Elko County, Nevada has developed an approach for conservation of the GRSG (Elko County

2012). The plan emphasizes the need to maintain the multi-use concept and to avoid further

restrictive federal polices for the purpose of the conservation of the GRSG. The goals of the plan

“are not only to conserve, protect and restore GRSG populations and habitat it is also to protect

the rights of the citizens and the multiple use concept that has been the heritage and culture of this

region prior to the inception of the BLM, Forest Service, and USFWS as federal land managers.”

The plan questions the rationale and science used by the USFWS in their determination regarding

the status of GRSG. To resolve this disagreement, the Elko Plan identifies the need for “Pilot

Programs” to be implemented so as to determine the actual resource impacts on GRSG. The Elko

Plan identifies a suite of ‘Action Items’ by program areas to resolve current issues associated with

the conservation of the GRSG. The plan also identifies the need for a financial incentive plan to

compensate users of public lands for potential adjustments in their management.

The Elko Plan was not analyzed as a separate alternative because:

● Most of the Actions Items are contained in either Alternatives A, D, or E.

● The results of the Pilot Program would be appropriate to include in the adaptive management

program; however, the Pilot Program would not provide sufficient certainty to conserve,

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Elko County Sage-Grouse Plan
Draft Resource Management 23

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that

habitat.

● Several of the Action Items are outside the scope of this decision, such as:

○ Offering private landowners incentives when and where appropriate to achieve GRSG

habitat objectives

○ Discouraging and preventing additional regulations and prohibitions and limiting and

preventing livestock grazing and agricultural uses on federally managed lands and private

properties

○ Using NDF Conservation Camp Crews for fuels reduction projects and to support a

federal grant

○ Expanding authorizations to include fire restoration projects under NEPA Categorical

Exclusion provisions

○ Identifying funding opportunities from federal, state, local, industry, and land users

dedicated to implementing prioritized habitat enhancement, restoration, and conservation

2.6.3. Increased Grazing Alternative

During scoping and the alternatives development process, a number of individuals and

cooperating agencies requested that the BLM and Forest Service consider an alternative that

would increase the amount of livestock grazing in GRSG habitat. This recommendation was

based on empirical evidence that shows there could be a correlation between declines in GRSG

and declines in the amount of livestock grazing on public lands. This alternative was considered

but eliminated from detailed analysis for the following reasons:

● Alternatives being considered in this LUPA/EIS are science-based conservation measures

that would meet the purpose and need for the project, which is to identify and incorporate

appropriate conservation measures in LUPs to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat

by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. There are currently no

science-based studies that demonstrate that increased livestock grazing on public lands would

enhance or restore GRSG habitat or maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution.

● Actual livestock use within GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands in the Nevada and

Northeastern California Sub-region is generally less than permitted active use. For example,

in 2011 actual livestock use was approximately 60 percent of permitted active use. Unless

current actual use levels are tied specifically to GRSG habitat management, permitted active

use could increase under current grazing permits.

2.7. Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative

The proposed alternatives offer a range of discrete strategies for resolving deficiencies in existing

management, exploring opportunities for enhanced management, and addressing issues identified

through internal assessment and public scoping to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and

distribution on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Comments submitted by other

federal, state, and local government agencies, public organizations, tribal entities, and interested

individuals were given careful consideration. Public scoping efforts enabled the BLM and Forest

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Increased Grazing Alternative
24 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Service to identify and shape significant issues pertaining to GRSG habitat, energy development,

livestock grazing, potential ACECs, public land access, and other program areas. Cooperating

agencies reviewed and provided comments at critical intervals during the alternative development

process.

The BLM’s planning regulations and the NEPA regulations developed by the CEQ require

the BLM and Forest Service to identify a preferred alternative in the draft LUPA/EIS if one

has been identified by the lead agency at that stage. Formulated by the planning team, the

preferred alternative represents those goals, objectives, and actions determined to be most

effective at resolving planning issues and balancing resource use at this stage of the process.

While collaboration is critical in developing and evaluating alternatives, the final designation of a

preferred alternative remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM and Forest Service.

Alternative D is the BLM and Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative. The agencies selected

the preferred alternative based on meeting the purpose and need, the agencies’ multiple use

mission, interdisciplinary team recommendations, environmental consequences analysis of the

alternative, and Cooperating Agency comments provided on the Administrative Draft EIS. Based

on public/agency/tribal comments on the DEIS, the BLM and Forest will make the final selection

of the Preferred Alternative, which may include elements of other alternatives.

2.8. Comparison of Alternatives

This section compares the six alternatives (Alternatives A through F) considered in the EIS.

2.8.1. No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the continuation of present management for all the

sub-regional LUPs considered in this programmatic LUPA. The No Action Alternative provides

the baseline against which to compare other action alternatives and their impacts on resources and

resource uses. The No Action Alternative is required by CEQ regulations implementing NEPA

(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The No Action Alternative is not required to meet the agency purpose

and need and must be assessed in an EIS as a basis for comparison.

The LUPs included in this programmatic amendment were developed and approved between

1982 and 2008. These LUPs (which include BLM RMPs, BLM relic MFPs, and Forest Service

LRMPs) collectively provide a varying range of goals, objectives, plan decisions, and allocations

that reflect the issues at the time of their development (see Table 2-2, Land Use Plans Considered

in the No Action Alternative). The No Action Alternative would continue implementing

management decisions and agency policies under the current approved LUPs within the Nevada

and Northeastern California planning area. Direction contained in existing statutes, regulations

and policies would also continue to be implemented and may at times supplement provisions in

existing LUPs.

Overall, the No Action Alternative highlights those decisions that can be shown to have a direct

effect or link to conserving or restoring GRSG habitat or sagebrush vegetation communities that

support GRSG throughout its life cycle. These include goals, objectives, management actions,

allocations (see Table 2-3, Comparative Allocation Summary of Alternatives), prescriptions,

BMPs, RDFs, and standard operating procedures. For purposes of cross-walking the management

actions contained in the No Action Alternative to the NTT Report, the management actions have

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
Draft Resource Management 25

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

been organized by the threat factors identified in the NTT Report as outlined by the USFWS in its

March 2010 Listing Decision. In addition to the threat factors, several other programs or other

areas of resource emphasis are included (e.g., Special Designations, Vegetation - Sage Steppe

Vegetation Communities and Sage-Grouse Monitoring, and Vegetation - Woodlands). Because

there are few management decisions that are common to all 13 LUPs, a summary of the general

management per threat is discussed.

Table 2.2. Land Use Plans Considered in the No Action Alternative

Plan Name Plan Type Approval Date District Office

Elko RMP March 11, 1987 Elko

Wells RMP July 16, 1985 Elko

Paradise-Denio1 MFP August 6, 1982 Winnemucca

Sonoma-Gerlach

1

MFP August 6, 1982 Winnemucca

Black Rock National Conservation

Area (NCA)

RMP July 15, 2004 Winnemucca

Carson City Consolidated

2

RMP May 9, 2001 Carson City

Ely RMP August 20, 2008 Ely

Shoshone-Eureka RMP February 26, 1986 Battle Mountain

Tonopah RMP October 6, 1997 Battle Mountain

Alturas RMP April 17, 2008 Northern California

Eagle Lake RMP April 17, 2008 Northern California

Surprise RMP April 17, 2008 Northern California

Humboldt National Forest LRMP August 19, 1986 Forest Service

Toiyabe National Forest LRMP June 23, 1986 Forest Service

1 MFP Conversion to RMP in Progress

2 Includes the Lahontan RMP (1985) and Walker RMP (1986)

Special Status Species/Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Under the No Action Alternative, there are no public lands designated by the BLM or the Forest

Service as PPH or PGH within the sub-regional planning area. The LUPs do not contain special

designations pertaining to managing GRSG, such as GRSG “Core Areas” or “Priority Habitat”

or other types of references to relative habitat quality. In 2004, NDOW released the Greater

Sage-grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California (NDOW 2004b). Through

this plan, NDOW identified and delineated Population Management Units across the state for

management, inventory, and mapping purposes. The conservation plan also directed the creation

of local working groups along these general PMU boundaries. Based on the best available

information, the GRSG local working groups refined the PMU boundaries and established goals

and objectives for individual PMU conservation plans.

The BLM and Forest Service use the State of Nevada PMU boundaries as management units for

GRSG conservation. In the BLM’s more recently completed LUPs and those currently under

revision, however, these are not allocative designations, but rather are identified only to focus

management attention on the area. Within the sub-region, all BLM and Forest Service offices

work closely with their state wildlife agency to maintain current maps of GRSG habitat on

the BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. General habitat maps of GRSG breeding,

brood-rearing, and wintering habitat or an inventory of known lek distribution may be included in

some of the more recent LUPs for reference purposes and to guide specific management actions

and lease stipulations contained within the LUP as they pertain to managing GRSG habitat.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
26 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Monitoring

By policy, the BLM conducts land health assessments and monitoring for a variety of resource

programs, including livestock grazing, wild horse and burro use, wildlife, wildfire restoration, and

vegetation condition as well as riparian condition, soils, and hydrologic function.

Within the Nevada and Northeast California Sub-region, there are no consistent guidelines in

place that specifically require the monitoring of GRSG habitat condition. Monitoring that occurs

in this type of habitat is associated with monitoring and meeting the objectives of other resource

programs. The Forest Service LRMPs established Management Indicator Species and identifies

the range of population needed to maintain species viability. GRSG have been identified by the

Forest Service as a management indicator species.

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management

Sagebrush Plant Communities

Within the sub-region, all LUPs contain some level of management direction for managing

sagebrush vegetation communities and habitat. Most LUPs contain general objectives for

maintaining or improving sagebrush plant communities. Key aspects of this direction vary from

implementing restrictions on sagebrush removal associated with resource use developments

to implementing proactive sagebrush community restoration activities following the Western

States Sage-grouse Guidelines. Habitat management is generally conducted with an emphasis on

protecting GRSG leks as well as nesting and brood-rearing habitat during any proposed activity.

Across the sub-region, lek buffers are maintained at two miles per the guidance and policies

in place at the time the plan was developed.

Specific vegetation treatment projects are implemented through other range, wildlife, or

vegetation management programs that seek to improve habitat for big and small game species

including GRSG and its habitat. In many cases the habitat requirements for other species overlap

with that of GRSG in the context of the overall goals and objectives for wildlife habitat in general

or for other species.

The California RMPs have adopted the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy Final EIS

(BLM 2008f). This document provides guidance and management for restoring sagebrush plant

communities that have become dominated by western juniper. The Sage Steppe Ecosystem

Restoration Strategy specifically states “restore habitat for sagebrush obligate species,” which

includes woodland habitat.

Woodlands

Most of the sub-region share some level of woodland vegetation component with habitat occupied

by GRSG. This woodland vegetation component is mostly pinyon and juniper in central and

eastern Nevada, to mostly juniper in northern Nevada and the northeast California sub-region

where pinyon is scarce or not present. All BLM and Forest Service LUPs in the sub-region address

woodland management in terms of providing public access to, and use of, woodland products

and include goals and objectives to this effect. Woodland products may range from personal,

commercial, or contract fuel wood cutting and biomass production to posts, pinyon nut harvesting,

and Christmas trees. In some cases, management direction may highlight encroachment areas for

targeted fuel wood and post cutting to reduce the effects of encroachment on these other habitats.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
Draft Resource Management 27

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Within the BLM’s Nevada side of the sub-region, there are no BLM LUP goals, objectives, or

management actions that specifically address protection or conservation of GRSG habitat within

the management framework for woodland products. As stated previously under sagebrush plant

communities, the California BLM follows the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. It

provides guidance and management for the restoration of sagebrush plant communities that have

become dominated by western juniper. The Humboldt National Forest LRMP outlines that fuel

wood harvesting policy will reflect the needs of wildlife.

Integrated Invasive Species Management

One of the primary threats in the western range of the GRSG identified by the USFWS is the

threat of habitat degradation through increased presence of invasive species and noxious weeds.

The BLM and Forest Service have followed an invasive and noxious species management

program as a matter of agency policy since 1995. Inventories are recorded and maintained in

the National Invasive Species Information Management System database, and invasive and

noxious weeds are routinely addressed when permitting public land uses, including applying

mitigation measures. The BLM also manages certain areas in partnerships with other agencies

and organizations through Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs), which focus

attention and shared resources on specific areas.

The BLM and Forest Service have authorized the use of specific herbicides on public lands and

developed standard operating procedures and mitigation measures for all treatment methods for

addressing invasive and noxious weeds in project approval or habitat and vegetation restoration

projects (BLM 2007a; Forest Service 2004).

Within the sub-region, with the exception of the California BLM field offices, there are no LUP

goals, objectives, or management actions identified specifically for addressing protection or

conservation of GRSG habitat within the management framework of the invasive and noxious

weed management program.

The northeastern California RMPs have identified herbicide use restrictions and application

guidance specific to herbicide applications near GRSG leks, lek complex-associated habitats, and

nesting and brood-rearing habitat.

Vegetation Treatments

Vegetation treatments are discussed in the Sagebrush Plant Communities subsection, above.

Within the sub-region, all LUPs contain some level of management direction for managing

sagebrush vegetation communities and habitat. Most LUPs contain general objectives for

maintaining or improving sagebrush plant communities. All LUPs address vegetation treatments

for improvement of wildlife habitat overall or to provide increased forage for livestock, wildlife,

and wild horses and burros. The level of detail for specific objectives and management actions

regarding vegetation treatments in sagebrush communities for the purpose of improving GRSG

habitat varies depending on the age of the LUP.

Wild Horses and Burros

Within the sub-region, the BLM and Forest Service districts manage for wild horses and burros

within established herd areas (HAs), herd management areas (HMAs), or wild horse and burro

territories (WHBTs; Forest Service). Most HAs and HMAs contain GRSG habitat within a

sagebrush vegetation community. Overall management direction is to manage for healthy

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
28 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

populations of wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect

to wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple uses. All HAs and HMAs (or Forest Service

WHBTs) are managed for appropriate management level (AML). Initially, AML is established in

LUPs at the outset of planning and is adjusted based on monitoring data throughout the life of the

plan. Priorities for gathering horses to maintain AML are based on population inventories, gather

schedules, resource conditions, and budget. Gathers are also conducted in emergency situations

when the health of the population is at risk for lack of forage or water. Direction for prioritizing

horse gathers and maintaining AML is not based on GRSG habitat needs, although this is implicit

in the Congressional directive to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. Under the No

Action Alternative, there are no goals, objectives, or management actions specifically identified

within the management framework for the Wild Horse and Burro program.

Fire Management

Within the sub-region, all LUPs address fire suppression and fuels management. Each LUP

supports the development and adherence to a more detailed fire management plan that outlines

priorities and levels of suppression for particular vegetation classes, or resource protection.

Most plans support objectives of re-introducing fire into fire-dependent ecosystems and utilize

the Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) framework to aid in prioritizing response to wildfires

and determining where fire can be used for resource benefit. Most plans place priority for

suppression on the protection of life and property, followed by important resource values. The

more recent LUPs (2008) contain specific objectives and management actions for suppression and

management of fires within sagebrush vegetation communities and GRSG habitat, in accordance

with local PMU conservation strategies and those outlined in IM 2013-128.

Livestock Grazing/Range Management

All LUPs provide for the management of rangeland resources and land health standards through

the livestock grazing program. The Nevada LUPs do not contain management guidance for

permitted livestock grazing specific to conserving GRSG habitat. The California LUPs contain

specific management actions for permitted livestock grazing in accordance with local GRSG

PMU conservation strategies. Land health conditions and wildlife habitat are monitored and/or

assessed as part of the grazing management program. The BLM sets animal unit months (AUMs),

season of use, and grazing management strategies through the permit renewal process and

adjusts these as needed to meet resource objectives. Some grazing allotments have Allotment

Management Plans (AMPs); however, in Nevada forage is allocated based upon the multiple use

decision process that takes into consideration forage availability for livestock, wild horses, and

wildlife. All districts and field offices are subject to meeting the standards for rangeland health

following the guidelines for livestock grazing. The California LUPs (2008) contain specific

management actions for managing livestock grazing in sagebrush ecosystems and consider GRSG

habitat needs in authorizing levels of grazing use.

The Humboldt and Toiyabe LRMPs established specific utilization standards for livestock

grazing. These standards have been incorporated into the Term Grazing Permits and are

referenced in the Annual Operating Instructions each year.

Recreation

Within the sub-region, the BLM and Forest Service manage for developed and dispersed

recreation. Several plans identify Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) where

recreation management is focused on managing for specific recreation activities such as OHV

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
Draft Resource Management 29

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

races or more dispersed passive uses such as group camping, wildlife watching, and sightseeing.

Many of these SRMAs contain sagebrush vegetation communities and GRSG.

None of the LUPs contain goals, objectives, or management actions specific to management of

GRSG habitat in terms of issuing SRPs or casual use. The Alturas and Eagle Lake RMPs provide

for denial of SRPs for activities where adverse impacts cannot be mitigated by the applicant, if the

proposed activity would conflict with recreation or resource management objectives, but GRSG

are not specifically identified in relation to issuance or nonissuance of SRPs. The Surprise LUP

places similar restrictions in SRPs as follows: “and other uses of special designations that require

a special permit would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Proposals would be permitted,

modified, or denied as required to protect resources and values.”

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Travel management at the LUP level is expressed as allocations for areas that are “Open,”

“Closed,” or “Limited” to OHV use. The Limited category is either expressed as “limited

to designated routes” or “limited to existing roads and trails.” The category of “limited to

existing roads and trails” is the basic travel restriction for travel management until detailed

implementation-level planning is completed to designate routes for use or nonuse.

Within the Nevada and Northeast California Sub-region, all OHV categories are present. In

general, plans implemented prior to 2008 are mostly “open” to OHV use within a district or field

office planning area. Plans that have been developed or revised 2008 and later have changed the

“Open” designation to “Limited” per BLM policy established in 2007.

Under current management, Travel Management Areas (TMAs) have not been consistently

identified in LUPs beyond the basic allocations of Open, Closed, and Limited. The Ely RMP has

identified TMAs based on watershed boundaries, consistent with the management direction of the

RMP to manage all resources on a watershed basis.

Outside of these basic planning allocations, goals, objectives, and management actions specific to

managing GRSG are not present in most LUPs. The Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise RMPs

contain direction for the use of designated routes, including several restrictions for protecting

natural resources and/or preventing harassment of wildlife. The Alturas RMP contains seasonal

closures in specific areas to protect GRSG nesting and brood-rearing habitats.

For Forest Service-administered lands, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has completed

its Travel Management Plans. The agency designated specific areas as limited to existing or

designated routes for motorized vehicle travel. The forest has published Motor Vehicle Use Maps,

which display the specific routes designated for motor vehicle use.

Lands and Realty

The lands and realty program processes ROWs and land tenure adjustments and manages

utility corridors. The BLM lands and realty program also processes all federal withdrawal

applications, including applications for withdrawal from mining law, regardless of federal land

management jurisdiction, for recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. Most LUPs in the

sub-region do not contain specific goals, objectives, or management actions directly related to

GRSG conservation. However, mitigation for GRSG habitat is typically developed during the

site-specific NEPA process; most ROWs and surface developments are subject to stipulations or

timing limitations developed for GRSG. Utility corridors exist in most LUPs. The more recent

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
30 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(2008) LUPs in northeastern California identify specific avoidance areas and apply seasonal

buffers and timing restrictions for ROWs that are within GRSG habitat. The Alturas, Eagle

Lake, and Surprise RMPs identify specific exclusions and avoidance areas for ROWs that are

within GRSG habitat. These LUPs set a buffer of 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) from a lek for new

construction of overhead structures, such as transmission lines and towers, wind turbines, and

communication towers.

All federal-, BLM-, and Forest Service-administered lands are held in retention unless identified

for disposal. Disposal criteria typically include consideration of crucial wildlife habitat in general

when identifying lands available for disposal under various authorities. Some LUPs and the

Nevada GRSG Conservation Strategy identify objectives to acquire sensitive GRSG habitat or

easements where appropriate or within PMUs. In general, public lands in the state of Nevada

designated for potential disposal under Section 203 of FLPMA do not take into consideration

excluding GRSG habitat from disposal (e.g., checkerboard lands). However, the northeastern

California field offices follow PMU strategies, which state “BLM will not exchange or sell lands

that have an active or inactive lek within them.”

Utility Corridors

All the LUPs in the sub-region identify authorized utility corridor ROWs. Utility corridors in the

LUPs represent a mix of existing ROW corridors and planning corridors. In addition, in 2008 at

the direction of Congress and Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the BLM amended

its LUPs through the West-Wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS and ROD and designated

planning corridors for priority energy projects. This designation was broad in scope and did not

necessarily consider GRSG conservation issues at the local level.

Wind and Solar Energy (Renewable)

In 2005 and 2012, the BLM programmatically amended its LUPs for renewable energy resources

through the Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005b) and the Solar Energy Program

Programmatic EIS (BLM 2012h), respectively. These programmatic documents outline public

lands available and unavailable for these resource uses, provide direction on processing wind

and solar ROWs and establish BMPs for conducting these activities on public lands. The BMPs

contain some general guidance for addressing GRSG and GRSG habitat. Wind and solar

development are also subject to ROW restrictions.

Minerals

Leasable Minerals

Within the sub-region, all BLM LUPs contain fluid mineral lease stipulations for oil and gas and

geothermal resources, as well as non-energy leasable minerals that occur within GRSG habitat.

These stipulations range from NSO stipulations within 0.25 mile of a lek to appropriate seasonal

timing limitations based on GRSG biology. Timing limitations vary by type of habitat (e.g., lek,

brood-rearing, and winter) and are typically applied to a 2-mile (3.2-kilometer) buffer around

leks. Older LUPs typically do not provide exception, modification, and waiver language. The

more recent LUPs (i.e., Ely, Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise RMPs) contain explicit exception,

modification, and waiver language for each stipulation per BLM policy to address any special

circumstances that would alter the lease stipulation requirements. Forest Service LUPs contain

similar direction. Leasing on Forest Service-administered lands is done by the BLM after the

Forest Service conducts appropriate environmental review and consents to leasing.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
Draft Resource Management 31

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Locatable Minerals

Within the sub-region, all lands are generally open to mineral location under the General

Mining Act of 1872 (May 10, 1872, Ch. 152, 17 Stat. 19). There are specific locatable mineral

withdrawals for particular ROWs, designated wilderness areas, ACECs, and other administrative

needs. There are no locatable mineral withdrawals specific to protecting GRSG habitat. All

locatable mineral activities are managed under the regulations at 43 CFR Part 3800 and 36

CFR Part 228. Mitigation of effects on GRSG and its habitat are identified through the NEPA

process for approving plans of operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals provide

opportunities to develop the resource while preventing undue or unnecessary degradation of public

lands. Also, they minimize significant surface disturbance on Forest Service-administered lands.

Salable Mineral Materials

Within the sub-region, most public lands are open to salable mineral material development.

Disposal of mineral materials is discretionary. Specific closures of areas to salable mineral

materials such as ACECs or crucial or essential wildlife habitat exist throughout the sub-region.

Some LUPs contain use and development restrictions in terms of seasonal timing limitations in

relation to GRSG habitat and leks, similar to oil and gas leasing; however, this is not consistent

across the sub-region. Use and development restrictions are identified mostly in the more recent

LUPs and use similar buffers (i.e., 2-mile [3.2-kilometer] buffers). No LUPs in the sub-region

contain specific goals, objectives, or management actions relative to conservation or protection of

GRSG beyond the use restrictions identified above.

Mineral Split Estate

The majority of split-estate lands in the planning area are private surface and federal (subsurface)

minerals. The split-estate lands in the sub-region contain GRSG habitat. Under the No Action

Alternative, there are no goals, objectives, or management actions identified for activities on

split-estate lands relative to protection and conservation of GRSG habitat. Mitigation of impacts

from project activities and approvals to GRSG habitat is typically developed through the NEPA

process for any project approval occurring in mineral split-estate lands. The Alturas RMP

contains surface use and occupancy standards that also apply to split-estate lands.

Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

There are 70 designated ACECs covering 1,627,503 acres within the Nevada and Northeastern

California Sub-region. Twenty-three of the 70 ACECs fall within PPH or PGH habitat. Of these

23 ACECs, only one in Surprise Field Office is designated specifically for managing for the

protection or conservation of GRSG or its habitat. The primary purposes for ACEC designations

are to protect unique historic, pre-historic, paleontological, or geological values and to protect

special status or threatened and endangered botanical and faunal species and their habitat. Each of

these ACECs has restrictions within the LUPs designed to protect the values for which the ACEC

was designated. These restrictions include NSO stipulations, ROW exclusion or avoidance,

and mineral withdrawal recommendations, as well as other use constraints. All public lands

within an ACEC are held in retention. Outside of special designations, most lands are open to

ROW development.

Wilderness Study Areas

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
32 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

There are 56 WSAs designated within the Nevada and Northeast California Sub-region totaling

2,629,020 acres. Out of the 2,629,020 acres, 650,080 acres are within PPH and 170,220 acres

are within PGH.

All WSAs are managed in accordance with FLPMA Section 603(c) so as not to impair the

suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness. These areas are also managed in

accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas (BLM 2012d).

WSAs released from further wilderness consideration are generally managed similar to the

surrounding public lands unless a LUP specifically identifies that a different management direction

be taken or provides for consideration of other special designations, such as status as an ACEC.

Resource Allocation by Alternative

Management actions associated with each of the alternatives dictate how the BLM and Forest

Service would manage GRSG habitat and allocate resources under each alternative. Table 2-3,

Comparative Allocation Summary of Alternatives, provides a condensed version of allocations

by resource area per alternative. The table uses PPH and PGH categories for Alternative A to

facilitate comparison across the other alternatives. There are currently no lands designated by the

BLM or Forest Service as PPH or PGH within the sub-regional planning area; therefore, selecting

Alternative A would neither result in the designation of PPH or PGH nor assign additional

management actions to PPH or PGH areas. As used for comparison in the table under Alternative

A, for Nevada BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands, PPH is based on NDOW Category 1

and 2 habitat, while PGH is based on NDOW Category 3 habitat.

In California, the BLM used a mapping method based on the Doherty modeling (Doherty et al.

2011). Areas were modified by local knowledge of seasonal range use, known connectivity,

and vegetative and natural barriers.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
33 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 2.3. Comparative Allocation Summary of Alternatives

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres) Alternative A* Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Resources

GRSG

Areas

Habitat/Management Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6

Preliminary Priority

(NDOW Category 1

Habitat

and 2)

12,693,500

habitat)

(existing 0 0 0 0 0

Preliminary General

(NDOW Category 3)

Habitat 5,039,400

habitat)

(existing 0 0 0 0 0

Preliminary Priority Management

Area (NDOW Category 1 and 2

for Alts B, D, and F and NDOW

0 12,693,500 17,732,900 12,927,400 0 12,693,500

Category 1,2, and 3 for Alt C)

Preliminary General

Management Area (NDOW

Category 3)

0 5,039,400 0 4,805,500 0 5,039,400

SGMA-Occupied

(NDOW Category

Habitat

1 and 2)

0 0 0 0 10,655,300 0

SGMA-Suitable

Category 3)

Habitat (NDOW 0 0 0 0 2,295,500 0

SGMA-Potential Habitat 0 0 0 0 2,432,200 0

(NDOW Category 4)

SGMA-Nonhabitat (NDOW

Category 5)

0 0 0 0 522,600 0

Wild Horses and Burros Figure 2-7 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 2-9 Figure 2-7

HAs within PPH, PPMA, or 5,137,500 5,137,500 5,137,500 5,298,000 4,086,100 5,137,500

SGMA (occupied)

HAs within PGH, PGMA, or 2,232,500 2,232,500 2,232,500 2,072,000 1,016,800 2,232,500

SGMA (suitable)

HMAs within PPH, PPMA, or 4,214,700 4,214,700 4,214,700 4,357,700 3,334,800 4,214,700

SGMA (occupied)

HMAs within PGH, PGMA, or 1,871,500 1,871,500 1,871,500 1,728,400 850,400 1,871,500

SGMA (suitable)

Wild Horse Territory within PPH,

PPMA, or SGMA (occupied)

209,200 209,200 344,600 233,000 189,000 209,200

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
34 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres)

Resources

Alternative A* AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

Wild Horse Territory within PGH,

PGMA, or SGMA (suitable)

135,400 135,4000 111,600 38,100 135,400

Livestock Grazing Figure 2-10 Figure 2-11

Acres open for all classes of

livestock grazing within PPH,

PPMA, or SGMA (occupied)

12,572,300 12,572,3000 12,838,200 10,580,900 12,572,300

Acres open for all classes of

livestock grazing within PGH,

PGMA, or SGMA (suitable)

4,979,300 4,979,3000 4,751,500 2,259,900 4,979,300

Acres closed to all classes of

livestock grazing because of

overlap with PPH, PPMA, or

SGMA (occupied)

00 17,732,900

of PPMA;

36,500,100

acres

acres

total

000

Acres closed to all classes of

livestock grazing within PGH,

PGMA, or SGMA (suitable)

000000

Comprehensive

Transportation

Travel and

Management

Figure 2-12 Figure 2-13 Figure 2-14 Figure 2-15 Figure 2-16 Figure 2-13

Closed to Motorized

within PPH, PPMA,

(occupied)

Vehicles

or SGMA

731,000 731,000 731,000 731,000 630,700 731,000

Closed to Motorized

within PGH, PGMA,

(suitable)

Vehicles

or SGMA

143,600 143,600 143,600 143,600 88,000 143,600

Limited to

Motorized

PPMA, or

Existing Routes for

Vehicles within PPH,

SGMA (occupied)

3,083,600 11,962,500 11,962,500 12,052,800 9,998,200 12,693,500

Limited to

Motorized

PGMA, or

Existing Routes for

Vehicles within PGH,

SGMA (suitable)

1,029,700 1,029,600 4,895,700 4,805,400 2,196,100 1,029,700

Open to Cross-Country Travel for

Motorized Vehicles within PPH,

PPMA, or SGMA (occupied)

8,878,90000000

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
35 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres)

Resources

Alternative A* AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

Open to Cross-Country Travel for

Motorized Vehicles within PGH,

PGMA, or SGMA (suitable)

3,866,100 3,866,100000 3,866,100

Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations Figure 2-17 Figure 2-18 Figure 2-19 Figure 2-20 Figure 2-21 Figure 2-22

ROW exclusion areas within

PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

169,600 12,693,500 17,732,900 252,900 144,200 12,693,500

ROW exclusion areas within

PGH PGMA or SGMA (suitable)

107,000 107,0000 23,700 37,000 5,039,400

ROW avoidance areas within

PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

101,00000 12,674,600 10,511,1000

ROW avoidance areas within

PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

13,200 4,932,4000 4,781,700 2,258,1000

Land Tenure Figure 2-23 Figure 2-24 Figure 2-25 Figure 2-26 Figure 2-27

Land no longer suitable for

disposal within PPH, PPMA, or

SGMA (occupied)

0 233,900 233,900 227,6000 233,900 without

exceptions for

disposal to

consolidate

ownership that

would be beneficial

to GRSG

Land no longer suitable for

disposal within PGH, PGMA, or

SGMA (suitable)

00 101,800 108,8000 0, without

exceptions for

disposal to

consolidate

ownership that

would be beneficial

to GRSG

Wind Energy Development Figure 2-28 Figure 2-28 Figure 2-28 Figure 2-29 Figure 2-30 Figure 2-31

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
36 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres)

Resources

Alternative A* Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

ROW exclusion areas on BLMand Forest Service-administered

lands within PPH, PPMA, or

SGMA (occupied)

169,600 169,600 276,600 12,927,400 144,200 12,693,500

ROW exclusion areas on BLMand Forest Service-administered

lands within PGH, PGMA, or

SGMA (suitable)

107,000 107,000 0 4,805,500 37,000 5,039,400

ROW avoidance areas on BLMand Forest Service-administered

lands in PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

101,000 101,000 114,200 0 10,511,100 0

ROW avoidance areas on BLMand Forest Service-administered

lands in PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

13,200 13,200 0 0 2,258,100 0

Utility-Scale Solar Figure 2-32 Figure 2-32 Figure 2-33 Figure 2-34 Figure 2-35 Figure 2-32

Solar energy ROW exclusion Not mapped because Not mapped 17,732,900 12,927,400 0 Not mapped

area within PPH, PPMA, or solar exclusions because solar because solar

SGMA (occupied) were not fully

mapped in the Solar

Programmatic EIS

(PEIS)

exclusions were

not fully mapped

in the Solar PEIS

exclusions were

not fully mapped in

the Solar PEIS

Solar energy ROW exclusion Not mapped because Not mapped 0 4,805,500 0 Not mapped

area within PGH, PGMA, or solar exclusions were because solar because solar

SGMA (suitable) not fully mapped in

the Solar PEIS

exclusions were

not fully mapped

in the Solar PEIS

exclusions were

not fully mapped in

the Solar PEIS

Solar energy ROW variance area

within PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

674,100 674,100 0 0 10,655,300 674,100

Solar energy ROW variance area

within PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

818,700 818,700 0 0 2,295,500 818,700

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
37 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres)

Resources

Alternative A* Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Fluid Mineral Leasing (oil and Figure 2-36, Figure Figure 2-37, Figure 2-38, Figure 2-39, Figure 2-43 Figure 2-40,

gas and geothermal) 2-44 Figure 2-41, Figure 2-42,

Figure 2-46 Figure 2-51 Figure 2-48

Figure 2-45 Figure 2-47

Figure 2-49 Figure 2-50

Closed to fluid mineral leasing

within PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

1,296,100 12,693,500 17,732,900 1,578,600 1,161,500 12,693,500

Closed to fluid mineral leasing

within PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

374,700 374,700 0 92,500 189,100 5,039,400

Open to fluid mineral leasing

within PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

11,397,200 0 0 11,348,800 9,493,800 0

Open to fluid mineral leasing

within PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

4,664,700 4,664,700 0 4,713,300 2,106,300 0

Open to fluid mineral leasing (oil

and gas) and currently un-leased,

with an NSO stipulation, and

located within PPMA

No data available No data available No data available 10,333,600 N/A No data available

Open to fluid mineral leasing (oil

and gas) and currently un-leased,

with an NSO stipulation plus

modification waivers and

exceptions and located within

PGMA

No data available No data available No data available 4,187,900 N/A No data available

Open to fluid mineral leasing

(geothermal) and currently

un-leased, with an NSO

stipulation without modification

waivers and exceptions, and

located within PPMA

No data available No data available No data available 11,240,500 N/A No data available

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
38 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres)

Resources

Alternative A* AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

Open to fluid mineral leasing

(geothermal) and currently

un-leased, with an NSO

stipulation plus modification

waivers and exceptions, and

located within PGMA

No data available No data available No data available 4,652,200 N/A No data available

Open to fluid minerals but

requires application of the

avoid, minimize and mitigation

evaluation in SGMA (occupied)

N/A N/A N/A N/A 9,493,800 N/A

Open to fluid minerals but

requires application of the

avoid, minimize and mitigation

evaluation in SGMA (suitable)

N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,106,300 N/A

Locatable Minerals Figure 2-52 Figure 2-53 Figure 2-54 Figure 2-55 Figure 2-56 Figure 2-53

Petition for withdrawal from

locatable mineral entry within

PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

1,296,100 12,693,500 17,732,900 1,578,600 1,161,500 12,693,500

Petition for withdrawal from

locatable mineral entry within

PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

374,700 374,7000 92,500 189,100 374,700

Open to locatable mineral

exploration or development

within PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

11,397,20000 11,348,800 9,493,8000

Open to locatable mineral

exploration or development

within PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

4,664,700 4,664,7000 4,713,300 2,106,300 4,664,700

Mineral Materials (Salables) Figure 2-57 Figure 2-58 Figure 2-59 Figure 2-60 Figure 2-61 Figure 2-58

Closed to mineral materials

disposal within PPH, PPMA, or

SGMA (occupied)

1,296,100 12,693,500 17,732,900 12,927,400 1,161,500 12,693,500

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
39 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres)

Resources

Alternative A* AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

Closed to mineral materials

disposal within PGH, PGMA, or

SGMA (suitable)

374,700 374,7000 4,805,500 189,100 374,700

Open for consideration for

mineral materials disposal

within PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

11,397,200000 9,493,8000

Open for consideration for

mineral materials disposal

within PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

4,664,700 4,664,70000 2,106,300 4,664,700

Non-energy Leasable Minerals Figure 2-62 Figure 2-63 Figure 2-64 Figure 2-65 Figure 2-66 Figure 2-63

Closed to non-energy solid

leasable mineral exploration and

development within PPH, PPMA,

or SGMA (occupied)

1,296,100 12,693,500 17,732,900 12,927,400 1,161,500 12,693,500

Closed to non-energy solid

leasable mineral exploration

and development within PGH,

PGMA, or SGMA (suitable)

374,700 374,7000 4,805,500 189,100 374,700

Open for consideration of

non-energy solid leasable mineral

exploration or development

within PPH, PPMA, or SGMA

(occupied)

11,397,200000 9,493,8000

Open for consideration of

non-energy solid leasable mineral

exploration or development

within PGH, PGMA, or SGMA

(suitable)

4,664,700 4,664,70000 2,106,300 4,664,700

Special Designations

Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

Figure 2-67 Figure 2-67 Figure 2-68 Figure 2-67 Figure 2-67 Figure 2-69

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
40 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

BLM and Forest Service

Resource or Resource Use

(acres, rounded to the nearest

one hundred acres)

Resources

Alternative A* Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Existing ACECs and Outstanding

Natural Areas (ONAs) on BLMand Forest Service-administered

land

531,000 531,000 531,000 531,000 531,000 531,000

Proposed ACECs and

ONAs on BLM- and Forest

Service-administered land

-- -- 12,249,700 -- -- --

Proposed ACECS and sagebrush

reserves on BLM- and Forest

Service-administered land

(NDOW-proposed ACECs were

used as a proxy for sagebrush

reserves)

-- -- -- -- -- 1,473,300

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

*Alternative A displays existing habitat as PPH and PGH for comparison purposes only. The BLM and Forest Service are not designating habitat under

this alternative.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative
Draft Resource Management 41

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

In California, the BLM used a mapping method based on the Doherty modeling (Doherty et al.

2011). This included the 100 percent breeding bird density core regions; in other words, 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.

2.8.2. Action Alternatives

Combined with the No Action Alternative narrative, appendices, and maps, Table 2-4, Description

of Alternative Goals and Objectives, and Table 2-5, Description of Alternative Actions, highlight

the differences among the alternatives relative to what they establish and where they occur.

How to Read Tables 2-4 and 2-5

The following describes how Tables 2-4 and 2-5 are written and formatted to show the LUP

decisions proposed for each alternative.

Per Appendix C of BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, LUP decisions are broad-scale

decisions that guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation

decisions (BLM 2005a). LUP decisions fall into two categories, which establish the base structure

for Tables 2-4 and 2-5: desired outcomes (goals and objectives), and allowable uses and actions

to achieve these outcomes.

● Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes that usually are not quantifiable.

● Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. Objectives may be quantifiable

and measurable and may have established timeframes for achievement, as appropriate.

● Actions identify measures or criteria to achieve desired outcomes (i.e., objectives), including

actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health.

● Allowable uses identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, restricted, or prohibited on
 

the public lands and mineral estate.
 

Stipulations (NSO and CSU, which fall under the allowable uses category) are also applied to

surface-disturbing activities to achieve desired outcomes (i.e., objectives).

In general, only those resources and resource uses that have been identified as planning issues

have notable differences between the alternatives.

Actions that are applicable to all alternatives are shown in one cell across a row. These particular

objectives and actions would be implemented regardless of which alternative is ultimately

selected.

Actions that are applicable to more than one but not all alternatives are indicated by either

combining cells for the same alternatives, or by denoting those objectives or actions as the “same

as Alternative 2,” for example.

In some cells, there is a “—“as a placeholder that indicates that there is no similar goal, objective

or action to the other alternatives, or that the similar goal, objective or action is reflected in

another management action in the alternative.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
42 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 2.4. Description of Alternative Goals and Objectives

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Special Status Species (Greater Sage-Grouse)

Goal A-SSS 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-SSS 1:

Maintain and/or

increase GRSG

abundance and

distribution by

conserving, enhancing

or restoring the

sagebrush ecosystem

upon which

populations depend

in cooperation with

other conservation

partners.

Goal C-SSS 1: Same

as Alternative A.

Goal D-SSS 1: Maintain

and/or increase abundance

and distribution of GRSG

on BLM- and Forest

Service-administered lands

by conserving, enhancing,

or restoring the sagebrush

ecosystem upon which

populations depend, in

cooperation with other

conservation partners.

Manage activities and

authorizations on public

lands to reduce predation of

GRSG on public lands.

Goal E-SSS 1: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council will work to

achieve conservation

through a goal of “no net

loss” in the Occupied,

Suitable and Potential

Habitat categories within

the sagebrush ecosystem

for activities that can

be controlled such as a

planned disturbance or

development. As a realistic,

quantifiable goal, "no net

loss" must be measured

through effective mitigation

monitoring over a number

of years. Timeframes

will be determined by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council using

the best available science.

Goal F-SSS 1: Maintain

and increase current

GRSG abundance and

distribution by conserving,

enhancing or restoring the

sagebrush ecosystem.

Goal A-SSS 2: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-SSS 2: — Goal C-SSS 2: — Goal D-SSS 2: Manage

activities and authorizations

on public lands to reduce

predation of GRSG on

public lands.

TMA-9: Implement a

predator control program to

reduce transient raven

populations for nest

protection and increased

chick survival throughout

the interim period while

habitat enhancement

and restoration projects

become established. GRSG

population, nestsuccess and

recruitment goals should be

established for all SGMAs

(State of Nevada 2012).

Goal F-SSS 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
43 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Focus on a six-point plan

that is summarized here and

expanded below.

1. Control access to

garbage dumps and

landfills.

2. Control access to road

kill.

3. Control access to

abandoned animal

carcasses.

4. Control access to

artificial nesting and

roosting structures.

5. Ensure adequate

nesting cover for

GRSG.

6. Increase site-specific

take of ravens.

Objective A-SSS 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSS 1: — Objective C-SSS 1:

—

Objective D-SSS 1: Ensure

that authorizations include

stipulations and design

features to reduce or

eliminate opportunities

to attract and provide

nesting, cover, or perches

for predators in PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Objective E-SSS 1: — Objective F-SSS 1: —

Objective A-SSS 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSS 2: — Objective C-SSS 2:

—

Objective D-SSS 2: — Objective E-SSS 2: — Objective F-SSS 2:

Restore and maintain

sagebrush steppe to its

ecological potential in

PPMA and PGMA.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
44 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-SSS 3:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSS 3: — Objective C-SSS 3:

—

Objective D-SSS 3:

Manage land resource

uses to meet GRSG habitat

objectives as described in

Table 2-6.

Objective E-SSS 3:

TMA-2.8: Continue to

successfully treat existing

areas of invasive vegetative

that pose a threat to

SGMAs through the use

of herbicides, fungicides

or bacteria to control

cheatgrass and medusahead

infestations.

TMA-7: Initiate landscape

level treatments in

SGMAs to reverse the

effects of Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment and restore

healthy, resilient sagebrush

ecosystems (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-7.1: Inventory

and prioritize areas for

treatment of Phase I and

Phase II encroachment in

SGMAs to restore habitat

resiliency, reduce avian

predator perches, and

increase forb and grass

cover (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-7.2: Aggressively

implement plans to remove

Phase I and Phase II

encroachment and treat

Phase III encroachment to

reduce the threat of severe

conflagration and restore

SGMAs where possible,

especially in areas in close

proximity to Occupied and

Objective F-SSS 3: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
45 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Suitable Habitat (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-7.3: Prioritize

areas for treatment of

Phase III Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment in strategic

areas to break up

continuous, hazardous fuel

beds. Treat areas that have

the greatest opportunity for

recovery to SGMAS based

on ecological site potential.

Old growth trees should be

protected on woodland sites

(State of Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.1: Followa

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with GRSG

by locating facilities and

activities in Non Habitat

wherever possible (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.2 and 18.6: Site

new linear features in

existing corridors or, ata

minimum, co-locate with

existing linear features in

SGMAs (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-8.4 and 18.3: Apply

measures to deter raptor

perching and raven nesting

on elevated structures (State

of Nevada 2012).

TMA-12.2: Grazing

management strategies for

riparian areas should, at

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
46 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

a minimum, maintain

or achieve riparian

proper functioning

condition (PFC). Specific

management actions

include riparian fencing

to provide control of the

season, duration or degree

of herbivory, providing

alternate water sources

away from the riparian

area, changing the grazing

system, or other grazing

management practices that

promote herbage removal

within acceptable limits

(State of Nevada 2004).

TMA-13: On

BLM- and Forest

Service-administered

lands, meet the standards

for riparian vegetation such

as outlined in the various

RAC S&G for Ecological

Health to meet the GRSG

habitat requirements (State

of Nevada 2004).

Objective A-SSS 4:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSS

4: Protect PPMA

from anthropogenic

disturbances that will

reduce distribution or

abundance of GRSG.

Objective C-SSS 4:

Same as Alternative

A.

Objective D-SSS 4:

Manage land and resource

uses to conserve local

GRSG populations,

sagebrush communities

and landscapes, and

protect GRSG PPMA and

PGMA from anthropogenic

disturbances that would

reduce distribution or

abundance of GRSG.

Objective E-SSS 4: The

fundamental hierarchical

decision-making policy

of "Avoid, Minimize and

Mitigate" will be followed:

Avoid – Wherever possible,

eliminate conflicts by

relocating disturbance

activities in order to

conserve GRSG and their

habitat.

Objective F-SSS 4: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
47 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Minimize– Modify

proposed actions and

develop permit conditions

to include measures that

lessen adverse effects on

GRSG and their habitat to

the furthest extent practical

such as reducing the

activity footprint, seasonal

avoidance, co-location of

structures, etc.

Mitigate– Only after

all appropriate and

practicable avoidance

and minimization measures

have been taken, offset

residual adverse effects

in Occupied and Suitable

Habitat by implementing

additional actions that will

result in replacement of an

asset (mainly habitat) that

will be lost asa result ofa

development action.

Sub-Objective A-SSS 1:

No common sub-objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Sub-Objective B-SSS

1: Designate GRSG

PPMAs for each

WAFWA management

zone (Stiver et al.

2006) across the

current geographic

range of GRSG that

are large enough to

stabilize populations

in the short term and

enhance populations

over the long term.

Sub-Objective

C-SSS 1:—

Sub-Objective D-SSS 1:— Sub-Objective E-SSS 1:

SGMAs include Occupied

Habitat, Suitable Habitat,

Potential Habitat, and Non

Habitat, as defined in the

State of Nevada 2012 Plan.

The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council–

through field verifications

and recommendations from

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team

based on the best available

science– will further

refine the habitat categories

Sub-Objective F-SSS 1: —

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
48 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

within the SGMAs. Also,

it is understood that the

final nomenclature for these

habitat categories may vary.

Sub-Objective A-SSS 2:

No common sub-objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Sub-Objective B-SSS

2: To maintain or

increase current

populations, manage

or restore priority

areas so that at least

70% of the land cover

provides adequate

sagebrush habitat to

meet GRSG needs.

Sub-Objective

C-SSS 2: —

Sub-Objective D-SSS

2: Manage for no net

unmitigated loss of PPMA

and maintain or improve

current habitat conditions

to meet GRSG life history

needs.

Sub-Objective E-SSS 2:

Management Strategy in

Occupied/Suitable Habitat

● Manage to avoid

surface disturbance and

habitat alteration to the

greatest extent possible.

If avoidance is not

possible, disturbances

greater than or equal

to five percent of

640 acres (32 acres)

within Occupied

Habitat will trigger

habitat evaluations

and consultation with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team (see PMA-2).

● Limit habitat treatments

in winter ranges to

actions that maintain or

expand current levels of

sagebrush available in

winter.

● Proactively monitor

habitat and manage to

ensure that it retains the

attributes necessary to

support viable GRSG

populations.

Management Strategy in

Potential Habitat

Sub-Objective F-SSS 2:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
49 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Potential Habitat should

be used for habitat

enhancement and

restoration to expand

or restore Occupied or

Suitable Habitat that

has been adversely

impacted either by acts

of nature (e.g. wildfire

and Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment) or by

human activities.

● Potential Habitat

should be prioritized

for enhancement and

restoration based on

data-driven models that

incorporate ecological

site potential and

identify the highest

priority sites with the

greatest potential for

success.

Management Strategy in

Non-Habitat ● Use areas designated

as Non Habitat

within SGMAs to

site activities that are

not geographically

restricted to specific

resources.

Avoid undertaking habitat

enhancement or restoration

in Non Habitat areas with

little or no potential for

success.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
50 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Sub-Objective A-SSS 3:

No common sub-objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Sub-Objective BSSS 3: Develop

quantifiable habitat

and population

objectives with

WAFWA and other

conservation partners

at the management

zone and/or other

appropriate scales.

Develop a monitoring

and adaptive

management strategy

to track whether

these objectives

are being met, and

allow for revisions

to management

approaches if they

are not.

Sub-Objective

C-SSS 3: —

Sub-Objective D-SSS 3: — Sub-Objective E-SSS 3:

SGMAs include Occupied

Habitat, Suitable Habitat,

Potential Habitat, and Non

Habitat, as defined in the

State of Nevada 2012.

The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council –

through field verifications

and recommendations from

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team

based on the best available

science – will further

refine the habitat categories

within the SGMAs. Also,

it is understood that the

final nomenclature for these

habitat categories may vary.

Management Strategy in

Occupied/Suitable Habitat

● Manage to avoid

surface disturbance and

habitat alteration to the

greatest extent possible.

If avoidance is not

possible, disturbances

greater than or equal

to five percent of

640 acres (32 acres)

within Occupied

Habitat will trigger

habitat evaluations

and consultation with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team (see PMA-2).

● Limit habitat treatments

in winter ranges to

Sub-Objective F-SSS 3:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
51 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

actions that maintain or

expand current levels of

sagebrush available in

winter.

● Proactively monitor

habitat and manage to

ensure that it retains the

attributes necessary to

support viable GRSG

populations.

Management Strategy in

Potential Habitat ● Potential Habitat should

be used for habitat

enhancement and

restoration to expand

or restore Occupied or

Suitable Habitat that

has been adversely

impacted either by acts

of nature (e.g. wildfire

and Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment) or by

human activities.

● Potential Habitat

should be prioritized

for enhancement and

restoration based on

data-driven models that

incorporate ecological

site potential and

identify the highest

priority sites with the

greatest potential for

success.

Management Strategy in

Non-Habitat

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
52 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Use areas designated

as Non Habitat

within SGMAs to

site activities that are

not geographically

restricted to specific

resources.

● Avoid undertaking

habitat enhancement

or restoration in Non

Habitat areas with little

or no potential for

success.

TMA-22: Positive

outcomes of an effective

adaptive management

program are realized over

the long-term.

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, and its Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team, utilizing

the “avoid, minimize and

mitigate” strategy, the

following will occur:

TMA-22.1: Develop

consistent monitoring

protocols and methods

to be used across all

land jurisdictions and

agencies. Compile all

project monitoring data

into one GRSG database

managed by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team for use in

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
53 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

adaptive management and

reporting (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-22.2: Monitoring

of mitigation sites must

be included in all plans,

with consistent protocols

to assess specific metrics

and determine trends for

habitat quantity/quality and

GRSG populations (State

of Nevada 2012).

TMA-22.3: All statewide

monitoring data will be

accessible to the Nevada

Sagebrush Technical Team

througha centralized

geographic database. The

team will compile annual

reports of habitat trends

(State of Nevada 2012).

All monitoring plans must

include specific objectives

and detailed procedures

(State of Nevada 2004).

TMA-22.4: Monitor

GRSG activity and

demographics with annual

assessments and intensive

levels of investigation

to answer questions

about the effectiveness

of conservation strategies

in terms of measured

responses of key

demographic parameters

(e.g. nest success, chick

survival, and movement)

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
54 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

associated with sites where

management activities have

been implemented (State of

Nevada 2004).

TMA-22.5: Conduct annual

lek counts across most

Population Management

Units. Train volunteers

who provide additional

manpower in assisting with

additional lek counts.

Volunteers must be

qualified by attendinga

day-long training session

that includes actual field

training each year (State of

Nevada 2004).

TMA-22.8: Population

demographic data is

determined from the

GRSG harvest. Hunters

shall deposit one wing from

each bird harvested in wing

barrels located on primary

hunting access roads, check

stations, or deliver it toa

NDOW Field or Regional

Office. Wings shall be

separated by geographic

locations (county or hunt

area). Wings shall be used

to identify sex, age, nest

success, and number of

chicks per hen. Monitoring

objectives include 1)

Expansion of the wing

collection program to

enhance the understanding

of production of young

in areas where GRSG are

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
55 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

hunted; 2) Collect and

summarize wing count

data on a PMU basis;

and 3) Enhance the leg

banding program in areas

where GRSG are hunted

to improve estimation of

adult and juvenile survival

using standard methods for

analysis of band recovery

data (State of Nevada

2004).

Sub-Objective A-SSS 4:

No common sub-objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Sub-Objective B-SSS

4: Manage GRSG

PPMAs so that

discrete anthropogenic

disturbances cover

less than 3% of

the total GRSG

habitat regardless

of ownership.

Anthropogenic

features include but

are not limited to

paved highways,

graded gravel roads,

transmission lines,

substations, wind

turbines, oil and gas

wells, geothermal

wells and associated

facilities, pipelines,

landfills, homes, and

mines.

● In PPMA where

the 3% disturbance

threshold is already

exceeded from any

source, no further

anthropogenic

Sub-Objective

C-SSS 4: —

Sub-Objective D-SSS 4:

Implement program specific

management actions to

eliminate or minimize

anthropogenic disturbances

that threaten GRSG and its

habitat.

Sub-Objective

E-SSS 4: The

fundamental hierarchical

decision-making policy

of "Avoid, Minimize and

Mitigate" will be followed:

Avoid – Wherever possible,

eliminate conflicts by

relocating disturbance

activities in order to

conserve GRSG and their

habitat.

Minimize – Modify

proposed actions and

develop permit conditions

to include measures that

lessen adverse effects on

GRSG and their habitat to

the furthest extent practical

such as reducing the

activity footprint, seasonal

avoidance, co-location of

structures, etc.

Mitigate – Only after

all appropriate and

practicable avoidance

Sub-Objective F-SSS 4:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
56 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

disturbances will

be permitted by

BLM or Forest

Service until

enough habitat

has been restored

to maintain the

area under this

threshold (subject

to valid existing

rights).

● In this instance,

an additional

objective will be

designated for

the priority area

to prioritize and

reclaim/restore

anthropogenic

disturbances so

that 3% or less of

the total PPMA is

disturbed within

10 years.

and minimization measures

have been taken, offset

residual adverse effects

in Occupied and Suitable

Habitat by implementing

additional actions that will

result in replacement of an

asset (mainly habitat) that

will be lost as a result of a

development action.

Sub-Objective A-SSS 5:

No common sub-objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Sub-Objective B-SSS

5: Quantify and

delineate PGMA for

capability to provide

connectivity among

priority areas (Knick

and Hanser 2011).

Sub-Objective

C-SSS 5: —

Sub-Objective D-SSS

5: Maintain or improve

connectivity to and

within PPMA to promote

movement and genetic

diversity for population

persistence and expansion.

Sub-Objective E-SSS 5:

Management Strategy in

Occupied/Suitable Habitat

● Manage to avoid

surface disturbance and

habitat alteration to the

greatest extent possible.

If avoidance is not

possible, disturbances

greater than or equal

to five percent of

640 acres (32 acres)

within Occupied

Habitat will trigger

habitat evaluations

Sub-Objective F-SSS 5:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
57 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

and consultation with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team (see PMA-2).

● Limit habitat treatments

in winter ranges to

actions that maintain or

expand current levels of

sagebrush available in

winter.

● Proactively monitor

habitat and manage to

ensure that it retains the

attributes necessary to

support viable GRSG

populations.

Management Strategy in

Potential Habitat ● Potential Habitat should

be used for habitat

enhancement and

restoration to expand

or restore Occupied or

Suitable Habitat that

has been adversely

impacted either by acts

of nature (e.g. wildfire

and Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment) or by

human activities.

● Potential Habitat

should be prioritized

for enhancement and

restoration based on

data-driven models that

incorporate ecological

site potential and

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
58 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

identify the highest

priority sites with the

greatest potential for

success.

Management Strategy in

Non-Habitat

● Use areas designated

as Non Habitat

within SGMAs to

site activities that are

not geographically

restricted to specific

resources.

Avoid undertaking habitat

enhancement or restoration

in Non Habitat areas with

little or no potential for

success.

Sub-Objective A-SSS 6:

No common sub-objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Sub-Objective

B-SSS 6: Conserve,

enhance or restore

GRSG habitat and

connectivity (Knick

and Hanser 2011) to

promote movement

and genetic diversity,

with emphasis on

those GRSG occupied

habitat.

Sub-Objective

C-SSS 6: —

Sub-Objective D-SSS

6: Maintain or improve

connectivity to and

within PGMA to promote

movement and genetic

diversity for population

persistence and expansion.

Sub-Objective

E-SSS 6: The

fundamental hierarchical

decision-making policy

of "Avoid, Minimize and

Mitigate" will be followed:

Avoid – Wherever possible,

eliminate conflicts by

relocating disturbance

activities in order to

conserve GRSG and their

habitat.

Minimize – Modify

proposed actions and

develop permit conditions

to include measures that

lessen adverse effects on

GRSG and their habitat to

the furthest extent practical

Sub-Objective F-SSS 6:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
59 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

such as reducing the

activity footprint, seasonal

avoidance, co-location of

structures, etc.

Mitigate – Only after

all appropriate and

practicable avoidance

and minimization measures

have been taken, offset

residual adverse effects

in Occupied and Suitable

Habitat by implementing

additional actions that will

result in replacement of an

asset (mainly habitat) that

will be lost as a result of a

development action.

Sub-Objective A-SSS 7:

No common sub-objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Sub-Objective SSS

7: Assess PGMA to

determine potential

to replace lost

PPMA caused by

perturbations and/or

disturbances and

provide connectivity

(Knick and Hanser

2011) between priority

areas.

● These habitats

should be given

some priority over

other PGMA that

provide marginal

or substandard

GRSG habitat.

● Restore

historical habitat

functionality to

support GRSG

Sub-Objective

C-SSS 7: —

Sub-Objective D-SSS 7: — Sub-Objective E-SSS 7:

Management Strategy in

Potential Habitat

● Potential Habitat should

be used for habitat

enhancement and

restoration to expand

or restore Occupied or

Suitable Habitat that

has been adversely

impacted either by acts

of nature (e.g. wildfire

and Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment) or by

human activities.

● Potential Habitat

should be prioritized

for enhancement and

restoration based on

data-driven models that

incorporate ecological

site potential and

Sub-Objective F-SSS 7:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
60 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

populations guided identify the highest

by objectives priority sites with the

to maintain greatest potential for

or enhance success.

connectivity. Total

area and locations TMA-21.1: The Nevada

will be determined Sagebrush Ecosystem

at the LUP level. Mitigation Bank Program

will be facilitated through

● Enhance PGMA the Nevada Sagebrush

such that Ecosystem Council and

population staffed by the Nevada

declines in one Sagebrush Ecosystem

area are replaced Technical Team. By

elsewhere within establishing this central

the habitat. mitigation bank, the State

of Nevada will havea

system that provides for

consistent evaluation,

monitoring and reporting

of progress on mitigation

efforts (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-21.4: Mitigation

should generally involve

creation of habitat,

restoration of habitat,

long-term preservation

of existing habitat, or

enhancement of habitat

to compensate for the

unavoidable or residual

adverse impacts of habitat

disturbance. Efforts will be

made to accomplish this at a landscape level (State of

Nevada 2012.)

Adaptive management

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
61 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Goal A-SSS-AM 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-SSS-AM 1: — Goal C-SSS-AM 1:

—

Goal D-SSS-AM 1: Ensure

additional PPMA and

PGMA is identified

based upon new science,

monitoring of PPMA and

PGMA.

Goal E-SSS-AM 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

TMA-22: Positive

outcomes of an effective

adaptive management

program are realized over

the long-term.

Goal F-SSS-AM 1: —

Goal A-SSS-AM 2: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B- SSS-AM 2:

—

Goal C-SSS-AM 2:

—

Goal D-SSS-AM 2:

Promote a collaborative

and integrated approach

to GRSG conservation

among federal, tribal, state,

and county agencies, as

well as private landowners

and organizations, permit

holders and other public

land users.

Goal E-SSS-AM 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Goal F-SSS-AM 2: —

Objective A-SSS-AM 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSS-AM

1: —

Objective

C-SSS-AM 1: —

Objective D-SSS-AM 1: In

PPMA where large scale

disturbance has occurred,

manage adjoining PGMA

as PPMA.

Objective E-SSS-AM

1: TMA-22.1: Develop

consistent monitoring

protocols and methods

to be used across all

land jurisdictions and

agencies. Compile all

project monitoring data

into one GRSG database

managed by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team for use in

adaptive management and

reporting.

Objective F-SSS-AM 1:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
62 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-SSS-AM 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSS-AM

2: —

Objective

C-SSS-AM 2: —

Objective D-SSS-AM 2:

Identify and implement

additional GRSG

conservation actions that

can augment, enhance,

and/or integrate program

conservation measures

established in agency and

state land use and policy

plans.

Objective E-SSS-AM 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-SSS-AM 2:

—

Disease

Goal A-SSS-D 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-SSS-D 1: — Goal C-SSS-D 1: — Goal D-SSS-D 1: Manage

activities and authorizations

on public lands to minimize

opportunities to establish

or enable disease vectors

that could affect GRSG

populations.

Goal E-SSS-D 1: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Goal F-SSS-D 1: —

Objective A-SSS-D 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B- SSS-D 1:

—

Objective C-SSS-D

1: —

Objective D-SSS-D 1:

Monitor trends in West

Nile Virus spread within

the sub-region to determine

if mitigation or additional

RDFs need to be applied to

use authorizations.

Objective E-SSS-D 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

13: Appropriate state

and federal agencies will

continue to coordinate

with the US Geological

Survey (USGS), Biological

Resources Division and

associated National

Wildlife Health Center

to conduct investigations

into the effects of West

Nile virus and other disease

pathogens on GRSG.

Objective F- SSS-D 1: —

Administrative Collaboration and decision making

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
63 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Goal A-SSS-ACDM 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-SSS-ACDM 1:

—

Goal C-SSS-ACDM

1: —

Goal D-SSS-ACDM 1: — Goal E-SSS-ACDM 1:

The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

will work to achieve

conservation through a

goal of “no net loss” in

the Occupied, Suitable and

Potential Habitat categories

within the sagebrush

ecosystem for activities that

can be controlled such as

a planned disturbance or

development.

Goal F-SSS-ACDM 1: —

Objective A-SSS-ACDM

1: No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSSACDM 1: —Objective

C-SSS-ACDM 1:

—

Objective D-SSS-ACDM

1: —

Objective E-SSS-ACDM

1: Follow the

fundamental hierarchical

decision-making policy

of "Avoid, Minimize and

Mitigate.”

Objective F-SSS-ACDM

1: —

Objective A-SSS-ACDM

2: No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSSACDM 2: —Objective

C-SSS-ACDM 2:

No similar objective.

Objective D-SSS-ACDM

2: —

Objective E-SSS-ACDM

2: The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council –

through field verifications

and recommendations from

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team

based on the best available

science – will further refine

the habitat categories within

the SGMAs. SGMAs

include Occupied Habitat,

Suitable Habitat, Potential

Habitat, and Non Habitat,

as defined in the State of

Nevada 2012 Plan.

Objective F-SSS-ACDM

2: —

Opportunities for

Proactive Measures

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
64 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Goal A-SSS-OPM 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-SSS-OPM 1:

—

Goal C-SSS-OPM

1: —

Goal D-SSS-OPM 1:

Promote a collaborative

and integrated approach

to GRSG conservation

among federal, tribal, state,

and county agencies, as

well as private landowners

and organizations, permit

holders and other public

land users.

Goal E-SSS-OPM 1:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

Goal F-SSS-OPM 1: —

Objective A-SSS-OPM

1: No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SSSOPM 1: —Objective

C-SSS-OPM 1: —

Objective D-SSS-OPM 1:

Identify and implement

additional GRSG

conservation actions that

can augment, enhance,

and/or integrate program

conservation measures

established in agency and

state land use and policy

plans.

Objective E-SSS-OPM

1: See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-SSS-OPM 1:

—

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management

Goal A-VEG 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-VEG 1: — Goal C-VEG 1: — Goal D-VEG 1: Establish

and maintain a resilient

sagebrush vegetative

community and restore

sagebrush vegetation

communities to reduce

greater-GRSG habitat

fragmentation and maintain

or re-establish GRSG

habitat connectivity over

the long-term.

Goal E-VEG 1: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council will work to

achieve conservation

through a goal of “no net

loss” in the Occupied,

Suitable and Potential

Habitat categories within

the sagebrush ecosystem

for activities that can

be controlled such as a

planned disturbance or

development. As a realistic,

quantifiable goal, "no net

loss" must be measured

through effective mitigation

monitoring over a number

of years. Timeframes

will be determined by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Goal F-VEG 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
65 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Ecosystem Council using

the best available science.

The fundamental

hierarchical decisionmaking policy of "Avoid,

Minimize and Mitigate"

will be followed:

Avoid– Wherever possible,

eliminate conflicts by

relocating disturbance

activities in order to

conserve GRSG and their

habitat.

Minimize– Modify

proposed actions and

develop permit conditions

to include measures that

lessen adverse effects on

GRSG and their habitat to

the furthest extent practical

such as reducing the

activity footprint, seasonal

avoidance, co-location of

structures, etc.

Mitigate– Only after

all appropriate and

practicable avoidance

and minimization measures

have been taken, offset

residual adverse effects

in Occupied and Suitable

Habitat by implementing

additional actions that will

result in replacement of an

asset (mainly habitat) that

will be lost asa result ofa

development action.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
66 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-VEG 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG 1:

N—

Objective C-VEG 1:

—

Objective D-VEG 1:

In PPMA and PGMA

including riparian, manage

for vegetation composition

and structure consistent

with ecological site

potential and to achieve

GRSG seasonal habitat

objectives (see Table 2-6).

Objective E-VEG 1:

SGMAs include Occupied

Habitat, Suitable Habitat,

Potential Habitat, and Non

Habitat, as defined in the

State of Nevada 2012 Plan.

The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council –

through field verifications

and recommendations from

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team

based on the best available

science – will further

refine the habitat categories

within the SGMAs. Also,

it is understood that the

final nomenclature for these

habitat categories may vary.

Management Strategy in

Occupied/Suitable Habitat

● Manage to avoid

surface disturbance and

habitat alteration to the

greatest extent possible.

If avoidance is not

possible, disturbances

greater than or equal

to five percent of

640 acres (32 acres)

within Occupied

Habitat will trigger

habitat evaluations

and consultation with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team (see PMA-2).

● Limit habitat treatments

in winter ranges to

Objective F-VEG 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
67 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

actions that maintain or

expand current levels of

sagebrush available in

winter.

● Proactively monitor

habitat and manage to

ensure that it retains the

attributes necessary to

support viable GRSG

populations.

Management Strategy in

Potential Habitat ● Potential Habitat should

be used for habitat

enhancement and

restoration to expand

or restore Occupied or

Suitable Habitat that

has been adversely

impacted either by acts

of nature (e.g. wildfire

and Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment) or by

human activities.

● Potential Habitat

should be prioritized

for enhancement and

restoration based on

data-driven models that

incorporate ecological

site potential and

identify the highest

priority sites with the

greatest potential for

success.

Management Strategy in

Non Habitat

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
68 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

● Use areas designated

as Non Habitat

within SGMAs to

site activities that are

not geographically

restricted to specific

resources.

Avoid undertaking habitat

enhancement or restoration

in Non Habitat areas with

little or no potential for

success.

Objective A-VEG 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG 2:

—

Objective C-VEG 2:

—

Objective D-VEG 2:

Focus and prioritize

habitat restoration to

address identified threats

at the Sub-Population and

Population scale.

Objective E-VEG 2:

SGMAs include Occupied

Habitat, Suitable Habitat,

Potential Habitat, and Non

Habitat, as defined in the

State of Nevada 2012 Plan.

The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council –

through field verifications

and recommendations from

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team

based on the best available

science – will further

refine the habitat categories

within the SGMAs. Also,

it is understood that the

final nomenclature for these

habitat categories may vary.

Management Strategy in

Occupied/Suitable Habitat

● Manage to avoid

surface disturbance and

habitat alteration to the

greatest extent possible.

Objective F-VEG 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
69 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

If avoidance is not

possible, disturbances

greater than or equal

to five percent of

640 acres (32 acres)

within Occupied

Habitat will trigger

habitat evaluations

and consultation with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team (see PMA-2).

● Limit habitat treatments

in winter ranges to

actions that maintain or

expand current levels of

sagebrush available in

winter.

● Proactively monitor

habitat and manage to

ensure that it retains the

attributes necessary to

support viable GRSG

populations.

Management Strategy in

Potential Habitat ● Potential Habitat should

be used for habitat

enhancement and

restoration to expand

or restore Occupied or

Suitable Habitat that

has been adversely

impacted either by acts

of nature (e.g. wildfire

and Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment) or by

human activities.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
70 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

● Potential Habitat

should be prioritized

for enhancement and

restoration based on

data-driven models that

incorporate ecological

site potential and

identify the highest

priority sites with the

greatest potential for

success.

Management Strategy in

Non Habitat

● Use areas designated

as Non Habitat

within SGMAs to

site activities that are

not geographically

restricted to specific

resources.

Avoid undertaking habitat

enhancement or restoration

in Non Habitat areas with

little or no potential for

success.

Objective A-VEG 3:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG 3:

—

Objective C-VEG 3:

—

Objective D-VEG 3:

Focus rehabilitation efforts

on re-establishment of

appropriate sagebrush

species/subspecies and

important understory

plants, relative to site

potential.

Objective E-VEG 3: See

above.

Objective F-VEG 3: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
71 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-VEG 4:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG 4:

—

Objective C-VEG 4:

—

Objective D-VEG 4:

Restore native (or desirable)

plants and create landscape

patterns (e.g., seral stage

and spatial distribution)

which most benefit GRSG.

Objective E-VEG 4: See

above.

Objective F-VEG 4: —

Objective A-VEG 5:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG 5:

—

Objective C-VEG 5:

—

Objective D-VEG 5:

Within PPMA and PGMA

manage lotic and lentic

riparian areas to maintain

a component of perennial

forbs with diverse species

richness and maintain

suitable cover; manage

associated upland habitat

to promote adjacent cover

relative to site potential to

facilitate brood rearing (See

Table 2-6).

Objective E-VEG 5: See

above.

Objective F-VEG 5: —

Objective A-VEG 6:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG 6:

—

Objective C-VEG 6:

—

Objective D-VEG 6:

Manage lentic riparian (i.e.

seeps, springs, and wet

meadows) to meet GRSG

cover and food objectives

in PPMA and PGMA.

Objective E-VEG 6: See

above.

Objective F-VEG 6: —

Integrated Invasive Species Management

Objective V A-EG-ISM

1: No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEGISM 1: —Objective

C-VEG-ISM 1: —

Objective D-VEG-ISM 1:

—

Objective E-VEG-ISM 1:

—

Objective F-VEG-ISM 1:

Develop and implement

methods for prioritizing

and restoring sagebrush

steppe invaded by

nonnative plants.

Climate Change

Goal A-VEG-CC 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-VEG-CC 1: — Goal C-VEG-CC 1:

—

Goal D-VEG-CC 1: Use

the landscape approach and

promote landscape scale,

ecosystem based actions

to enhance resiliency and

sustainability of GRSG

habitat to climate stress.

Goal E-VEG-CC 1:

TMA-22: Positive

outcomes of an effective

adaptive management

program are realized over

the long-term.

Goal F-VEG-CC 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
72 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-VEG-CC 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG-CC

1: —

Objective

C-VEG-CC 1: —

Objective D-VEG-CC

1: Focus treatments to

restore connectivity and

habitat in fragmented areas

where natural recovery or

restoration treatments have

a moderate to high record

of success and have a stable

bio-climate forecast.

Objective E-VEG-CC 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-VEG-CC 1:

—

Objective A-VEG-CC 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG-CC

2: —

Objective

C-VEG-CC 2: —

Objective D-VEG-CC 2:

Manage risks associated

with landscape stressors of

drought, invasive species,

and wildfire exacerbated by

climate change to maintain

existing GRSG habitat.

Objective E-VEG-CC 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-VEG-CC 2:

—

Drought

Goal A-VEG-D 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-VEG-D 1: — Goal C-VEG-D 1:

—

Goal D-VEG-D 1: Manage

sagebrush ecosystems in

a manner that maintains

adequate forage and water

for wildlife species during

periods of drought.

Goal E-VEG-D 1: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Goal F-VEG-D 1: —

Objective A-VEG-D 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-VEG-D

1: —

Objective C-VEG-D

1: —

Objective D-VEG-D 1:

Ensure authorized activities

and uses do not result in

degradation or net loss of

PPMA during periods of

drought through application

of appropriate drought

mitigation measures, such

as ensuring adequate

residual cover is available

for nesting birds.

Objective E-VEG-D 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

No similar objective.

Objective F-VEG-D 1: —

Wild Horses and Burros

Goal A- WHB 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-WHB 1: — Goal C-WHB 1: — Goal D-WHB 1: Manage

active HMAs and HAs and

WHBTs to achieve GRSG

habitat objectives in PPMA

and PGMA.

Goal E-WHB 1:

TMA-11.1: Maintain

wild horses at AMLs

in designated HMAs

throughout SGMAs.

Goal F-WHB 1: Reduce

AMLs within HMAs,

Has, and WHBTs within

occupied GRSG habitat

by 25% to meet habitat

objectives. —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
73 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-WHB 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-WHB 1:

—

Objective C-WHB

1: —

Objective D-WHB 1:

Establish or adjust AML

within HMAs, HAs, and

Forest Service WHBTs

within PPMA and PGMA

that consider the life cycle

requirements for GRSG

populations in terms of

forage and nesting cover.

Objective E-WHB 1:

TMA-11.2: Evaluate

conflicts with HMA

designations in SGMAs

and modify LUPs to

avoid negative impacts on

GRSG. If necessary, resolve

conflicts between the Wild

and Free Roaming Horse

and Burro Act and the ESA.

Objective F-WHB 1:

Reduce AMLs within

HMAs, HAs, and WHBTs

within occupied GRSG

habitat by 25% to meet

habitat objectives.

Objective A-WHB 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-WHB 2:

Manage wild horse and

burro population levels

within established

AMLs.

Objective C-WHB

2: Same as

Alternative A.

Objective D-WHB 2:

Manage wild horse and

burro population levels

in PPMA and PGMA

within established AMLs to

maintain or enhance GRSG

habitat objectives.

Objective E-WHB 2:

TMA-11.2: Evaluate

conflicts with HMA

designations in SGMAs

and modify LUPs to

avoid negative impacts on

GRSG. If necessary, resolve

conflicts between the Wild

and Free Roaming Horse

and Burro Act and the ESA.

Objective F-WHB 2:

Reduce AMLs within

HMAs, HAs, and WHBTs

within occupied GRSG

habitat by 25% to meet

habitat objectives.

Objective A-WHB 3:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-WHB

3: Prioritize gathers

in PPMA, unless

removals are necessary

in other areas to

prevent catastrophic

environmental issues,

including herd health

impacts.

Objective C-WHB

3: Same as

Alternative A.

Objective D-WHB 3:

Prioritize gathers in HMAs,

HAs and WHBTs to

meet established AMLs in

PPMAs and PGMAs, unless

removals are necessary in

other areasto address higher

priority environmental

issues, including herd

health impacts.

Objective E-WHB 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-WHB 3:

Same as Alternative B.

Fire and Fuels Management

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
74 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Goal A-FFM 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-FFM 1:— Goal C-FFM 1:— Goal D-FFM 1: Fire,

pre-/post-fire suppression

and fuels management

would contribute to

the protection of large,

contiguous blocks of

sagebrush habitat that

support interconnecting

GRSG populations.

Goal E-FFM 1: TMA-1.3:

Support the Nevada

Division of Forestry’s

“Wildland Fire Protection

Program,”a statewide

comprehensive wildfire

management program that

engages all interagency

partners (federal, state&

local), to reduce the threats

of catastrophic wildfire,

rapidly suppress wildfires,

and rehabilitate lands

damaged by wildfire

TMA-1.2: Actively

manage SGMAs across all

jurisdictions with the goal

of restoring the appropriate

role of wildfire to establish

resiliency, and actively

engage in prevention,

suppression and restoration

of the effects of fire and

invasive species.

Goal F-FFM 1:—

Goal A-FFM 2: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-FFM 2:— Goal C-FFM 2:— Goal D-FFM 2:

Pre-suppression activities

would provide conservation

actions that identify

and prioritize GRSG

habitats that are vulnerable

to wildfire events and

prescribe actions important

for their protection.

Goal E-FFM 2: TMA-2.1:

Strengthen and improve

interagency wildfire

prevention activities

statewide through

targeted wildfire

prevention messages

including education on

habitat loss, updating

interagency agreements,

conducting wildfire

prevention workshops,

and demonstration projects.

Goal F-FFM 2:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
75 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Goal A-FFM 3: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-FFM 3:— Goal C-FFM 3:— Goal D-FFM 3:

Pre-suppression and

suppression efforts would

reduce the size and impact

of wildfires on GRSG and

their habitat.

Goal E-FFM 3: TMA-1.4:

Continue the expansion

and implementation of a framework across all

land jurisdictions for

pre-suppression actions

to minimize ignitions and

alter fuel conditions in

order to avoid, whenever

possible, large damaging

conflagrations.

Goal F-FFM 3:—

Goal A-FFM 4: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-FFM 4:— Goal C-FFM 4:— Goal D-FFM 4: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

design and implement

emergency stabilization and

rehabilitation treatments

with an emphasis on

restoring existing sagebrush

ecosystems damaged by

wildfires, including the

control of invasive species.

Goal E-FFM 4: TMA-1:

Protect, maintain and

improve sagebrush habitat

statewide over time by

treating, rehabilitating and

restoring at least as many

acres of Occupied/Suitable

and Potential Habitat as are

lost to wildfire.

TMA-1.6: Following fires,

continue the expansion

and implementation of

sagebrush enhancement

and restoration treatments

consistent with GRSG

management objectives in

appropriate ecological sites.

Goal F-FFM 4:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
76 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Goal A-FFM 5: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-FFM 5: — Goal C-FFM 5: — Goal D-FFM 5: In PPMA,

design and implement fuels

treatments with an emphasis

on protecting existing

sagebrush ecosystems and

strategically and effectively

reduce wildfire threats in

the greatest area.

Goal E-FFM 5: Continue

the construction of targeted,

well designed fuel breaks

and “green strips” to break

up fuel continuity, reduce

fire size, and create safe

areas for fire suppression

activities. Use the best

adapted plant materials

to revegetate green strips

with fire resistant species.

Fund and schedule regular

maintenance activities of

green strips as needed.

Avoid locating fuel breaks

in SGMAs unless no other

options are available that

will result in the same level

of habitat protection.

Goal F-FFM 5: —

Objective A-FFM 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 1:

—

Objective C-FFM 1:

—

Objective D-FFM 1:

Prioritize post-fire

treatments in PPMAs

and PGMAs to maximize

benefits to GRSG.

Restoration focuses on

restoring burned sagebrush

areas with the appropriate

cover and structure to

support GRSG populations.

Objective E-FFM 1:

TMA-4.4: Continue

identifying and obtaining

funding opportunities

from Federal, State, local,

industry and land users

dedicated to implementing

prioritized habitat

enhancement, restoration,

and conservation activities.

Objective F-FFM 1: —

Objective A-FFM 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 2:

—

Objective C-FFM 2:

—

Objective D-FFM 2: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

minimize threats from

invasive species.

Objective E-FFM 2:

TMA-4: Carefully review

and evaluate all burned

areas within SGMAs

in a timely manner to

ascertain the reclamation

potential for reestablishing

GRSG habitat, enhancing

ecosystem resiliency, and

controlling invasive weed

species.

Objective F-FFM 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
77 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-FFM 3:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 3:

—

Objective C-FFM 3:

—

Objective D-FFM 3:

Protect post-fire treatments

in PPMAs and PGMAs

from subsequent wildfires.

Objective E-FFM 3:

TMA-4.1: Complete

burn severity assessments

and identify ecological

site potential in, and in

proximity to, SGMAs to

identify the areas with

the highest potential for

restoration of habitat

functions following fires.

Focus rehabilitation efforts

on areas of highest potential

success based ecological

site conditions (soils,

precipitation zone, and

geography). Utilize

revegetation seed mixtures

that include native and

adapted plant seed that

will quickly stabilize soils,

help to provide long term

hazardous fuels reduction,

and increase ecosystem

resiliency in appropriate

locations

Objective F-FFM 3: —

Objective A-FFM 4:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 4:

—

Objective C-FFM 4:

—

Objective D-FFM 4:

Retain, protect, and

improve intact, unburned

sagebrush communities

within burned areas.

Objective E-FFM 4:

TMA-3.7: Within SGMAs,

eliminate the tactic of

“burning out,” including

backfiring unless there are

direct life safety threats.

Objective F-FFM 4: —

Objective A-FFM 5:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 5:

—

Objective C-FFM 5:

—

Objective D-FFM 5:

Make progress toward

desired future condition

(DFC) in the low elevation

shrub, mountain shrubs

and pinyon and juniper

vegetation types.

Objective E-FFM 5:

TMA-2.2: Continue

successful landscape level

habitat assessments in, and

in proximity to, SGMAs to

identify those habitat areas

that are at the highest risk

of wildland fire.

Objective F-FFM 5: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
78 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-FFM 6:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 6:

—

Objective C-FFM 6:

—

Objective D-FFM

6: Design post-fuels

management projects

to ensure long term

persistence of seeded

fuel breaks and green

strips protecting native

vegetation.

Objective E-FFM 6:

TMA-2.8: Continue to

successfully treat existing

areas of invasive vegetative

that pose a threat to

SGMAs through the use

of herbicides, fungicides

or bacteria to control

cheatgrass and medusahead

infestations.

Objective F-FFM 6: —

Objective A-FFM 7:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 7:

—

Objective C-FFM 7:

—

Objective D-FFM 7:

Provide for sufficient Unit

staffing for initial attack

response to wild land fires

in PPMAs and PGMAs.

Objective E-FFM 7:

TMA-3.4: Increase initial

attack capability by training

and equipping volunteer

firefighters, as well as

agricultural and other

industry work forces

for assignment during

periods of high fire activity.

Trained volunteers who are

remotely located will serve

as first responders when

necessary and appropriate.

Objective F-FFM 7: —

Objective A-FFM 8:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 8:

—

Objective C-FFM 8:

—

Objective D-FFM 8: Fire

Management Plans reflect

guidance for wildland fire

suppression in PPMAs

and PGMAs and take

into consideration GRSG

sub-population areas.

Objective E-FFM 8:

TMA-3.8: Designate

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat in SGMAs

as a “high priority

value” for suppression

resource allocation in

the Geographical Area

Coordination Centers and

within the FEMA Fire

Management Assistance

Grant criteria.

Objective F-FFM 8: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
79 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-FFM 9:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-FFM 9:

—

Objective C-FFM 9:

—

Objective D-FFM 9: — Objective E-FFM 9:

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, utilizing the

“avoid, minimize and

mitigate” strategy, and with

the goal of restoring the

appropriate role of wildfire,

following the successful

Nevada Department of

Agriculture programs that

are a benefit to GRSG will

continue.

Objective F-FFM 9: —

Livestock Grazing

Goal A-LG 1: No common

goal across LUPs within

the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-LG 1: — Goal C-LG 1: — Goal D-LG 1: Manage

livestock grazing to

maintain and/or enhance

PPMAs and PGMAs

to meet all life cycle

requirements of the

GRSG during permit

administration.

Goal E-LG 1: TMA-12:

Ensure that existing grazing

permits maintain or enhance

SGMAs. Utilize livestock

grazing when appropriate

as a management tool to

improve GRSG habitat

quantity, quality or to

reduce wildfire threats.

Based on a comprehensive

understanding of

seasonal GRSG habitat

requirements, and

in conjunction with

flexibility of livestock

operators, encourage land

management agencies to

cooperatively make timely,

seasonal range management

decisions to respond to

vegetation management

objectives, including fuels

reduction.

Goal F-LG 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
80 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-LG 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-LG 1: — Objective C-LG 1:

—

Objective D-LG 1: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

manage for vegetation

composition and structure

consistent with ecological

site potential to achieve

GRSG seasonal habitat

objectives (see Table 2-6).

Objective E-LG 1:

TMA-12.1: Expand the

promotion of proper

livestock grazing practices

that promote the health

of perennial grass

communities as this

condition has been found to

suppress the establishment

of cheatgrass (Blank and

Morgan 2012).

Objective F -LG 1: —

Objective A-LG 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-LG 2: — Objective C-LG 2:

—

Objective D-LG 2: Manage

lentic and lotic riparian

areas in PPMAs and

PGMAs to maintain a

component of perennial

forbs with diverse species

richness and maintain

suitable cover; manage

adjacent upland habitat to

promote adjacent cover

relative to site potential to

facilitate brood rearing (see

Table 2-6).

Objective: E-LG 2:

TMA-12.2: Grazing

management strategies

for riparian areas should,

at a minimum, maintain

or achieve riparian PFC.

Specific management

actions include riparian

fencing to provide control

of the season, duration

or degree of herbivory,

providing alternate water

sources away from the

riparian area, changing

the grazing system, or

other grazing management

practices that promote

herbage removal within

acceptable limits.

Objective F-LG 2: —

Objective A-LG 3:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B- LG 3: — Objective C-LG 3:

—

Objective D-LG 3: — Objective E-LG 3: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Objective F-LG 3:

Encourage partners to

monitor effects of retiring

grazing permits in GRSG

habitat.

Recreation and Visitor Services

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
81 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Goal A-REC 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-REC 1: — Goal C-REC 1: — Goal D-REC 1: In PPMAs

and PGMAs, manage

recreation and visitor

services in a manner that

provides for quality visitor

experience on public lands

while minimizing human

disturbance to GRSG and

its life cycle requirements.

Goal E-REC 1: TMA-16:

In SGMAs, continue

successful programs

following the “avoid,

minimize and mitigate”

concept for recreation and

OHV impacts on GRSG

habitat.

Goal F-REC 1: —

Objective A-REC 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-REC 1:

—

Objective REC 1:

—

Objective D-REC 1: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

manage commercial and

noncommercial motorized

and nonmotorized

recreation uses on public

lands in a manner

compatible with the

life-cycle requirements

for GRSG.

Objective E-REC 1:

TMA-16: In SGMAs,

continue successful

programs following

the “avoid, minimize

and mitigate” concept

for recreation and OHV

impacts on GRSG habitat.

Objective F-REC 1: —

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management (CTTM)

Goal A-CTTM 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-CTTM 1: — Goal C-CTTM 1: — Goal D-CTTM 1: Manage

travel and transportation

in a manner that maintains

healthy and intact PPMAs

and PGMAs, minimizes

disturbance to GRSG

populations, and provides

for reasonable access to

public lands.

Goal E-CTTM 1: TMA-16:

In SGMAs, continue

successful programs

following the “avoid,

minimize and mitigate”

concept for recreation and

OHV impacts on GRSG

habitat.

Goal F-CTTM 1: —

Objective A-CTTM 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-CTTM 1:

—

Objective C-CTTM

1: N—

Objective D-CTTM 1:

Prioritize and complete

transportation planning in

PPMAs and PGMAs that

provides for reasonable

access to public lands

for administrative and

recreational purposes and

that minimizes proliferation

of user-created routes

(roads, primitive roads, and

trails).

Objective E-CTTM

1: TMA-16.1: Study

the impact caused by

recreational and OHV use

in GRSG habitat.

Objective F-CTTM 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
82 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-CTTM 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-CTTM 2:

—

Objective C-CTTM

2: —

Objective D-CTTM

2: Manage motorized

travel on public lands

by designating routes in

PPMAs and PGMAs that

are compatible with the

life-cycle requirements for

GRSG.

Objective E-CTTM

2: TMA-16.2: Work

collaboratively through

LAWGs, state, and federal

agencies to designate OHV

areas outside of SGMAs.

Objective F-CTTM 2: —

Lands and Realty

Goal A-LR 1: No common

goal across LUPs within

the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-LR 1: — Goal C-LR 1: — Goal D-LR 1: Manage land

tenure adjustments and land

uses to maintain or enhance

PPMAs and PGMAs and

connectivity.

Goal E-LR 1: PMA-3.3

and TMA-21.9: To ensure

that mitigation efforts to

create, restore or enhance

habitat are not intentionally

disturbed in the future,

long-term conservation

easements or a record

of restrictive covenant

should be established

over the property. If

public lands are used

for mitigation purposes,

adequate long-term

maintenance or replacement

of mitigation objectives

must be considered while

recognizing existing uses

(State of Nevada 2012).

TMA-8: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable and

nonrenewable energy goals

and GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with interest

groups; focus attention on

the series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

Goal F-LR 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
83 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

longer-term transmission

needs required to meet

the State and Nation’s

renewable energy demands.

Objective A-LR 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-LR 1: — Objective C-LR 1:

—

Objective D-LR 1: Manage

and minimize effects of

land use authorizations

on PPMAs and PGMAs

through grant stipulations

and terms and conditions.

Objective E-LR 1: MA-8.1:

Follow a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with GRSG

by locating facilities and

activities in Non Habitat

wherever possible.

TMA-18.9: Energy

developers will work

closely with State and

Federal agency experts

to determine important

nesting, brood rearing and

winter habitats and avoid

those areas.

Objective F-LR 1: —

Leasable Minerals

Fluid Minerals

Goal A-Lease-FM 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-Lease-FM 1:

—

Goal C-Lease-FM 1:

—

Goal D-Lease-FM 1:

Manage the Federal

Fluid Mineral Estate to

meet National energy

needs in a development

framework that gives

priority consideration to

maintaining or increasing

GRSG populations and

distribution.

Goal E-Lease-FM 1:

TMA-15: Through

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

encourage the strong

conservation ethic in

the mining industry by

implementing effective

avoidance management,

and enhancement and

reclamation of disturbed

lands to preserve, protect,

and improve habitat in

SGMAs. On federal lands,

activities that have an

approved BLM notice,

plan of operation, ROW,

or drilling plan, and on

State/Private lands, projects

with an approved Nevada

Goal F-Lease-FM 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
84 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Division of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond what has

already been stipulated in

the projects’ approvals.

Objective A-Lease-FM

1: No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-Lease-FM

1: —

Objective

C-Lease-FM 1:

Any oil, gas,

geothermal activity

will be conducted to

maximize avoidance

of impacts, based on

evolving scientific

knowledge of

impacts.

Objective D-Lease-FM 1:

—

Objective E-Lease-FM 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-Lease-FM 1:

—

Objective A-Lease-FM

2: No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-Lease-FM

2: —

Objective

C-Lease-FM 2: N—

Objective D-Lease-FM 2:

Conserve and maintain the

quality and distribution

of PPMAs and PGMAs

through application of

lease stipulations, COAs,

and RDFs on existing and

future leases.

Objective E-Lease-FM 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-Lease-FM 2:

—

Locatable Minerals

Goal A-LOC 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-LOC 1: — Goal C-LOC 1: — Goal D-LOC 1: Manage

locatable mineral

development to consider

effects on PPMAs.

Goal E-LOC 1: TMA-6.2:

Continue statewide Weed

Seed Free Forage and

Gravel Certification

Program

Inspect and certify gravel

and forage products as

weed-free to prevent

noxious weeds from

spreading onto valuable

Forest Service lands

where these products

are required and/or onto

any other regions of the

Goal F-LOC 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
85 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

state where these products

are transported or used.

Objective A-LOC 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-LOC 1:

—

Objective C-LOC 1:

—

Objective D-LOC 1:

Authorize Plans of

Operation per 43 CFR 3809

regulations that minimize

impacts on GRSG PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Objective E-LOC 1:

TMA-15.2: Consistent

with BLM 43 CFR 3809

regulations for Notice-level

operations, and Forest

Service 36 CFR 228A

regulations governing

mining and exploration,

allow exploration and other

mineral-related activities

that create not more than

five acres of surface

disturbance. The BLM and

Forest Service may exercise

existing discretionary

authority to consider other

information, including

cumulative impacts.

Objective F-LOC 1: —

Objective A-LOC 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-LOC 2:

—

Objective C-LOC 2:

—

Objective D-LOC 2:

Provide reasonable

access and development

opportunity to claimants

in PPMAs, consistent with

rights provided under the

General Mining Act of 1872

and the need to conserve,

maintain, or enhance

PPMAs through prevention

of undue or unnecessary

degradation for activities

not reasonably incident to

explore and develop the

resource.

Objective E-LOC 2:

TMA-15.1: Implement

a centralized impact

assessment process

overseen by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids or

minimizes conflicts with

GRSG in SGMAs.

Objective F-LOC 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
86 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-LOC 3:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-LOC 3:

—

Objective C-LOC 3:

—

Objective D-LOC 3:

Manage disturbances

associated with notice

level activity in PPMAs

on a landscape basis by

encouraging operators and

claimants to consolidate

exploration activities

into exploration plans

of operation to reduce

proliferation of discrete

mining notices per 43 CFR

3809.21(b).

Objective E-LOC 3:

TMA-15.4: Recognize

existing state and federal

regulatory mechanisms

that govern mining and

exploration activities,

including BLM 43 CFR

3809 surface management

regulations for hard rock

mining, Forest Service

36 CFR 228A regulations

governing mining and

exploration, and NAC 519A

regulations for reclamation

of mining and exploration

projects, that are adequate

to conserve GRSG and

sagebrush habitats in the

interim until future Suitable

conservation plans are

approved by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council.

Objective F-LOC 3: —

Salable Minerals

Goal A-SAL 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-SAL 1: — Goal C-SAL 1: — Goal D-SAL 1: Manage

salable minerals to meet

the State’s demand

for sand, gravel, and

rock materials while

providing for conservation

and maintenance or

enhancement of PPMAs.

Goal E-SAL 1: TMA-15:

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, encourage the

strong conservation ethic

in the mining industry by

implementing effective

avoidance management,

and enhancement and

reclamation of disturbed

lands to preserve, protect,

and improve habitat in

SGMAs. On federal lands,

activities that have an

approved BLM notice,

plan of operation, ROW,

or drilling plan, and on

Goal F-SAL 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
87 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

State/Private lands, projects

with an approved Nevada

Division of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond what has

already been stipulated in

the projects’ approvals.

Objective A-SAL 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SAL 1:

—

Objective C-SAL 1:

—

Objective D-SAL 1:

Minimize disturbances

from salable mineral

activities in PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Objective E-SAL 1:

TMA-15.1: Implement

a centralized impact

assessment process

overseen by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids or

minimizes conflicts with

GRSG in SGMAs.

Objective F-SAL 1: —

Objective A-SAL 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SAL 2:

—

Objective C-SAL 2:

—

Objective D-SAL 2:

Provide reasonable

access and development

opportunity to Federal

Highway Administration,

NDOT, and Counties and

the public for existing

mineral materials pits in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Objective E-SAL 2:

TMA-15.1: Implement

a centralized impact

assessment process

overseen by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids or

minimizes conflicts with

GRSG in SGMAs.

Objective F-SAL 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
88 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-SAL 3:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-SAL 3:

—

Objective C-SAL 3:

—

Objective D-SAL 3:

Conserve and maintain

the quality and distribution

of GRSG habitat through

on-site and off-site

mitigation to achieve

no net un-mitigated loss

of PPMAs or provide

for the enhancement of

PPMAs within the WAFWA

management zone.

Objective E-SAL 3:

TMA-15.1: Implement

a centralized impact

assessment process

overseen by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids or

minimizes conflicts with

GRSG in SGMAs.

Objective F-SAL 3: —

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Goal A-NEL 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-NEL 1: — Goal C-NEL 1: — Goal D-NEL 1: Manage

non-energy leasable

minerals to maintain or

increase GRSG populations

and distribution.

Goal E-NEL 1: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Goal F-NEL 1: —

Objective A-NEL 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-NEL 1:

—

Objective C-NEL 1:

—

Objective D-NEL 1:

Conserve and maintain the

quality and distribution of

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Objective E-NEL 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-NEL 1: —

Mineral Split Estate

Goal A-MSE 1: No

common goal across LUPs

within the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Goal B-MSE 1: — Goal C-MSE 1: — Goal D-MSE 1: Manage

federal split estate (private

surface/federal minerals;

federal surface/private

minerals) to provide for the

conservation, maintenance

and enhancement of

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Goal E-MSE 1: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Goal F-MSE 1: No similar

goal.—

Objective A-MSE 1:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-MSE 1:

—

Objective C-MSE 1:

—

Objective D-MSE 1:

For federal mineral

estate, minimize surface

disturbance in PPMAs and

PGMAs to the maximum

extent practicable on private

surface.

Objective E-MSE 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-MSE 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
89 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Objective A-MSE 2:

No common objective

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Objective B-MSE 2:

—

Objective C-MSE 2:

—

Objective D-MSE 2:

For federal surface

estate, minimize surface

disturbance in PPMAs and

PGMAs to the maximum

extent practicable

consistent with use rights to

the private mineral estate.

Objective E-MSE 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical Team.

Objective F-MSE 2: —

*Alternative E was submitted by the State of Nevada’s Governor’s office and only covers land within the decision area in the State of Nevada. The State of

California lands will follow Alternative A.

1The use of “—“indicates that there is no similar goal or objective, or that the similar goal or objective is reflected in another management action in

the alternative.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
This page intentionally

left blank
91 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 2.5. Description of Alternative Actions

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Special Status Species (Greater Sage-Grouse)

Action A-SSS 1: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS 1: — Action C-SSS 1: — Action D-SSS 1:

Identify seasonal habitat

areas where an array of

conservation actions can

be completed to improve

habitat conditions.

Action E-SSS 1: — Action F-SSS 1: —

Action A-SSS 2: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS 2: — Action C-SSS 2: — Action D-SSS 2:

Work cooperatively

to establish and

maintain a GRSG

telemetry database to

help prioritize habitat

conservation actions.

Action E-SSS 2: — Action F-SSS 2: —

Action A-SSS 3: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS 3: — Action C-SSS 3 — Action D-SSS 3: — Action E-SSS 3: TMA

9.4: Address and

eliminate conflicting

regulations between the

Migratory Bird Treaty

Act and the ESA. Pursue

additional take permits

in excess of the current

2,000 bird limit from

the USFWS for raven

control. If necessary,

pursue additional raven

take in excess of the

current 2,000 bird limit

from the USFWS for

raven control.

Action F-SSS 3: —

Action A-SSS 4: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS 4: — Action C-SSS 4: — Action D-SSS 4: — Action E-SSS 4: TMA

9.6: Monitor effects

of predator control

to determine causal

relations with GRSG

survivability and

adapt control strategies

accordingly.

Action F-SSS 4: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
92 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-SSS 5: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS 5:— Action C-SSS 5:— Action D-SSS 5:— Action E-SSS 5: TMA

9.6: When downward

population trends and

nesting success are

detected in SGMAs,

initiate predator surveys

and identify responsible

predator species to

target and implement an

effective predator control

effort.

Action F-SSS 5:—

Action A-SSS 6: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS 6:— Action C-SSS 6:— Action D-SSS 6:— Action E-SSS 6:

Implementa predator

control program

to reduce transient

raven populations

for nest protection

and increased chick

survival throughout the

interim period while

habitat enhancement

and restoration projects

become established.

GRSG population,

nest success and

recruitment goals should

be established for all

SGMAs

Action F-SSS 6:—

Action A-SSS 7: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS 7:— Action C-SSS 7:— Action D-SSS 7:

Implement the RDFs

in areas outside of

mapped PPMA and

PGMA where GRSG

use has been observed

or suspected, areas and

habitats which may be

necessary to maintain

viability of GRSG,

or where the activity

would affect GRSG or

Action E-SSS 7: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS 7:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
93 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

their habitat in PPMA

or PGMA.

Adaptive management

Action A-SSS-AM 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 1:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 1: — Action D-SSS-AM 1:

Establish a protocol

for incorporating new

science and changes

over time, to update and

keep State-wide habitat

maps current.

Action E-SSS-AM 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-AM 1: —

Action A-SSS-AM 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 2:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 2: — Action D-SSS-AM 2:

Continue to consult

with the NDOW for all

development or habitat

restoration proposals in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Also, coordinate with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

the CDFW and tribes on

projects proposed within

sagebrush ecosystems

Action E-SSS-AM 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-AM 2: —

Action A-SSS-AM 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 3:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 3: — Action D-SSS-AM

3: Identify off-site

mitigation areas within

PGMAs with reasonable

potential to achieve

vegetation objectives

and meet the seasonal

habitat needs of GRSG.

These are areas where

mitigation would

occur for application

of off-site mitigation

actions.

Action E-SSS-AM 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-AM 3: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
94 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-AM 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 4:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 4: — Action D-SSS-AM

4: Natural Resources

Conservation Service

(NRCS), BLM,

and Forest Service

will engage private

landholders to improve

habitat conditions.

Action E-SSS-AM 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-AM 4: —

Action A-SSS-AM 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 5:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 5: — Action D-SSS-AM 5:

—

Action E-SSS-AM 5:

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, and its Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team, utilizing

the “avoid, minimize and

mitigate” strategy, the

following will occur:

● Develop consistent

monitoring protocols

and methods to be

used across all land

jurisdictions and

agencies. Compile

all project monitoring

data into one

GRSG database

managed by the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team for use

in adaptive

management and

reporting.

● Monitoring of

mitigation sites must

be included in all

plans, with consistent

protocols to assess

specific metrics

Action F-SSS-AM 5: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
95 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

and determine

trends for habitat

quantity/quality and

GRSG populations.

● All statewide

monitoring data will

be accessible to the

Nevada Sagebrush

Technical Team

througha centralized

geographic database.

The team will

compile annual

reports of habitat

trends. All

monitoring plans

must include specific

objectives and

detailed procedures.

● Monitor GRSG

activity and

demographics with

annual assessments

and intensive levels

of investigation

to answer

questions about

the effectiveness

of conservation

strategies in terms of

measured responses

of key demographic

parameters (e.g.

nest success,

chick survival,

and movement)

associated with sites

where management

activities have been

implemented.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
96 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Conduct annual

lek counts across

most Population

Management Units.

Train volunteers

who provide

additional manpower

in assisting with

additional lek counts.

Volunteers must be

qualified by attending a day-long training

session that includes

actual field training

each year.

● Population

demographic data

is determined from

the GRSG harvest.

Hunters shall deposit

one wing from each

bird harvested in

wing barrels located

on primary hunting

access roads, check

stations, or to be

delivered toa NDOW

Field or Regional

Office. Wings shall

be separated by

geographic locations

(county or hunt area).

Wings shall be used

to identify sex, age,

nest success, and

number of chicks per

hen.

● Monitor harvest

through the use of

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
97 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

the 10% Hunter

Questionnaire that

randomly polls

license holders

and through the

collection of GRSG

wings from hunter

harvested birds.

● Regulate harvest

by season length

and bag limit as set

forth by the Nevada

Board of Wildlife

Commissioners

and, consulting

recommendations

made by the NDOW.

● In areas that are

closed to hunting,

wing data are

not available

for monitoring

population

demographics such

as the number of

chicks per hen. For

these areas, conduct

brood counts along

established routes.

Brood surveys

shall be conducted

mid-summer

when GRSG are

concentrated on

meadow habitats.

Established brood

count routes shall be

surveyed to record

average brood size

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
98 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

and the number of

chicks per hen.

● Satellite telemetry

data shall be

compiled and

provided to the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team for local

plan revisions

and updates,

and coordinated

statewide to

determine seasonal

habitats such as

breeding, nesting,

brood rearing;

movement patterns;

and survival rates.

● Appropriate state and

federal agencies

will continue

to coordinate

with the U.S.

Geological Survey,

Biological Resources

Division and

associated National

Wildlife Health

Center to conduct

investigations into

the effects of West

Nile virus and other

disease pathogens on

GRSG.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
99 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-AM 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 6:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 6: — Action D-SSS-AM 6:

—

Action E-SSS-AM

6: When population,

nesting success, and

recruitment goals are

not met, implement

an effective predator

control effort for ravens,

badgers, and coyotes

as needed, based on

biological assessments

appropriate to local

conditions. Conduct

predator control to

coincide with the life

stage impacted by

predation. SGMAs

should be prioritized for

predator control. If a

SGMA meets or exceeds

the reproductive and

population objectives,

move predator control to

the next lower SGMA

priority.

Action F-SSS-AM 6: —

Action A-SSS-AM 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 7:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 7: — Action D-SSS-AM 7:

The agencies would

coordinate with the

Nevada Sagebrush

Technical Team on all

proposed disturbances

within the state of

Nevada to meet the

mutual goal of no

unmitigated loss.

Action E-SSS-AM 7:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Chapter

Action F-SSS-AM 7: —

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
100 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-AM 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 8:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 8: — Action D-SSS-AM

8: The BLM and

Forest Service would

coordinate with the

Nevada Sagebrush

Technical Team on

the application of

the Conservation

Credit System (once

it is established) for

mitigation of activities

that disturb GRSG

habitat within Nevada

where the application

of the mitigation would

occur on or the credit

would be applied to

disturbance on Public or

National Forest Lands.

Action E-SSS-AM 8:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-AM 8: —

Action A-SSS-AM 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-AM 9:

—

Action C-SSS-AM 9: — Action D-SSS-AM

9: GRSG habitat

categorization and use

management boundaries

would be evaluated

and adjusted based on

continuing inventory

and monitoring results

every five years.

Adjustments up to plus

or minus ten percent

of the mapped habitat

within the population

management zone

would be made without

further analysis.

Action E-SSS-AM 9:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-AM 9: —

Climate Change

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
101 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-CC 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-CC 1:

—

Action C-SSS-CC 1: — Action D-SSS-CC 1:

As climate change

data become available

through REAs or other

ecological studies,

identify areas of

unfragmented GRSG

habitat and key habitat

linkages that provide

the life-cycle and

genetic transfer needs

for GRSG. Manage

the identified areas as

PPMAs.

Action E-SSS-CC 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-CC 1: —

Action A-SSS-CC 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-CC 2:

—

Action C-SSS-CC 2: — Action D-SSS-CC 2:

Work cooperatively

with multiple agencies

and stakeholders to

establish and maintain

a network of climate

monitoring sites and

stations.

Action E-SSS-CC 2: — Action F-SSS-CC 2: —

Disease

Action A-SSS-DIS 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-DIS 1:

—

Action C-SSS-DIS 1: — Action D-SSS-DIS

1: When developing

or modifying water

developments on public

lands in PPMAs and

PGMAs, use RDFs

to mitigate potential

impacts from West Nile

virus.

Action E-SSS-DIS 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-DIS 1: —

Mitigation

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
102 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-MIT

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 1:

No similar action

Action C-SSS-MIT 1: No

similar action

Action D-SSS-MIT 1:

—

Action E-SSS-MIT 1:

PMA-3: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Mitigation Bank

Program, a centralized

mechanism to coordinate

mitigation and

pre-impact mitigation

across all jurisdictions

and land ownerships,

will be the system to

validate the success of all

conservation efforts of

GRSG populations and

the sagebrush ecosystem

in Nevada. The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team, will develop a set

of metrics and credits to

ensure that appropriate

mitigation measures

are applied consistently

and transparently. By

establishing this central

mitigation bank, the

State of Nevada will

have a robust system that

provides for consistent

evaluation, oversight,

monitoring, reporting

of progress, and

adaptive management

for long-term certainty.

Action F-SSS-MIT 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
103 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-MIT

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 2:

—

Action C-SSS-MIT 2: — Action D-SSS-MIT 2:

—

Action E-SSS-MIT

2: PMA-3.1: In

determining appropriate

mitigation, the functional

values lost by the

resource to be impacted

must be considered and

careful consideration

must be given to its

likelihood of success.

Action F-SSS-MIT 2: —

Action A-SSS-MIT

3: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 3:

—

Action C-SSS-MIT 3: — Action D-SSS-MIT 3:

—

Action E-SSS-MIT 3:

PMA-3.2: Mitigation

will generally involve

creation of habitat,

restoration of habitat,

long-term preservation

of existing habitat, or

enhancement of habitat

to compensate for the

unavoidable, residual

adverse impacts of

habitat disturbance.

Action F-SSS-MIT 3: —

Action A-SSS-MIT

4: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 3:

—

Action C-SSS-MIT 3: — Action D-SSS-MIT 3:

—

Action E-SSS-MIT 3:

PMA-3.3: To ensure

that mitigation efforts

to create, restore

or enhance habitat

are not intentionally

disturbed in the future,

long-term conservation

easements or a record of

restrictive covenant will

be established over the

property. If public lands

are used for mitigation

purposes, adequate

long-term maintenance

or replacement of

mitigation objectives

must be considered while

Action F-SSS-MIT 3: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
104 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

recognizing existing

uses.

Action A-SSS-MIT

4: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 4: —Action C-SSS-MIT 4:— Action D-SSS-MIT 4: —Action E-SSS-MIT 4:

PMA-3.4: Consideration

and credit for appropriate

mitigation will include

habitat-based efforts

(i.e. sagebrush habitat

enhancement and

restoration) along with

other options such

as fuels reduction,

green stripping, fire

suppression support

and long-term habitat

conservation agreements.

Project proponents

may receive credit for

mitigation activities

regardless of land

ownership (i.e. federal,

state or private lands).

Action F-SSS-MIT 4:—

Action A-SSS-MIT

5: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 5: —Action C-SSS-MIT 5:— Action D-SSS-MIT 5: —Action E-SSS-MIT 5:

PMA-3.5: Recognize

and appropriately value

mitigation measures that

address threats, such

as funding for wildfire

equipment and training,

predator control, radio

telemetry and GPS

monitoring, etc. when

on-site mitigation has

marginal chance for

success.

Action F-SSS-MIT 5:—

Action A-SSS-MIT

6: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 6: —Action C-SSS-MIT 6:— Action D-SSS-MIT 6: —Action E-SSS-MIT 6:

MA-3.6: Mitigation will

not be considered asa

method of “avoidance.”

Action F-SSS-MIT 6:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
105 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-MIT

7: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-MIT 7:

—

Action C-SSS-MIT 7: — Action D-SSS-MIT 7:

—

Action E-SSS-MIT 7:

TMA-21: Mitigation

will be used to offset

controlled disturbances

in order to manage

towards the goal of “no

net loss” of Occupied

and Suitable Habitat in

SGMAs when avoidance

and minimization options

are exhausted (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-21.1: The

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Mitigation

Bank Program will

be facilitated through

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council and

staffed by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team. By

establishing this central

mitigation bank, the State

of Nevada will have a

system that provides for

consistent evaluation,

monitoring and reporting

of progress on mitigation

efforts (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-21.2: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team will

coordinate mitigation

and pre-impact

mitigation across all

jurisdictions and land

ownerships. The team

Action F-SSS-MIT 7: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
106 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

will validate, track, and

monitor the success of

mitigation efforts (State

of Nevada 2012).

TMA-21.3: Disturbances

greater than or equal to

five percent of 640

acres (32 acres) within

Occupied Habitat will

trigger evaluations

and consultation with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team. This consultation

will occur within

the administrative

framework established

by the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

New activities at any

level of disturbance

should minimize impacts

on GRSG and their

habitat (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-21.4: Mitigation

should generally involve

creation of habitat,

restoration of habitat,

long-term preservation

of existing habitat, or

enhancement of habitat

to compensate for the

unavoidable or residual

adverse impacts of

habitat disturbance.

Efforts will be made

to accomplish this ata

landscape level (State of

Nevada 2012).

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
107 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

TMA-21.5: In

determining measures

to offset unavoidable

impacts, such measures

should be appropriate

to the scope and degree

of those impacts and

practicable in terms of

cost, existing technology,

and logistics in light of

overall project purposes.

The determination of

appropriate mitigation

will be based on the

values and functions of

the impacted habitat. In

determining the nature

and extent of habitat

development, careful

consideration should be

given to its likelihood of

success (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-21.7:

Consideration and credit

for mitigation should

include habitat based

efforts (i.e. sagebrush

habitat enhancement

and restoration) along

with other options such

as fuels reduction,

green stripping, fire

suppression support

and long-term habitat

conservation agreements.

Project proponents

may receive credit for

mitigation activities

regardless of land

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
108 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

ownership (i.e. federal,

state or private lands)

(State of Nevada 2012).

TMA-21.8: Recognize

and appropriately value

measures that address

threats, such as funding

for wildfire equipment

and training, predator

control, radio telemetry

and GPS monitoring, etc.

(State of Nevada 2012).

TMA-21.9: To ensure

that mitigation efforts

to create, restore or

enhance habitat are not

intentionally disturbed

in the future, long-term

conservation easements

ora record of restrictive

covenant should be

established over the

property. If public lands

are used for mitigation

purposes, adequate

long-term maintenance

or replacement of

mitigation objectives

must be considered while

recognizing existing uses

(State of Nevada 2012).

TMA-21.10: Mitigation

may not be used asa

method to avoid habitat

impacts.

Administrative Collaboration and decision making

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
109 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-ACDM

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

1: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 1:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

1: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM

1: (Avoid) Wherever

possible, eliminate

conflicts by relocating

disturbance activities in

order to conserve GRSG

and their habitat.

Action F-SSS-ACDM 1:

—

Action A-SSS-ACDM

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

2: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 2:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

2: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM 2:

(Minimize) Modify

proposed actions

and develop permit

conditions to include

measures that lessen

adverse effects on GRSG

and their habitat to the

furthest extent practical

such as reducing the

activity footprint,

seasonal avoidance,

co-location of structures,

etc.

Action F-SSS-ACDM 2:

—

Action A-SSS-ACDM

3: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

3: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 3:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

3: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM

3: (Mitigate) Only

after all appropriate and

practicable avoidance

and minimization

measures have been

taken, offset residual

adverse effects in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat by implementing

additional actions that

will result in replacement

of an asset (mainly

habitat) that will be

lost as a result of a

development action.

Action F-SSS-ACDM 3:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
110 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-ACDM

4: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

4: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 4:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

4: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM

4: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council, a

Governor-appointed,

broad spectrum

stakeholder forum, the

following will occur:

● Review and approval

of a process

to coordinate

development

activities in SGMAs.

● Provision of a forum

for participation from

industry, state and

federal resource

management

agencies, and the

general public.

● Oversight of the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem

Mitigation Bank

Program.

● Development, review

and approval of

region-wide policies

- in a transparent,

consistent process

- that respond to

sagebrush ecosystem

threats.

● Setting and clarifying

policies and

management criteria

for SGMAs and

Action F-SSS-ACDM 4:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
111 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

establishment of

well-defined decision

thresholds for

threat assessments

and mitigation

(regulatory process).

● Revision of SGMAs

through field

verifications and

recommendations

from the Nevada

Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team based on

the best available

science.

● Establishment of

policies for the

identification and

prioritization of

landscape-scale

enhancement,

restoration, fuel

reduction, and

mitigation projects

based upon

ecological site

potential, state and

transition models,

and other data that

will contribute to

decision making

informed by science

to increase resiliency.

● Secure and

consolidated

funding and the

direction of major

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
112 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

expenditures for

GRSG conservation.

● Facilitation and

the resolution of

conflicts between

industry, land

owners, and resource

agencies when there

is disagreement

regarding GRSG

management.

● Receipt and approval

of an annual

report from the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team that includes

compiled and

summarized data

on development,

enhancement,

and restoration

activities in SGMAs,

GRSG population

trends, and

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem

Mitigation Bank

Program (PMA-3)

progress. The

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

will submit the

annual report to the

Governor, USFWS,

BLM, Forest Service,

local and tribal

governments and

the general public.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
113 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

● Development of

standards and

protocols to propose

to the BLM and

Forest Service in

order to facilitate

expedited NEPA

review for restoration

activities in SGMAs.

● Encourage and

facilitate land

management

education and

training for all

SGMA user groups.

Action A-SSS-ACDM

5: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

5: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 5:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

5: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM

5: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team, a

multidisciplinary team

with representativesfrom

the Nevada Department

of Agriculture, the

Nevada Department

of Conservation and

Natural Resources

Divisions of Forestry

and State Lands, and the

NDOW will:

● In accordance

with the Nevada

Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council's

policy, oversee

administration and

operation of the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem

Action F-SSS-ACDM 5:

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
114 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Mitigation Bank

Program (PMA-3).

● Identify and

prioritize landscapescale enhancement,

restoration, fuel

reduction, and

mitigation projects

based upon

ecological site

potential, state and

transition models,

and other data that

will contribute to

decision making

informed by science

to increase rangeland

resiliency prior to and

following wildfire.

● Foster and maintain

collaborative

processes with

State, local and

Federal agencies to

expedite permitting.

As deemed

appropriate by the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

decision-making will

be extended to the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team such that

permitting will be

expedited rather than

extended by an added

layer of bureaucracy.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
115 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Provide consultation

for project

proponents who

want to conduct

activities in SGMAs

to incorporate “avoid,

minimize, and

mitigate “practices

into project

designs. Project

applicants will have

the opportunity

to conduct

“ground-truthing”

for the presence or

absence of habitat.

● Assist the BLM

and Forest Service

as appropriate

to evaluate the

cumulative effects

of individual small

projects (less than

five acres) to avoid

exceedinga tolerable

level of disturbance

in SGMAs and

to determine if

additional mitigation

is required.

● Acquire data to refine

SGMAs using best

available science.

● Solicit grants

and private

contributions for

sagebrush ecosystem

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
116 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

conservation and

restoration projects.

● Establisha repository

to maintain the

inventory of

development and

mitigation projects,

population data, and

monitoring results.

● Compile and

summarize data

annually, and

submit an annual

progress report to the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

● Conduct regular

adaptive

management

evaluations to

make management

and policy

recommendations

to the Nevada

Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

● Engage and

coordinate activities

with Local Area

Working Groups

through existing

State Conservation

Districts.

Coordinate continued

engagement of proven

collaborative successes

by charging LAWGs

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
117 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

with responsibilities

such as a) developing

and implementing

site-specific plans to

accomplish enhancement

and restoration projects

on federal lands that are

identified by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council as areas of high

importance to GRSG;

b) updating SGMA

maps; c) monitoring;

d) identifying potential

habitat enhancement and

restoration projects; and

e) other tasks where

local, site-specific

expertise can provide

added value.

Action A-SSS-ACDM

6: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

6: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 6:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

6: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM 6:

Limit habitat treatments

in winter ranges to

actions that maintain or

expand current levels of

sagebrush available in

winter.

Action F-SSS-ACDM 6:

—

Action A-SSS-ACDM

7: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

7: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 7:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

7: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM

7: Proactively monitor

habitat and manage to

ensure that it retains the

attributes necessary to

support viable GRSG

populations.

Action F-SSS-ACDM 7:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
118 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-ACDM

8: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

8: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 8:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

8: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM

8: Potential Habitat

should be used for

habitat enhancement and

restoration to expand

or restore Occupied or

Suitable Habitat that

has been adversely

impacted either by acts

of nature (e.g. wildfire

and Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment) or by

human activities.

Action F-SSS-ACDM 8:

—

Action A-SSS-ACDM

9: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-ACDM

9: —

Action C-SSS-ACDM 9:

—

Action D-SSS-ACDM

9: —

Action E-SSS-ACDM

9: Potential Habitat

should be prioritized

for enhancement and

restoration based on

data-driven models that

incorporate ecological

site potential and identify

the highest priority

sites with the greatest

potential for success.

Action F-SSS-ACDM 9:

Opportunities for

Proactive Measures

Action A-SSS-OPM

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-OPM 1 Action C-SSS-OPM 1— Action D-SSS-OPM 1:

Identify seasonal habitat

areas where an array of

conservation actions can

be completed to improve

habitat conditions.

Action E-SSS-OPM 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-OPM 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
119 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-OPM

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-OPM

2: —

Action C-SSS-OPM 2: — Action D-SSS-OPM

2: Consider the use of

a GRSG telemetry

database to help

prioritize habitat

conservation actions.

Action E-SSS-OPM 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

TMA-22.12: Satellite

telemetry data shall

be compiled and

provided to the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team for

local plan revisions and

updates, and coordinated

statewide to determine

seasonal habitats such

as breeding, nesting,

brood rearing; movement

patterns; and survival

rates.

Action F-SSS-OPM 2: —

Action A-SSS-OPM

3: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-OPM

3: —

Action C-SSS-OPM 3: — Action D-SSS-OPM

3: Establish a protocol

for incorporating new

science and changes

over time, to update and

keep State-wide habitat

maps current.

Action E-SSS-OPM 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-OPM 3: —

Action A-SSS-OPM

4: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-OPM

4: —

Action C-SSS-OPM 4: — Action D-SSS-OPM

4: Continue to consult

with the NDOW for all

development or habitat

restoration proposals in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Also, coordinate with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and the CDFW on

projects proposed within

sagebrush ecosystems.

Action E-SSS-OPM 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SSS-OPM 4: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
120 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SSS-OPM

5: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SSS-OPM

5: —

Action C-SSS-OPM 5: — Action D-SSS-OPM 5:

Identify areas within

PGMAs where off-site

mitigation should occur

to ensure GRSG habitat

goals are met. When

providing guidance

to applicants, ensure

project proponents that

may be contributing to

potential mitigation are

aware of such areas.

Action E-SSS-OPM 5:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

TMA-21.1: The

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Mitigation

Bank Program will

be facilitated through

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council and

staffed by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team. By

establishing this central

mitigation bank, the State

of Nevada will have a

system that provides for

consistent evaluation,

monitoring and reporting

of progress on mitigation

efforts.

Action F-SSS-OPM 5: —

TMA-21.4: Mitigation

should generally involve

creation of habitat,

restoration of habitat,

long-term preservation

of existing habitat, or

enhancement of habitat

to compensate for the

unavoidable or residual

adverse impacts of

habitat disturbance.

Efforts will be made

to accomplish this at a

landscape level.

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
121 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-VEG 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 1:— Action C-VEG 1:— Action D-VEG 1: In

PPMA and PGMA,

coordinate, plan,

design, and implement

vegetation treatments

(e.g., juniper removal,

fuels treatments, and

green stripping) and

associated effectiveness

monitoring between

Resources, Vegetation

Management,

Emergency

Stabilization, and

Burned Area

Rehabilitation programs

to:● Promote the

maintenance of large

intact sagebrush

communities;

● Limit the expansion

or dominance of

invasive species

and noxious weeds,

including conifers,

cheatgrass and

medusa head;

● Maintain or improve

soil site stability,

hydrologic function,

and biological

integrity; and

● Enhance the native

plant community

with appropriate

shrub, grass, and

forb composition

Action E-VEG 1: See

role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 1:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
122 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

identified in

the applicable

Ecological Site

Description (ESD)

where available.

Action A-VEG 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG

2: Prioritize

implementation

of restoration

projects based

on environmental

variables that improve

chances for project

success in areas most

likely to benefit GRSG

(Meinke et al. 2009).

Prioritize restoration

in seasonal habitats

that are thought to

be limiting GRSG

distribution and/or

abundance.

Action C-VEG 2: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-VEG 2:

Utilize BLM/Forest

Service agency

GRSG habitat maps

to prioritize habitat

restoration projects (see

Table 2-6 for objectives

of restoration) with

emphasis in PPMAs,

and to connect seasonal

ranges regardless of

habitat designation.

Habitat restoration

would include but is not

limited to:

● Restoration of

sagebrush canopy

in areas within

GRSG nesting

and brood-rearing

habitat.

● Re-establishment

of perennial grasses

and native forbs in

areas within GRSG

nesting, early and

late-brood rearing

habitat.

● Reduce or remove

pinyon or juniper in

areas to enhance

seasonal range

connectivity,

Action E-VEG 2: See

role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 2: Prioritize

implementation of

restoration projects based

on environmental variables

that improve chances for

project success in areas

most likely to benefit

GRSG (Meinke et al.

2009).

Prioritize restoration

in seasonal habitats

that are thought to be

limiting GRSG distribution

and/or abundance and

where factors causing

degradation have already

been addressed (e.g.,

changes in livestock

management).

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
123 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

improve security at

leks, and to maintain

sagebrush canopy

and understory

integrity in nesting

and brood-rearing

habitats.

● Restoration of

all GRSG habitat

objectives in areas

affected by wildfire

and the continuing

cheat-grass fire

cycle.

● Priority would be on

restoration areas that

have not crossed an

ecological threshold.

Action A-VEG 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 3:

Include GRSG habitat

parameters as defined

by Connelly et al.

(2000a), Hagen et al.

(2007) or if available,

state GRSG plans

and appropriate local

information in habitat

restoration objectives.

Make meeting these

objectives within

PPMAs the highest

restoration priority.

Action C-VEG 3: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-VEG 3:

Incorporate GRSG

habitat objectives as

described in Table 2-6

in the design of habitat

restoration projects in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-VEG 3: See

role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 3: Include

GRSG habitat objectives in

habitat restoration. Make

meeting these objectives

within PPMAs and PGMAs

the highest restoration

priority.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
124 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 4: — Action C-VEG 4:

Composition, function,

and structure of native

vegetation communities

will be consistent with

the reference state of

the appropriate ESD

and will provide for

healthy, resilient, and

recovering GRSG habitat

components.

Action D-VEG 4: — Action E-VEG 4: — Action F-VEG 4: —

Action A-VEG 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 5:

Require use of native

seeds for restoration

based on availability,

adaptation (ecological

site potential), and

probability of success

(Richards et al. 1998).

Where probability of

success or adapted

seed availability is

low, nonnative seeds

may be used as long

as they support GRSG

habitat objectives

(Pyke 2011).

Action C-VEG 5: Seed

local native ecotypes in

areas of more intensive

disturbance.

Action D-VEG 5: In

order to determine

effectiveness of

actions within

PPMAs and PGMAs,

encourage seeding

and planting research

and demonstration

plots on public lands

for restoration and

conservation of key

vegetation communities,

including but not

limited to low, gray,

and black sagebrush,

and riparian areas, with

academia, Tribes, public

agencies and approved

private companies or

individuals.

Action E-VEG 5:

TMA-4.2: Continue

the expansion of, and

improvements to, the

Nevada Division of

Forestry Seedbank &

Plant Material program

in conjunction with

Federal partners. Utilize

Nevada Division of

Forestry conservation

camp crews for native

seed collection and

rehabilitation activities.

Improve storage

capabilities for native

seed and desirable

species that provide a

competitive advantage

over invasive species

and improve storage

capabilities to promote

longevity of available

seed.

Action F-VEG 5: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
125 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG 6: — Action B-VEG 6: — Action C-VEG 6: — Action D-VEG 6:

Within PPMAs and

PGMAs, prioritize and

implement seeding and

planting treatments in

low sage communities

that have been affected

by wildfire. To the

extent feasible or

available, use local seed

collected from intact

stands or greenhouse

cultivation. To increase

seeding success,

consider the use of

specialized seed drills to

ensure effective soil and

seed contact.

Action E-VEG 6:

TMA-4.2: Continue

the expansion of, and

improvements to, the

Nevada Division of

Forestry Seedbank &

Plant Material program

in conjunction with

Federal partners. Utilize

Nevada Division of

Forestry conservation

camp crews for native

seed collection and

rehabilitation activities.

Improve storage

capabilities for native

seed and desirable

species that provide a

competitive advantage

over invasive species

and improve storage

capabilities to promote

longevity of available

seed.

Action F-VEG 6: —

Action A-VEG 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG

7: Design

post restoration

management to ensure

long term persistence.

This could include

changes in livestock

grazing management,

wild horse and burro

management, and

travel management,

etc., to achieve

and maintain the

desired condition

of the restoration

effort that benefits

Action C-VEG 7: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-VEG 7: — Action E-VEG 7: See

role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 7: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
126 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

GRSG (Eiswerth and

Shonkwiler 2006).

Action A-VEG 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 8:

Consider potential

changes in climate

(Miller et al. 2011)

when proposing

restoration seedings

when using native

plants. Consider

collection from the

warmer component

of the species current

range when selecting

native species

(Kramer and Havens

2009).

Action C-VEG 8: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-VEG 8: Same

as Alternative A.

Action E-VEG 8: See

role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 8: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-VEG 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 9:

Restore native (or

desirable) plants

and create landscape

patterns which most

benefit GRSG.

Action C-VEG 9: Exotic

seedings will be rehabbed,

interseeded, restored to

recover sagebrush in

areas to expand PPMAs.

Action D-VEG 9: Same

as Alternative A.

Action E-VEG 9: See

role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 9: —

Action A-VEG 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG

10: Make

re-establishment of

sagebrush cover and

desirable understory

plants (relative

to ecological site

potential) the highest

priority for restoration

efforts.

Action C-VEG 10: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-VEG 10:

Same as Alternative A.

Action E-VEG 10:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 10:

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
127 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 11:

In fire prone areas

where sagebrush seed

is required for GRSG

habitat restoration,

consider establishing

seed harvest areas

that are managed

for seed production

(Armstrong 2007)

and are a priority

for protection from

outside disturbances.

Action C-VEG 11: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-VEG 11: — Action E-VEG 11:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 11: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-VEG 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 12: — Action C-VEG 12: Active

restoration practices:

● Removal of livestock

water troughs,

pipelines, and wells.

● Where possible,

without further

damage to

springs/water sources,

remove waterline

piping and maximize

water at spring/stream

sources supporting

diverse riparian and

meadow vegetation.

● Promote natural

healing of headcuts

to the maximum

extent possible by

limiting disturbance

throughout the

watershed. At times,

a combination of

methods may need to

be used – but gabions

Action D-VEG 12: — Action E-VEG 12: — Action F-VEG 12: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
128 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

and structural devises

and boulder dumping

should be limited,

and restoration

should strive fora

functioning system.

● Ripping/recontouring

of roads and seeding

with native local

ecotypes of shrubs

and grasses.

Action A-VEG 13:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 13:— Action C-VEG 13:

Active restoration of

crested wheatgrass

seedings. This can be

accomplished, following

targeted restoration

planning to expand,

reconnect or recover

habitats required by

GRSG by: ● Inter-seeding

sagebrush seed or

seedlings.

● Remove crested

wheatgrass through

plowing while

minimizing use

of herbicides.

Subsequent

re-seeding with local

native ecotypes.

● Active restoration of

cheatgrass infestation

areas.

Action D-VEG 13:— Action E-VEG 13:— Action F-VEG 13:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
129 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

In all cases, local native

plant ecotype seeds and

seedlings must be used.

Action A-VEG 14:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 14: — Action C-VEG 14: — Action D-VEG 14: — Action E-VEG 14: — Action F-VEG 14:

Avoid sagebrush

reduction/treatments

to increase livestock

or big game forage in

PPMAs and PGMAs and

include plans to restore

high-quality habitat in

areas with invasive species.

(Audubon)

Action A-VEG 15:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 15: — Action C-VEG 15: — Action D-VEG 15: No

new roads (temporary

or permanent) would

be constructed or

created during project

implementation for

vegetation treatments.

Administrative access

including off-road

travel with heavy

equipment and vehicles

would occur during

implementation.

Loading and unloading

of all equipment would

occur on existing roads

to minimize disturbance

to vegetation and soil.

Action E-VEG 15:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 15: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
130 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-VEG 16:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 16:— Action C-VEG 16:— Action D-VEG 16:

Within PPMAs and

PGMAs, when closing

and reseeding roads,

primitive roads, and

trails not designated

in travel management

plans, evaluate the

location for strategic

protection of the overall

habitat and consider

using fire resistant

species to provide

for fire break ona

case-by-case basis.

Action E-VEG 16:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 16:—

Action A-VEG 17:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 17: Action C-VEG 17 Action D-VEG 17:

Evaluate vegetation

treatments (including

GRSG habitat

treatments) ina

landscape-scale context

to address habitat

fragmentation, effective

patch size, invasive

species presence, and

protection of intact

sagebrush communities.

Coordinate vegetation

treatments with adjacent

land owners and

agencies to avoid any

unintended negative

landscape effects on

GRSG.

Action E-VEG 17:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 17:—

Action A-VEG 18:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 18:— Action C-VEG 18:— Action D-VEG 18:

Establish restoration

areas where reseeding

can be applied to

improve impaired

GRSG habitat.

Action E-VEG 18:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 18:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
131 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-VEG 19:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 19:— Action C-VEG 19:— Action D-VEG 19: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

rest allotments or

pasturesfor one growing

season year prior to

initiating vegetation

treatments, as needed,

to increase resiliency of

vegetation communities

prior to treatment,

unless grazing is part of

the vegetation treatment

design.

Action E-VEG 19:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action A-VEG 19:—

Action A-VEG 20:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 20:— Action C-VEG 20:— Action D-VEG 20: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

rest treated areas from

livestock grazing for a minimum of two

full growing seasons

following treatment

or until vegetation or

habitat objectives are

met.

Action E-VEG 20:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 20:—

Action A-VEG 21:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 21:— Action C-VEG 21:— Action D-VEG 21: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

monitor and control

noxious weeds and

invasive annual grasses

post-treatment to meet

and sustain GRSG

habitat and vegetation

objectives (see Table

2-6).

Action E-VEG 21:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 21:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
132 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-VEG 22:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 22:— Action C-VEG 22:— Action D-VEG 22:

Where winter range

has been identified

asa limiting factor,

emphasize vegetation

treatments in known

winter range to enhance

habitat quality or reduce

wildfire risk around

or within winter range

habitat.

Action E-VEG 22:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 22:—

Action A-VEG 23:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 23:— Action C-VEG 23:— Action D-VEG 23:

Manage lotic riparian

habitats in conjunction

with adjacent terraces

and/or valley bottoms

as natural fuel breaks

to reduce size and

frequency of wildfires

in PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-VEG 23:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 23:—

Action A-VEG 24:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 24:— Action C-VEG 24:— Action D-VEG 24: In

lentic and lotic riparian

systems, conserve or

enhance these systems

to maintain or increase

amount of edge and

cover.

Action E-VEG 24:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 24:—

Action A-VEG 25:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 25:— Action C-VEG 25:— Action D-VEG 25: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

in riparian and wet

meadows, inventory,

monitor for, and

control invasive

species. When treating

invasive species, use

the standard operating

procedures and BMPs

2

outlined in the 2007

Vegetation Treatments

Using Herbicides on

BLM Lands in 17

Action E-VEG 25:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 25:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
133 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

States EIS and ROD,

and for the Forest

Service administered

lands adhere to the

Humboldt-Toiyabe

Forest Directive for

Herbicide Application

and applicable

practices found in

its accompanying

Biological Assessment.

Action A-VEG 26:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 26:— Action C-VEG 26:— Action D-VEG

26: In PPMAs and

PGMAs, design water

developments to

maintain ecological

integrity of lentic

riparian habitats. See

management actions in

the Range section.

Action E-VEG 26:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 26:—

Action A-VEG 27:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 27:— Action C-VEG 27:— Action D-VEG 27: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

design and implement

vegetation treatments

to restore, enhance, and

maintain riparian areas

to meet seasonal life

history requirements

(e.g. late summer brood

rearing habitat) for

GRSG.

Action E-VEG 27:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 27:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
134 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-VEG 28:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 28:— Action C-VEG 28:— Action D-VEG 28: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

where riparian extent

is limited by shrub

encroachment consider

fuels treatments

including prescribed

burning or other means

to increase edge and

expand mesic areas to

improve late summer

brood-rearing habitat

(see Table 2-6).

Action E-VEG 28:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 28:—

Action A-VEG 29:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 29:— Action C-VEG 29:— Action D-VEG 29: For

Wyoming, Mountain,

and Basin Big Sage

Communities in PPMAs

and PGMAs: ● Priority for

treatment would

focus on enhancing,

reestablishing or

maintaining the

most limiting habitat

component.

● Reestablish

sagebrush to meet

habitat objectives in

Table 2-6).

● Manipulate

sagebrush

communities to

achieve age-class,

structure, cover, and

species composition

objectives in GRSG

habitat (see Table

2-6).

Action E-VEG 29:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 29:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
135 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Restore herbaceous

understory in brush

dominated areas

to meet habitat

objectives(see Table

2-6).

● Establish and

maintain fuel

breaks to limit fire

size and mitigate

fire behavior to

increase suppression

effectiveness. When

possible, establish

fuel breaks adjacent

to roads or other

previously disturbed

areas.

● Treat areas

with cheatgrass,

other invasive

and noxious

species presence

to minimize

competition and

favor establishment

of desired species.

● Treat disturbed areas

as soon as possible

but within one year

of the disturbance.

● Select the

appropriate

treatment method(s)

that meets the

vegetative objective

per the decisions

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
136 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

identified in

the Vegetation

Treatments on BLM

Lands in 17 Western

States Programmatic

EIS and Associated

ROD (BLM 2007a).

Action A-VEG 30:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 30:— Action C-VEG 30:— Action D-VEG

30: Where pinyon

and juniper trees

are encroaching

on sagebrush plant

communities, design

treatments to decrease

conifer encroachment,

and increase cover

of sagebrush and/or

understory to (1)

improve habitat

for GRSG; and (2)

minimize avian predator

perches and predation

opportunities on GRSG.

Action E-VEG 30:

TMA-7: Initiate

landscape level

treatments in SGMAs

to reverse the effects

of Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment and

restore healthy, resilient

sagebrush ecosystems.

Action F-VEG 30:—

Action A-VEG 31:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 31:— Action C-VEG 31:— Action D-VEG 31: For

Low Sage/Black Sage

Communities monitor

and treat cheatgrass and

other invasive species

in low sage vegetation

communities in PPMAs

and PGMAs before it

becomesa dominant

species.

Action E-VEG 31:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 31:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
137 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG 32:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG 32: — Action C-VEG 32: — Action D-VEG 32:

For existing nonnative

seeding: Allow natural

establishment of

sagebrush to occur

in nonnative seedings

within or adjacent

to GRSG habitat.

Manage seedings to

allow succession toward

sagebrush canopy cover

more favorable for

GRSG nesting and early

brood-rearing needs.

Action E-VEG 32:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG 32: —

Integrated Invasive Species Management

Action A-VEG-ISM

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISM

1: —

Action C-VEG-ISM 1: — Action D-VEG-ISM

1: Assess invasive

annual grass

presence/distribution

prior to implementing

vegetation restoration

projects to determine

if additional treatments

are required to treat

invasive annual grasses.

Prioritize treatments to

remove invasive annual

grasses to provide most

benefit to GRSG habitat

conditions.

Action E-VEG-ISM 1:

—

Action F-VEG-ISM 1:

In GRSG habitat, ensure

that soil cover and native

herbaceous plants are

at their ESD potential

to help protect against

invasive plants. In areas

without ESDs, reference

sites would be utilized

to identify appropriate

vegetation communities

and soil cover.

Additional Management - Invasive Species and

Conifer Encroachment

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
138 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-ISCE

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

1: —

Action C-VEG- ISCE 1:

—

Action D-VEG- ISCE

1: Treat sites within

PPMAs and PGMAs

that are dominated

by invasive species

through an IVM

approach using fire,

chemical, mechanical

and biological methods

based on site potential.

Action E-VEG- ISCE

1: TMA-6.1: Continue

Nevada Department of

Agriculture statewide

surveys for the detection

of incipient invasive

and noxious plants

in conjunction with

USDA-APHIS and the

Nevada Department of

Transportation.

● Conducts and

attends numerous

workshops, field

days, booth and

other events to

promote education,

awareness, and

outreach to limit

introduction and

spread of invasive

and noxious plants

on public lands and

natural habitat.

Statewide CWMAs

support program:

● Provide technical

assistance, project

success monitoring

and financial support

to CWMAs through

federal and state

funding for projects

performing the

following tasks:

● Noxious weed

and invasive plant

treatments on

Action F-VEG- ISCE 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
139 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

lands degraded by

infestations.

● Early Detection,

Rapid Response

(EDRR) surveying

for new noxious

weed species that

are not already

established in the

state and pose

new threats to

healthy native plant

ecosystems.

● Native planting

and reseeding on

previously treated

sites or in areas

susceptible to

invasion in order

to improve habitat

and/or the overall

health of lands.

● Educational activities

directed toward

local communities

regarding the

negative impacts

of noxious weeds

and the importance

of infestation spread

prevention and the

implementation of

integrated weed

management plans.

● Provide technical

assistance, project

success monitoring

and financial support

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
140 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

to areas across the

state that were

previously burned

and currently

threatened by fires

due to noxious weed

infestations and/or

fire fuels. Nonfederal

land tasks include: ○ Fuels reduction

through noxious

weed decadent

material removal,

noxious weed and

invasive plant

treatments, and

other forested

and riparian area

fire fuel load

thinning.

○ Native planting

and reseeding in

cleared areas and

degraded riparian

habitat areas.

○ Private

landowner

assistance in

fire and invasive

plant invasion

prevention and

land management

plans.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
141 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-ISCE

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

2: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 2:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE 2:

Targeted early season

grazing would be

allowed to suppress

cheatgrass (Bromus

tectorum) or other

vegetation that are

hindering achieving

GRSG objectives in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Sheep, cattle, or goats

(where permitted) may

be used as long as the

animals are intensely

managed and removed

when the utilization

of desirable species

reaches 35%.

Action E-VEG-ISCE 2:

TMA-12.1: Expand the

promotion of proper

livestock grazing

practices that promote

the health of perennial

grass communities

as this condition has

been found to suppress

the establishment of

cheatgrass.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 2: —

Action A-VEG-ISCE

3: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

3: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 3:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

3: In perennial grass,

invasive annual grass,

and conifer-invaded

cover types, restore

sagebrush steppe with

sagebrush seedings

where feasible.

Action E-VEG-ISCE 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 3: —

Action A-VEG-ISCE

4: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

4: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 4:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

4: Pinyon and juniper

treatment in PPMAs

and PGMAs would

focus on enhancing,

reestablishing, or

maintaining habitat

components (e.g. cover,

security, and food) in

order to achieve habitat

objectives identified in

Table 2-6. Treatment

design should focus

on addressing the

Action E-VEG-ISCE

4: TMA-7: Initiate

landscape level

treatments in SGMAs

to reverse the effects

of Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment and

restore healthy, resilient

sagebrush ecosystems.

TMA-7.5: Allocate

sufficient resources to

fully address habitat loss

Action F-VEG-ISCE 4: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
142 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

most limiting habitat

component.

and degradation in the

next ten years.

Action A-VEG-ISCE

5: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

5: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 5:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE 5:

—

Action E-VEG-ISCE 5:

Inventory and prioritize

areas for treatment

of Phase I and Phase

II encroachment in

SGMAs to restore habitat

resiliency, reduce avian

predator perches, and

increase forb and grass

cover.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 5: —

Action A-VEG-ISCE

6: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

6: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 6:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE 6:

—

Action E-VEG-ISCE 6:

Aggressively implement

plans to remove

Phase I and Phase II

encroachment and treat

Phase III encroachment

to reduce the threat of

severe conflagration and

restore SGMAs where

possible, especially in

areas in close proximity

to Occupied and Suitable

Habitat.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 6: —

Action A-VEG-ISCE

7: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

7: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 7:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

7: Manage pinyon

and juniper stands in

encroached sagebrush

vegetation communities

to meet GRSG habitat

objectives as described

in Table 2-6. In areas

with a sagebrush

component, select

treatment methods that

maintain sagebrush

and shrub cover and

composition.

Action E-VEG-ISCE

7: TMA-7.1: Inventory

and prioritize areas for

treatment of Phase I and

Phase II encroachment

in SGMAs to restore

habitat resiliency, reduce

avian predator perches,

and increase forb and

grass cover.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 7: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
143 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-ISCE

8: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

8: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 8:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

8: In Phase II and III

pinyon and/or juniper

stands in PPMAs and

PGMAs:

● Remove or reduce

biomass to meet fuel

and GRSG habitat

objectives(see Table

2-6).

● Take appropriate

action to establish

desired understory

species composition,

including seeding

and invasive species

treatments.

● In areas with

a sagebrush

component, select

a treatment method

that maintains or

improves sagebrush

and shrub cover and

composition.

Action E-VEG-ISCE 8:

TMA-7.2: Aggressively

implement plans to

remove Phase I and

Phase II encroachment

and treat Phase III

encroachment to reduce

the threat of severe

conflagration and restore

SGMAs where possible,

especially in areas

in close proximity to

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-7.3: Prioritize

areas for treatment of

Phase III Pinyon-Juniper

encroachment in

strategic areas to

break up continuous,

hazardous fuel beds.

Treat areas that have

the greatest opportunity

for recovery to SGMAS

based on ecological site

potential. Old growth

trees should be protected

on woodland sites (State

of Nevada 2012).

Action F-VEG-ISCE 8: —

TMA-7.4: Allow

temporary road access

to Phase I, Phase II, and

Phase III treatment areas.

Construct temporary

access roads where

access is needed with

minimum design

standards to avoid

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
144 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

and minimize impacts.

Remove and restore

temporary roads upon

completion of treatment.

Action A-VEG-ISCE

9: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

9: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 9:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE 9:

—

Action E-VEG-ISCE

9: Allow temporary

road access to Phase

I, Phase II, and Phase

III treatment areas.

Construct temporary

access roads where

access is needed with

minimum design

standards to avoid

and minimize impacts.

Remove and restore

temporary roads upon

completion of treatment.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 9: —

Action A-VEG-ISCE

10: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

10: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 10:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

10: —

Action E-VEG-ISCE

10: Allocate sufficient

resources to fully

address habitat loss

and degradation in the

next ten years.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 10:

—

Action A-VEG-ISCE

11: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

11: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 11:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

11: —

Action E-VEG-ISCE 11:

TMA-7.7: Continue to

incentivize and assist

in the development

of bio-fuels and other

commercial uses

of Pinyon-Juniper

resources.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 11:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
145 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-ISCE

12: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

12: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 12:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

12: —

Action E-VEG-ISCE 12:

TMA-7.8: Increase the

incentives for private

industry investment

in biomass removal,

land restoration, and

renewable energy

development by

authorizing stewardship

contracts for up to 20

years.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 12:

—

Action A-VEG-ISCE

13: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

13: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 13:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

13: —

Action E-VEG-ISCE 13:

TMA-7.9: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council will establish

a goal for the number

of acres to be treated

annually and work to

accomplish that goal

over time.

Action F-VEG-ISCE 13:

—

Action A-VEG-ISCE

14: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-ISCE

14: —

Action C-VEG-ISCE 14:

—

Action D-VEG-ISCE

14: —

Action E-VEG-ISCE 14:

Maintain a mosaic of

shrub cover conditions

ranging from twenty

percent to forty percent in

nesting habitat to provide

both habitat resiliency

and preferred nesting

conditions for GRSG in

areas with high raven

populations. Where this

amount of shrub cover

is not available (<25%),

then perennial grass

cover should exceed

10% (Coates et al. 2011)

and annual grass cover

should not exceed 5%

(Blomberg et al. 2012).

Action F-VEG-ISCE 14:

—

Habitat conservation for

agriculture

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
146 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-HCA

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-HCA

1: —

Action C-VEG-HCA 1:

—

Action D-VEG-HCA 1:

—

Action E-VEG-HCA 1:

TMA-10: Implement

a best practices

certification program

for ranch management

and forage production

in consultation with

the US Department of

Agriculture, Natural

Resource Conservation

Service, and the

Nevada Department

of Agriculture.

Action F-VEG-HCA 1: —

Climate Change

Action A-VEG-CC 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-CC 1:

—

Action C-VEG-CC 1: — Action D-VEG-CC

1: As climate change

data become available

through REAs or other

ecological studies,

identify areas of

unfragmented GRSG

habitat and key habitat

linkages that provide

the life-cycle and

genetic transfer needs

for GRSG.

Action E-VEG-CC 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-CC 1: —

Action A-VEG-CC 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-CC 2:

—

Action C-VEG-CC 2: — Action D-VEG-CC 2:

Implement prevention

and suppression

actions to prevent

additional loss to

wildlife and cheatgrass

domination in areas

that are progressing

towards recovery to

build resiliency to

climate change. Also,

implement various

treatments, such as

seeding and shrub

Action E-VEG-CC 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-CC 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
147 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

plantings, to restore

GRSG habitat.

Action A-VEG-CC 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-CC 3: —Action C-VEG-CC 3:— Action D-VEG-CC

3: Implement juniper

removal treatments in

areas with high potential

to restore GRSG habitat.

Priority for treatments

area:

Highest Priority - Phase 2 Pinyon and/or Juniper

Stands to prevent long

term loss of GRSG

habitat due to the area

crossinga restoration

threshold.

Second Priority– Phase

1 Pinyon and/or Juniper

stands to prevent the

spread of the woodlands

into GRSG habitat.

Action E-VEG-CC 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-CC 3:—

Action A-VEG-CC 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-CC 4: —Action C-VEG-CC 4:— Action D-VEG-CC 4:

Implement treatments to

reduce the presence

of cheatgrass and

restore sagebrush

and native forbs and

grasses in fragmented

habitat with high

potential for success.

Also implement fuel

treatments to protect

these areas for wildlife.

Action E-VEG-CC 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-CC 4:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
148 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-CC 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-CC 5:

—

Action C-VEG-CC 5: — Action D-VEG-CC 5:

Implement hazardous

fuels, noxious weed, and

cheatgrass treatments

as well as adjusting

uses to protect native

vegetation communities

that provide high quality

GRSG habitat.

Priorities for treatments

are:

Highest priority –

Areas of high quality

habitat where forecasted

bioclimatic conditions

are predicted to persist

through at least 2050.

Second Priority – Areas

of high to moderate

value for GRSG habitat

in lower elevations

that are susceptible to

cheatgrass domination

and less likely to

recover naturally from

disturbance.

Third Priority – Areas

of high to moderate

value for GRSG in

higher elevations as that

are more resistant to

cheatgrass domination

and more likely to

recover naturally from

disturbance.

Action E-VEG-CC 5:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-CC 5: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
149 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-CC 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-CC 6:

—

Action C-VEG-CC 6: — Action D-VEG-CC

6: Build resiliency

into restoration and

enhancement seed

mixes to ensure high

value habitat persistence

in light of anticipated

climate change effects.

Action E-VEG-CC 6:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-CC 6: —

Action A-VEG-CC 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-CC 7:

—

Action C-VEG-CC 7: — Action D-VEG-CC 7:

Work cooperatively

with multiple agencies

and stakeholders to

establish and maintain

a network of climate

monitoring sites and

stations.

Action E-VEG-CC 7:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-CC 7: —

Drought

Action A-VEG-D 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-D

1: During drought

periods, prioritize

evaluating effects

of the drought in

PPMAs relative to

their needs for food

and cover. Since there

is a lag in vegetation

recovery following

drought (Thurow and

Taylor 1999; Cagney

et al. 2010), ensure

that post-drought

management allows

for vegetation

recovery that meets

GRSG needs in

PPMAs.

Action C-VEG-D 1: — Action D-VEG-D 1: — Action E-VEG-D 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-D 1:

During drought periods,

prioritize evaluating effects

of drought in GRSG

habitat areas relative to

their biological needs, as

well as drought effects

on ungrazed reference

areas. Since there is a

lag in vegetation recovery

following drought (Thurow

and Taylor 1999; Cagney

et al. 2010), ensure that

post-drought management

allows for vegetation

recovery that meets GRSG

needs in GRSG habitat

areas based on GRSG

habitat objectives.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
150 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-VEG-D 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-D 2:

—

Action C-VEG-D 2: — Action D-VEG-D

2: In sagebrush

ecosystems containing

PPMAs and PGMAs,

follow guidance in the

Resource Management

During Drought

Handbook H-1730-1

(BLM 2011c). Apply

appropriate drought

mitigation measures

to authorized uses and

activities to reduce

impacts on GRSG

habitat and populations.

Action E-VEG-D 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-D 2: —

Action A-VEG-D 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-VEG-D 3:

—

Action C-VEG-D 3: — Action D-VEG-D 3:

Initiate emergency

management measures

during times of drought

to protect GRSG

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Implement post-drought

management to allow

for vegetation recovery

that meets GRSG life

cycle needs in PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Action E-VEG-D 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-VEG-D 3: —

Wild Horses and Burros

Action A-WHB 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-WHB 1: — Action C-WHB 1: — Action D-WHB 1:

For all HMAs, HAs

and WHBTs within or

that contain PPMAs

and PGMAs, manage

wild horse and burro

populations within

established AML to

meet GRSG habitat

objectives. In HMAs,

HAs, and WHBTs

not meeting standards

due to degradation

Action E-WHB 1:

TMA-11: Manage wild

horses at AMLs to avoid

and minimize impacts on

SGMAs.

Action F-WHB 1: Reduce

AMLs within HMAs and

reduce WHBTs within

occupied GRSG habitat

by 25% to meet habitat

objectives. —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
151 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

that can be at least

partially contributed

to wild horse or burro

populations, consider

adjustments to AML

through the NEPA

process. Adjustments

would be based on

monitoring data and

would seek to protect

and enhance PPMAs

and PGMAs and

establish a thriving

ecological balance.

Action A-WHB 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-WHB 2:

Within PPMAs,

develop or amend

BLM Herd

Management Area

Plans (HMAPs)

and Forest Service

WHBT Plans to

incorporate GRSG

habitat objectives

and management

considerations for

all BLM HMAs

and Forest Service

WHBTs.

Action C-WHB 2: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-WHB 2: — Action E-WHB 2:

TMA-11: Manage wild

horses at AMLs to avoid

and minimize impacts on

SGMAs.

Action F-WHB 2: Same

as Alternative B, except

reduce AMLs within

HMAs and reduce WHBTs

within occupied GRSG

habitat by 25% to meet

habitat objectives.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
152 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-WHB 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-WHB 3:

For all BLM HMAs

and Forest Service

WHBTs within

PPMAs, prioritize

the evaluation of

all AMLs based

on indicators that

address structure/

condition/composition

of vegetation and

measurements specific

to achieving GRSG

habitat objectives.

Action C-WHB 3: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-WHB 3: — Action E-WHB 3:

TMA-11: Manage wild

horses at AMLs to avoid

and minimize impacts on

SGMAs.

Action F-WHB 3: —

Action A-WHB 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-WHB 4:

Coordinate with

other resources

(Range, Wildlife,

and Riparian) to

conduct land health

assessments to

determine existing

structure/condition/

composition of

vegetation within

all BLM HMAs

and Forest Service

WHBTs.

Action C-WHB 4: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-WHB 4: — Action E-WHB 4: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-WHB 4: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-WHB 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-WHB 5:

When conducting

NEPA analysis for

wild horse and

burro management

activities, water

developments or

other rangeland

improvements for

wild horsesin PPMAs,

address the direct and

indirect effects on

GRSG populations

Action C-WHB 5: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-WHB 5: — Action E-WHB 5: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-WHB 5: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
153 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

and habitat.

Implement any

water developments

or rangeland

improvements using

the criteria identified

for domestic livestock

identified above in

PPMAs.

Climate Change

Action A-WHB-CC

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-WHB-CC 1:

—

Action C-WHB-CC 1: — Action D-WHB-CC

1: As climate change

data become available

through REAs or other

ecological studies,

identify areas of

unfragmented GRSG

habitat and key habitat

linkages that provide

the life-cycle and

genetic transfer needs

for GRSG. Manage

the identified areas as

PPMAs.

Action E-WHB-CC 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-WHB-CC 1: —

Action A-WHB-CC

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-WHB-CC 2:

—

Action C-WHB-CC 2: — Action D-WHB-CC

2: Work cooperatively

with multiple agencies

and stakeholders to

establish and maintain

a network of climate

monitoring sites and

stations.

Action E-WHB-CC 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-WHB-CC 2: —

Fire Management

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
154 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-FFM 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 1:— Action C-FFM 1:— Action D-FFM 1:— Action E-FFM 1:

Continue the expansion

and implementation of a framework across all

land jurisdictions for

pre-suppression actions

to minimize ignitions and

alter fuel conditions in

order to avoid, whenever

possible, large damaging

conflagrations.

Action F-FFM 1:—

Action A-FFM 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 2:— Action A-FFM 2:— Action D-FFM 2:— Action E-FFM 2:

Actively manage

SGMAs across all

jurisdictions with the

goal of restoring the

appropriate role of

wildfire to establish

resiliency, and actively

engage in prevention,

suppression and

restoration of the effects

of fire and invasive

species.

Action F-FFM 2:—

Action A-FFM 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 3:— Action C-FFM 3:— Action D-FFM 3:— Action E-FFM 3:

Continue the expansion

and implementation of

fire suppression plans

and strategies across all

land jurisdictions for

SGMAs.

Action F-FFM 3:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
155 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-FFM 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 4:— Action C-FFM 4:— Action D-FFM

4: Implement a coordinated

inter-agency approach

to fire restrictions based

upon National Fire

Danger Rating System

(NFDRS) thresholds

(fuel conditions,

drought conditions

and predicted weather

patterns) for GRSG

habitat.

Action E-FFM 4:

TMA-2.1: Strengthen

and improve interagency

wildfire prevention

activities statewide

through targeted wildfire

prevention messages

including education on

habitat loss, updating

interagency agreements,

conducting wildfire

prevention workshops,

and demonstration

projects.

Action F-FFM 4:—

Action A-FFM 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 5:— Action C-FFM 5:— Action D-FFM 5:

Develop wildfire

prevention plans that

explain the resource

value of GRSG habitat

and include fire

prevention messages

and actions to reduce

human-caused ignitions.

Action E-FFM 5:

TMA-2.1: Strengthen

and improve interagency

wildfire prevention

activities statewide

through targeted wildfire

prevention messages

including education on

habitat loss, updating

interagency agreements,

conducting wildfire

prevention workshops,

and demonstration

projects.

Action F-FFM 5:—

Action A-FFM 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 6:— Action C-FFM 6:— Action D-FFM 6:2

Fuel treatments will

be designed though

an interdisciplinary

process to expand,

enhance, maintain, and

protect GRSG habitat.

Use green strips and/or

fuel breaks, where

appropriate, to protect

seeding efforts from

subsequent fire events.

Action E-FFM 6:

TMA-2.3: Continue

the construction of

targeted, well designed

fuel breaks and “green

strips” to break up fuel

continuity, reduce fire

size, and create safe

areas for fire suppression

activities. Use the best

adapted plant materialsto

re-vegetate green strips

Action F-FFM 6:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
156 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

In coordination

with USFWS and

relevant state agencies,

BLM/Forest Service

planning units with

large blocks of GRSG

habitat will develop,

using the assessment

process described in

AppendixF, Draft

Greater Sage-Grouse

Wildland Fire and

Invasive Species

Assessment,a fuels

management strategy

which considers an

up-to-date fuels profile,

land use plan direction,

current and potential

habitat fragmentation,

sagebrush and GRSG

ecological factors,

and active vegetation

management steps to

provide critical breaks

in fuel continuity,

where appropriate.

When developing this

strategy, planning units

will consider the risk

of increased habitat

fragmentation froma

proposed action versus

the risk of large scale

fragmentation posed by

wildfires if the action is

not taken.

with fire resistantspecies.

Fund and schedule

regular maintenance

activities of green strips

as needed.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
157 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-FFM 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 7:— Action C-FFM 7:— Action D-FFM

7: Apply seasonal

restriction, as needed,

for implementing fuels

management treatments

according to the type of

seasonal habitat present.

Action E-FFM 7:

TMA-2.3: Continue

the construction of

targeted, well designed

fuel breaks and “green

strips” to break up fuel

continuity, reduce fire

size, and create safe

areas for fire suppression

activities. Use the best

adapted plant materialsto

re-vegetate green strips

with fire resistantspecies.

Fund and schedule

regular maintenance

activities of green strips

as needed.

Action F-FFM 7:—

Action A-FFM 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 8:— Action C-FFM 8:— Action D-FFM

8: Annually

completea review

of landscape assessment

implementation efforts

with appropriate FWS

and state agency

personnel.

Action E-FFM 8:

TMA-3.2: Update Fire

Management Plans,

dispatch run cards, and

relevant agreements to

ensure “closest forces”

concepts are being

utilized at all times,

particularly nonfederal

suppression resources

(e.g. Nevada Division

of Forestry helicopters,

crews, and volunteer fire

departments).

TMA-3.3: Establish

and utilize Nevada

Interagency Incident

Management Teams

(IMTs) for wildfires

in SGMAs. Nevada

currently has five Type3

IMTs that are federally

sponsored and comprised

Action F-FFM 8:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
158 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

of qualified federal, state

and local government

employees. These

IMTs ensure that the

State has IMT members

with knowledge of

Nevada’s issues and

natural resources,a

key advantage over

out-of-area IMTs that

come to managea

Nevada fire with no local

understanding

TMA-3.5: Integrate

suppression resource

locations within SGMAs

and pre-position

resources as conditions

dictate.

TMA-3.6: Developa

“suitcase” interagency

suppression task

force (defined asa

highly-mobile that

could move throughout

the state rapidly) for

pre-positioning during

high wildfire hazard

periods. Activate up

to three interagency

"suitcase" task forces

and pre-position them

during Red Flag and

predicted lightning

events in SGMAs for

initial attack response.

TMA-3.14: Assigna

local, trained resource

advisor with GRSG

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
159 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

expertise on all fire

suppression responses in

SGMAs.

TMA-3.1: Identify and

develop suppression

plans, including mapping

of SGMAs, to improve

initial attack suppression

actions.

Action A-FFM 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 9:— Action C-FFM 9:— Action D-FFM

9: Threatened,

endangered, and

sensitive species

(including GRSG)

and associated

habitats would

continue to bea high

priority for National

and Geographic

Multi-Agency

Coordination Groups.

Action E-FFM 9:

TMA-1.2: Actively

manage SGMAs across

all jurisdictions with

the goal of restoring

the appropriate role of

wildfire to establish

resiliency, and actively

engage in prevention,

suppression and

restoration of the effects

of fire and invasive

species (State of Nevada

2012). Limit the use of

fire asa management

tool in Wyoming

Big Sagebrush and

Black Sagebrush plant

communities.

Action F-FFM 9:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
160 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-FFM 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 10:— Action C-FFM 10:— Action D-FFM 10:

Within acceptable

risk levels utilize a full range of fire

management strategies

and tactics, including

the management of

wildfires to achieve

resource objectives,

across the range of

GRSG habitat consistent

with land use plan

direction.

Action E-FFM 10:

TMA-3.9: Utilize

the interagency Fire

Planning Assessment

system to optimize

utilization of fire

suppression resources

(e.g. engines, aircraft,

water tenders, and hand

crews). Fire Program

Analysis enables local

and national planners to

evaluate the effectiveness

of alternative fire

management strategies

for the purpose of

meeting fire and land

management goals and

objectives.

TMA-3.10: Encourage

use of the State's Air

National Guard C-130

Unit with the Modular

Airborne Firefighting

System (MAFFS)

for aerial firefighting

support.

TMA-3.11: Increase the

fleet of available heavy

air tankers and develop a system for prioritizing

their use to fight fires

when needed.

TMA-3.12: Eliminate

policy and operational

inconsistencies by

returning jurisdiction

over Nevada BLM

lands that are currently

Action F-FFM 10:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
161 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

managed by the

California Surprise

Field Office, placing

that jurisdiction into

the Carson City and

Winnemucca Field

Offices.

TMA-3.13: Develop a specific and concise

package of information

on SGMAs for incoming

Incident Management

Teams to ensure an

understanding of Nevada

conservation priorities

that will be included in all

Delegations of Authority

and Fire Management

Plans.

TMA-1.5: Continue

the expansion and

implementation of fire

suppression plans and

strategies across all land

jurisdictions for SGMAs.

Action A-FFM 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 11:— Action C-FFM 11:— Action D-FFM 11:— Action E-FFM 11:

TMA-3.7: Within

SGMAs, eliminate the

tactic of “burning out,”

including backfiring

unless there are direct

life safety threats.

Action F-FFM 11:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
162 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-FFM 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 12:— Action C-FFM 12:— Action D-FFM 12:

Within GRSG habitat,

PPMAs (and PACs,

if so determined by

individual LUP efforts)

are the highest priority

for conservation and

protection during

fire operations and

fuels management

decision making. The

PPMAs (and PACs,

if so determined by

individual LUP efforts)

will be viewed as more

valuable than PGMAs

when priorities are

established. When

suppression resources

are widely available,

maximum efforts will

be placed on limiting

fire growth in PGMAs

polygons as well.

These priority areas

will be further refined

following completion of

the GRSG Wildland Fire

and Invasive Species

Assessment described

in AppendixF.

Action E-FFM 12:

TMA-3.9: Utilize

the interagency Fire

Planning Assessment

system to optimize

utilization of fire

suppression resources

(e.g. engines, aircraft,

water tenders, and hand

crews). Fire Program

Analysis enables local

and national planners to

evaluate the effectiveness

of alternative fire

management strategies

for the purpose of

meeting fire and land

management goals and

objectives.

Action F-FFM 12:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
163 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-FFM 13:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 13:— Action C-FFM 13:— Action D-FFM 13: In

post-fire rehabilitation

plans within PPMAs

and PGMAs, design

re-vegetation projects

to (1) maintain and

enhance unburned intact

sagebrush communities

when at risk from

adjacent threats; (2)

stabilize soils; (3)

re-establish hydrologic

function; (4) maintain

and enhance biological

integrity; (5) promote

plant resiliency; (6) limit

expansion or dominance

or invasive species; and

(7) reestablish native

species.

Action E-FFM 13:

TMA-4.4: Continue

identifying and obtaining

funding opportunities

from Federal, State,

local, industry and

land users dedicated to

implementing prioritized

habitat enhancement,

restoration, and

conservation activities.

Action F-FFM 13:—

Action A-FFM 14:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 14:— Action C-FFM 14:— Action D-FFM 14: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

use native plant

seeds for post-fire

restoration, based on

availability, adaptation

(site potential), and

probability of success.

Where probability of

success or native seed

availability is low,

nonnative seeds may

be used as long as they

meet GRSG habitat

objectives (see Table

2-6). In all cases,

seed must be certified

weed-free.

Action E-FFM 14:

TMA-4.2: Continue

the expansion of, and

improvements to, the

Nevada Division of

Forestry Seedbank&

Plant Material program

in conjunction with

Federal partners. Utilize

Nevada Division of

Forestry conservation

camp crews for native

seed collection and

rehabilitation activities.

Improve storage

capabilities for native

seed and desirable

species that providea

competitive advantage

over invasive species

and improve storage

Action F-FFM 14:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
164 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

capabilities to promote

longevity of available

seed.

Action A-FFM 15:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 15:— Action: C-FFM 15— Action D-FFM 15:— Action E-FFM 15:

Following fires continue

the expansion and

implementation of

sagebrush enhancement

and restoration

treatments consistent

with GRSG management

objectives in appropriate

ecological sites.

Action F-FFM 15:—

Action A-FFM 16:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 16:— Action C-FFM 16:— Action D-FFM 16: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

following post-fire

restoration treatments,

monitor and implement

management actions

as necessary to ensure

long term persistence

of seeded or pre-burn

native plants.

Action E-FFM 16:

TMA-4.5: Continue

to focus research and

monitoring efforts

through demonstration

projects on improving

rehabilitation and

revegetation successes in

harsh environments.

Action F-FFM 16:—

Action A-FFM 17:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 17:— Action C-FFM 17:— Action D-FFM 17:

Within PPMAs and

PGMAs, ensure that

post-fire effectiveness

monitoring continues

until treatment

objectives are met.

Action E-FFM 17:

TMA-1.1: Utilize the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team to

collect and consolidate

funding and develop

common criteria and

requirements for habitat

protection, restoration

and monitoring.

Action F-FFM 17:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
165 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-FFM 18:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 18:— Action C-FFM 18:— Action D-FFM 18:

Increase post-fire

restoration activities

within PPMAs and

PGMAs through the use

of integrated funding

opportunities with other

resource programs and

partners.

Action E-FFM 18:

TMA-1.1: Utilize the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team to

collect and consolidate

funding and develop

common criteria and

requirements for habitat

protection, restoration

and monitoring.

Action F-FFM 18:—

Action A-FFM 19:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 19:— Action C-FFM 19:— Action D-FFM 19:

BLM and Forest

Service planning units

(Districts and Forests),

in coordination with the

USFWS and relevant

state agencies, would

complete and continue

to update GRSG

Landscape Wildfire

and Invasive Species

Habitat Assessments

to prioritize at risk

habitats, and identify

fuels management,

preparedness,

suppression and

restoration priorities

necessary to maintain

sagebrush habitat to

support interconnecting

GRSG populations.

These assessments and

subsequent assessment

updates would also bea

coordinated effort with

an interdisciplinary

team to take into

Action E-FFM 19:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

team.

Action F-FFM 19:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
166 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

account other GRSG

priorities identified in

this plan. Appendix

F describes a minimal

framework example and

suggested approach for

this assessment.

Action A-FFM 20:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM 20: — Action C-FFM 20: — Action D-FFM 20:

PGMA near where

PPMA has been burned

by wildfire will be

managed as PPMA

until the burned GRSG

habitat and use has

been restored. The

location and amount of

PGMA to be managed

as PPMA will be

determined by the BLM

or Forest Service and the

respective state wildlife

agency; in Nevada it will

be determined by the

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team,

based on site-specific

evaluations.

Action E-FFM 20: — Action F-FFM 20: —

Hazardous Fuels

Management

Action A-FFM-HFM

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

1: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 1:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

1: Implement the RDFs

identified in Appendix

A.

Action E-FFM-HFM 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

team.

Action F-FFM-HFM 1: —

Action A-FFM-HFM

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

2: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 2:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM 2:

—

Action E-FFM-HFM 2:

Limit the use of fire as

a management tool in

Wyoming Big Sagebrush

and Black Sagebrush

plant communities.

Action F-FFM-HFM 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
167 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

3: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

3: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 3:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

3: Utilizing an

interdisciplinary

approach, a full range

of fuel reduction

techniques will be

available. Fuel

reduction techniques

such as grazing,

prescribed fire,

chemical, biological and

mechanical treatments

are acceptable.

Action E-FFM-HFM 3:

TMA-2.5: Continue to

identify State and County

highway/road and utility

ROWs for fuel breaks;

replacing invasive, fire

prone species with fire

resistant species and

performing other fuels

reduction treatments.

Action F-FFM-HFM 3: —

Action A-FFM-HFM

4: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

4: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 4:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM 4:

Identify opportunities

for prescribed fire;

including where

prescribed fire has

been identified as the

most appropriate tool to

meet fuels management

objectives and GRSG

conservation objectives,

and the potential

expansion or dominance

of invasive species has

been determined to be

minimal through an

invasive species risk

determination for the

treatment project (see

BLM Manual Section

9015).

Action E-FFM-HFM 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

team.

Action F-FFM-HFM 4: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
168 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

5: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

5: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 5:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

5: Upon project

completion, monitor

and manage fuels

projects to ensure

long-term success,

including persistence

of seeded species

and/or other treatment

components. Control

invasive vegetation

post-treatment.

Action E-FFM-HFM 5:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

team.

Action F-FFM-HFM 5: —

Action A-FFM-HFM

6: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

6: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 6:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

6: Apply seasonal

restriction, as needed,

for implementing fuels

management treatments

according to the type of

seasonal habitat present.

Action E-FFM-HFM 6:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

team.

Action F-FFM-HFM 6: —

Action A-FFM-HFM

7: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

7: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 7:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM 7:

—

Action E-FFM-HFM 7:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

team.

Action F-FFM-HFM 7: —

Action A-FFM-HFM

8: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

8: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 8:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

8: In coordination with

FWS and relevant state

agencies, BLM/Forest

Service planning units

(Districts/Forests)

will identify annual

treatment needs for

wildfire and invasive

species management

as identified in

local unit level

Landscape Wildfire

and Invasive Species

Assessments. Annual

treatment needs will

be coordinated across

Action E-FFM-HFM 8:

TMA-1.7: Continue

the expansion and

implementation of

proactive solutions

that are market-based,

flexible, and take

advantage of economies

of scale. An example

is the “good of the

state” contract for fire

fuels reduction services

initiated by the State

Purchasing Division in

November 2007 that

facilitates the contracting

for forest management

Action F-FFM-HFM 8: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
169 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

state/regional scales and

across jurisdictional

boundaries for

long-term conservation

of GRSG.

hand crew services,

forestry equipment,

hauling services,

road construction and

rehabilitation, and

controlled fire burns.

Agencies within the

state use these services

including the Nevada

Division of Forestry and

the Tahoe Resource Team

to meet fuel reduction

objectives

TMA-2.4: Continue

to supporta business

environment that

incentivizes beneficial

uses of biomass and

excess fuels (e.g.

stewardship contracting

and landscape-level

long-term projects).

TMA-2.7: Continue to

utilize Nevada Division

of Forestry conservation

camp crews for fuels

reduction project

implementation and

as federal grant match

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
170 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

9: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

9: In PPMAs, design

and implement fuels

treatments with

an emphasis on

protecting existing

sagebrush ecosystems.

● Do not reduce

sagebrush canopy

cover to less than

15% (Connelly

et al. 2000a;

Hagen et al.

2007) unless a

fuels management

objective requires

additional

reduction in

sagebrush cover

to meet strategic

protection of

PPMAs and

conserve habitat

quality for the

species. Closely

evaluate the

benefits of the

fuel break against

the additional loss

of sagebrush cover

in future NEPA

documents.

● Apply appropriate

seasonal

restrictions for

implementing

fuels management

treatments

according to the

Action C-FFM-HFM 9:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM 9:

Implementation actions

will be tiered to the

Local (District/Forest)

GRSG Landscape

Wildfire & Invasive

Species Assessment

described in GEN-1,

utilizing best available

science related to the

conservation of GRSG.

Action E-FFM-HFM

9: TMA-2.6: Continue

to identify and utilize

all cross-boundary

authorities available

to improve project

coordination and

implementation on the

ground.

Action F-FFM-HFM 9:

Design and implement

fuels treatments with an

emphasis on protecting

existing sagebrush

ecosystems.

● Do not reduce

sagebrush canopy

cover to less than

15% (Connelly et al.

2000a; Hagen et al.

2007) unless a fuels

management objective

requires additional

reduction in sagebrush

cover to meet strategic

protection of occupied

GRSG habitat and

conserve habitat quality

for the species.

● Closely evaluate the

benefits of the fuel

break against the

additional loss of

sagebrush cover in the

EA process.

● Apply appropriate

seasonal restrictions

for implementing fuels

management treatments

according to the type

of seasonal habitats

present.

● Allow no fuels

treatments in known

winter range unless the

treatments are designed

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
171 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

type of seasonal

habitats present in a priority area.

● Allow no fuels

treatments in

known winter

range unless

the treatments

are designed

to strategically

reduce wildfire

risk around or in

the winter range

and will maintain

winter range

habitat quality.

● Do not use fire to

treat sagebrush in

less than 12-inch

precipitation zones

(e.g., Wyoming

big sagebrush

or other xeric

sagebrush species;

Connelly et al.

2000a; Hagen et

al. 2007; Beck

et al. 2009).

However, if asa

last resort and after

all other treatment

opportunities have

been explored

and site specific

variables allow,

the use of

prescribed fire

for fuel breaks that

would disrupt the

fuel continuity

to strategically reduce

wildfire risk around or

in the winter range and

will maintain winter

range habitat quality.

● Do not use fire to treat

sagebrush in less than

12-inch precipitation

zones (e.g., Wyoming

big sagebrush or

other xeric sagebrush

species; Connelly et

al. 2000a; Hagen et

al. 2007; Beck et al.

2009). However, if

asa last resort and

after all other treatment

opportunities have

been explored and site

specific variables allow,

the use of prescribed

fire for fuel breaks that

would disrupt the fuel

continuity across the

landscape could be

considered, in stands

where cheatgrass isa

very minor component

in the understory

(Brown 1982).

● Design post fuels

management projects

to ensure long term

persistence of seeded or

pre-treatment native

plants, including

sagebrush. This may

require temporary or

long-term changes

in livestock grazing

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
172 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

across the

landscape could

be considered,

in stands where

cheatgrass is a very minor

component in the

understory (Brown

1982).

● Monitor and

control invasive

vegetation

post-treatment.

● Rest treated areas

from grazing

for two full

growing seasons

unless vegetation

recovery dictates

otherwise (WGFD

2011).

● Require use of

native seeds for

fuels management

treatment based

on availability,

adaptation (site

potential), and

probability of

success (Richards

et al. 1998).

Where probability

of success or

native seed

availability is low,

nonnative seeds

may be used as

long as they meet

GRSG habitat

management, wild

horse and burro

management, travel

management, or other

activities to achieve

and maintain the

desired condition of

the fuels management

project (Eiswerth and

Shonkwiler 2006).

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
173 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

objectives (Pyke

2011).

● Design post fuels

management

projects to

ensure long

term persistence

of seeded or

pre-treatment

native plants.

This may require

temporary

or long-term

changes in

livestock grazing

management, wild

horse and burro

management,

travel

management, or

other activities

to achieve and

maintain the

desired condition

of the fuels

management

project (Eiswerth

and Shonkwiler

2006).

Action A-FFM-HFM

10: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

10: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 10:

Lands will be managed to

be in the good or better

ecological condition to

help minimize adverse

impacts of fire.

Action D-FFM-HFM

10: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 10:

—

Action F-FFM-HFM 10:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
174 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

11: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

11: —

Action C-FFM-HFM

11: Any fuels treatments

will focus on interfaces

with human habitation

or significant existing

disturbances.

Action D-FFM-HFM

11: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 11:

—

Action F-FFM-HFM 11:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

12: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

12: Design fuels

management projects

in PPMAs to

strategically and

effectively reduce

wildfire threats in

the greatest area.

This may require

fuels treatments

implemented in a more

linear versus block

design (Launchbaugh

et al. 2007).

Action C-FFM-HFM 12:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM

12: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

12: TMA-2.9: Review

current processes and,

if necessary, the Federal

agencies should obtain

authority and expedite

the process to implement

vegetative treatments for

fuels reduction projects

in strategic areas for

protection of sagebrush

habitat

Action F-FFM-HFM 12:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

13: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

13: During fuels

management project

design, consider

the utility of

using livestock to

strategically reduce

fine fuels (Diamond

et al. 2009), and

implement grazing

management that

will accomplish this

objective (Davies et al.

2011; Launchbaugh

et al. 2007). Consult

with ecologists to

minimize impacts

on native perennial

grasses.

Action C-FFM-HFM 13:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM

13: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

13: TMA-2.10: Review

current processes and,

if necessary, develop

authorities and expedite

the process to utilize

a suite of active

vegetative treatments

(e.g. mechanical,

targeted livestock

grazing, prescribed

fire, and chemical) to

reduce weed invasion

and maintain resilient

post-fire landscapes

and control excessive

fuel loading throughout

SGMAs and constructed

fuel breaks.

Action F-FFM-HFM 13:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
175 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

14: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

14: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 14:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

14: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 14:

Manage wildland fires

in SGMAs to reduce

the number of wildfires

that escape initial attack

and become greater than

300 acres down to two

to three percent of all

wildfire ignitions over

a ten year period. In

this context, fire should

not be used in Phase III

Pinyon-Juniper areas due

to a lack of a sufficient

sagebrush seed stock in

the ground.

Action F-FFM-HFM 14:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

15: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

15: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 15:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

15: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 15:

Identify and develop

suppression plans,

including mapping of

SGMAs, to improve

initial attack suppression

actions.

Action F-FFM-HFM 15:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

16: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

16: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 16:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

16: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

16: Increase initial

attack capability by

training and equipping

volunteer firefighters,

as well as agricultural

and other industry work

forces for assignment

during periods of high

fire activity. Trained

volunteers who are

remotely located will

serve as first responders

when necessary and

appropriate.

Action F-FFM-HFM 16:

Chapter

—

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
176 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

17: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

17: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 17:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

17: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 17:

Integrate suppression

resource locations within

SGMAs and pre-position

resources as conditions

dictate.

Action F-FFM-HFM 17:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

18: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

18: In PPMAs,

prioritize suppression,

immediately after

life and property, to

conserve the habitat.

Action C-FFM-HFM 18:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM

18: Fire fighter

and public safety

are the highest

priority. GRSG habitat

will be prioritized

commensurate with

property values and

other critical habitat to

be protected, with the

goal to restore, enhance,

and maintain areas

suitable for GRSG.

Action E-FFM-HFM

18: TMA-3: Manage

wildland fires in SGMAs

to reduce the number

of wildfires that escape

initial attack and become

greater than 300 acres

down to two to three

percent of all wildfire

ignitions over a ten year

period. In this context,

fire should not be used in

Phase III Pinyon-Juniper

areas due to a lack of a

sufficient sagebrush seed

stock in the ground.

Action F-FFM-HFM 18:

Same as Alternative B.

Action A-FFM-HFM

19: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

19: In PGMAs,

prioritize suppression

where wildfires

threaten PPMAs.

Action C-FFM-HFM 19:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM

19: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

19: TMA-3: Manage

wildland fires in SGMAs

to reduce the number

of wildfires that escape

initial attack and become

greater than 300 acres

down to two to three

percent of all wildfire

ignitions over a ten year

period. In this context,

fire should not be used in

Phase III Pinyon-Juniper

areas due to a lack of a

sufficient sagebrush seed

stock in the ground.

Action F-FFM-HFM 19:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
177 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

20: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

20: Follow BMPs

(WO IM 2013-128).

Action C-FFM-HFM 20:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM

20: Implement the

RDFs identified in

Appendix A.

Action E-FFM-HFM

20: TMA-5: Through

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

utilizing the “avoid,

minimize and mitigate”

strategy, and with the

goal of restoring the

appropriate role of

wildfire, the following

successful Nevada

Division of Forestry

programs that are a

benefit to GRSG will

continue:

TMA-5.1: Continue

statewide resource

programs, including:

● Native seed

collection, cleaning,

bagging, storage, and

application with quad

seeders and seed

drills.

● Private landowner

technical

assistance, project

implementation and

cost share grants

for Pinyon-Juniper

removal (Forest

Health) in

sagebrush habitats;

fuels reduction;

green stripping;

prescribed fire;

and related habitat

improvements on

nonfederal lands.

Action F-FFM-HFM 20:

Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
178 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Federal and State

land project

implementation

through contracts for

numerous vegetation

improvement

projects, water

developments,

timber stand

improvements, fuels

reduction, green

stripping, etc.

TMA-5.2: Continue

statewide fire programs,

including: ● Fuels reduction

planning, technical

assistance, cost share

grants and project

implementation on

state and private

lands as well as

assisting federal

agency projects.

● The Nevada Division

of Forestry Wildland

Fire Program to

improve wildfire

management

in participating

counties through

strengthened initial

attack, landowner

education, improved

coordination

with federal land

managers, and fuels

reduction.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
179 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

TMA-5.3: Continue

the Nevada Division of

Forestry Conservation

Camp Program that:

Provides a trained

statewide labor force

that can be utilized

for numerous GRSG

mitigation activities

and for wildland fire

suppression (State of

Nevada 2004).

Action A-FFM-HFM

21: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

21: Prioritize native

seed allocation

for use in GRSG

habitat in years when

preferred native seed

is in short supply.

This may require

reallocation of native

seed from Emergency

Stabilization and

Rehabilitation (ESR)

(BLM) and/or Burn

Area Emergency

Rehabilitation (Forest

Service) projects

outside of PPMAs

to those inside it.

Use of native plant

seeds for ESR or Burn

Area Emergency

Rehabilitation

seedings is required

based on availability,

adaptation (site

potential), and

probability of success

Action C-FFM-HFM

21: Livestock and other

disturbed areas will be

seeded with local native

ecotypes of shrubs,

grasses and forbs.

Action D-FFM-HFM

21: In PPMAs

and PGMAs, give

preference to use

of native seeds for

restoration based

on availability,

adaptation (ecological

site potential), and

probability of success.

Where probability of

success or adapted

seed availability is low,

nonnative seeds may

be used as long as they

support GRSG habitat

objectives. Choose

native plant species

outlined in ESDs (Forest

Service may use a

similar process), where

available, to re-vegetate

sites. If the commercial

supply of appropriate

native seed/plants is

limited, work with

the BLM Native Plant

Action E-FFM-HFM

21: TMA-4.2: Continue

the expansion of, and

improvements to, the

Nevada Division of

Forestry Seedbank &

Plant Material program

in conjunction with

Federal partners. Utilize

Nevada Division of

Forestry conservation

camp crews for native

seed collection and

rehabilitation activities.

Improve storage

capabilities for native

seed and desirable

species that provide a

competitive advantage

over invasive species

and improve storage

capabilities to promote

longevity of available

seed.

TMA-4.3: Continue

developing plans and

Action F-FFM-HFM 21:

Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
180 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

(Richards et al. 1998).

Where probability

of success or native

seed availability is

low, nonnative seeds

may be used as long

as they meet GRSG

habitat conservation

objectives

(Pyke 2011).

Re-establishment of

appropriate sagebrush

species/subspecies

and important

understory plants,

relative to site

potential, shall be

the highest priority for

rehabilitation efforts.

Materials Development

Program or NRCS

Plant Material Program

through your respective

State or Forest

Supervisor’s Office

Plant Conservation

Program Lead. If

currently available

supplies are limited,

use the materials that

provide the greatest

benefit for GRSG. In

all cases seed must be

certified weed-free.

acquiring the necessary

resources (e.g. seed

collection, seeding

equipment pools, and

trained staff) for post-fire

rehabilitation activities

and warehouse viable

seed stockpiles. (2012).

Action A-FFM-HFM

22: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

22: Design post

ESR and Burn

Area Emergency

Rehabilitation

management to

ensure long term

persistence of seeded

or pre-burn native

plants. This may

require temporary or

long-term changes in

livestock grazing, wild

horse and burro, and

travel management,

etc., to achieve and

maintain the desired

condition of ESR and

Burn Area Emergency

Rehabilitation

projects to benefit

Action C-FFM-HFM 22:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM

22: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

22: TMA-4.1:

Complete burn severity

assessments and identify

ecological site potential

in, and in proximity to,

SGMAs to identify the

areas with the highest

potential for restoration

of habitat functions

following fires. Focus

rehabilitation efforts

on areas of highest

potential success based

ecological site conditions

(soils, precipitation

zone, and geography).

Utilize revegetation seed

mixtures that include

native and adapted

plant seed that will

Action F-FFM-HFM 22:

Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
181 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

GRSG (Eiswerth and quickly stabilize soils,

Shonkwiler 2006). help to provide long

term hazardous fuels

reduction, and increase

ecosystem resiliency in

appropriate locations.

Action A-FFM-HFM

23: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

23: Consider potential

changes in climate

(Miller at al. 2011)

when proposing

post-fire seedings

using native plants.

Consider seed

collections from the

warmer component

within a species’

current range for

selection of native

seed. (Kramer and

Havens 2009).

Action C-FFM-HFM 23:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-FFM-HFM

23: Same as Alternative

A.

Action E-FFM-HFM 23:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFM-HFM 23:

Same as Alternative B.

Action A-FFM-HFM

24: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

24: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 24:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

24: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 24:

—

Action F-FFM-HFM 24:

Establish and strengthen

networks with seed growers

to assure availability

of native seed for ESR

projects.

Action A-FFM-HFM

25: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

25: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 25:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

25: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 25:

—

Action F-FFM-HFM

25: Post fire recovery

must include establishing

adequately sized exclosures

(free of livestock grazing)

that can be used to assess

recovery.

Action A-FFM-HFM

26: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

26: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 26:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

26: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 26:

—

Action F-FFM-HFM 26:

Livestock grazing should

be excluded from burned

areas until woody and

herbaceous plants achieve

GRSG habitat objectives.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
182 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

27: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

27: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 27:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

27: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 27:

—

Action F-FFM-HFM 27:

Where burned GRSG

habitat cannot be fenced

from other unburned

habitat, the entire area

(e.g., allotment/pasture)

should be closed to grazing

until recovered.

Action A-FFM-HFM

28: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

28: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 28:

Mowing of grass will be

used in any fuel break

fuels reduction project

(roadsides or other areas).

Action D-FFM-HFM

28: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 28:

—

Action F-FFM-HFM 28:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

29: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

29: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 29:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

29: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 29:

Protect, maintain and

improve sagebrush

habitat statewide

over time by treating,

rehabilitating and

restoring at least

as many acres of

Occupied/Suitable and

Potential Habitat as are

lost to wildfire.

Action F-FFM-HFM 29:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

30: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

30: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 30:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

30: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

30: Utilize the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team to

collect and consolidate

funding and develop

common criteria and

requirements for habitat

protection, restoration

and monitoring.

Action F-FFM-HFM 30:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
183 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

31: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

31: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 31:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

31: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

31: Support the

Nevada Division of

Forestry’s “Wildland Fire

Protection Program,” a

statewide comprehensive

wildfire management

program that engages all

interagency partners

(federal, state &

local), to reduce the

threats of catastrophic

wildfire, rapidly suppress

wildfires, and rehabilitate

lands damaged by

wildfire.

Action F-FFM-HFM 31:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

32: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

32: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 32:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

32: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 32:

Continue the expansion

and implementation

of proactive solutions

that are market-based,

flexible, and take

advantage of economies

of scale.

Action F-FFM-HFM 32:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

33: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

33: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 33:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

33: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

33: Continue successful

landscape level habitat

assessments in, and in

proximity to, SGMAs

to identify those habitat

areas that are at the

highest risk of wildland

fire.

Action F-FFM-HFM 33:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
184 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

34: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

34: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 34:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

34: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

34: Continue to

support a business

environment that

incentivizes beneficial

uses of biomass and

excess fuels (e.g.

stewardship, contracting,

and landscape-level

long-term projects).

Action F-FFM-HFM 34:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

35: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

35: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 35:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

35: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 35:

Continue to identify and

utilize all cross-boundary

authorities available

to improve project

coordination and

implementation on the

ground.

Action F-FFM-HFM 35:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

36: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

36: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 36:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

36: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

36: Continue to utilize

Nevada Division of

Forestry conservation

camp crews for fuels

reduction project

implementation and

as federal grant match.

Action F-FFM-HFM 36:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

37: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

37: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 37:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

37: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 37:

Continue to successfully

treat existing areas of

invasive vegetative

that pose a threat to

SGMAs through the

use of herbicides,

fungicides or bacteria

to control cheatgrass and

medusahead infestations.

Action F-FFM-HFM 37:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
185 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

38: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

38: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 38:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

38: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 38:

Update Fire Management

Plans, dispatch run cards,

and relevant agreements

to ensure “closest forces”

concepts are being

utilized at all times,

particularly nonfederal

suppression resources

(e.g. Nevada Division

of Forestry helicopters,

crews, and volunteer fire

departments).

Action F-FFM-HFM 38:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

39: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

39: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 39:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

39: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

39: Establish and utilize

IMTs for wildfires in

SGMAs.

Action F-FFM-HFM 39:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

40: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

40: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 40:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

40: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

40: Develop a

“suitcase” interagency

suppression task force

for pre-positioning

during high wildfire

hazard periods. Activate

up to three interagency

"suitcase" task forces and

pre-position them during

Red Flag and predicted

lightning events in

SGMAs for initial attack

response.

Action F-FFM-HFM 40:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

41: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

41: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 41:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

41: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

41: Within SGMAs,

eliminate the tactic of

“burning out,” including

backfiring unless there

are direct life safety

threats.

Action F-FFM-HFM 41:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
186 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

42: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

42: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 42:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

42: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

42: Designate Occupied

and Suitable Habitat

in SGMAs as a “high

priority value” for

suppression resource

allocation in the

Geographical Area

Coordination Centers

and within the FEMA

Fire Management

Assistance Grant criteria.

Action F-FFM-HFM 42:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

43: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

43: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 43:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

43: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

43: Utilize the

interagency Fire

Planning Assessment

system to optimize

utilization of fire

suppression resources

(e.g. engines, aircraft,

water tenders, and hand

crews). Fire Program

Analysis enables local

and national planners to

evaluate the effectiveness

of alternative fire

management strategies

for the purpose of

meeting fire and land

management goals and

objectives

Action F-FFM-HFM 43:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

44: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

44: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 44:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

44: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

44: Encourage use of

the State's Air National

Guard C-130 Unit with

the Modular Airborne

Firefighting System

(MAFFS) for aerial

firefighting support.

Action F-FFM-HFM 44:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
187 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

45: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

45: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 45:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

45: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

45: Increase the fleet

of available heavy air

tankers and develop a

system for prioritizing

their use to fight fires

when needed.

Action F-FFM-HFM 45:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

46: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

46: —

Action C-FFM-HFM

46—

Action D-FFM-HFM

46: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

46: Eliminate policy

and operational

inconsistencies by

returning jurisdiction

over Nevada BLM

lands that are currently

managed by the

California Surprise

Field Office, placing

that jurisdiction into

the Carson City and

Winnemucca Field

Offices.

Action F-FFM-HFM 46:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

47: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

47: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 47:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

47: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

47: Develop a specific

and concise package

of information on

SGMAs for incoming

IMTs to ensure an

understanding of Nevada

conservation priorities

that will be included in all

Delegations of Authority

and Fire Management

Plans.

Action F-FFM-HFM 47:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

48: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

48: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 48:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

48: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

48: Assign a local,

trained resource advisor

with GRSG expertise

on all fire suppression

responses in SGMAs.

Action F-FFM-HFM 48:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
188 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

49: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

49: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 49:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

49: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

49: Carefully review

and evaluate all

burned areas within

SGMAs in a timely

manner to ascertain the

reclamation potential for

reestablishing GRSG

habitat, enhancing

ecosystem resiliency,

and controlling invasive

weed species.

Action F-FFM-HFM 49:

—

Action AFFM-HFM

50: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

50: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 50:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

50: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 50:

Complete burn severity

assessments and identify

ecological site potential

in, and in proximity to,

SGMAs to identify the

areas with the highest

potential for restoration

of habitat functions

following fires. Focus

rehabilitation efforts

on areas of highest

potential success based

ecological site conditions

(soils, precipitation

zone, and geography).

Utilize revegetation seed

mixtures that include

native and adapted

plant seed that will

quickly stabilize soils,

help to provide long

term hazardous fuels

reduction, and increase

ecosystem resiliency in

appropriate locations.

Action F-FFM-HFM 50:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
189 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

51: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

51: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 51:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

51: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 51:

Continue the expansion

of, and improvements to,

the Nevada Division of

Forestry Seed Bank &

Plant Material program

in conjunction with

Federal partners. Utilize

Nevada Division of

Forestry conservation

camp crews for native

seed collection and

rehabilitation activities.

Improve storage

capabilities for native

seed and desirable

species that provide a

competitive advantage

over invasive species

and improve storage

capabilities to promote

longevity of available

seed.

Action F-FFM-HFM 51:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

52: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

52: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 52:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

52: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

52: Continue developing

plans and acquiring the

necessary resources (e.g.

seed collection, seeding

equipment pools, and

trained staff) for post fire

rehabilitation activities

and warehouse viable

seed stockpiles.

Action F-FFM-HFM 52:

Chapter

—

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
190 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

53: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

53: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 53:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

53: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

53: Continue identifying

and obtaining funding

opportunities from

federal, state, local,

industry and land

users dedicated to

implementing prioritized

habitat enhancement,

restoration, and

conservation activities.

Action F-FFM-HFM 53:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

54: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

54: —

Action CFFM-HFM 54:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

54: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

54: Continue to

focus research and

monitoring efforts

through demonstration

projects on improving

rehabilitation and

revegetation successes in

harsh environments.

Action F-FFM-HFM 54:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

55: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

55: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 55:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

55: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

55: Continue statewide

resource programs,

including:

● Native seed

collection, cleaning,

bagging, storage, and

application with quad

seeders and seed

drills.

● Private landowner

technical

assistance, project

implementation and

cost share grants

for Pinyon-Juniper

removal (Forest

Health) in

sagebrush habitats;

Action F-FFM-HFM 55:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
191 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

fuels reduction;

green stripping;

prescribed fire;

and related habitat

improvements on

nonfederal lands.

● Federal and State

land project

implementation

through contracts for

numerous vegetation

improvement

projects, water

developments,

timber stand

improvements, fuels

reduction, green

stripping, etc.

Action A-FFM-HFM

56: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

56: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 56:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

56: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 56:

Continue statewide fire

programs, including:

● Fuels reduction

planning, technical

assistance, cost share

grants and project

implementation on

state and private

lands as well as

assisting federal

agency projects.

● The Nevada Division

of Forestry Wildland

Fire Program to

improve wildfire

management

in participating

counties through

strengthened initial

attack, landowner

Action F-FFM-HFM 56:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
192 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

education, improved

coordination

with federal land

managers, and fuels

reduction.

Action A-FFM-HFM

57: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

57: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 57:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

57: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 57:

Continue the Nevada

Division of Forestry

Conservation Camp

Program.

Action F-FFM-HFM 57:

—

Action A-FFM-HFM

58: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

58: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 58:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

58: —

Action E-FFM-HFM 58:

Continue the following

statewide resource

programs:

● Nevada Department

of Agriculture, per

Nevada Revised

Statute, is charged

with enforcing

regulation that

require landowners

to remove and or

control invasive,

noxious plants

species that would

otherwise alter

habitat.

● Biological control

program that

obtains, releases, and

monitors a variety of

agents (invertebrates

& fungi) which have

been approved by

USDA-APHIS, to

control specific

noxious weeds to

restore and retain

natural habitat.

Action F-FFM-HFM 58:

—

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
193 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

● Seed lot inspections

are conducted to

ensure the viability of

seed and the absence

of invasive, noxious

plant species for

rangeland restoration

projects conducted

by the BLM, Forest

Service, and other

local agencies,

governments and

groups.

● Pesticide applicator

education, training,

and licensing to

ensure that pesticide

applications are

conducted properly

on and around

habitat.

Action A-FFM-HFM

59: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

59: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 59:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

59: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

59: Continue Nevada

Department of

Agriculture statewide

surveys for the detection

of incipient invasive

and noxious plants in

conjunction with United

States Department of

Agriculture Animal

and Plant Health

Inspection Service

(USDA-APHIS) and

the Nevada Department

of Transportation.

Action F-FFM-HFM 59:

Chapter

—

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
194 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFM-HFM

60: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-HFM

60: —

Action C-FFM-HFM 60:

—

Action D-FFM-HFM

60: —

Action E-FFM-HFM

60: Continue statewide

Weed Seed Free Forage

and Gravel Certification

Program.

Action F-FFM-HFM 60:

—

Climate Change

Action A-FFM-CC 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-CC 1:

—

Action C-FFM-CC 1: — Action D-FFM-CC 1:

Work cooperatively

with multiple agencies

and stakeholders to

establish and maintain

a network of climate

monitoring sites and

stations.

Action E-FFM-CC 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFM-CC 1: —

Action A-FFM-CC 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFM-CC 2:

—

Action C-FFM-CC 2: — Action D-FFM-CC

2: As climate change

data become available

through REAs or other

ecological studies,

identify areas of

unfragmented GRSG

habitat and key habitat

linkages that provide

the life-cycle and

genetic transfer needs

for GRSG. Manage

the identified areas as

PPMAs.

Action E-FFM-CC 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFM-CC 2: —

Livestock Grazing

Action A-LG 1: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 1: — Action C-LG 1: No

grazing will be allowed

in PPMAs. Livestock

grazing will be phased

out over a period of three

years, in accordance

with grazing regulations

4110.4-2.

Action D-LG 1: — Action E-LG 1: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LG 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
195 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LG 2: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 2:

Within PPMAs,

incorporate GRSG

habitat objectives

and management

considerations into all

BLM and Forest

Service grazing

allotments through

AMPs or permit

renewals and/or

Forest Service

Annual Operating

Instructions.

Action C-LG 2:— Action D-LG 2:

Within PPMAs and

PGMAs containing

GRSG nesting habitat,

implement the following

management actions, if

not meeting GRSG

habitat objectives: ● Provide periods of

rest or deferment

during critical

herbaceous growth

period

● Limit grazing

duration to allow

plant growth

sufficient to meet

GRSG habitat

objectives(see Table

2-6)

● Employ herd

management

techniques to

minimize impacts of

livestock on nesting

habitat during the

nesting season

(March1– June

30).

Action E-LG 2:

Implement appropriate

prescribed grazing

conservation actions

at scales sufficient to

influencea positive

population response in

occupied and suitable

GRSG habitat, such

as NRCS conservation

Practice Standard 528

for prescribed grazing

(NRCS 2011).

Action F-LG 2: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
196 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LG 3: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 3: In

priority habitat, work

cooperatively on

integrated ranch

planning within

GRSG habitat so

operations with

deeded/BLM and/or

Forest Service

allotments can be

planned as single

units.

Action C-LG 3: — Action D-LG 3: — Action E-LG 3: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LG 3: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LG 4: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 4:

Prioritize completion

of land health

assessments (Forest

Service may use

other analyses) and

processing grazing

permits within

PPMAs. Focus this

process on allotments

that have the best

opportunities for

conserving, enhancing

or restoring habitat

for GRSG. Utilize

BLM Ecological Site

Descriptions (ESDs)

(Forest Service may

use other methods)

to conduct land

health assessments to

determine if standards

of range-land health

are being met.

Action C-LG 4: — Action D-LG 4:

Continue land health

assessments on

BLM public lands

or other monitoring

methods on Forest

Service-administered

lands in PPMAs and

PGMAs to evaluate

current conditions as

compared to GRSG

habitat objectives

described in Table 2-6.

Incorporate the results

of BLM and Forest

Service monitoring and

land health assessments

into future management

applications to ensure

progress toward

meeting GRSG habitat

objectives.

Action E-LG 4:

TMA-13: On

BLM- and Forest

Service-administered

lands, meet the standards

for riparian vegetation

such as outlined in the

various RAC S&G for

Ecological Health to

meet the GRSG habitat

requirements.

Action F-LG 4: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
197 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LG-5: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG-5: In

PPMAs, conduct land

health assessments

that include (ata

minimum) indicators

and measurements of

structure/condition/

composition of

vegetation specific

to achieving GRSG

habitat objectives

(Doherty et al. 2011).

If local/state seasonal

habitat objectives

are not available,

use GRSG habitat

recommendations

from Connelly et al.

2000b and Hagen et

al. 2007.

Action C-LG 5:— Action D-LG 5:— Action E-LG 5: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LG 5: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LG 6: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 6:

Develop specific

objectives to conserve,

enhance or restore

PPMAs based on

BLM ESDs (Forest

Service may use

other methods)

and assessments

(including within

wetlands and riparian

areas). If an effective

grazing system that

meets GRSG habitat

requirements is not

already in place,

analyze at least

one alternative that

conserves, restores

or enhances GRSG

habitat in the NEPA

Action C-LG 6:— Action D-LG 6:— Action E-LG 6: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LG 6:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
198 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

document prepared

for the permit renewal

(Doherty et al. 2011;

Williams et al. 2011).

Action A-LG 7: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 7: In

PPMAs, manage

for vegetation

composition and

structure consistent

with ecological site

potential and within

the reference state

to achieve GRSG

seasonal habitat

objectives.

Action C-LG 7:— Action D-LG 7:— Action E-LG 7: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LG 7: Manage for

vegetation composition and

structure consistent with

ecological site potential

and within the reference

state to achieve GRSG

habitat objectives.

Action A-LG 8: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG

8: Implement

management actions

(grazing decisions,

Annual Operating

Instructions [Forest

Service only],

AMP/Conservation

Plan development,

or other agreements)

to modify grazing

management to meet

seasonal GRSG

habitat requirements

(Connelly et al. 2011).

Consider singly, or in

combination, changes

in:

1. Season or timing

of use;

2. Numbers

of livestock

(includes

temporary

Action C-LG 8:— Action D-LG 8:— Action E-LG 8:

TMA-12: Ensure

that existing grazing

permits maintain or

enhance SGMAs.

Utilize livestock grazing

when appropriate as a management tool to

improve GRSG habitat

quantity, quality or

to reduce wildfire

threats. Based on a comprehensive

understanding of

seasonal GRSG habitat

requirements, and

in conjunction with

flexibility of livestock

operators, encourage

land management

agencies to cooperatively

make timely, seasonal

range management

decisions to respond to

vegetation management

Action F-LG 8: Implement

management actions

(grazing decisions,

AMP/Conservation Plan

Development, or other

plans or agreements)

to modify grazing

management to meet

seasonal GRSG habitat

requirements (Connelly et

al. 2011). Consider singly,

or in combination, changes

in:

1. Season, timing,

and/or frequency

of livestock use

2. Numbers/AUMs of

livestock (includes

temporary non-use or

livestock removal)

3. Distribution of

livestock use

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
199 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

nonuse or

livestock

removal);

3. Distribution of

livestock use;

4. Intensity of use;

and

5. Type of livestock

(e.g., cattle,

sheep, horses,

llamas, alpacas

and goats;

Briske et al.

2011).

objectives, including

fuels reduction. 4. Intensity of livestock

use

5. Type of livestock

(e.g., cattle, sheep,

horses, llamas,

alpacas and goats;

Briske et al. 2011).

Action A-LG 9: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 9:

During drought

periods, prioritize

evaluating effects

of the drought in

PPMAs relative to

their needs for food

and cover. Since there

isa lag in vegetation

recovery following

drought (Thurow and

Taylor 1999; Cagney

et al. 2010), ensure

that post-drought

management allows

for vegetation

recovery that meets

GRSG needs in

PPMAs.

Action C-LG 9:— Action D-LG 9:— Action E-LG 9: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LG 9: During

drought periods, prioritize

evaluating effects of

drought in GRSG habitat

areas relative to their

biological needs, as

well as drought effects

on ungrazed reference

areas. Since there isa

lag in vegetation recovery

following drought (Thurow

and Taylor 1999; Cagney

et al. 2010), ensure that

post-drought management

allows for vegetation

recovery that meets GRSG

needs in GRSG habitat

areas based on GRSG

habitat objectives.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
200 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LG 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 10:

Manage riparian areas

and wet meadows for

proper functioning

condition or other

similar methodology

(Forest Service only)

within PPMAs.

Action C-LG 10: — Action D-LG 10:

Manage riparian areas

and wet meadows for

proper functioning

condition (Forest

Service may use other

analysis) within PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Action E-LG 10:

TMA-12.2: Grazing

management strategies

for riparian areas should,

at a minimum, maintain

or achieve riparian PFC.

Specific management

actions include riparian

fencing to provide

control of the season,

duration or degree of

herbivory, providing

alternate water sources

away from the riparian

area, changing the

grazing system, or other

grazing management

practices that promote

herbage removal within

acceptable limits.

Action F-LG 10: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LG 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 11:

Within PPMAs and

PGMAs, manage

wet meadows to

maintain a component

of perennial forbs

with diverse species

richness relative to

site potential (e.g.,

reference state)

to facilitate brood

rearing. Also conserve

or enhance these wet

meadow complexes to

maintain or increase

amount of edge and

cover within that edge

to minimize elevated

mortality during the

late brood rearing

period (Hagen et al.

Action C-LG 11: No

similar action

Action D-LG 11: No

similar action

Action E-LG 11: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 11: Within

GRSG habitats, manage

wet meadows to maintain

a component of perennial

forbs with diverse species

richness and productivity

relative to site potential

(e.g., reference state) to

facilitate brood rearing.

Also conserve or enhance

these wet meadow

complexes to maintain

or increase the amount of

edge and cover within that

edge to minimize elevated

mortality during the late

brood-rearing period

(Hagen et al. 2007; Kolada

et al. 2009; Atamian et al.

2010).

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
201 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

2007; Kolada et al.

2009a; Atamian et al.

2010).

Action A-LG 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 12:

Where riparian areas

and wet meadows

meet PFC or meet

standards using other

similar methodology

(Forest Service

only), strive to

attain reference state

vegetation relative

to the ecological site

description.

Action C-LG 12: — Action D-LG 12: — Action E-LG 12:

TMA-13: On

BLM- and Forest

Service-administered

lands, meet the standards

for riparian vegetation

such as outlined in the

various RAC S&G for

Ecological Health to

meet the GRSG habitat

requirements.

Action F-LG 12: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LG 13:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 13:

Within PPMAs,

reduce hot season

grazing on riparian

and meadow

complexes to

promote recovery

or maintenance

of appropriate

vegetation and water

quality. Utilize

fencing/herding

techniques or seasonal

use or livestock

distribution changes

to reduce pressure

on riparian or wet

meadow vegetation

used by GRSG

in the hot season

(summer) (Aldridge

and Brigham 2002;

Crawford et al. 2004;

Hagen et al. 2007).

Action C-LG 13: — Action D-LG 13: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

apply principles of

prescriptive livestock

grazing that control time

and timing of grazing so

that hot season use does

not occur on an annual

basis.

Action E-LG 13: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 13: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
202 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LG 14:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 14:

Authorize new

water development

for diversion from

spring or seep source

only when PPMAs

would benefit from

the development. This

includes developing

new water sources for

livestock as part of

an AMP/conservation

plan to improve GRSG

habitat.

Action C-LG 14: — Action D-LG 14:

Authorize new water

development for

diversion from spring

or seep source when

PPMAs and PGMAs

would benefit from the

development.

Action E-LG 14: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 14: Authorize

no new water developments

for diversion from spring or

seep sources within GRSG

habitat.

Action A-LG 15:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 15:

Analyze springs,

seeps and associated

pipelines to determine

if modifications are

necessary to maintain

the continuity of

the predevelopment

riparian area within

PPMAs. Make

modifications where

necessary, considering

impacts on other

water uses when such

considerations are

neutral or beneficial to

GRSG.

Action C-LG 15: — Action D-LG 15: — Action E-LG 15: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 15:

Analyze springs, seeps

and associated water

developments to determine

if modifications are

necessary to maintain

the continuity of the

predevelopment riparian

area within GRSG habitats.

Make modifications where

necessary, including

dismantling water

developments.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
203 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LG 16:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 16:

In PPMAs, only

allow treatments that

conserve, enhance

or restore GRSG

habitat (this includes

treatments that benefit

livestock as part of an

AMP/Conservation

Plan to improve

GRSG habitat).

Action C-LG 16: — Action D-LG 16: Unless

targeted grazing is the

preferred treatment,

livestock grazing would

not be authorized within

treatment areas during

implementation of

each treatment. Any

livestock grazing

closure for the purpose

of a vegetation treatment

would be done through

the grazing decision

prior to treatment.

Livestock grazing

would be authorized

to resume within

a treatment project

area after resource

monitoring data verifies

the treatment objectives

are being met and an

appropriate grazing

regime has been

developed.

Action E-LG 16:

TMA-12: Ensure

that existing grazing

permits maintain or

enhance SGMAs.

Utilize livestock grazing

when appropriate as

a management tool to

improve GRSG habitat

quantity, quality or

to reduce wildfire

threats. Based on

a comprehensive

understanding of

seasonal GRSG habitat

requirements, and

in conjunction with

flexibility of livestock

operators, encourage

land management

agencies to cooperatively

make timely, seasonal

range management

decisions to respond to

vegetation management

objectives, including

fuels reduction.

Action F-LG 16: Ensure

that vegetation treatments

create landscape patterns

which most benefit GRSG.

Only allow treatments

that are demonstrated to

benefit GRSG and retain

sagebrush height and cover

consistent with GRSG

habitat objectives (this

includes treatments that

benefit livestock as part of

an AMP/Conservation Plan

to improve GRSG habitat).

Action A-LG 17:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 17:

Evaluate the role

of existing seedings

that are currently

composed of primarily

introduced perennial

grasses in and

adjacent to PPMAs

to determine if they

should be restored to

sagebrush or habitat

of higher quality

for GRSG. If these

seedings are part of

Action C-LG 17: — Action D-LG 17: — Action E-LG 17: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 17: Evaluate

the role of existing seedings

that are currently composed

of primarily introduced

perennial grasses in

and adjacent to GRSG

habitat to determine if

they should be restored

to sagebrush or habitat of

higher quality for GRSG.

If these seedings provide

value in conserving or

enhancing GRSG habitats,

then no restoration would

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
204 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

an AMP/Conservation

Plan or if they provide

value in conserving

or enhancing the rest

of the PPMAs, then

no restoration would

be necessary. Assess

the compatibility of

these seedings for

GRSG habitat or

as a component of

a grazing system

during the land

health assessments

(or other analyses

[Forest Service only])

(Davies et al. 2011).

be necessary. Assess the

compatibility of these

seedings for GRSG habitat

during the land health

assessments.

Action A-LG 18:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 18:

In PPMAs, design

any new structural

range improvements

and location of

supplements (salt

or protein blocks) to

conserve, enhance,

or restore GRSG

habitat through an

improved grazing

management system

relative to GRSG

objectives. Structural

range improvements,

in this context, include

but are not limited

to: cattle guards,

fences, exclosures,

corrals or other

livestock handling

structures; pipelines,

troughs, storage

tanks (including

Action C-LG 18:

Livestock infrastructure,

including fences, spring

developments, pipelines,

stock ponds and other

harmful facilities will

be removed (active

restoration).

Action D-LG 18: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

assess and modify

as needed existing

structural range

developments to make

sure they conserve,

enhance, or restore

GRSG habitat.

Action E-LG 18: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 18: Avoid

all new structural range

developments in PPMAs

and PGMAs unless

independent peer-reviewed

studies show that the range

improvement structure

benefits GRSG. Structural

range developments, in this

context, include but are not

limited to cattle guards,

fences, exclosures, corrals

or other livestock handling

structures; pipelines,

troughs, storage tanks

(including moveable

tanks used in livestock

water hauling), windmills,

ponds/reservoirs, solar

panels and spring

developments. Potential

for invasive species

establishment or increase

following construction

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
205 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

moveable tanks used

in livestock water

hauling), windmills,

ponds/reservoirs,

solar panels and

spring developments.

Potential for invasive

species establishment

or increase following

construction must

be considered

in the project

planning process and

monitored and treated

post-construction.

must be considered in

the project planning

process and monitored and

treated post-construction.

Consider the comparative

cost of changing grazing

management instead of

constructing additional

range developments.

Action A-LG 19:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 19:

When developing

or modifying water

developments

in PPMAs, use

applicable BMPs (see

Appendix C of NTT

report) to mitigate

potential impacts from

West Nile virus (Clark

et al. 2006; Doherty

2007; Walker et al.

2007; Walker and

Naugle 2011).

Action C-LG 19: — Action D-LG 19:

Modify existing water

development projects

as needed or feasible to

ensure riparian habitats

in PPMAs and PGMAs

are being maintained or

improved.

Action E-LG 19: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 19: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
206 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LG 20:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 20: In

PPMAs, evaluate

existing structural

range improvements

and location of

supplements (salt

or protein blocks)

to make sure they

conserve, enhance or

restore GRSG habitat.

Action C-LG 20: — Action D-LG

20: Salting and

supplemental feeding

locations, livestock

watering and handling

facilities (corrals,

chutes, etc.) would

be located at least

1/2-mile from riparian

zones, springs, and

meadows, or active leks

in PPMAs and PGMAs.

The distance can be

greater based on local

conditions.

Action E-LG 20: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 20: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LG 21:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 21: To

reduce outright GRSG

strikes and mortality,

remove, modify or

mark fences in high

risk areas within

PPMAs based on

proximity to lek, lek

size, and topography

(Christiansen 2009;

Stevens 2011).

Action C-LG 21: — Action D-LG 21:

Remove, modify, or

mark permanent and/or

temporary fences in

areas of high risk for

bird strikes within

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Permanent and/or

temporary fences would

not be located on or

across active GRSG

leks. Remove and

re-locate existing fences

that are located on or

across GRSG active

leks.

Action E-LG 21:

TMA-23: Existing

land uses and landowner

activities in GRSG

habitat that do not

require state agency

review for consistency

with the State of Nevada

2012 Plan include the

following:

7. New fencing greater

than 1.25 miles from

leks and maintenance

of existing fencing. For

new fencing within 1.25

miles of leks, fences

with documented high

potential for strikes

should be marked. ...

Action F-LG 21: Remove,

modify or mark fences

in areas of moderate

or high risk of GRSG

strikes within GRSG

habitat based on proximity

to lek, lek size, and

topography (Christiansen

2009; Stevens 2011).

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
207 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LG 22:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 22: In

PPMAs, monitor for,

and treat invasive

species associated

with existing range

improvements

(Gelbard and Belnap

2003; Bergquist et al.

2007).

Action C-LG 22: — Action D-LG 22: — Action E-LG 22:

TMA-2.8: Continue

to successfully treat

existing areas of invasive

vegetative that pose a

threat to SGMAs through

the use of herbicides,

fungicides or bacteria to

control cheatgrass and

medusahead infestations.

Action F-LG 22: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LG 23:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 23:

Maintain retirement of

grazing privileges

as an option in

priority GRSG areas

when the current

permittee is willing

to retire grazing on

all or part of an

allotment. Analyze

the adverse impacts

of no livestock use

on wildfire and

invasive species

threats (Crawford et

al. 2004) in evaluating

retirement proposals.

Action C-LG 23: — Action D-LG 23:

Consider retirement

of grazing privileges

on all voluntary

relinquishments in

PPMAs and PGMAs

where removal of

livestock grazing would

enhance the ability to

achieve GRSG habitat

objectives (see Table

2-6).

Action E-LG 23: — Action F-LG 23: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LG 24:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 24: — Action C-LG 24: — Action D-LG 24:

Establish vegetation

treatment project

monitoring sites prior to

project implementation.

Measure project

monitoring sites

annually during the

livestock grazing

closure period.

Action E-LG 24:

TMA-22.2: Monitoring

of mitigation sites must

be included in all plans,

with consistent protocols

to assess specific metrics

and determine trends for

habitat quantity/quality

and GRSG populations.

Action F-LG 24: Any

vegetation treatment plan

must include pretreatment

data on wildlife and

habitat condition, establish

nongrazing exclosures,

and include long-term

monitoring where treated

areas are monitored for

at least three years before

grazing returns. Continue

monitoring for five years

after livestock are returned

to the area, and compare

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
208 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

to treated, ungrazed

exclosures, as well as

untreated areas.

Action A-LG 25:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 25:— Action C-LG 25:— Action D-LG 25: Within

PPMAs and PGMAs,

incorporate terms and

conditions into grazing

permits to meet GRSG

habitat objectives (see

Table 2-6).

Action E-LG 25: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 25:—

Action A-LG 26:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 26:— Action C-LG 26:— Action D-LG 26:

Grazing permit

transfers would not

be approved without

review of GRSG habitat

conditions. Where

GRSG objectives

(See Table 2-6) are

not being met in an

allotment and causal

factors are attributable

to livestock grazing,

adjust the annual

grazing authorization or

operating instructions

to reflect the allowable

use levels as identified

in Table 2-7 prior to

the next grazing season.

The Habitat Assessment

Framework will be the

tool to determine the

level to which standards

are or not being met.

Action E-LG 26:— Action F-LG 26:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
209 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LG 27:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 27:— Action C-LG 27:— Action D-LG 27: Utilize

the GRSG habitat

assessment framework

and adjust terms and

conditions in the grazing

permit renewal process

where GRSG objectives

(See Table 2-6) are

not being met in an

allotment and causes are

attributable to livestock

grazing. Where habitat

conditions as defined

in Table 2-6 are not

being met, and causal

factors are attributable

to livestock grazing,

adjust the annual

grazing authorization or

operating instructions

to reflect the allowable

use levels as identified

in Table 2-7 prior to

the next grazing season.

The Habitat Assessment

Framework will be the

tool to determine the

level to which standards

are or not being met.

Action E-LG 27:

TMA-12: Ensure

that existing grazing

permits maintain or

enhance SGMAs.

Utilize livestock grazing

when appropriate as a management tool to

improve GRSG habitat

quantity, quality or

to reduce wildfire

threats. Based on a comprehensive

understanding of

seasonal GRSG habitat

requirements, and

in conjunction with

flexibility of livestock

operators, encourage

land management

agencies to cooperatively

make timely, seasonal

range management

decisions to respond to

vegetation management

objectives, including

fuels reduction.

Action F-LG 27:—

Action A-LG 28:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 28:— Action C-LG 28:— Action D-LG 28: Under

appropriate conditions

implement Drought

Policy (BLM 2011c)

to protect GRSG

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Implement post-drought

management to allow

for vegetation recovery

that meets GRSG life

cycle needs in PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Action E-LG 28: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 28:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
210 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LG 29:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 29:— Action C-LG 29:— Action D-LG 29:

During the annual

grazing application,

work with permittees to

avoid concentrated

turn-out locations

for livestock within

approximately3 miles

of known lek areas

during the March1 to

May 15 period. Avoid

domestic sheep use

and bedding areas, and

herder camps within

at least 1.24 miles (2

kilometers) of known

lek locations. Utilize

land features and roads

on maps provided to

the permittee to help

demarcate livestock

use avoidance areas.

Require terms and

conditions language

for affected livestock

grazing permits

regarding livestock

use during the lekking

period.

Action E-LG 29: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG 29:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
211 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LG 30:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 30:— Action C-LG 30:— Action D-LG 30:

During the permit

renewal process, include

terms and conditions

language regarding

livestock use during the

lekking period.

Action E-LG 30: Ensure

that existing grazing

permits maintain or

enhance SGMAs.

Utilize livestock grazing

when appropriate as a management tool to

improve GRSG habitat

quantity, quality or

to reduce wildfire

threats. Based on a comprehensive

understanding of

seasonal GRSG habitat

requirements, and

in conjunction with

flexibility of livestock

operators, encourage

land management

agencies to cooperatively

make timely, seasonal

range management

decisions to respond to

vegetation management

objectives, including

fuels reduction.

Action F-LG 30:—

Action A-LG 31:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 31:— Action C-LG 31:— Action D-LG 31:— Action E-LG 31: Ensure

that existing grazing

permits maintain or

enhance SGMAs.

Utilize livestock grazing

when appropriate as a management tool to

improve GRSG habitat

quantity, quality or

to reduce wildfire

threats. Based on a comprehensive

understanding of

seasonal GRSG habitat

requirements, and

Action F-LG 31:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
212 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

in conjunction with

flexibility of livestock

operators, encourage

land management

agencies to cooperatively

make timely, seasonal

range management

decisions to respond to

vegetation management

objectives, including

fuels reduction.

Action A-LG 32:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 32:— Action C-LG 32:— Action D-LG 32:— Action E-LG 32:

Expand the promotion of

proper livestock grazing

practices that promote

the health of perennial

grass communities

as this condition has

been found to suppress

the establishment of

cheatgrass (Blank and

Morgan 2012).

Action F-LG 32:—

Action A-LG 33:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 33:— Action C-LG 33:— Action D-LG 33:— Action E-LG 33:

Grazing management

strategies for riparian

areas should, ata

minimum, maintain

or achieve riparian PFC.

Specific management

actions include riparian

fencing to provide

control of the season,

duration or degree of

herbivory, providing

alternate water sources

away from the riparian

area, changing the

grazing system, or other

grazing management

practices that promote

Action F-LG 33:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
213 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

herbage removal within

acceptable limits.

Action A-LG 34:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG 34:— Action C-LG 34:— Action D-LG 34:— Action E-LG 34: Identify

and apply appropriate

habitat management

(e.g. livestock

management and

vegetation treatments),

and nonlethal practices

(e.g. control of

artificial nest and roost

sites) that decrease

the effectiveness of

predators.

Action F-LG 34:—

Climate Change

Action A-LG-CC 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG-CC 1: —Action C-LG-CC 1:— Action D-LG-CC 1:

As climate change

data become available

through REAs or other

ecological studies,

identify areas of

unfragmented GRSG

habitat and key habitat

linkages that provide

the life-cycle and

genetic transfer needs

for GRSG. Manage

the identified areas as

PPMAs.

Action E-LG-CC 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG-CC 1:—

Action A-LG-CC 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG-CC 2: —Action C-LG-CC 2:— Action D-LG-CC 2:

Work cooperatively

with multiple agencies

and stakeholders to

establish and maintain a network of climate

monitoring sites and

stations.

Action E-LG-CC 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-LG-CC 2:—

Drought

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
214 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LG-D 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LG-D 1: — Action C-LG-D 1: — Action D-LG-D 1: Due

to drought conditions,

changes in livestock

management may be

required to protect

PPMAs. The Field

Manager or the Forest

Service District Ranger

should encourage

permittees to take

voluntary measures to

delay turnout, reduce

numbers, and adjust

livestock operations.

Absent voluntary

measures to change

livestock management

by permittees, the

District Manager

or Forest Service

District Ranger would

implement appropriate

changes to livestock

grazing through

decision or Annual

Operating Instructions

Action E-LG-D 1: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team. —

Action F-LG-D 1: —

Recreation and Visitor Services

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-REC

1: Only allow

BLM SRPs and

Forest Service

Recreation Special

Use Authorizations

(RSUAs) in PPMAs

that have neutral or

beneficial effects on

PPMAs.

Action C-REC 1: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-REC 1: Allow

SRPs and Forest Service

Recreation Special Use

Authorization (RSUA)

in PPMAs and PGMAs

that have neutral or

beneficial effects on

GRSG.

Action E-REC 1: Use

the avoid, minimize,

and mitigate concept to

allow BLM SRPs and

Forest Service Special

Use Authorizations in

priority and general

habitat.

Action F-REC 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
215 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-REC 2: — Action C-REC 2: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-REC 2: No

new recreation facilities

would be constructed

in PPMAs and PGMAs

(e.g. Campgrounds,

day-use areas, scenic

pullouts, and trailheads).

Action E-REC 2: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-REC 2:

Seasonally prohibit

camping and other

nonmotorized recreation

within 4 miles of active

GRSG leks.

Action A-REC 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-REC 3: — Action C-REC 3: — Action D-REC 3: — Action E-REC 3: In

SGMAs, continue

successful programs

following the “avoid,

minimize and mitigate”

concept for recreation

and OHV impacts on

GRSG habitat.

Action F-REC 3: —

Action A-REC 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-REC 4: — Action C-REC 4: — Action D-REC 4: — Action E-REC 4: Study

the impact caused by

recreational and OHV

use in GRSG habitat.

Action F-REC 4: —

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Action A-CTTM 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 1:

In PPMAs, limit

motorized travel

to existing roads,

primitive roads, and

trails at a minimum,

until such time as

travel management

planning is complete

and routes are either

designated or closed.

Action C-CTTM 1:

Motorized travel would

be limited to existing

roads, primitive roads,

and trails in PPMAs.

Action D-CTTM 1: In

plans that have been

completed and are being

implemented (e.g.,

Northeastern California

and Forest Service

plans), motorized travel

would be limited to

designated routes in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

In areas where travel

planning has not been

completed, motorized

travel would be limited

to existing routes in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-CTTM 1: In

occupied and suitable

habitat, motorized travel

should be limited

until such time as

implementation of travel

planning using avoid,

minimize and mitigation

is completed.

Action F-CTTM 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
216 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-CTTM 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 2: — Action C-CTTM 2: — Action D-CTTM 2: — Action E-CTTM 2:

Work collaboratively

through LAWGs, State,

and Federal agencies to

designate OHV areas

outside of SGMAs.

Action F-CTTM 2: —

Action A-CTTM 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 3: — Action C-CTTM 3: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 3: — Action E-CTTM 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 3:

Prohibit new road

construction within 4

miles of active GRSG

leks, and avoid new road

construction in PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Action A-CTTM 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 4:

In PPMAs, travel

management should

evaluate the need for

permanent or seasonal

road or area closures.

Action C-CTTM 4: Some

roads that intrude into lek

or winter habitats will be

removed or seasonally

closed.

Action D-CTTM 4: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

new travel management

plans would evaluate

vehicle routes and

determine the need for

permanent or seasonal

road closures, and

mode of travel (e.g.

motorcycle, ATV, and

UTV) restrictions,

including noise levels

and speed. Where such

closures or restrictions

are infeasible due

to administrative or

public need, consider

re-routing road to

improve or protect

GRSG habitat. Periods

of seasonal road

closures would be

identified in the travel

management plan

taking into account

the adverse effect on

the particular life-cycle

need of GRSG in the

Action E-CTTM 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
217 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

area of the seasonal

closure. Routes in

PPMAs not required

for public access or

recreation with current

administrative/agency

purpose or need

should be evaluate

for administrative

access only in the

implementation-level

transportation

management plans.

Action A-CTTM 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 5:

Complete activity

level travel plans

within five years

of the ROD. During

activity level planning,

where appropriate,

designate routes in

PPMAs with current

administrative/agency

purpose or need to

administrative access

only.

Action C-CTTM 5: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 5:

Same as Alternative A.

Action E-CTTM 5:

TMA-8.1: Follow a

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible (State of Nevada

2012).

Action F-CTTM 5: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-CTTM 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM

6: In PPMAs, limit

route construction

to realignments of

existing designated

routes if that

realignment has

a minimal impact

on GRSG habitat,

eliminates the need to

construct a new road,

Action C-CTTM 6: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 6: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

no new roads would be

allowed except those

necessary for public

safety, administrative

or public need to

accommodate valid

existing rights. Limit

route construction

to realignments of

existing routes if the

realignment:

Action E-CTTM 6:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 6: Limit

route construction to

realignments of existing

designated routes if that

realignment has a minimal

impact on GRSG habitat,

eliminates the need to

construct a new road, or

is necessary for motorist

safety. Mitigate any

impacts with methods that

have been demonstrated to

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
218 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

or is necessary for

motorist safety. 5) maintains or enhances

PPMAs,

6) eliminates the need to

construct a new road, or

7) is necessary for

public safety,

8) Minimize impacts on

GRSG habitat through

application of RDFs(see

Appendix A) and other

mitigation measures.

be effective to offset the

loss of GRSG habitat.

Action A-CTTM 7: Action B-CTTM 7: In Action C-CTTM 7: Same Action D-CTTM Action E-CTTM 7: Action F-CTTM 7: Same

No common action PPMAs, use existing as Alternative A. 7: In PPMAs and See Role of Sagebrush as Alternative B using a

across LUPs within the roads, or realignments PGMAs, access to valid Ecosystem Technical 4-mile buffer from leks to

sub-region. See Section as described above to existing rights would Team. determine road route.

2.1. access valid existing be addressed to provide

rights that are not the minimum access

yet developed. If necessary to exercise

valid existing rights the right and maintain or

cannot be accessed enhance GRSG habitat

via existing roads, through mitigation

then build any new necessary to off-set loss

road constructed to to PPMAs.

the absolute minimum

standard necessary,

and add the surface

disturbance to the

total disturbance in the

priority area. If that

disturbance exceeds

3 % for that area,

then evaluate and

implement additional,

effective mitigation

necessary to offset

the resulting loss of

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
219 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

GRSG habitat (see

Objectives).

Action A-CTTM 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 8:

In PPMAs, allow no

upgrading of existing

routes that would

change route category

(road, primitive road,

or trail) or capacity

unless the upgrading

would have minimal

impact on GRSG

habitat, is necessary

for motorist safety, or

eliminates the need to

construct a new road.

Action C-CTTM 8: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 8: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

allow no upgrading

of existing routes

that would change

route category (road,

primitive road, or trail)

or capacity unless the

upgrade would maintain

or enhance GRSG

habitat, provide a fuel

break to protect native

vegetation, is necessary

for public safety, or

eliminates the need to

construct a new road.

Action E-CTTM 8:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 8: Allow

no upgrading of existing

routes that would change

route category (road,

primitive road, or trail)

or capacity unless it is

necessary for motorist

safety, or eliminates the

need to construct a new

road. Any impacts shall be

mitigated with methodsthat

have been demonstrated to

be effective to offset the

loss of GRSG habitat.

Action A-CTTM 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 9:

In PPMAs, conduct

restoration of roads,

primitive roads and

trails not designated

in travel management

plans. This also

includes primitive

route/roads that were

not designated in

WSAs and within

lands with wilderness

characteristics that

have been selected for

protection in previous

LUPs.

Action C-CTTM 9: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 9: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

close primitive roads

and trails not designated

in travel management

plans so they are

effectively closed to

motorized travel.

Action E-CTTM 9:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 9: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
220 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-CTTM 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM

10: When reseeding

roads, primitive roads

and trails in PPMAs,

use appropriate seed

mixes and consider

the use of transplanted

sagebrush.

Action C-CTTM 10:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 10: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

obliterate and seed

roads, primitive roads

and trails not designated

in travel management

plans, with appropriate

seed mixes and

transplanted sagebrush

when applicable. Use

fire resistant species to

provide for fire breaks

where appropriate.

Seed must be certified

weed-free.

Action E-CTTM 10:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 10: When

reseeding closed roads,

primitive roads and trails,

use appropriate native seed

mixes and require the use

of transplanted sagebrush.

Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Action A-LR-LUA 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

1: Make PPMAs

exclusion areas

for new BLM

ROW or Forest

Service Special Use

Authorization (SUA)

permits. Consider the

following exceptions:

● Within designated

ROW or

SUA corridors

encumbered by

existing ROW or

SUA: new ROWs

or SUAs may be

co-located only if

the entire footprint

of the proposed

project (including

construction and

staging), can

be completed

Action C-LR-LUA 1:

New corridors/facilities

New transmission

corridors, ROWs for

corridors (oil, gas,

water/aquifer mining),

and communication

or other towers are

prohibited in ACECs and

PPMAs.

New corridors/facilities

will be sited in nonhabitat

and bundled with existing

corridors to the maximum

extent possible.

Action D-LR-LUA 1:

Designate PPMAs as

ROW avoidance areas

for all other ROWs or

SUAs.

Development within

avoidance areas could

occur if the development

incorporates appropriate

RDFs in design and

construction (e.g. noise,

tall structure, and

seasonal restrictions)

and development results

in no net un-mitigated

loss of PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Subject to valid,

existing rights: where

new ROWs or SUAs

associated with valid

existing rights are

Action E-LR-LUA

1: TMA-8.2: Site

new linear features in

existing corridors or, at a

minimum, co-locate with

existing linear features in

SGMAs.

Proposed features over

32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the

avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat. This is similar

to designation as ROW

avoidance areas.

Action F-LR-LUA 1:

PPMAs and PGMAs shall

be exclusion areas for new

ROWs permits. Consider

the following exceptions:

● Within designated

ROW corridors

encumbered by existing

ROW authorizations:

new ROWs may be

co­located only if the

entire footprint of

the proposed project

(including construction

and staging); can be

completed within the

existing disturbance

associated with the

authorized ROWs.

● Subject to valid,

existing rights: where

new ROWs associated

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
221 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

within the existing

disturbance

associated with the

authorized ROWs

or SUAs.

Subject to valid

existing rights: where

new ROWs or SUAs

associated with valid

existing rights are

required, co-locate

new ROWs or SUAs

within existing ROWs

or SUAs or where

it best minimizes

impacts on GRSG.

Use existing roads,

or realignments as

described above, to

access valid existing

rights that are not

yet developed. If

valid existing rights

cannot be accessed

via existing roads,

then build any new

road constructed to

the absolute minimum

standard necessary,

and add the surface

disturbance to the

total disturbance in the

priority area. If that

disturbance exceeds

3% for that area,

then evaluate and

implement additional

effective mitigation on a case-by-case basis

to offset the resulting

loss of GRSG habitat.

required, co-locate

new ROWs or SUAs

within existing ROWs

or SUAs to achieve no

net un-mitigated loss of

PPMAs.

with valid existing

rights are required,

co­locate new ROWs

within existing ROWs

or where it best

minimizes Impacts

on GRSG. Use existing

roads, or realignments

as described above, to

access valid existing

rights that are not yet

developed. If valid

existing rights cannot

be accessed via existing

roads, then build any

new road constructed to

the absolute minimum

standard necessary,

and add the surface

disturbance to the

total disturbance in the

priority area. If that

disturbance exceeds

3% for that area,

then make additional

mitigation that has been

demonstrated to be

effective to offset the

resulting loss of GRSG

habitat.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
222 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

2: Evaluate and

take advantage of

opportunities to

remove, bury, or

modify existing power

lines within PPMAs.

Action C-LR-LUA 2:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 2:

Where appropriate, bury

new and existing utility

lines as mitigation

unless not technically

feasible.

Action E-LR-LUA 2:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

TMA-8: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with

interest groups; focus

attention on the series of

transmission corridors

currently being studied to

consider the longer-term

transmission needs

required to meet the State

and Nation’s renewable

energy demands (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.1: Follow a

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-8.2: Site new

linear features in

existing corridors or, at a

minimum, co-locate with

existing linear features in

SGMAs (State of Nevada

2012).

Action F-LR-LUA 2: Same

as Alternative B

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
223 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

TMA-8.4: Apply

measures to deter raptor

perching and raven

nesting on elevated

structures

Action A-LR-LUA 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

3: Where existing

leases or ROWs or

SUAs have had some

level of development

(road, fence, well,

etc.) and are no longer

in use, reclaim the

site by removing these

features and restoring

the habitat.

Action C-LR-LUA 3:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 3:

In PPMAs and PGMAs

where existing ROWs

or SUAs are no longer

in use, coordinate with

the lease holder or

Forest Service Special

Use Permit holder to

relinquish the ROW

or SUA and reclaim

the site by removing

overhead lines and other

infrastructure.

Action E-LR-LUA 3:

TMA-8.3: Aggressively

engage in reclamation

and weed control

efforts during pre-and

post-project construction

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action F-LR-LUA 3: Same

as Alternative B

Action A-LR-LUA 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 4:

Planning Direction

Note: Relocate

existing designated

ROW corridors

crossing PPMAs

void of any authorized

ROWs, outside of the

PPMA. If relocation

is not possible,

undesignate that entire

corridor during the

planning process.

Action C-LR-LUA 4:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 4:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 4: No

similar Action.

Action F-LR-LUA 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
224 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

5: Make PGMAs

“avoidance areas” for

new ROWs or SUAs.

Action C-LR-LUA 5:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 5:

Designate PGMAs as

ROW avoidance areas

for new communication

site ROWs or SUAs.

Development within

avoidance areas could

occur if the development

incorporates appropriate

RFDs in design and

construction (e.g. noise,

tall structure, and

seasonal restrictions)

and development results

in no net un-mitigated

loss of PPMA or

PGMAs.

Action E-LR-LUA

5: TMA-18.2:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation/weed

control efforts during

pre-and post-project

construction

TMA-18.3: Apply

measures to deter raptor

perching and raven

nesting on elevated

structures (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-18.4: In

SGMAs, limit conflict

through avoidance

and minimization of

impacts, adaptive

management, and

appropriate mitigation.

All actions in Section

18 will be refined

pursuant to the "Resource

Selection Function

Model" (Coates) and

other best available

science.

TMA-18.5: Follow

a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible

TMA-18.7:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation/weed

control efforts during

Action F-LR-LUA 5: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
225 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

pre-and post-project

construction.

TMA-18.10:

Development or

infrastructure features

should not be placed

withina 0.6 mile (1

km) radius around seeps,

springs and wet meadows

within identified brood

rearing habitats wherever

possible. These

features can provide a competitive advantage

for avian predators;

therefore increasing

GRSG mortality during a period when birds may

be susceptible.

TMA-18.11:A company

representative will

provide environmental

training to on-site

personnel and be

responsible for

overseeing compliance

with all protective

measures and

coordination in

accordance with the

permitting authority.

TMA-18.12: Vehicle

trips shall be limited

to those times that

least impact nesting or

wintering GRSG.

TMA-18.13: Current

transmission and

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
226 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

generation siting and

construction practices

to be reviewed and

potentially refined by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team pursuant to the

“Resource Selection

Function Model”

(Coates) and other best

available science include

proximity to active leks

and nesting habitat,

relation to migratory

and nonmigratory

populations, and relation

to movement corridors.

Action A-LR-LUA 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 6:

Where new ROWs or

SUAs are necessary

in PGMAs, co­locate

new ROWs or SUAs

within existing ROWs

or SUAs where

possible.

Action C-LR-LUA 6:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 6:

In PPMAs and PGMAs,

co-locate new utility

(power, telephone,

etc.) lines with other

existing linear surface

ROWs, such as roads

and pipelines.

Action E-LR-LUA

6: TMA-18.6: Site

new linear features in

existing corridors or, at

a minimum, co-locating

with existing linear

features in SGMAs.

Action F-LR-LUA 6: —

Action A-LR-LUA 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 7:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 7: — Action D-LR-LUA

7: Manage landfills

and transfer stations

on public lands to

reduce opportunities

for nesting, cover, or

perches for predators.

Identify and close

trespass landfills and

dumps on public lands.

Action E-LR-LUA 7:

TMA-9.3: Continue

successful programs

that have eliminated

external food sources

for ravens, particularly

landfills, waste transfer

facilities, and road kill

that subsidize raven

populations. Enforce

existing State laws that

require daily covering

of landfills. Continue

to reduce and minimize

Action F-LR-LUA 7: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
227 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

external food sources

for ravens: particularly

landfills, waste transfer

facilities, and road kill

that subsidize raven

populations. Continue

to enforce existing State

laws that require daily

covering of landfills

Action A-LR-LUA 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 8:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 8: — Action D-LR-LUA 8:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 8:

The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team will

meet energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with all

interest groups and

adherence to NRS

701.610 (amended

by the 2011 Nevada

Legislature) that requires

State agency review of

all energy development

proposals. Attention

will be focused on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer term transmission

needs required to

meet the nation’s

renewable energy

demands. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

Action F-LR-LUA 8: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
228 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

Action A-LR-LUA 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 9:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 9: — Action D-LR-LUA 9:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 9:

Follow a strategy that

seeks to avoid conflict

with GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action F-LR-LUA 9: —

Action A-LR-LUA 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

10: —

Action C-LR-LUA 10: — Action D-LR-LUA 10:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 10:

In SGMAs, limit conflict

through avoidance

and minimization of

impacts, adaptive

management, and

appropriate mitigation.

All actions in Section

18 will be refined

pursuant to the "Resource

Selection Function

Model" (Coates) and

other best available

science.

Action F-LR-LUA 10: —

Action A-LR-LUA 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 11:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 11: — Action D-LR-LUA 11:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 11:

Energy developers will

work closely with State

and Federal agency

experts to determine

important nesting, brood

rearing and winter

habitats and avoid those

areas.

Action F-LR-LUA 11: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
229 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

12: —

Action C-LR-LUA 12: — Action D-LR-LUA 12:

—

Action E-LR-LUA

12: A company

representative will

provide environmental

training to on-site

personnel and be

responsible for

overseeing compliance

with all protective

measures and

coordination in

accordance with the

permitting authority.

Action F-LR-LUA 12: —

Action A-LR-LUA 13:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

13: —

Action C-LR-LUA 13: — Action D-LR-LUA 13:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 13:

Vehicle trips shall be

limited to those times

that least impact nesting

or wintering GRSG.

Action F-LR-LUA 13: —

Action A-LR-LUA 14:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

14: —

Action C-LR-LUA 14: — Action D-LR-LUA 14:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 14:

Current transmission and

generation siting and

construction practices

to be reviewed and

potentially refined by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team pursuant to the

“Resource Selection

Function Model”

(Coates) and other best

available science include

proximity to active leks

and nesting habitat,

relation to migratory

and nonmigratory

populations, and relation

to movement corridors.

Action F-LR-LUA 14: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
230 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 15:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

15: —

Action C-LR-LUA 15: — Action D-LR-LUA

15: Eliminate

existing raven nesting

opportunities created

by anthropogenic

development on

public lands (e.g.,

remove infrastructure,

power line, and

communication

facilities no longer

in service).

Action E-LR-LUA 15:

See State raven control

actions above.

Action F-LR-LUA 15: —

Action A-LR-LUA 16:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

16: —

Action C-LR- LUA 16:

—

Action D-LR-LUA 16:

In PPMAs and PGMAs,

require ROW holders

to retro-fit existing

power lines and other

utility structure with

perch-deterring devices

during ROW renewal

process.

Action E-LR- LUA

16: TMA-8.4: Apply

measures to deter raptor

perching and raven

nesting on elevated

structures.

Action F-LR- LUA 16: —

Action A-LR- LUA

17: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR- LUA

17: —

Action C-LR- LUA 17:

—

Action D-LR-LUA 17:

—

Action E-LR- LUA

17: Development or

infrastructure features

should not be placed

within a 0.6 mile (1

km) radius around seeps,

springs and wet meadows

within identified brood

rearing habitats wherever

possible. These

features can provide

a competitive advantage

for avian predators;

therefore increasing

GRSG mortality during

a period when birds may

be susceptible.

Action F-LR- LUA 17: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
231 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR- LUA

18: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR- LUA

18: —

Action C-LR- LUA 18:

—

Action D-LR-LUA

18: Do not designate

new utility corridors in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-LR- LUA

18: TMA-18.6: Site

new linear features in

existing corridors or, at

a minimum, co-locating

with existing linear

features in SGMAs.

Action F-LR- LUA 18: —

Land Tenure

Action A-LR-LT 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LT

1: Retain public

ownership of PPMAs.

Consider exceptions

where:

● There is mixed

ownership, and

land exchanges

would allow for

additional or more

contiguous federal

ownership patterns

within the PPMA.

Under PPMAs with

minority federal

ownership, include an

additional, effective

mitigation agreement

for any disposal of

federal land. As a

final preservation

measure consideration

should be given to

pursuing a permanent

conservation

easement.

Action C-LR-LT 1: All

public lands in ACECs,

PPMAs, and identified

restoration and rehab land

areas will be retained in

public ownership.

Action D-LR-LT 1:

Retain public ownership

of PPMAs and PGMAs.

Consider exceptions

when:

● Disposal and/or

acquisitions of

public lands would

allow for more

contiguous federal

ownership patterns

within the GRSG

habitat area, or

where a land tenure

adjustment would

result in a net gain

in amount or quality

of GRSG habitat.

Action E-LR-LT 1: No

similar Action.

Action F-LR-LT 1: Same

as Alternative B, without

exceptions for disposal

to consolidate ownership

that would be beneficial to

GRSG.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
232 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LT 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LT

2: Where suitable

conservation actions

cannot be achieved

in PPMAs, seek to

acquire state and

private lands with

intact subsurface

mineral estate by

donation, purchase

or exchange in order

to best conserve,

enhance or restore

GRSG habitat.

Action C-LR-LT 2:

BLM and Forest Service

will strive to acquire

important private lands

in BLM-designated

ACECs and Forest

Service GRSG Special

Areas. Acquisition

will be prioritized over

easements.

Action D-LR-LT 2:

Where significant

conservation actions

could be achieved

in PPMAs, seek to

acquire lands with intact

subsurface mineral

estate by donation,

purchase, or exchange in

order to best conserve,

enhance or restore

GRSG habitat.

Action E-LR-LT 2: PMA

3.3 and TMA-21.9: To

ensure that mitigation

efforts to create, restore

or enhance habitat are not

intentionally disturbed

in the future, long-term

conservation easements

or a record of restrictive

covenant should be

established over the

property. If public lands

are used for mitigation

purposes, adequate

long-term maintenance

or replacement of

mitigation objectives

must be considered while

recognizing existing uses

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action F-LR-LT 2: —

Withdrawals

Action A-LR-W 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 1:

Propose lands within

PPMAs for mineral

withdrawal.

Action C-LR-W 1: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-W 1:

Same as Alternative A.

Action E-LR-W 1:

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, encourage the

strong conservation ethic

in the mining industry by

implementing effective

avoidance management,

and enhancement and

reclamation of disturbed

landsto preserve, protect,

and improve habitat in

SGMAs. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Action F-LR-W 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
233 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-15.3: Follow a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-15.5:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation efforts as

projects are completed,

and target reclamation

where the ecological

site potential exists in

SGMAs. Focus efforts

on habitat that has

the greatest potential

for use by GRSG as

guided by ecological site

descriptions and other

restoration priorities

established by the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

(State of Nevada 2012).

TMA-15.9:

Differentiate between

short-(exploration)

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
234 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

and long-term (active

mining) impacts and

manage timing of

operations and physical

disturbance accordingly

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action A-LR-W 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W

2: In PPMAs, do

not recommend

withdrawal proposals

not associated with

mineral activity unless

the land management

is consistent with

GRSG conservation

measures. (For

example; in a

proposed withdrawal

for a military

training range buffer

area, manage the

buffer area with

GRSG conservation

measures.)

Action C-LR-W 2: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-W 2:

Same as Alternative A.

Action E-LR-W 2: — Action F-LR-W 2: Do

not approve withdrawal

proposals not associated

with mineral activity unless

the land management is

consistent with GRSG

conservation measures.

(For example; in a

proposed withdrawal

for a military training range

buffer area, manage the

buffer area with GRSG

conservation measures that

have been demonstrated to

be effective.

Action A-LR-W 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 3: — Action C-LR-W 3:

ROWs will be amended

to require features that

enhance GRSG habitat

security.

Existing designated

corridors in BLM ACECs

and Forest Service Special

Areas may be accessed

for maintenance.

Action D-LR-W 3: — Action E-LR-W 3: — Action F-LR-W 3: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
235 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LR-W 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 4:— Action C-LR-W 4:— Action D-LR-W 4: In

priority and general

habitat, no new road

ROWs would be

authorized except those

necessary for public

safety or administrative

or public need tied to

valid existing rights.

Limit route construction

to realignments of

existing ROWs if the

realignment:

4) maintains or enhances

priority GRSG habitat,

5) eliminates the need to

authorizea new ROW

to constructa new road,

or

6) is necessary for

public safety,

New ROW

authorizations would

be evaluated ona

case-by-case basis. If

new road construction

is necessary, minimize

impacts on GRSG

habitat through

application of RDFs

and other mitigation

measures.

Action E-LR-W 4:

TMA-18.6: Site new

linear features in

existing corridors or, at a minimum, co-locating

with existing linear

features in SGMAs.

Action F-LR-W 4:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
236 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LR-W 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 5:— Action C-LR-W 5:— Action D-LR-W

5: Within PPMAs

and PGMAs, allow

industrial coal-fired

or natural gas-fired

energy facilities

associated with existing

industrial infrastructure

(e.g.a mine site) to

provide on-site power

generation.

Action E-LR-W5

TMA-8: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with

interest groups; focus

attention on the series of

transmission corridors

currently being studied to

consider the longer-term

transmission needs

required to meet the State

and Nation’s renewable

energy demands (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.1: Followa

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action F-LR-W 5:—

Action A-LR-W 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 6:— Action C-LR-W 6:— Action D-LR-W 6:

Lands that are acquired

(exchange, purchase or

easement) for GRSG

habitat, would be

managed as PPMAs.

Action E-LR-W 6:— Action F-LR-W 6:—

Wind Energy

Development

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
237 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-WED

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-WED 1:

—

Action C-LR-WED 1: — Action D-LR-WED 1:

Designate PPMAs

and PGMAs as

ROW exclusion for

utility-scale commercial

wind energy facilities

(facilities that generate

large amounts of

electricity that is

delivered to many users

through transmission

and distribution

systems).

Action E-LR-WED 1:

TMA-18: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team will

meet energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with all

interest groups and

adherence to NRS

701.610 (amended

by the 2011 Nevada

Legislature) that requires

State agency review of

all energy development

proposals. Attention

will be focused on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer-term transmission

needs required to

meet the nation’s

renewable energy

demands. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

Action F-LR-WED 1:

Do not site wind energy

development in PPMAs

and PGMAs (Jones 2012).

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
238 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

TMA-18.1: Follow

a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action A-LR-WED

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-WED 2:

—

Action C-LR-WED 2: — Action D-LR-WED 2:

—

Action E-LR-WED 2: — Action F-LR-WED 2: Site

wind energy development

at least five miles from

active GRSG leks.

Action A-LR-WED

3: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-WED 3:

—

Action C-LR-WED 3: — Action D-LR-WED

3: Within PPMAs

and PGMAs allow

industrial wind facilities

associated with existing

industrial infrastructure

(e.g. a mine site) to

provide on-site power

generation.

Action E-LR-WED

3: TMA-8: Through

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through

close coordination

with interest groups;

focus attention on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer-term transmission

needs required to meet

the renewable energy

demands.

Action F-LR-WED 3: —

Industrial Solar

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
239 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-IS 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-IS 1: — Action C-LR-IS 1:

Industrial solar projects

will be prohibited in

ACECs and PPMAs.

Action D-LR-IS 1:

Designate PPMAs

and PGMAs as

ROW exclusion for

utility-scale solar energy

facilities.

Action E-LR-IS 1:

TMA-18: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team will

meet energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with all

interest groups and

adherence to NRS

701.610 (amended

by the 2011 Nevada

Legislature) that requires

State agency review of

all energy development

proposals. Attention

will be focused on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer-term transmission

needs required to

meet the nation’s

renewable energy

demands. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

Action F-LR-IS 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
240 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

TMA-18.1: Follow a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in nonhabitat wherever

possible.

Action A-LR-IS 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-IS 2:— Action C-LR-IS 2:— Action D-LR-IS

2: Within PPMAs

and PGMAs, allow

industrial solar energy

facilities associated

with existing industrial

infrastructure (e.g. a mine site) to

provide on-site power

generation.

Action E-LR-IS 2:

TMA-8: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with

interest groups; focus

attention on the series of

transmission corridors

currently being studied to

consider the longer-term

transmission needs

required to meet the State

and Nation’s renewable

energy demands (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.1: Followa

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action F-LR-IS 2:—

Urbanization

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
241 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-U 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-U 1: — Action C-LR-U 1: — Action D-LR-U 1: — Action E-LR-U 1:

TMA-20: When a

county or city considers

a change to its master

plan for a land use of

higher intensity affecting

a SGMA, the county or

city should consult with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

through its Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LR-U 1: —

De Minimis Activities

Action A-LR-DMA

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-DMA 1:

—

Action C-LR-DMA 1: — Action D-LR-DMA 1:

—

Action E-LR-DMA 1:

TMA-23: Existing land

uses and landowner

activities in GRSG

habitat that do not

require state agency

review for consistency

with the State of Nevada

2012 Plan include the

following: (State of

Nevada 2012).

14) Existing animal

husbandry practices

including branding,

docking, herding,

trailing, etc.

15) Existing farming

practices excluding

conversion of

sagebrush/grassland

to agricultural lands.

16) Existing grazing

operations that utilize

recognized rangeland

Action F-LR-DMA 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
242 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

management practices

included in AMPs,

NRCS grazing plans,

prescribed grazing plans,

etc.

17) Construction of

agricultural reservoirs

and aquatic habitat

improvements of less

than ten surface acres and

drilling of agriculture and

residential water wells

including installation of

tanks, water windmills

and solar water pumps

more than 0.6 miles

from the perimeter of

the lek. Within 0.6 miles

from leks, no review is

required if construction

does not occur from

March 15 to June 30 and

construction does not

occur on the lek. All

water tanks shall have

escape ramps.

18) Agricultural and

residential electrical

distribution lines and

substations more than 0.6

miles from leks. Within

0.6 miles from leks no

review is required if

construction does not

occur from March 15 to

June 30 and construction

does not occur on the

lek. Raptor perching

deterrents should be

installed on all poles

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
243 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

within 0.6 miles from

leks.

19) Agricultural water

pipelines if construction

activities are more than

0.6 miles from leks.

Within 0.6 miles from

leks no review isrequired

if construction does not

occur March 15 to June

30 and construction is

reclaimed.

20) New fencing greater

than 1.25 miles from

leks and maintenance

of existing fencing. For

new fencing within 1.25

miles of leks, fences

with documented high

potential for strikes

should be marked.

21) Irrigation (excluding

the conversion of

sagebrush-grassland

to new irrigated lands).

22) Spring development

if the spring is protected

with fencing and enough

water remains at the site

to provide mesic (wet)

vegetation.

23) Herbicide use within

existing road, pipeline

and power line ROW.

Herbicides application

using spot treatment.

Grasshopper/Mormon

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
244 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

cricket control following

Reduced Agent-Area

Treatments protocol.

24) State and county road

maintenance.

25) Cultural resource

pedestrian surveys.

26) Emergency response.

Note: Regarding #4,

#5, and #6 above, The

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team will evaluate these

actions and provide

recommendation to

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

pursuant to any new

information that is

forthcoming from best

available science and

utilizing the "Resource

Selection Function

Model"(Coates).

Action A-LR-DMA

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-DMA 2: —Action C-LR-DMA 2:— Action D-LR-DMA 2: —Action E-LR-DMA 2:

TMA 23.1: On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

Action F-LR-DMA 2:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
245 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

Action A-FFME 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 1:

In PPMAs, apply

actions through LUP

implementation

decisions (e.g.,

approval of an

Application for

Permit to Drill, and

Sundry Notice) and

upon completion of

the environmental

record of review

(43 CFR 3162.5),

including appropriate

documentation of

compliance with

NEPA. In this process

evaluate, among other

things:

1. Whether the

conservation

measure is

“reasonable” (43

CFR 3101.1-2)

with the valid

existing rights;

and

Action C-FFME 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 1: — Action E-FFME 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 1: Apply

the following conservation

measures as COAs at the

project and well permitting

stages, and through RMP

implementation decisions

and upon completion

of the environmental

record of review (43

CFR § 3162.5), including

appropriate documentation

of compliance with NEPA.

In this process evaluate,

among other things:

1. Whether the

conservation measure

is “reasonable” (43

CFR § 3101.1­2) with

the valid existing

rights; and

2. Whether the action is

in conformance with

the approved RMP.

2. Whether the

action is in

conformance

with the

approved LUP.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
246 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFME 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

2: In PPMAs,

provide the following

conservation measures

as terms and

conditions of the

approved LUP:

Do not allow new

surface occupancy on

federal leases within

PPMAs, this includes

winter concentration

areas (Doherty et al.

2008; Carpenter et al.

2010) during any time

of the year. Consider

an exception:

● If the lease is

entirely within

PPMAs, apply

a 4-mile NSO

around the lek, and

limit permitted

disturbances to

1 per section

with no more

than 3% surface

disturbance in that

section.

● If the entire lease is

within the 4-mile

lek perimeter,

limit permitted

disturbances to

1 per section

with no more

than 3% surface

disturbance in that

section. Require

Action C-FFME 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 2: — Action E-FFME 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
247 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

any development

to be placed at the

most distal part of

the lease from the

lek, or, depending

on topography

and other habitat

aspects, in an

area that is less

demonstrably

harmful to GRSG.

Action A-FFME 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 3:

Apply a seasonal

restriction on

exploratory drilling

that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities during the

nesting and early

brood-rearing season

in all PPMAs during

this period.

Action C-FFME 3:

Timing avoidance periods

will be required.

Action D-FFME

3: Apply requisite

seasonal restriction

on exploratory

drilling that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities in winter

habitat and during the

lekking, nesting, and

early brood-rearing

season in all PPMAs.

See Appendix G,

Leasable Mineral

Stipulations, Waivers,

Modifications, and

Exceptions.

Action E-FFME 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 3:

Apply a seasonal

restriction on exploratory

drilling that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities during the nesting

and brood-rearing season

in all PPMAs and PGMAs

during this period. This

seasonal restriction shall

also to apply to related

activities that are disruptive

to GRSG, including vehicle

traffic and other human

presence.

Action A-FFME 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

4: BLM should

closely examine

the applicability

of categorical

exclusions in PPMAs.

If extraordinary

circumstances review

is applicable, BLM

should determine

whether those

circumstances exist.

Action C-FFME 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 4: — Action E-FFME 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
248 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFME 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 5:

Complete Master

Development Plans in

lieu of APD-by-APD

processing for all but

wildcat wells.

Action C-FFME 5: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 5: — Action E-FFME 5:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 5: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 6:

When permitting

APDs on existing

leases that are not

yet developed, the

proposed surface

disturbance cannot

exceed 3% for that

area. Consider an

exception if:

● Additional,

effective

mitigation is

demonstrated to

offset the resulting

loss of GRSG (see

Objectives).

● When necessary,

conduct

additional,

effective

mitigation in

1) PPMAs or –

less preferably

– 2) PGMAs

(dependent upon

the area-specific

ability to

increase GRSG

populations).

● Conduct

additional,

Action C-FFME 6: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 6:

On leased federal fluid

mineral estate, when

permitting Master

Development Plans in

PPMAs on leases not yet

developed, the proposed

surface disturbance

must achieve no

net unmitigated

loss of PPMAs.

Apply requisite

seasonal restrictions

on exploratory

drilling that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities in winter

habitat and during the

lekking, nesting, and

early brood-rearing

season in all PPMAs.

When necessary,

prioritize and conduct

additional mitigation:

● Within the same

population area

where the impact is

realized; or

● Within the

same WAFWA

Management Zone

as the impact

Action E-FFME 6:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 6: When

permitting APDs on

existing leases that

are not yet developed,

the proposed surface

disturbance cannot exceed

3% per section for that

area.

Consider an exception if:

● Additional, effective

mitigation is

demonstrated to offset

the resulting loss of

GRSG (see Objectives).

● When necessary,

conduct additional,

effective mitigation in

PPMAs and PGMAs

(dependent upon the

area-specific ability

to increase GRSG

populations).

● Conduct additional,

effective mitigation

first within the same

population area where

the impact is realized,

and if not possible then

conduct mitigation

within the same

Management Zone

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
249 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

effective

mitigation first

within the same

population area

where the impact

is realized, and if

not possible then

conduct mitigation

within the same

Management Zone

as the impact, per

2006 WAFWA

Strategy – pg.

2-17.

unless greater

population benefits

can be realized outside

the population area or

WAFWA management

zone, subject to BLM

and State Wildlife

agency consultation and

agreement.

as the impact, per 2006

WAFWA Strategy – pg.

2-17.

Action A-FFME 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 7:

Require unitization

when deemed

necessary for proper

development and

operation of an area

(with strong oversight

and monitoring) to

minimize adverse

impacts on GRSG

according to the

Federal Lease Form,

3100-11, Sections 4

and 6.

Action C-FFME 7: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 7: — Action E-FFME 7:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 7: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

8: Identify areas

where acquisitions

(including subsurface

mineral rights)

or conservation

easements, would

benefit GRSG habitat.

Action C-FFME 8: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 8: — Action E-FFME 8:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 8: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
250 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action B-FFME 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

9: For future

actions, require a

full reclamation bond

specific to the site in

accordance with 43

CFR 3104.2, 3104.3,

and 3104.5. Insure

bonds are sufficient

for costs relative to

reclamation (Connelly

et al. 2000a, Hagen

et al. 2007) that

would result in full

restoration of the

lands to the condition

it was found prior

to disturbance. Base

the reclamation costs

on the assumption

that contractors for

the BLM or Forest

Service will perform

the work.

Action C-FFME 9: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 9: — Action E-FFME 9:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 9: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 10:

Make applicable

BMPs (see Appendix

D of the NTT Report)

mandatory as COAs

within priority GRSG

habitat.

Action C-FFME 10:

Same as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 10:

On leased federal fluid

mineral estate (where no

APD has been issued),

RDFs would be attached

as lease notices.

Action E-FFME 10:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 10: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 11:

—

Action C-FFME 11:

Agencies will explore

options to amend, cancel,

or buy out leases in

ACECs and PPMAs.

Action D-FFME 11: — Action E-FFME 11:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 11: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
251 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFME 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 12:

—

Action C-FFME 12:

Include conditions that

require relinquishment of

leases/authorizations if

doing so will: 1) mitigate

the impact of a proposed

development, or 2)

mitigate the unanticipated

impacts of an approved

development.

Action D-FFME 12: — Action E-FFME 12:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 12: —

Action A-FFME 13:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 13:

—

Action C-FFME 13: No

waivers will be issued.

Action D-FFME 13: — Action E-FFME 13:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 13: —

Action A-FFME 14:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 14:

—

Action C-FFME 14: — Action D-FFME 14:

On leased federal

fluid mineral estate

within PPMAs

complete Master

Development Plans

in lieu of APD-by-APD

processing for all but

wildcat wells.

Action E-FFME 14:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 14: —

Action A-FFME 15:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 15:

—

Action C-FFME 15: — Action D-FFME 15:

On leased federal

fluid mineral estate

within PPMAs, require

a full reclamation

bond specific to the

site. Insure bonds are

sufficient for costs

relative to reclamation

that would result in

full restoration. Base

the reclamation costs

on the assumption that

contractors for the BLM

will perform the work.

Action E-FFME 15:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 15: —

Fluid Minerals

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
252 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FM 1: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 1:

Close PPMAs to

fluid mineral leasing.

Consider an exception

when there is an

opportunity for the

BLM and Forest

Service to influence

conservation measures

where surface and/or

mineral ownership

is not entirely

federally owned

(i.e., checkerboard

ownership). In

this case, a plan

amendment may

be developed that

opens the priority

area for new leasing.

The plan must

demonstrate long-term

population increases

in the priority area

through mitigation

(prior to issuing the

lease) including lease

stipulations, off-site

mitigation, etc., and

avoid short-term

losses that put the

GRSG population at

risk from stochastic

events leading to

extirpation.

Action C-FM 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action D-FM 1: In

un-leased federal fluid

mineral estate in PPMAs

apply a NSO stipulation

and do not allow for

waivers, exceptions,

or modifications

to that stipulation.

Upon expiration

or termination of

existing leases within

PPMAs, apply the same

stipulation as above.

Action E-FM 1 B-FM

1: Proposed features

over 32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the

avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat. This is similar

to designation as ROW

avoidance areas.

Action F-FM 1: Close

PPMAs and PGMAs to

fluid mineral leasing.

Consider an exception:

When there is an

opportunity for the BLM

to influence conservation

measures where surface

and/or mineral ownership

is not entirely federally

owned (i.e., checkerboard

ownership). In this case,

a plan amendment may

be developed that opens

GRSG habitat for new

leasing. The plan must

demonstrate long-term

population increases in

the priority area through

mitigation (prior to issuing

the lease) including lease

stipulations, and off-site

mitigation, etc., and avoid

short-term losses that put

the GRSG population at

risk from stochastic events

leading to extirpation.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
253 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FM 2: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 2: — Action C-FM 2: — Action D-FM 2: In

un-leased federal

fluid mineral estate in

PGMAs, apply a NSO

stipulation, but allow for

waivers, exception, or

modifications consistent

with the objective.

Upon expiration

or termination of

existing leases within

PGMAs, apply the same

stipulation as above.

Action E-FM 2: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-FM 2: —

Action A-FM 3: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 3:

Allow geophysical

exploration within

PPMAs to obtain

exploratory

information for areas

outside of and adjacent

to PPMAs.

Only allow

geophysical

operations by

helicopter-portable

drilling methods

and in accordance

with seasonal timing

restrictions and/or

other restrictions that

may apply.

Action C-FM 3: Same as

Alternative B.

Action D-FM 3: Allow

geophysical exploration

within PPMAs and

PGMAs that does not

result in crushing of

sagebrush vegetation or

create new or additional

surface disturbance.

Heli-portable drilling

methods, articulated

rubber-tired vehicles

that “leave no

trace,” and vibro-seis

geophysical operations

conducted on existing

roads and bladed

shoulders would be

allowed. Geophysical

operations would be

subject to TLs and CSU

stipulations established

for GRSG in PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Action E-FM 3: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-FM 3: Allow

geophysical exploration

within PPMAs and PGMAs

to obtain exploratory

information for areas

outside of and adjacent

to PPMAs. Only allow

geophysical operations by

helicopter-portable drilling

methods and in accordance

with seasonal timing

restrictions and/or other

restrictions that may apply.

Geophysical exploration

shall be subject to seasonal

restrictions that preclude

activities in breeding,

nesting, brood rearing and

winter habitats during their

season of use by GRSG.

Allow no use of surface

shot methods within

PPMAs.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
254 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FM 4: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 4: — Action C-FM 4: — Action D-FM 4: In

un-leased federal

fluid mineral estate in

PGMAs, apply a NSO

stipulation, but allow for

waivers, exception, or

modifications consistent

with the objective.

Upon expiration

or termination of

existing leases within

PGMAs, apply the same

stipulation as above.

Action E-FM 4: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-FM 4: —

Locatable Minerals

Action A-LOC 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 1:

In PPMAs, propose

withdrawal from

mineral entry based

on risk to the GRSG

and its habitat from

conflicting locatable

mineral potential and

development.

● Make any existing

claims within

the withdrawal

area subject to

validity exams or

buy out. Include

claims that have

been subsequently

determined to be

null and void

in the proposed

withdrawal.

● In plans of

operations

required prior

to any proposed

Action C-LOC 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-LOC 1: BLM

Public Lands- Authorize

locatable mineral

development activity

per the 43 CFR 3809

regulations through Plan

of Operation Approvals

and apply mitigation

and GRSG BMPs that

minimizes the loss of

PPMAs or provides

for enhancement of

PPMAs through off-site

mitigation within the

WAFWA management

zone.

Forest Service: Require

that new plans of

operation on forest

service-administered

lands authorized under

36 CFR 228 Subpart A

– Locatable Minerals,

include measures to

avoid or minimize

adverse effects on

Action E-LOC 1:

TMA-15.3: Follow

a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Proposed facilities and

activities over 32 acres

per square mile would

require application of

the avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat.

TMA-15.5:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation efforts as

projects are completed,

and target reclamation

where the ecological

site potential exists in

SGMAs. Focus efforts

on habitat that has

Action F-LOC 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
255 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

surface disturbing GRSG populations or the greatest potential activities, include their habitat. for use by GRSG as

the following: guided by ecological site

● Additional, descriptions and other

restoration priorities effective established by the

mitigation in

perpetuity for

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

conservation

(In accordance TMA-15.6: Recognize with existing that stipulations for other

policy, WO species (e.g. raptors)

IM 2008-204). may impede the ability to

Example: effectively reclaim areas

purchase private of impact and remove

land and mineral those barriers in order to

rights or severed achieve immediate and

subsurface mineral effective reclamation.

rights within

the priority area TMA-15.7: Prioritize

and deed to US areas for habitat

Government). improvement utilizing

sound resource

● Consider seasonal information including restrictions if soil surveys, ecological deemed effective. site descriptions, and

GRSG population data.

TMA-15.8: Design

exploration projects for

mineral access and the

betterment of habitat.

Ensure roads and other

ancillary features that

impact GRSG habitat are

designed to avoid where

feasible and otherwise

minimize and mitigate

impacts in the short and

long term.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
256 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

TMA-15.9:

Differentiate between

short-(exploration)

and long-term (active

mining) impacts and

manage timing of

operations and physical

disturbance accordingly

Action A-LOC 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 2:

Make applicable

BMPs (Appendix E of

the NTT) mandatory

as COAs within

PPMAs.

Action C-LOC 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-LOC 2: — Action E-LOC 2:

TMA-15.1: Implement

a centralized impact

assessment process

overseen by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids

or minimizes conflicts

with GRSG in SGMAs

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action F-LOC 2: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LOC 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 3: — Action C-LOC 3: — Action D-LOC 3: — Action E-LOC 3:

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, encourage the

strong conservation ethic

in the mining industry by

implementing effective

avoidance management,

and enhancement and

reclamation of disturbed

landsto preserve, protect,

and improve habitat in

SGMAs. On federal

lands, activities that have

an approved BLM or

Forest Service notice of

intent, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

Action F-LOC 3: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
257 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

Action A-LOC 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 4:— Action C-LOC 4:— Action D-LOC 4:— Action E-LOC 4:

Implementa centralized

impact assessment

process overseen

by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids

or minimizes conflicts

with GRSG in SGMAs.

Action F-LOC 4:—

Action A-LOC 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 5:— Action C-LOC 5:— Action D-LOC 5:— Action E-LOC 5:

Consistent with BLM 43

CFR 3809 regulations for

Notice-level operations,

and Forest Service 36

CFR 228A regulations,

governing mining and

exploration, allow

exploration and other

mineral-related activities

that create not more

than five acres of

surface disturbance.

The BLM and Forest

Service may exercise

existing discretionary

Action F-LOC 5:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
258 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

authority to consider

other information,

including cumulative

impacts.

Action A-LOC 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 6:— Action C-LOC 6:— Action D-LOC 6:— Action E-LOC 6:

Recognize existing State

and Federal regulatory

mechanisms that govern

mining and exploration

activities, including

BLM 43 CFR 3809

surface management

regulations for hard rock

mining, Forest Service

36 CFR 228A regulations

governing mining and

exploration, and NAC

519A regulations for

reclamation of mining

and exploration projects,

that are adequate to

conserve GRSG and

sagebrush habitats in

the interim until future

Suitable conservation

plans are approved by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

Action F-LOC 6:—

Action B-LOC 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 7:— Action B-LOC 7:— Action B-LOC 7:— Action B-LOC 7:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation efforts as

projects are completed,

and target reclamation

where the ecological

site potential exists in

SGMAs. Focus efforts

on habitat that has

the greatest potential

for use by GRSG as

guided by ecological site

descriptions and other

Action B-LOC 7:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
259 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

restoration priorities

established by the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

Action B-LOC 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 8:— Action B-LOC 8:— Action B-LOC 8:— Action B-LOC

8: Recognize that

stipulations for other

species (e.g. raptors)

may impede the ability to

effectively reclaim areas

of impact and remove

those barriers in order to

achieve immediate and

effective reclamation.

Action B-LOC 8:—

Action B-LOC 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 9:— Action B-LOC 9:— Action B-LOC 9:— Action B-LOC 9:

Prioritize areas for

habitat improvement

utilizing sound resource

information including

soil surveys, ecological

site descriptions, and

GRSG population data.

Action B-LOC 9:—

Action B-LOC 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 10:— Action B-LOC 10:— Action B-LOC 10:— Action B-LOC 10:

Design exploration

projects for mineral

access and the betterment

of habitat. Ensure roads

and other ancillary

features that impact

GRSG habitat are

designed to avoid where

feasible and otherwise

minimize and mitigate

impacts in the short and

long term

Action B-LOC 10:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
260 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LOC 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 11: — Action C-LOC 11: — Action D-LOC 11: — Action E-LOC 11:

Differentiate between

short-(exploration)

and long-term (active

mining) impacts and

manage timing of

operations and physical

disturbance accordingly.

Action F-LOC 11: —

Action A-LOC 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 12: — Action C-LOC 12: — Action D-LOC 12:

Close or mitigate

abandon mines sites

within PPMAs and

PGMAs to reduce

predation of GRSG by

eliminating physical

structures that could

provide nesting

opportunities and

perching sites for

predators.

Action E-LOC 12: — Action F-LOC 12: —

Salable Minerals

Action A-SAL 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 1:

Close PPMAs to

mineral material sales.

Action C-SAL 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-SAL 1: Allow

no new salable mineral

material sites in PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Action E-SAL 1: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SAL 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-SAL 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 2:

In PPMAs, restore

salable mineral

pits no longer in

use to meet GRSG

habitat conservation

objectives.

Action C-SAL 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-SAL 2: In

PPMAs, reclaim salable

mineral materials sites

no longer in use to

meet GRSG habitat

objectives (see Table

2-6).

Action E-SAL 2: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SAL 2: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
261 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-SAL 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 3:— Action C-SAL 3:— Action D-SAL 3:

On existing mineral

materials sites, allow

mineral materials sales

in PPMAs and PGMAs

as required, to meet

Federal, Tribal, State,

County and public

needs. Loss of habitat

through disturbance

in PPMAs and PGMAs

would be off-set through

mitigation.

Additional mitigation,

including off-site

mitigation would be

required to off-set

any net loss of

habitat asa result of

authorizing expansion

of existing materials

pits. Habitat loss in

PPMAs and PGMAs

would be off-set through

mitigation to ensure no

net un-mitigated loss.

All mineral materials

activities would be

subject to compliance

with standard surface

use stipulations (general

occupancy, seasonal and

yearlong TLs, and CSU

stipulations) for GRSG

in PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-SAL 3: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SAL 3:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
262 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SAL 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 4: — Action C-SAL 4: — Action D-SAL 4: Close

or mitigate abandon

mines sites within

PPMAs and PGMAs

to reduce predation of

GRSG by eliminating

physical structures

that could provide

nesting opportunities

and perching sites for

predators.

Action E-SAL 4: — Action F-SAL 4: —

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Action A-NEL 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-NEL 1:

Close PPMAs to

non-energy leasable

mineral leasing.

This includes not

permitting any new

leases to expand an

existing mine.

Action C-NEL 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-NEL 1: Close

PPMAs and PGMAs

to non-energy leasable

mineral leasing.

Action E-NEL 1:

Proposed features over

32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the

avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat. This is similar to

designation as avoidance

areas.

Action F-NEL 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-NEL 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-NEL 2: — Action C-NEL 2: — Action D-NEL 2: Issue

no non-energy leasable

prospecting permits

within PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Action E-NEL 2: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-NEL 2: —

Action A-NEL 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-NEL 3: For

existing non-energy

leasable mineral leases

in PPMAs, in addition

to the solid minerals

BMPs (Appendix E of

NTT), follow the same

BMPs applied to Fluid

Minerals (Appendix D

of NTT), when wells

are used for solution

mining.

Action C-NEL 3: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-NEL 3: — Action E-NEL 3: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-NEL 3: Same as

Alternative B.

Mineral Split Estate

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
263 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-MSE 1: Action

A-MSE 1: No common

action across LUPs within

the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Action B-MSE 1:

Where the federal

government owns

the mineral estate

in PPMAs, and

the surface is in

nonfederal ownership,

apply the conservation

measures applied on

public lands.

Action C-MSE 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-MSE 1:

Where the federal

government owns the

mineral estate in PPMAs

and PGMAs and the

surface is in nonfederal

ownership and adjacent

to public lands,

apply the appropriate

conservation measures

and RDFs that are

applied on public lands.

Action E-MSE 1: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-MSE 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-MSE 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-MSE 2:

Where the federal

government owns

the surface, and

the mineral estate

is in nonfederal

ownership in PPMAs,

apply appropriate

Fluid Mineral BMPs

(see Appendix D

of NTT) to surface

development.

Action C-MSE 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-MSE 2:

Where the federal

government owns the

surface and the mineral

estate is in nonfederal

ownership in PPMAs

and PGMAs, apply

appropriate surface use

stipulations and RDFs

to surface development.

Action E-MSE 2:

Proposed features over

32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the avoid,

minimize, and mitigation

evaluation in Occupied

and Suitable Habitat.

Action F-MSE 2: Same as

Alternative B.

Special Designations-Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Action A-SD 1: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SD 1: — Action C-SD 1:

Designate the following

proposed ACECs to

preserve, protect,

conserve, restore,

and sustain GRSG

populations and the

sagebrush ecosystem on

which the GRSG relies.

● Black Rock (132,400

acres)

● Buffalo Skedaddle

(1,033,000 acres)

Action D-SD 1: Same

as Alternative A.

Action E-SD 1: — Action F-SD 1: Designate

the following proposed

ACECs (BLM) and

Special Conservation

Areas (Forest Service)

as sagebrush reserves

to conserve GRSG- and

other sagebrush-dependent

species.

● Bates Mountain

(384,2200 acres)

● Cortez Range (164,800

acres)

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
264 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Butte/Buck/White

Pine (1,031,000 acres)

● Clan Alpine (70,900

acres)

● Cortez (127,300

acres)

● Desatoya (170,800

acres)

● Desert (557,100

acres)

● East Valley (160,300

acres)

● Fish Creek (50,600

acres)

● Gollaher (597,700

acres)

● Islands (112,600

acres)

● Lincoln (280,200

acres)

● Lone Willow

(298,300 acres)

● Massacre (987,700

acres)

● Monitor 582,300

acres)

● North Fork (827,900

acres)

● Fish Creek Mountains

(70,100 acres)

● Little Fish Lake Valley

(122,700 acres)

● Monitor (564,700

acres)

● Monitor Valley

(253,300 acres)

● Reese River (109,600

acres)

● Roberts Mountain

(100,900 acres)

● Telegraph Mountain

(14,100 acres)

Special Management: To

protect the relevance and

importance values of the

GRSG and habitat, the

following management

prescriptions would apply: ● Closed to cross country

vehicle travel

● Motorized and

mechanized travel

limited to designated

routes. No new

mechanized or

motorized routes within 4 miles of leks or within

PPMAs

● Seasonally prohibit

camping and

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
265 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● O’Neil Basin

(665,600 acres)

● Pine Forest (46,800

acres)

● Reese River 351,425

acres)

● Ruby Valley (292,000

acres)

● Santa Rosa (601,600

acres)

● Schell Antelope

(296,000 acres)

● Shoshone (239,100

acres)

● Snake (319,700 acres) ● South Fork (223,500

acres)

● Springs/Snake Valley

(130,500 acres)

● Steptoe Cave

(184,500 acres)

nonmotorized

recreation within4

miles of active leks

● Allow only SRPs that

have demonstrated

beneficial or neutral

effects on PPMAs

● Exclusion area for new

ROWs in PPMAs

● Avoidance area for new

ROWs in PPMAs and

PGMAs

● Retain PPMAs in the

ACECs in federal

ownership

● Prioritize acquisition of

private lands in ACECs

over easements

● Mineral withdrawal for

PPMAs in ACECs

● Allow for vegetative

management to

be consistent with

composition and

structure in achieving

● Three Bar (417,500

acres)

● Toiyabe (640,900

acres)

habitat objectives

● Allow for seasonal and

timing restrictions in

livestock grazing in the

ACECs

● Tuscarora (442,000

acres)

● When possible

permanently retire

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
266 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Virginia (53,500

acres)

● Vya (324,500 acres)

Special Management: To

protect the relevance and

importance values of the

GRSG and habitat, the

following management

prescriptions would

apply: ● Designate as

Visual Resource

Management (VRM)

Class1

grazing permits as

opportunity arises

● Manage riparian and

wetland areas to meet

proper functioning

condition and maintain a component of

perennial forbs with

diverse species richness

and productivity

relative to site potential

● Prohibit new water

developments for

diversion from springs

or seeps within PPMAs

and PGMAs

● No livestock grazing

during lek and nesting

periods

● No livestock grazing

during winter periods

● Motorized travel

would be limited

to existing roads,

primitive roads, and

trails

● Prohibit industrial

wind and wind farm

construction in ACEC

● Closed to oil, gas and

geothermal leasing in

PPMAs and within4

miles of active leks

● Allow geophysical

exploration outside

of PPMAs using

helicopter-portable

drilling methods only

and in accordance

with seasonal timing

restrictions or other

restrictions that may

apply

or within 5-10 miles

of ACEC boundary

● Prohibit industrial

solar projects within

● Do not use Categorical

Exclusion to resolve

Section 390 resource

conflicts in PPMAs

ACECs

● Design and implement

fuels treatments with

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
267 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Mineral withdrawal

from PPMAs and

targeted restoration

habitat

● Require existing

and future energy

transmission lines

in existing ROW

corridors to acquire

features to enhance

GRSG habitatsecurity

● Avoidance area for

new ROWs and

communication or

other towers

● Protect Native

American traditional

and cultural sites and

uses

● Retain all public lands

in the ACECs in

federal ownership

● Prioritize acquisition

of private lands

in ACECs over

easements

● Minimal use of

herbicides to control

invasive and noxious

weeds

● Closed for oil, gas and

geothermal leasing

within ACECs

emphasis on protecting

existing sagebrush

ecosystem

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
268 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

● Mineral withdrawal

for ACECs and

PPMAs

● Allow locatable

and nonlocatable

mineral development

in nonhabitat areas

● Prohibit the use

of helicopters in

managing wild horse

populations

Action A-CTTM 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 1:

In PPMAs, limit

motorized travel

to existing roads,

primitive roads, and

trails at a minimum,

until such time as

travel management

planning is complete

and routes are either

designated or closed.

Action C-CTTM 1:

Motorized travel would

be limited to existing

roads, primitive roads,

and trails in PPMAs.

Action D-CTTM 1: In

plans that have been

completed and are being

implemented (e.g.,

Northeastern California

and Forest Service

plans), motorized travel

would be limited to

designated routes in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

In areas where travel

planning has not been

completed, motorized

travel would be limited

to existing routes in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-CTTM 1: In

occupied and suitable

habitat, motorized travel

should be limited

until such time as

implementation of travel

planning using avoid,

minimize and mitigation

is completed.

Action F-CTTM 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-CTTM 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 2: — Action C-CTTM 2: — Action D-CTTM 2: — Action E-CTTM 2:

Work collaboratively

through LAWGs, State,

and Federal agencies to

designate OHV areas

outside of SGMAs.

Action F-CTTM 2: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
269 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-CTTM 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 3: — Action C-CTTM 3: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 3: — Action E-CTTM 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 3:

Prohibit new road

construction within 4

miles of active GRSG

leks, and avoid new road

construction in PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Action A-CTTM 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 4:

In PPMAs, travel

management should

evaluate the need for

permanent or seasonal

road or area closures.

Action C-CTTM 4: Some

roads that intrude into lek

or winter habitats will be

removed or seasonally

closed.

Action D-CTTM 4: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

new travel management

plans would evaluate

vehicle routes and

determine the need for

permanent or seasonal

road closures, and

mode of travel (e.g.

motorcycle, ATV, and

UTV) restrictions,

including noise levels

and speed. Where such

closures or restrictions

are infeasible due

to administrative or

public need, consider

re-routing road to

improve or protect

GRSG habitat. Periods

of seasonal road

closures would be

identified in the travel

management plan

taking into account

the adverse effect on

the particular life-cycle

need of GRSG in the

area of the seasonal

closure. Routes in

PPMAs not required

for public access or

recreation with current

administrative/agency

Action E-CTTM 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
270 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

purpose or need

should be evaluate

for administrative

access only in the

implementation-level

transportation

management plans.

Action A-CTTM 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 5:

Complete activity

level travel plans

within five years

of the ROD. During

activity level planning,

where appropriate,

designate routes in

PPMAs with current

administrative/agency

purpose or need to

administrative access

only.

Action C-CTTM 5: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 5:

Same as Alternative A.

Action E-CTTM 5:

TMA-8.1: Follow a

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible (State of Nevada

2012).

Action F-CTTM 5: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-CTTM 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM

6: In PPMAs, limit

route construction

to realignments of

existing designated

routes if that

realignment has

a minimal impact

on GRSG habitat,

eliminates the need to

construct a new road,

or is necessary for

motorist safety.

Action C-CTTM 6: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 6: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

no new roads would be

allowed except those

necessary for public

safety, administrative

or public need to

accommodate valid

existing rights. Limit

route construction

to realignments of

existing routes if the

realignment:

1. maintains or

enhances PPMAs,

2. eliminates the

need to construct a

new road, or

Action E-CTTM 6:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 6: Limit

route construction to

realignments of existing

designated routes if that

realignment has a minimal

impact on GRSG habitat,

eliminates the need to

construct a new road, or

is necessary for motorist

safety. Mitigate any

impacts with methods that

have been demonstrated to

be effective to offset the

loss of GRSG habitat.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
271 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

3. is necessary for

public safety,

4. Minimize impacts

on GRSG

habitat through

application

of RDFs (see

Appendix A) and

other mitigation

measures.

Action A-CTTM 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 7: In

PPMAs, use existing

roads, or realignments

as described above to

access valid existing

rights that are not

yet developed. If

valid existing rights

cannot be accessed

via existing roads,

then build any new

road constructed to

the absolute minimum

standard necessary,

and add the surface

disturbance to the

total disturbance in the

priority area. If that

disturbance exceeds

3 % for that area,

then evaluate and

implement additional,

effective mitigation

necessary to offset

the resulting loss of

GRSG habitat (see

Objectives).

Action C-CTTM 7: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM

7: In PPMAs and

PGMAs, access to valid

existing rights would

be addressed to provide

the minimum access

necessary to exercise

the right and maintain or

enhance GRSG habitat

through mitigation

necessary to off-set loss

to PPMAs.

Action E-CTTM 7:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 7: Same

as Alternative B using a

4-mile buffer from leks to

determine road route.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
272 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-CTTM 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 8:

In PPMAs, allow no

upgrading of existing

routes that would

change route category

(road, primitive road,

or trail) or capacity

unless the upgrading

would have minimal

impact on GRSG

habitat, is necessary

for motorist safety, or

eliminates the need to

construct a new road.

Action C-CTTM 8: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 8: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

allow no upgrading

of existing routes

that would change

route category (road,

primitive road, or trail)

or capacity unless the

upgrade would maintain

or enhance GRSG

habitat, provide a fuel

break to protect native

vegetation, is necessary

for public safety, or

eliminates the need to

construct a new road.

Action E-CTTM 8:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 8: Allow

no upgrading of existing

routes that would change

route category (road,

primitive road, or trail)

or capacity unless it is

necessary for motorist

safety, or eliminates the

need to construct a new

road. Any impacts shall be

mitigated with methodsthat

have been demonstrated to

be effective to offset the

loss of GRSG habitat.

Action A-CTTM 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM 9:

In PPMAs, conduct

restoration of roads,

primitive roads and

trails not designated

in travel management

plans. This also

includes primitive

route/roads that were

not designated in

WSAs and within

lands with wilderness

characteristics that

have been selected for

protection in previous

LUPs.

Action C-CTTM 9: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 9: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

close primitive roads

and trails not designated

in travel management

plans so they are

effectively closed to

motorized travel.

Action E-CTTM 9:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 9: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
273 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-CTTM 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-CTTM

10: When reseeding

roads, primitive roads

and trails in PPMAs,

use appropriate seed

mixes and consider

the use of transplanted

sagebrush.

Action C-CTTM 10:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-CTTM 10: In

PPMAs and PGMAs,

obliterate and seed

roads, primitive roads

and trails not designated

in travel management

plans, with appropriate

seed mixes and

transplanted sagebrush

when applicable. Use

fire resistant species to

provide for fire breaks

where appropriate.

Seed must be certified

weed-free.

Action E-CTTM 10:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-CTTM 10: When

reseeding closed roads,

primitive roads and trails,

use appropriate native seed

mixes and require the use

of transplanted sagebrush.

Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Action A-LR-LUA 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

1: Make PPMAs

exclusion areas for

new BLM ROW or

Forest Service SUA

permits. Consider the

following exceptions:

● Within designated

ROW or

SUA corridors

encumbered by

existing ROW or

SUA: new ROWs

or SUAs may be

co-located only if

the entire footprint

of the proposed

project (including

construction and

staging), can

be completed

within the existing

disturbance

Action C-LR-LUA 1:

New corridors/facilities

New transmission

corridors, ROWs for

corridors (oil, gas,

water/aquifer mining),

and communication

or other towers are

prohibited in ACECs and

PPMAs.

New corridors/facilities

will be sited in nonhabitat

and bundled with existing

corridors to the maximum

extent possible.

Action D-LR-LUA 1:

Designate PPMAs as

ROW avoidance areas

for all other ROWs or

SUAs.

Development within

avoidance areas could

occur if the development

incorporates appropriate

RDFs in design and

construction (e.g. noise,

tall structure, and

seasonal restrictions)

and development results

in no net un-mitigated

loss of PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Subject to valid,

existing rights: where

new ROWs or SUAs

associated with valid

existing rights are

Action E-LR-LUA

1: TMA-8.2: Site

new linear features in

existing corridors or, at a

minimum, co-locate with

existing linear features in

SGMAs.

Proposed features over

32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the

avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat. This is similar

to designation as ROW

avoidance areas.

Action F-LR-LUA 1:

PPMAs and PGMAs shall

be exclusion areas for new

ROWs permits. Consider

the following exceptions:

● Within designated

ROW corridors

encumbered by existing

ROW authorizations:

new ROWs may be

co­located only if the

entire footprint of

the proposed project

(including construction

and staging); can be

completed within the

existing disturbance

associated with the

authorized ROWs.

● Subject to valid,

existing rights: where

new ROWs associated

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
274 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

associated with the

authorized ROWs

or SUAs.

Subject to valid

existing rights: where

new ROWs or SUAs

associated with valid

existing rights are

required, co-locate

new ROWs or SUAs

within existing ROWs

or SUAs or where

it best minimizes

impacts on GRSG.

Use existing roads,

or realignments as

described above, to

access valid existing

rights that are not

yet developed. If

valid existing rights

cannot be accessed

via existing roads,

then build any new

road constructed to

the absolute minimum

standard necessary,

and add the surface

disturbance to the

total disturbance in the

priority area. If that

disturbance exceeds

3% for that area,

then evaluate and

implement additional

effective mitigation on a case-by-case basis

to offset the resulting

loss of GRSG habitat.

required, co-locate

new ROWs or SUAs

within existing ROWs

or SUAs to achieve no

net un-mitigated loss of

PPMAs.

with valid existing

rights are required,

co­locate new ROWs

within existing ROWs

or where it best

minimizes Impacts

on GRSG. Use existing

roads, or realignments

as described above, to

access valid existing

rights that are not yet

developed. If valid

existing rights cannot

be accessed via existing

roads, then build any

new road constructed to

the absolute minimum

standard necessary,

and add the surface

disturbance to the

total disturbance in the

priority area. If that

disturbance exceeds

3% for that area,

then make additional

mitigation that has been

demonstrated to be

effective to offset the

resulting loss of GRSG

habitat.

on and Alternatives

Action

Chapter

Alternatives

2 Proposed Acti
275 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

2: Evaluate and

take advantage of

opportunities to

remove, bury, or

modify existing power

lines within PPMAs.

Action C-LR-LUA 2:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 2:

Where appropriate, bury

new and existing utility

lines as mitigation

unless not technically

feasible.

Action E-LR-LUA 2:

See role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

TMA-8: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with

interest groups; focus

attention on the series of

transmission corridors

currently being studied to

consider the longer-term

transmission needs

required to meet the State

and Nation’s renewable

energy demands (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.1: Follow a

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-8.2: Site new

linear features in

existing corridors or, at a

minimum, co-locate with

existing linear features in

SGMAs (State of Nevada

2012).

Action F-LR-LUA 2: Same

as Alternative B

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
276 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

TMA-8.4: Apply

measures to deter raptor

perching and raven

nesting on elevated

structures

Action A-LR-LUA 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

3: Where existing

leases or ROWs or

SUAs have had some

level of development

(road, fence, well,

etc.) and are no longer

in use, reclaim the

site by removing these

features and restoring

the habitat.

Action C-LR-LUA 3:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 3:

In PPMAs and PGMAs

where existing ROWs or

SUAs are no longer in

use, coordinate with the

lease holder or Forest

Service SUP holder to

relinquish the ROW

or SUA and reclaim

the site by removing

overhead lines and other

infrastructure.

Action E-LR-LUA 3:

TMA-8.3: Aggressively

engage in reclamation

and weed control

efforts during pre-and

post-project construction

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action F-LR-LUA 3: Same

as Alternative B

Action A-LR-LUA 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 4:

Planning Direction

Note: Relocate

existing designated

ROW corridors

crossing PPMAs

void of any authorized

ROWs, outside of the

PPMA. If relocation

is not possible,

undesignate that entire

corridor during the

planning process.

Action C-LR-LUA 4:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 4:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 4: No

similar Action.

Action F-LR-LUA 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
277 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

5: Make PGMAs

“avoidance areas” for

new ROWs or SUAs.

Action C-LR-LUA 5:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 5:

Designate PGMAs as

ROW avoidance areas

for new communication

site ROWs or SUAs.

Development within

avoidance areas could

occur if the development

incorporates appropriate

RFDs in design and

construction (e.g. noise,

tall structure, and

seasonal restrictions)

and development results

in no net un-mitigated

loss of PPMA or

PGMAs.

Action E-LR-LUA

5: TMA-18.2:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation/weed

control efforts during

pre-and post-project

construction

TMA-18.3: Apply

measures to deter raptor

perching and raven

nesting on elevated

structures (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-18.4: In

SGMAs, limit conflict

through avoidance

and minimization of

impacts, adaptive

management, and

appropriate mitigation.

All actions in Section

18 will be refined

pursuant to the "Resource

Selection Function

Model" (Coates) and

other best available

science.

TMA-18.5: Follow

a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible

TMA-18.7:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation/weed

control efforts during

Action F-LR-LUA 5: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
278 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

pre-and post-project

construction.

TMA-18.10:

Development or

infrastructure features

should not be placed

withina 0.6 mile (1

km) radius around seeps,

springs and wet meadows

within identified brood

rearing habitats wherever

possible. These

features can provide a competitive advantage

for avian predators;

therefore increasing

GRSG mortality during a period when birds may

be susceptible.

TMA-18.11:A company

representative will

provide environmental

training to on-site

personnel and be

responsible for

overseeing compliance

with all protective

measures and

coordination in

accordance with the

permitting authority.

TMA-18.12: Vehicle

trips shall be limited

to those times that

least impact nesting or

wintering GRSG.

TMA-18.13: Current

transmission and

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
279 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

generation siting and

construction practices

to be reviewed and

potentially refined by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team pursuant to the

“Resource Selection

Function Model”

(Coates) and other best

available science include

proximity to active leks

and nesting habitat,

relation to migratory

and nonmigratory

populations, and relation

to movement corridors.

Action A-LR-LUA 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 6:

Where new ROWs or

SUAs are necessary

in PGMAs, co­locate

new ROWs or SUAs

within existing ROWs

or SUAs where

possible.

Action C-LR-LUA 6:

Same as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-LUA 6:

In PPMAs and PGMAs,

co-locate new utility

(power, telephone,

etc.) lines with other

existing linear surface

ROWs, such as roads

and pipelines.

Action E-LR-LUA

6: TMA-18.6: Site

new linear features in

existing corridors or, at

a minimum, co-locating

with existing linear

features in SGMAs.

Action F-LR-LUA 6: —

Action A-LR-LUA 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 7:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 7: — Action D-LR-LUA

7: Manage landfills

and transfer stations

on public lands to

reduce opportunities

for nesting, cover, or

perches for predators.

Identify and close

trespass landfills and

dumps on public lands.

Action E-LR-LUA 7:

TMA-9.3: Continue

successful programs

that have eliminated

external food sources

for ravens, particularly

landfills, waste transfer

facilities, and road kill

that subsidize raven

populations. Enforce

existing State laws that

require daily covering

of landfills. Continue

to reduce and minimize

Action F-LR-LUA 7: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
280 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

external food sources

for ravens: particularly

landfills, waste transfer

facilities, and road kill

that subsidize raven

populations. Continue

to enforce existing State

laws that require daily

covering of landfills

Action A-LR-LUA 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 8:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 8: — Action D-LR-LUA 8:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 8:

The Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team will

meet energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with all

interest groups and

adherence to NRS

701.610 (amended

by the 2011 Nevada

Legislature) that requires

State agency review of

all energy development

proposals. Attention

will be focused on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer term transmission

needs required to

meet the nation’s

renewable energy

demands. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

Action F-LR-LUA 8: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
281 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

Action A-LR-LUA 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 9:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 9: — Action D-LR-LUA 9:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 9:

Follow a strategy that

seeks to avoid conflict

with GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action F-LR-LUA 9: —

Action A-LR-LUA 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

10: —

Action C-LR-LUA 10: — Action D-LR-LUA 10:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 10:

In SGMAs, limit conflict

through avoidance

and minimization of

impacts, adaptive

management, and

appropriate mitigation.

All actions in Section

18 will be refined

pursuant to the "Resource

Selection Function

Model" (Coates) and

other best available

science.

Action F-LR-LUA 10: —

Action A-LR-LUA 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA 11:

—

Action C-LR-LUA 11: — Action D-LR-LUA 11:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 11:

Energy developers will

work closely with State

and Federal agency

experts to determine

important nesting, brood

rearing and winter

habitats and avoid those

areas.

Action F-LR-LUA 11: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
282 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

12: —

Action C-LR-LUA 12: — Action D-LR-LUA 12:

—

Action E-LR-LUA

12: A company

representative will

provide environmental

training to on-site

personnel and be

responsible for

overseeing compliance

with all protective

measures and

coordination in

accordance with the

permitting authority.

Action F-LR-LUA 12: —

Action A-LR-LUA 13:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

13: —

Action C-LR-LUA 13: — Action D-LR-LUA 13:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 13:

Vehicle trips shall be

limited to those times

that least impact nesting

or wintering GRSG.

Action F-LR-LUA 13: —

Action A-LR-LUA 14:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

14: —

Action C-LR-LUA 14: — Action D-LR-LUA 14:

—

Action E-LR-LUA 14:

Current transmission and

generation siting and

construction practices

to be reviewed and

potentially refined by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

and Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team pursuant to the

“Resource Selection

Function Model”

(Coates) and other best

available science include

proximity to active leks

and nesting habitat,

relation to migratory

and nonmigratory

populations, and relation

to movement corridors.

Action F-LR-LUA 14: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
283 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LUA 15:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

15: —

Action C-LR-LUA 15: — Action D-LR-LUA

15: Eliminate

existing raven nesting

opportunities created

by anthropogenic

development on

public lands (e.g.,

remove infrastructure,

power line, and

communication

facilities no longer

in service).

Action E-LR-LUA 15:

See State raven control

actions above.

Action F-LR-LUA 15: —

Action A-LR-LUA 16:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LUA

16: —

Action C-LR- LUA 16:

—

Action D-LR-LUA 16:

In PPMAs and PGMAs,

require ROW holders

to retro-fit existing

power lines and other

utility structure with

perch-deterring devices

during ROW renewal

process.

Action E-LR- LUA

16: TMA-8.4: Apply

measures to deter raptor

perching and raven

nesting on elevated

structures.

Action F-LR- LUA 16: —

Action A-LR- LUA

17: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR- LUA

17: —

Action C-LR- LUA 17:

—

Action D-LR-LUA 17:

—

Action E-LR- LUA

17: Development or

infrastructure features

should not be placed

within a 0.6 mile (1

km) radius around seeps,

springs and wet meadows

within identified brood

rearing habitats wherever

possible. These

features can provide

a competitive advantage

for avian predators;

therefore increasing

GRSG mortality during

a period when birds may

be susceptible.

Action F-LR- LUA 17: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
284 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR- LUA

18: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR- LUA

18: —

Action C-LR- LUA 18:

—

Action D-LR-LUA

18: Do not designate

new utility corridors in

PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-LR- LUA

18: TMA-18.6: Site

new linear features in

existing corridors or, at

a minimum, co-locating

with existing linear

features in SGMAs.

Action F-LR- LUA 18: —

Land Tenure

Action A-LR-LT 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LT

1: Retain public

ownership of PPMAs.

Consider exceptions

where there is mixed

ownership, and land

exchanges would

allow for additional

or more contiguous

federal ownership

patterns within the

PPMA.

Under PPMAs with

minority federal

ownership, include an

additional, effective

mitigation agreement

for any disposal of

federal land. As a

final preservation

measure consideration

should be given to

pursuing a permanent

conservation

easement.

Action C-LR-LT 1: All

public lands in ACECs,

PPMAs, and identified

restoration and rehab land

areas will be retained in

public ownership.

Action D-LR-LT 1:

Retain public ownership

of PPMAs and PGMAs.

Consider exceptions

when disposal and/or

acquisitions of public

lands would allow for

more contiguous federal

ownership patterns

within the GRSG habitat

area, or where a land

tenure adjustment would

result in a net gain in

amount or quality of

GRSG habitat.

Action E-LR-LT 1: No

similar Action.

Action F-LR-LT 1: Same

as Alternative B, without

exceptions for disposal

to consolidate ownership

that would be beneficial to

GRSG.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
285 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-LT 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-LT

2: Where suitable

conservation actions

cannot be achieved

in PPMAs, seek to

acquire state and

private lands with

intact subsurface

mineral estate by

donation, purchase

or exchange in order

to best conserve,

enhance or restore

GRSG habitat.

Action C-LR-LT 2:

BLM and Forest Service

will strive to acquire

important private lands

in BLM-designated

ACECs and Forest

Service GRSG Special

Areas. Acquisition

will be prioritized over

easements.

Action D-LR-LT 2:

Where significant

conservation actions

could be achieved

in PPMAs, seek to

acquire lands with intact

subsurface mineral

estate by donation,

purchase, or exchange in

order to best conserve,

enhance or restore

GRSG habitat.

Action E-LR-LT 2: PMA

3.3 and TMA-21.9: To

ensure that mitigation

efforts to create, restore

or enhance habitat are not

intentionally disturbed

in the future, long-term

conservation easements

or a record of restrictive

covenant should be

established over the

property. If public lands

are used for mitigation

purposes, adequate

long-term maintenance

or replacement of

mitigation objectives

must be considered while

recognizing existing uses

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action F-LR-LT 2: —

Withdrawals

Action A-LR-W 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 1:

Propose lands within

PPMAs for mineral

withdrawal.

Action C-LR-W 1: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-W 1:

Same as Alternative A.

Action E-LR-W 1:

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, encourage the

strong conservation ethic

in the mining industry by

implementing effective

avoidance management,

and enhancement and

reclamation of disturbed

landsto preserve, protect,

and improve habitat in

SGMAs. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Action F-LR-W 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
286 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-15.3: Follow a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible (State of Nevada

2012).

TMA-15.5:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation efforts as

projects are completed,

and target reclamation

where the ecological

site potential exists in

SGMAs. Focus efforts

on habitat that has

the greatest potential

for use by GRSG as

guided by ecological site

descriptions and other

restoration priorities

established by the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

(State of Nevada 2012).

TMA-15.9:

Differentiate between

short-(exploration)

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
287 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

and long-term (active

mining) impacts and

manage timing of

operations and physical

disturbance accordingly

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action A-LR-W 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W

2: In PPMAs, do

not recommend

withdrawal proposals

not associated with

mineral activity unless

the land management

is consistent with

GRSG conservation

measures. (For

example; in a

proposed withdrawal

for a military

training range buffer

area, manage the

buffer area with

GRSG conservation

measures.)

Action C-LR-W 2: Same

as Alternative A.

Action D-LR-W 2:

Same as Alternative A.

Action E-LR-W 2: — Action F-LR-W 2: Do

not approve withdrawal

proposals not associated

with mineral activity unless

the land management is

consistent with GRSG

conservation measures.

(For example; in a

proposed withdrawal

for a military training range

buffer area, manage the

buffer area with GRSG

conservation measures that

have been demonstrated to

be effective.

Action A-LR-W 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 3: — Action C-LR-W 3:

ROWs will be amended

to require features that

enhance GRSG habitat

security.

Existing designated

corridors in BLM ACECs

and Forest Service Special

Areas may be accessed

for maintenance.

Chapter

Action D-LR-W 3: — Action E-LR-W 3: — Action F-LR-W 3: —

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
288 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LR-W 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 4:— Action C-LR-W 4:— Action D-LR-W 4: In

priority and general

habitat, no new road

ROWs would be

authorized except those

necessary for public

safety or administrative

or public need tied to

valid existing rights.

Limit route construction

to realignments of

existing ROWs if the

realignment:

1. maintains or

enhances priority

GRSG habitat,

2. eliminates the

need to authorize a new ROW to

constructa new

road, or

3. is necessary for

public safety,

New ROW

authorizations would

be evaluated ona

case-by-case basis. If

new road construction

is necessary, minimize

impacts on GRSG

habitat through

application of RDFs

and other mitigation

measures.

Action E-LR-W 4:

TMA-18.6: Site new

linear features in

existing corridors or, at a minimum, co-locating

with existing linear

features in SGMAs.

Action F-LR-W 4:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
289 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-LR-W 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 5:— Action C-LR-W 5:— Action D-LR-W

5: Within PPMAs

and PGMAs, allow

industrial coal-fired

or natural gas-fired

energy facilities

associated with existing

industrial infrastructure

(e.g.a mine site) to

provide on-site power

generation.

Action E-LR-W5

TMA-8: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with

interest groups; focus

attention on the series of

transmission corridors

currently being studied to

consider the longer-term

transmission needs

required to meet the State

and Nation’s renewable

energy demands (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.1: Followa

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action F-LR-W 5:—

Action A-LR-W 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-W 6:— Action C-LR-W 6:— Action D-LR-W 6:

Lands that are acquired

(exchange, purchase or

easement) for GRSG

habitat, would be

managed as PPMAs.

Action E-LR-W 6:— Action F-LR-W 6:—

Wind Energy

Development

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
290 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-WED

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-WED 1:

—

Action C-LR-WED 1: — Action D-LR-WED 1:

Designate PPMAs

and PGMAs as

ROW exclusion for

utility-scale commercial

wind energy facilities

(facilities that generate

large amounts of

electricity that is

delivered to many users

through transmission

and distribution

systems).

Action E-LR-WED 1:

TMA-18: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team will

meet energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with all

interest groups and

adherence to NRS

701.610 (amended

by the 2011 Nevada

Legislature) that requires

State agency review of

all energy development

proposals. Attention

will be focused on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer-term transmission

needs required to

meet the nation’s

renewable energy

demands. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

Action F-LR-WED 1:

Do not site wind energy

development in PPMAs

and PGMAs (Jones 2012).

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
291 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

TMA-18.1: Follow

a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action A-LR-WED

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-WED 2:

—

Action C-LR-WED 2: — Action D-LR-WED 2:

—

Action E-LR-WED 2: — Action F-LR-WED 2: Site

wind energy development

at least five miles from

active GRSG leks.

Action A-LR-WED

3: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-WED 3:

—

Action C-LR-WED 3: — Action D-LR-WED

3: Within PPMAs

and PGMAs allow

industrial wind facilities

associated with existing

industrial infrastructure

(e.g. a mine site) to

provide on-site power

generation.

Action E-LR-WED

3: TMA-8: Through

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through

close coordination

with interest groups;

focus attention on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer-term transmission

needs required to meet

the renewable energy

demands.

Action F-LR-WED 3: —

Industrial Solar

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
292 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-IS 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-IS 1: — Action C-LR-IS 1:

Industrial solar projects

will be prohibited in

ACECs and PPMAs.

Action D-LR-IS 1:

Designate PPMAs

and PGMAs as

ROW exclusion for

utility-scale solar energy

facilities.

Action E-LR-IS 1:

TMA-18: The Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council and the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team will

meet energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with all

interest groups and

adherence to NRS

701.610 (amended

by the 2011 Nevada

Legislature) that requires

State agency review of

all energy development

proposals. Attention

will be focused on the

series of transmission

corridors currently being

studied to consider the

longer-term transmission

needs required to

meet the nation’s

renewable energy

demands. On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

Action F-LR-IS 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
293 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

TMA-18.1: Follow a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in nonhabitat wherever

possible.

Action A-LR-IS 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-IS 2:— Action C-LR-IS 2:— Action D-LR-IS

2: Within PPMAs

and PGMAs, allow

industrial solar energy

facilities associated

with existing industrial

infrastructure (e.g. a mine site) to

provide on-site power

generation.

Action E-LR-IS 2:

TMA-8: Through the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council,

meet both renewable

and nonrenewable

energy goals and

GRSG conservation

measures through close

coordination with

interest groups; focus

attention on the series of

transmission corridors

currently being studied to

consider the longer-term

transmission needs

required to meet the State

and Nation’s renewable

energy demands (State of

Nevada 2012).

TMA-8.1: Followa

strategy that seeks to

avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Action F-LR-IS 2:—

Urbanization

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
294 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LR-U 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-U 1: — Action C-LR-U 1: — Action D-LR-U 1: — Action E-LR-U 1:

TMA-20: When a

county or city considers

a change to its master

plan for a land use of

higher intensity affecting

a SGMA, the county or

city should consult with

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

through its Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-LR-U 1: —

De Minimis Activities

Action A-LR-DMA

1: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-DMA 1:

—

Action C-LR-DMA 1: — Action D-LR-DMA 1:

—

Action E-LR-DMA 1:

TMA-23: Existing land

uses and landowner

activities in GRSG

habitat that do not

require state agency

review for consistency

with the State of Nevada

2012 Plan include the

following: (State of

Nevada 2012):

4. Existing animal

husbandry

practices including

branding, docking,

herding, trailing,

etc.

5. Existing farming

practices excluding

conversion

of sagebrush/

grassland to

agricultural lands.

Action F-LR-DMA 1: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
295 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

6. Existing grazing

operations that

utilize recognized

rangeland

management

practices included

in AMPs, NRCS

grazing plans,

prescribed grazing

plans, etc.

7. Construction

of agricultural

reservoirs and

aquatic habitat

improvements of

lessthan ten surface

acres and drilling

of agriculture and

residential water

wells including

installation of

tanks, water

windmills and solar

water pumps more

than 0.6 miles from

the perimeter of

the lek. Within 0.6

miles from leks, no

review is required

if construction does

not occur from

March 15 to June

30 and construction

does not occur on

the lek. All water

tanks shall have

escape ramps.

8. Agricultural

and residential

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
296 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

electrical

distribution lines

and substations

more than 0.6 miles

from leks. Within

0.6 miles from

leks no review

is required if

construction does

not occur from

March 15 to June

30 and construction

does not occur on

the lek. Raptor

perching deterrents

should be installed

on all poles within

0.6 miles from leks.

9. Agricultural

water pipelines

if construction

activities are more

than 0.6 miles from

leks. Within 0.6

miles from leks no

review is required

if construction does

not occur March

15 to June 30 and

construction is

reclaimed.

10. New fencing

greater than 1.25

miles from leks

and maintenance

of existing fencing.

For new fencing

within 1.25 miles

of leks, fences with

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
297 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

documented high

potential for strikes

should be marked.

11. Irrigation

(excluding the

conversion

of sagebrushgrassland to new

irrigated lands).

12. Spring

development if the

spring is protected

with fencing and

enough water

remains at the site

to provide mesic

(wet) vegetation.

13. Herbicide use

within existing

road, pipeline

and power line

ROW. Herbicides

application using

spot treatment.

Grasshopper/

Mormon cricket

control following

Reduced AgentArea Treatments

protocol.

14. State and county

road maintenance.

15. Cultural resource

pedestrian surveys.

16. Emergency

response.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
298 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Note: Regarding #4,

#5, and #6 above, The

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team will evaluate these

actions and provide

recommendation to

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council

pursuant to any new

information that is

forthcoming from best

available science and

utilizing the "Resource

Selection Function

Model" (Coates).

Action A-LR-DMA

2: No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LR-DMA 2:

—

Action C-LR-DMA 2: — Action D-LR-DMA 2:

—

Action E-LR-DMA 2:

TMA 23.1: On federal

lands, activities that

have an approved BLM

notice, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

Action F-LR-DMA 2: —

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
299 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFME 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 1:

In PPMAs, apply

actions through LUP

implementation

decisions (e.g.,

approval of an

Application for

Permit to Drill, and

Sundry Notice) and

upon completion of

the environmental

record of review

(43 CFR 3162.5),

including appropriate

documentation of

compliance with

NEPA. In this process

evaluate, among other

things:

1. Whether the

conservation

measure is

“reasonable” (43

CFR 3101.1-2)

with the valid

existing rights;

and

Action C-FFME 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 1: — Action E-FFME 1:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 1: Apply

the following conservation

measures as COAs at the

project and well permitting

stages, and through RMP

implementation decisions

and upon completion

of the environmental

record of review (43 CFR

Part 3162.5), including

appropriate documentation

of compliance with NEPA.

In this process evaluate,

among other things:

1. Whether the

conservation measure

is “reasonable” (43

CFR Part 3101.1­2)

with the valid existing

rights; and

2. Whether the action is

in conformance with

the approved RMP.

2. Whether the

action is in

conformance

with the

approved LUP.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
300 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFME 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

2: In PPMAs,

provide the following

conservation measures

as terms and

conditions of the

approved LUP:

Do not allow new

surface occupancy on

federal leases within

PPMAs, this includes

winter concentration

areas (Doherty et al.

2008; Carpenter et al.

2010) during any time

of the year. Consider

an exception:

● If the lease is

entirely within

PPMAs, apply

a 4-mile NSO

around the lek, and

limit permitted

disturbances to

1 per section

with no more

than 3% surface

disturbance in that

section.

● If the entire lease is

within the 4-mile

lek perimeter,

limit permitted

disturbances to

1 per section

with no more

than 3% surface

disturbance in that

section. Require

Action C-FFME 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 2: — Action E-FFME 2:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
301 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

any development

to be placed at the

most distal part of

the lease from the

lek, or, depending

on topography

and other habitat

aspects, in an

area that is less

demonstrably

harmful to GRSG.

Action A-FFME 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 3:

Apply a seasonal

restriction on

exploratory drilling

that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities during the

nesting and early

brood-rearing season

in all PPMAs during

this period.

Action C-FFME 3:

Timing avoidance periods

will be required.

Action D-FFME

3: Apply requisite

seasonal restriction

on exploratory

drilling that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities in winter

habitat and during the

lekking, nesting, and

early brood-rearing

season in all PPMAs.

See Appendix G,

Leasable Mineral

Stipulations, Waivers,

Modifications, and

Exceptions.

Action E-FFME 3:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 3:

Apply a seasonal

restriction on exploratory

drilling that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities during the nesting

and brood-rearing season

in all PPMAs and PGMAs

during this period. This

seasonal restriction shall

also to apply to related

activities that are disruptive

to GRSG, including vehicle

traffic and other human

presence.

Action A-FFME 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

4: BLM should

closely examine

the applicability

of categorical

exclusions in PPMAs.

If extraordinary

circumstances review

is applicable, BLM

should determine

whether those

circumstances exist.

Action C-FFME 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 4: — Action E-FFME 4:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 4: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
302 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFME 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 5:

Complete Master

Development Plans in

lieu of APD-by-APD

processing for all but

wildcat wells.

Action C-FFME 5: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 5: — Action E-FFME 5:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 5: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 6:

When permitting

APDs on existing

leases that are not

yet developed, the

proposed surface

disturbance cannot

exceed 3% for that

area. Consider an

exception if:

● Additional,

effective

mitigation is

demonstrated to

offset the resulting

loss of GRSG (see

Objectives).

● When necessary,

conduct

additional,

effective

mitigation in

1) PPMAs or –

less preferably

– 2) PGMAs

(dependent upon

the area-specific

ability to

increase GRSG

populations).

● Conduct

additional,

Action C-FFME 6: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 6:

On leased federal fluid

mineral estate, when

permitting Master

Development Plans in

PPMAs on leases not yet

developed, the proposed

surface disturbance

must achieve no

net unmitigated

loss of PPMAs.

Apply requisite

seasonal restrictions

on exploratory

drilling that prohibits

surface-disturbing

activities in winter

habitat and during the

lekking, nesting, and

early brood-rearing

season in all PPMAs.

When necessary,

prioritize and conduct

additional mitigation:

● Within the same

population area

where the impact is

realized; or

● Within the

same WAFWA

Management Zone

as the impact

Action E-FFME 6:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 6: When

permitting APDs on

existing leases that

are not yet developed,

the proposed surface

disturbance cannot exceed

3% per section for that

area.

Consider an exception if:

● Additional, effective

mitigation is

demonstrated to offset

the resulting loss of

GRSG (see Objectives).

● When necessary,

conduct additional,

effective mitigation in

PPMAs and PGMAs

(dependent upon the

area-specific ability

to increase GRSG

populations).

● Conduct additional,

effective mitigation

first within the same

population area where

the impact is realized,

and if not possible then

conduct mitigation

within the same

Management Zone

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
303 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

effective

mitigation first

within the same

population area

where the impact

is realized, and if

not possible then

conduct mitigation

within the same

Management Zone

as the impact, per

2006 WAFWA

Strategy – pg.

2-17.

unless greater

population benefits

can be realized outside

the population area or

WAFWA management

zone, subject to BLM

and State Wildlife

agency consultation and

agreement.

as the impact, per 2006

WAFWA Strategy – pg.

2-17.

Action A-FFME 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 7:

Require unitization

when deemed

necessary for proper

development and

operation of an area

(with strong oversight

and monitoring) to

minimize adverse

impacts on GRSG

according to the

Federal Lease Form,

3100-11, Sections 4

and 6.

Action C-FFME 7: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 7: — Action E-FFME 7:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 7: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

8: Identify areas

where acquisitions

(including subsurface

mineral rights)

or conservation

easements, would

benefit GRSG habitat.

Action C-FFME 8: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 8: — Action E-FFME 8:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 8: Same

as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
304 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action B-FFME 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME

9: For future

actions, require a

full reclamation bond

specific to the site in

accordance with 43

CFR 3104.2, 3104.3,

and 3104.5. Insure

bonds are sufficient

for costs relative to

reclamation (Connelly

et al. 2000a, Hagen

et al. 2007) that

would result in full

restoration of the

lands to the condition

it was found prior

to disturbance. Base

the reclamation costs

on the assumption

that contractors for

the BLM or Forest

Service will perform

the work.

Action C-FFME 9: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 9: — Action E-FFME 9:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 9: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 10:

Make applicable

BMPs (see Appendix

D of the NTT Report)

mandatory as COAs

within priority GRSG

habitat.

Action C-FFME 10:

Same as Alternative B.

Action D-FFME 10:

On leased federal fluid

mineral estate (where no

APD has been issued),

RDFs would be attached

as lease notices.

Action E-FFME 10:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 10: Same

as Alternative B.

Action A-FFME 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 11:

—

Action C-FFME 11:

Agencies will explore

options to amend, cancel,

or buy out leases in

ACECs and PPMAs.

Action D-FFME 11: — Action E-FFME 11:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 11: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
305 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FFME 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 12:

—

Action C-FFME 12:

Include conditions that

require relinquishment of

leases/authorizations if

doing so will: 1) mitigate

the impact of a proposed

development, or 2)

mitigate the unanticipated

impacts of an approved

development.

Action D-FFME 12: — Action E-FFME 12:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 12: —

Action A-FFME 13:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 13:

—

Action C-FFME 13: No

waivers will be issued.

Action D-FFME 13: — Action E-FFME 13:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 13: —

Action A-FFME 14:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 14:

—

Action C-FFME 14: — Action D-FFME 14:

On leased federal

fluid mineral estate

within PPMAs

complete Master

Development Plans

in lieu of APD-by-APD

processing for all but

wildcat wells.

Action E-FFME 14:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 14: —

Action A-FFME 15:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FFME 15:

—

Action C-FFME 15: — Action D-FFME 15:

On leased federal

fluid mineral estate

within PPMAs, require

a full reclamation

bond specific to the

site. Insure bonds are

sufficient for costs

relative to reclamation

that would result in

full restoration. Base

the reclamation costs

on the assumption that

contractors for the BLM

will perform the work.

Action E-FFME 15:

See Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-FFME 15: —

Fluid Minerals

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
306 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FM 1: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 1:

Close PPMAs to

fluid mineral leasing.

Consider an exception

when there is an

opportunity for the

BLM and Forest

Service to influence

conservation measures

where surface and/or

mineral ownership

is not entirely

federally owned

(i.e., checkerboard

ownership). In

this case, a plan

amendment may

be developed that

opens the priority

area for new leasing.

The plan must

demonstrate long-term

population increases

in the priority area

through mitigation

(prior to issuing the

lease) including lease

stipulations, off-site

mitigation, etc., and

avoid short-term

losses that put the

GRSG population at

risk from stochastic

events leading to

extirpation.

Action C-FM 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action D-FM 1: In

un-leased federal fluid

mineral estate in PPMAs

apply a NSO stipulation

and do not allow for

waivers, exceptions,

or modifications

to that stipulation.

Upon expiration

or termination of

existing leases within

PPMAs, apply the same

stipulation as above.

Action E-FM 1 B-FM

1: Proposed features

over 32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the

avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat. This is similar

to designation as ROW

avoidance areas.

Action F-FM 1: Close

PPMAs and PGMAs to

fluid mineral leasing.

Consider an exception:

When there is an

opportunity for the BLM

to influence conservation

measures where surface

and/or mineral ownership

is not entirely federally

owned (i.e., checkerboard

ownership). In this case,

a plan amendment may

be developed that opens

GRSG habitat for new

leasing. The plan must

demonstrate long-term

population increases in

the priority area through

mitigation (prior to issuing

the lease) including lease

stipulations, and off-site

mitigation, etc., and avoid

short-term losses that put

the GRSG population at

risk from stochastic events

leading to extirpation.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
307 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FM 2: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 2: — Action C-FM 2: — Action D-FM 2: In

un-leased federal

fluid mineral estate in

PGMAs, apply a NSO

stipulation, but allow for

waivers, exception, or

modifications consistent

with the objective.

Upon expiration

or termination of

existing leases within

PGMAs, apply the same

stipulation as above.

Action E-FM 2: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-FM 2: —

Action A-FM 3: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 3:

Allow geophysical

exploration within

PPMAs to obtain

exploratory

information for areas

outside of and adjacent

to PPMAs.

Only allow

geophysical

operations by

helicopter-portable

drilling methods

and in accordance

with seasonal timing

restrictions and/or

other restrictions that

may apply.

Action C-FM 3: Same as

Alternative B.

Action D-FM 3: Allow

geophysical exploration

within PPMAs and

PGMAs that does not

result in crushing of

sagebrush vegetation or

create new or additional

surface disturbance.

Heli-portable drilling

methods, articulated

rubber-tired vehicles

that “leave no

trace,” and vibro-seis

geophysical operations

conducted on existing

roads and bladed

shoulders would be

allowed. Geophysical

operations would be

subject to TLs and CSU

stipulations established

for GRSG in PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Action E-FM 3: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-FM 3: Allow

geophysical exploration

within PPMAs and PGMAs

to obtain exploratory

information for areas

outside of and adjacent

to PPMAs. Only allow

geophysical operations by

helicopter-portable drilling

methods and in accordance

with seasonal timing

restrictions and/or other

restrictions that may apply.

Geophysical exploration

shall be subject to seasonal

restrictions that preclude

activities in breeding,

nesting, brood rearing and

winter habitats during their

season of use by GRSG.

Allow no use of surface

shot methods within

PPMAs.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
308 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-FM 4: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-FM 4: — Action C-FM 4: — Action D-FM 4: In

un-leased federal

fluid mineral estate in

PGMAs, apply a NSO

stipulation, but allow for

waivers, exception, or

modifications consistent

with the objective.

Upon expiration

or termination of

existing leases within

PGMAs, apply the same

stipulation as above.

Action E-FM 4: See Role

of Sagebrush Ecosystem

Technical Team.

Action F-FM 4: —

Locatable Minerals

Action A-LOC 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 1:

In PPMAs, propose

withdrawal from

mineral entry based

on risk to the GRSG

and its habitat from

conflicting locatable

mineral potential and

development.

● Make any existing

claims within

the withdrawal

area subject to

validity exams or

buy out. Include

claims that have

been subsequently

determined to be

null and void

in the proposed

withdrawal.

● In plans of

operations

required prior

to any proposed

Action C-LOC 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-LOC 1: BLM

Public Lands- Authorize

locatable mineral

development activity

per the 43 CFR 3809

regulations through Plan

of Operation Approvals

and apply mitigation

and GRSG BMPs that

minimizes the loss of

PPMAs or provides

for enhancement of

PPMAs through off-site

mitigation within the

WAFWA management

zone.

Forest Service: Require

that new plans of

operation on forest

service-administered

lands authorized under

36 CFR 228 Subpart A

– Locatable Minerals,

include measures to

avoid or minimize

adverse effects on

Action E-LOC 1:

TMA-15.3: Follow

a strategy that seeks

to avoid conflict with

GRSG by locating

facilities and activities

in Non Habitat wherever

possible.

Proposed facilities and

activities over 32 acres

per square mile would

require application of

the avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat.

TMA-15.5:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation efforts as

projects are completed,

and target reclamation

where the ecological

site potential exists in

SGMAs. Focus efforts

on habitat that has

Action F-LOC 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
309 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

surface disturbing GRSG populations or the greatest potential activities, include their habitat. for use by GRSG as

the following: guided by ecological site

● Additional, descriptions and other

restoration priorities effective established by the

mitigation in

perpetuity for

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

conservation

(In accordance TMA-15.6: Recognize with existing that stipulations for other

policy, WO species (e.g. raptors)

IM 2008-204). may impede the ability to

Example: effectively reclaim areas

purchase private of impact and remove

land and mineral those barriers in order to

rights or severed achieve immediate and

subsurface mineral effective reclamation.

rights within

the priority area TMA-15.7: Prioritize

and deed to US areas for habitat

Government). improvement utilizing

sound resource

● Consider seasonal information including restrictions if soil surveys, ecological deemed effective. site descriptions, and

GRSG population data.

TMA-15.8: Design

exploration projects for

mineral access and the

betterment of habitat.

Ensure roads and other

ancillary features that

impact GRSG habitat are

designed to avoid where

feasible and otherwise

minimize and mitigate

impacts in the short and

long term.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
310 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

TMA-15.9:

Differentiate between

short-(exploration)

and long-term (active

mining) impacts and

manage timing of

operations and physical

disturbance accordingly

Action A-LOC 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 2:

Make applicable

BMPs (Appendix E of

the NTT) mandatory

as COAs within

PPMAs.

Action C-LOC 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-LOC 2: — Action E-LOC 2:

TMA-15.1: Implement

a centralized impact

assessment process

overseen by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids

or minimizes conflicts

with GRSG in SGMAs

(State of Nevada 2012).

Action F-LOC 2: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-LOC 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 3: — Action C-LOC 3: — Action D-LOC 3: — Action E-LOC 3:

Through the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, encourage the

strong conservation ethic

in the mining industry by

implementing effective

avoidance management,

and enhancement and

reclamation of disturbed

landsto preserve, protect,

and improve habitat in

SGMAs. On federal

lands, activities that have

an approved BLM or

Forest Service notice of

intent, plan of operation,

ROW, or drilling plan,

Action F-LOC 3: —

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
311 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

and on State/Private

lands, projects

with an approved

Nevada Division

of Environmental

Protection permit, are

exempt from any new

mitigation requirements

above and beyond

what has already been

stipulated in the projects’

approvals.

Action A-LOC 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 4:— Action C-LOC 4:— Action D-LOC 4:— Action E-LOC 4:

Implementa centralized

impact assessment

process overseen

by the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council that provides

consistent evaluation,

reconciliation, and

guidance for project

development that avoids

or minimizes conflicts

with GRSG in SGMAs.

Action F-LOC 4:—

Action A-LOC 5:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 5:— Action C-LOC 5:— Action D-LOC 5:— Action E-LOC 5:

Consistent with BLM 43

CFR 3809 regulations for

Notice-level operations,

and Forest Service 36

CFR 228A regulations,

governing mining and

exploration, allow

exploration and other

mineral-related activities

that create not more

than five acres of

surface disturbance.

The BLM and Forest

Service may exercise

existing discretionary

Action F-LOC 5:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
312 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

authority to consider

other information,

including cumulative

impacts.

Action A-LOC 6:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 6:— Action C-LOC 6:— Action D-LOC 6:— Action E-LOC 6:

Recognize existing State

and Federal regulatory

mechanisms that govern

mining and exploration

activities, including

BLM 43 CFR 3809

surface management

regulations for hard rock

mining, Forest Service

36 CFR 228A regulations

governing mining and

exploration, and NAC

519A regulations for

reclamation of mining

and exploration projects,

that are adequate to

conserve GRSG and

sagebrush habitats in

the interim until future

Suitable conservation

plans are approved by

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

Action F-LOC 6:—

Action B-LOC 7:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 7:— Action B-LOC 7:— Action B-LOC 7:— Action B-LOC 7:

Aggressively engage

in reclamation efforts as

projects are completed,

and target reclamation

where the ecological

site potential exists in

SGMAs. Focus efforts

on habitat that has

the greatest potential

for use by GRSG as

guided by ecological site

descriptions and other

Action B-LOC 7:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
313 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

restoration priorities

established by the

Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council.

Action B-LOC 8:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 8:— Action B-LOC 8:— Action B-LOC 8:— Action B-LOC

8: Recognize that

stipulations for other

species (e.g. raptors)

may impede the ability to

effectively reclaim areas

of impact and remove

those barriers in order to

achieve immediate and

effective reclamation.

Action B-LOC 8:—

Action B-LOC 9:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 9:— Action B-LOC 9:— Action B-LOC 9:— Action B-LOC 9:

Prioritize areas for

habitat improvement

utilizing sound resource

information including

soil surveys, ecological

site descriptions, and

GRSG population data.

Action B-LOC 9:—

Action B-LOC 10:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 10:— Action B-LOC 10:— Action B-LOC 10:— Action B-LOC 10:

Design exploration

projects for mineral

access and the betterment

of habitat. Ensure roads

and other ancillary

features that impact

GRSG habitat are

designed to avoid where

feasible and otherwise

minimize and mitigate

impacts in the short and

long term

Action B-LOC 10:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
314 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-LOC 11:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 11: — Action C-LOC 11: — Action D-LOC 11: — Action E-LOC 11:

Differentiate between

short-(exploration)

and long-term (active

mining) impacts and

manage timing of

operations and physical

disturbance accordingly.

Action F-LOC 11: —

Action A-LOC 12:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-LOC 12: — Action C-LOC 12: — Action D-LOC 12:

Close or mitigate

abandon mines sites

within PPMAs and

PGMAs to reduce

predation of GRSG by

eliminating physical

structures that could

provide nesting

opportunities and

perching sites for

predators.

Action E-LOC 12: — Action F-LOC 12: —

Salable Minerals

Action A-SAL 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 1:

Close PPMAs to

mineral material sales.

Action C-SAL 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-SAL 1: Allow

no new salable mineral

material sites in PPMAs

and PGMAs.

Action E-SAL 1: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SAL 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-SAL 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 2:

In PPMAs, restore

salable mineral

pits no longer in

use to meet GRSG

habitat conservation

objectives.

Action C-SAL 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-SAL 2: In

PPMAs, reclaim salable

mineral materials sites

no longer in use to

meet GRSG habitat

objectives (see Table

2-6).

Action E-SAL 2: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SAL 2: Same as

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
315 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

Action A-SAL 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 3:— Action C-SAL 3:— Action D-SAL 3:

On existing mineral

materials sites, allow

mineral materials sales

in PPMAs and PGMAs

as required, to meet

Federal, Tribal, State,

County and public

needs. Loss of habitat

through disturbance

in PPMAs and PGMAs

would be off-set through

mitigation.

Additional mitigation,

including off-site

mitigation would be

required to off-set

any net loss of

habitat asa result of

authorizing expansion

of existing materials

pits. Habitat loss in

PPMAs and PGMAs

would be off-set through

mitigation to ensure no

net un-mitigated loss.

All mineral materials

activities would be

subject to compliance

with standard surface

use stipulations (general

occupancy, seasonal and

yearlong TLs, and CSU

stipulations) for GRSG

in PPMAs and PGMAs.

Action E-SAL 3: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-SAL 3:—

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
316 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-SAL 4:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SAL 4: — Action C-SAL 4: — Action D-SAL 4: Close

or mitigate abandon

mines sites within

PPMAs and PGMAs

to reduce predation of

GRSG by eliminating

physical structures

that could provide

nesting opportunities

and perching sites for

predators.

Action E-SAL 4: — Action F-SAL 4: —

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Action A-NEL 1:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-NEL 1:

Close PPMAs to

non-energy leasable

mineral leasing.

This includes not

permitting any new

leases to expand an

existing mine.

Action C-NEL 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-NEL 1: Close

PPMAs and PGMAs

to non-energy leasable

mineral leasing.

Action E-NEL 1:

Proposed features over

32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the

avoid, minimize, and

mitigation evaluation in

Occupied and Suitable

Habitat. This is similar to

designation as avoidance

areas.

Action F-NEL 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-NEL 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-NEL 2: — Action C-NEL 2: — Action D-NEL 2: Issue

no non-energy leasable

prospecting permits

within PPMAs and

PGMAs.

Action E-NEL 2: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-NEL 2: —

Action A-NEL 3:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-NEL 3: For

existing non-energy

leasable mineral leases

in PPMAs, in addition

to the solid minerals

BMPs (Appendix E of

NTT), follow the same

BMPs applied to Fluid

Minerals (Appendix D

of NTT), when wells

are used for solution

mining.

Action C-NEL 3: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-NEL 3: — Action E-NEL 3: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-NEL 3: Same as

Alternative B.

Mineral Split Estate

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
317 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

Action A-MSE 1: Action

A-MSE 1: No common

action across LUPs within

the sub-region. See

Section 2.1.

Action B-MSE 1:

Where the federal

government owns

the mineral estate

in PPMAs, and

the surface is in

nonfederal ownership,

apply the conservation

measures applied on

public lands.

Action C-MSE 1: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-MSE 1:

Where the federal

government owns the

mineral estate in PPMAs

and PGMAs and the

surface is in nonfederal

ownership and adjacent

to public lands,

apply the appropriate

conservation measures

and RDFs that are

applied on public lands.

Action E-MSE 1: See

Role of Sagebrush

Ecosystem Technical

Team.

Action F-MSE 1: Same as

Alternative B.

Action A-MSE 2:

No common action

across LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-MSE 2:

Where the federal

government owns

the surface, and

the mineral estate

is in nonfederal

ownership in PPMAs,

apply appropriate

Fluid Mineral BMPs

(see Appendix D

of NTT) to surface

development.

Action C-MSE 2: Same

as Alternative B.

Action D-MSE 2:

Where the federal

government owns the

surface and the mineral

estate is in nonfederal

ownership in PPMAs

and PGMAs, apply

appropriate surface use

stipulations and RDFs

to surface development.

Action E-MSE 2:

Proposed features over

32 acres per square

mile would require

application of the avoid,

minimize, and mitigation

evaluation in Occupied

and Suitable Habitat.

Action F-MSE 2: Same as

Alternative B.

Special Designations-Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Action A-SD 1: No

common action across

LUPs within the

sub-region. See Section

2.1.

Action B-SD 1: — Action C-SD 1:

Designate the following

proposed ACECs to

preserve, protect,

conserve, restore,

and sustain GRSG

populations and the

sagebrush ecosystem on

which the GRSG relies.

● Black Rock (132,400

acres)

● Buffalo Skedaddle

(1,033,000 acres)

Action D-SD 1: Same

as Alternative A.

Action E-SD 1: — Action F-SD 1: Designate

the following proposed

ACECs (BLM) and

Special Conservation

Areas (Forest Service)

as sagebrush reserves

to conserve GRSG- and

other sagebrush-dependent

species.

● Bates Mountain

(384,2200 acres)

● Cortez Range (164,800

acres)

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
318 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Butte/Buck/White

Pine (1,031,000 acres)

● Clan Alpine (70,900

acres)

● Cortez (127,300

acres)

● Desatoya (170,800

acres)

● Desert (557,100

acres)

● East Valley (160,300

acres)

● Fish Creek (50,600

acres)

● Gollaher (597,700

acres)

● Islands (112,600

acres)

● Lincoln (280,200

acres)

● Lone Willow

(298,300 acres)

● Massacre (987,700

acres)

● Monitor 582,300

acres)

● North Fork (827,900

acres)

● Fish Creek Mountains

(70,100 acres)

● Little Fish Lake Valley

(122,700 acres)

● Monitor (564,700

acres)

● Monitor Valley

(253,300 acres)

● Reese River (109,600

acres)

● Roberts Mountain

(100,900 acres)

● Telegraph Mountain

(14,100 acres)

Special Management: To

protect the relevance and

importance values of the

GRSG and habitat, the

following management

prescriptions would apply: ● Closed to cross country

vehicle travel

● Motorized and

mechanized travel

limited to designated

routes. No new

mechanized or

motorized routes within 4 miles of leks or within

PPMAs

● Seasonally prohibit

camping and

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
319 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● O’Neil Basin

(665,600 acres)

● Pine Forest (46,800

acres)

● Reese River 351,425

acres)

● Ruby Valley (292,000

acres)

● Santa Rosa (601,600

acres)

● Schell Antelope

(296,000 acres)

● Shoshone (239,100

acres)

● Snake (319,700 acres) ● South Fork (223,500

acres)

● Springs/Snake Valley

(130,500 acres)

● Steptoe Cave

(184,500 acres)

nonmotorized

recreation within4

miles of active leks

● Allow only SRPs that

have demonstrated

beneficial or neutral

effects on PPMAs

● Exclusion area for new

ROWs in PPMAs

● Avoidance area for new

ROWs in PPMAs and

PGMAs

● Retain PPMAs in the

ACECs in federal

ownership

● Prioritize acquisition of

private lands in ACECs

over easements

● Mineral withdrawal for

PPMAs in ACECs

● Allow for vegetative

management to

be consistent with

composition and

structure in achieving

● Three Bar (417,500

acres)

● Toiyabe (640,900

acres)

habitat objectives

● Allow for seasonal and

timing restrictions in

livestock grazing in the

ACECs

● Tuscarora (442,000

acres)

● When possible

permanently retire

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
320 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

● Virginia (53,500

acres)

● Vya (324,500 acres)

Special Management: To

protect the relevance and

importance values of the

GRSG and habitat, the

following management

prescriptions would

apply: ● Designate as VRM

Class1

● No livestock grazing

during lek and nesting

periods

● No livestock grazing

during winter periods

grazing permits as

opportunity arises

● Manage riparian and

wetland areas to meet

proper functioning

condition and maintain a component of

perennial forbs with

diverse species richness

and productivity

relative to site potential

● Prohibit new water

developments for

diversion from springs

or seeps within PPMAs

and PGMAs

● Closed to oil, gas and

geothermal leasing in

PPMAs and within4

miles of active leks

● Motorized travel

would be limited

to existing roads,

primitive roads, and

trails

● Prohibit industrial

wind and wind farm

construction in ACEC

or within 5-10 miles

of ACEC boundary

● Allow geophysical

exploration outside

of PPMAs using

helicopter-portable

drilling methods only

and in accordance

with seasonal timing

restrictions or other

restrictions that may

apply

● Prohibit industrial

solar projects within

ACECs

● Do not use Categorical

Exclusion to resolve

Section 390 resource

conflicts in PPMAs

● Mineral withdrawal

from PPMAs and

● Design and implement

fuels treatments with

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
321 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD Alternative E* AlternativeF

targeted restoration

habitat

● Require existing

and future energy

transmission lines

in existing ROW

corridors to acquire

features to enhance

GRSG habitatsecurity

● Avoidance area for

new ROWs and

communication or

other towers

● Protect Native

American traditional

and cultural sites and

uses

● Retain all public lands

in the ACECs in

federal ownership

● Prioritize acquisition

of private lands

in ACECs over

easements

● Minimal use of

herbicides to control

invasive and noxious

weeds

● Closed for oil, gas and

geothermal leasing

within ACECs

● Mineral withdrawal

for ACECs and

PPMAs

emphasis on protecting

existing sagebrush

ecosystem

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
322 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E* Alternative F

● Allow locatable

and nonlocatable

mineral development

in nonhabitat areas

● Prohibit the use

of helicopters in

managing wild horse

populations

*Alternative E was submitted by the State of Nevada’s Governor’s office and only covers land within the decision area in the State of Nevada. The State of

California lands will follow Alternative A.

1The use of — indicates that there is no similar action, or that the similar action is reflected in another management action in the alternative.

2BMPs as currently referred to would become RDFs.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
Draft Resource Management 323

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 2-6, Proposed Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse, and Table 2-7, Guidelines for

Establishing Allowable Use Levels if Not Meeting (or Not Making Progress Toward) Greater

GRSG Objectives, outline GRSG habitat objectives and utilization guidelines proposed under

Alternative D (BLM/Forest Service Proposed Alternative).

Table 2.6. Proposed Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Objective

GENERAL

All life stages Rangeland Health Standards Meeting all standards1

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 cover land cover

Proximity of tall structures None within 3 miles (5 km)

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 m buffer of microhabitat plot

Riparian Area/Meadow Interspersion with

adjacent sagebrush

Perimeter to area ratio of 0.15 within 159 meter

buffer of the microhabitat plot

WINTER

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
324 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Objective

Cover and Food Sagebrush canopy cover (%) >10

Sagebrush height in centimeters(cm) >25

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

no phase II (25 – 50% cover)

no phase III (>50% cover)

within 850 m buffer of microhabitat plot

Sagebrush extent (%) >85 sagebrush land cover within 850 m buffer

centered on microhabitat plot

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

>25 A. arbuscula sites

>25 A. t. vaseyana sites

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

rock, appropriate to the ecological potential of the site.

2Assumes upland rangeland health standards are being met.

3Standard considered In addition to PFC. Measured ESD/Daubenmire (25cm x 50cm frame). Includes all mesic

plant species, not only perennial forbs.

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

Table 2.7. Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Use Levels if Not Meeting (or Not Making

Progress Toward) GRSG Objectives

Community Type-Key

Species

Percent Utilization of

Key Species

Notes Terms and Conditions

Mountain Big sage <45% herbaceous species;

<35% shrub species

Holechek 1998

Mixed in with a lot of

other species

Livestock removed in 3 to 5

days of reaching utilization

level

Wyoming and Basin Big

sage

<35% herbaceous species;

<35% shrub species

Livestock removed in 3 to 5

days of reaching utilization

level

Black sage <35% herbaceous species;

<35% shrub species

Winter sheep forage Livestock removed in 3 to 5

days of reaching utilization

level

Riparian and wet meadows As Applicable:

<50% herbaceous species;

<35% woody species or

Average stubble height of

at least 4 to 6 inches

(depending on site

capability and potential)

for herbaceous riparian

vegetation.

Monitoring would

be conducted using

accepted protocols

(including but not

limited to: Burton et al.

2011; BLM 1996; Platts

1990).

Average stubble height 4 to 6

inches – Livestock removed

in 3 to 5 days of reaching

utilization level based on

site. Or (sequential action)

No grazing from May 15 to

August 30 in brood rearing

habitat.

Sources: Holechek 1988; Holechek et al. 1998; Burton et al. 2011; BLM 1996; Platts 1990

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Action Alternatives
Draft Resource Management 325

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

2.9. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Management actions across the range of alternatives would result in more, less, or equivalent

impacts on GRSG habitat and applicable resource program areas. Table 2-8, Summary of

Environmental Consequences, summarizes and compares the impacts of management actions

across alternatives.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
326 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 2.8. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Greater Sage-Grouse

Continued

implementation of

BLM vegetation and

soil management

policies and standards

in sagebrush habitat

would decrease

invasive species, help

re-establish native

plants, reduce the

risk of wildfire, and

reduce juniper and

pinyon pine, conifers,

and annual grasses,

leading to a long-term

improvement in value

and quantity of GRSG

habitat.

Continuation of

national and local

livestock management

plans and policies

would not specifically

protect GRSG habitat,

though they could

provide indirect

benefits through

preservation of

existing sagebrush

habitat. Management

of riparian areas

to achieve Proper

Functioning

Condition would

improve GRSG

brood-rearing

habitats. Range

Alternative B

management

prescriptions for

vegetation and soil

applied to PPMAs

(12,693,500 acres) and

PGMAs (5,039,400

acres) would provide

greater protection and

restoration efforts for

GRSG habitat compared

with Alternative A.

Under Alternative B,

the same number of

acres would be open

to livestock grazing

as under Alternative

A. In comparison

with Alternative

A, Alternative B

management actions

would further reduce,

but would not eliminate,

impacts from livestock

grazing on GRSG and

their habitat.

Under Alternative B,

impacts on GRSG

from fire suppression

activities would be

largely the same as

Alternative A. Relative

to the amount of GRSG

habitat that is expected

to burn based on current

trends and is outside the

Management under

Alternative C would

not prioritize restoration

treatments within occupied

habitats; therefore, it

would decrease the

potential for restoring

GRSG habitat, compared

with Alternative A.

Livestock use would be

closed on about 17,589,700

acres of PPMA. Under

Alternative C, impacts on

GRSG would be reduced

compared with Alternative

A in upland sites but

increased in riparian sites.

Removal of fencing would

reduce the potential of

GRSG direct strikes but

would increase negative

impacts on brood rearing

habitats from wild horses

and burros having access

to more riparian sites.

Impacts on GRSG from

wildfire suppression and

fuels management would

be the same as Alternative

B.

Under Alternative C, wild

horses and burros would

be managed on the same

HMA/WHBT acreage

as under Alternative A.

Management under

Alternative D would focus

on vegetation management

within PPMAs and PGMAs

with a goal of maintaining

a resilient sagebrush

vegetative community,

restoring sagebrush

communities to reduce

habitat fragmentation,

and maintaining and

re-establishing habitat

connectivity over the long

term. Habitat trends for

10 and 50 years would

improve, compared with

Alternative A, and would be

similar to Alternative B.

Compared with Alternative

A, Alternative D livestock

management actions would

further reduce, but would

not eliminate, impacts from

grazing on GRSG and their

habitat.

Impacts from wildfire and

fuels management are

expected to be similar to but

slightly lessthan Alternative

B due to the fact that fuels

management treatments

and post-fire rehabilitation

projects in PPMAs are

focused on maximizing

benefits to GRSG.

In comparison with

Alternative A, Alternative

E would provide greater

benefits to GRSG and their

habitats by establishing

regulatory mechanisms

which would provide

protections for GRSG

on lek or nesting habitat.

Riparian impacts would

be expected to be reduced

from Alternative A.

Management under

Alternative E would

provide for more

vegetation treatments

within occupied GRSG

habitat than under

Alternative A, similar

to Alternatives B and D.

Ten and fifty year habitat

trends would improve

compared to Alternative

A and would be similar to

Alternatives B and D.

Livestock grazing

management under

Alternative E would

emphasize cooperative

implementation of

appropriate prescribed

grazing conservation

actions, at scales sufficient

to influence a positive

response in GRSG habitat.

Riparian areas would be

managed, at a minimum,

Vegetation management

under Alternative F

would provide about the

same level of protection

to GRSG as Alternative

B, or slightly less.

In comparison with

Alternative A, livestock

management under

Alternative F would

provide more indirect

benefits to GRSG due to

increases in nesting and

brood rearing habitat

amount and quality.

Alternative F may

increase some direct

impacts on nesting

GRSG when compared

with Alternative A by

not applying timing

restrictions to livestock

during GRSG nesting

periods. This is likely

offset by closure of 25

percent of each planning

area to livestock grazing

each year and removal

of certain livestock

related structures such

as fences.

Effects on GRSG from

wildfire and fuels

management would be

the same as Alternative

B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
327 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

improvements would control of the BLM However horses and for PFC. BLM riparian

be designed to meet or Forest Service, burros would be expected Similar to Alternative areas would be managed Under Alternative F,

range and wildlife Alternative B may to range over a larger area B, wild horse and burro to meet RAC standards. AML for wild horses

objectives, which provide localized but than under Alternative A, management under Alternative E would and burros would be

could protect GRSG minimal protections and and would cause greater Alternative D provides promote riparian grazing reduced by 25 percent in

habitat. improvements to GRSG adverse impacts on quality significant, short-term, and improvements along with all HMAs and WHBTs

Most LUPs do not

habitat. GRSG habitat. localized improvements

to grass cover and forb

additional infrastructure

in order to control season,

in GRSG habitat. All

other management include provisions Alternative B Under Alternative C, availability. duration and degree of would be the same as

for managing fires provides significant fluid mineral leasing use. These improvements under Alternative B.

and fuels to protect short-term and localized would be precluded for Alternative D would allow would be beneficial to

GRSG habitat. improvements to all ACECs, including all fluid mineral leasing on late summer brood-rearing Leasable minerals

Under Alternative grass cover and forb PPMA. Closed acreage all lands with federal fluid habitat for GRSG. management under

A, wildfires would availability from would protect all occupied mineral estate, but within Alternative F would

likely continue to changes in wild or potentially occupied PPMA and PGMA, leasing Effects from wildfire close PPMAs and

increase in size and horse and burro GRSG habitat. would only be allowed suppression and fuels PGMAs to fluid mineral

frequency in seven of management, compared with NSO stipulations. management would leasing, as under

the nine populations/ with Alternative A. Mineral entry withdrawal NSO stipulations would be similar to the Alternative C.

subpopulations in the would be proposed for provide an increased level effects described under

sub-region. GRSG Fluid minerals PPMA and all ACECs, of protection to all acres Alternative D but would Impacts from locatable

would subsequently management under protecting all occupied of PPMA and PGMA emphasize economic minerals management

continue to be Alternative B would or potentially occupied within modeled nesting incentives to promote would be the same

degraded or lost. close 12,693,500 acres GRSG habitat and habitat associated with leks, rehabilitation and as for Alternative B.

Small and heavily of PPMAs to leasing. providing an increased compared with Alternative restoration activities. Impacts from salable

disturbed populations Within modeled nesting level of protection to all A. minerals management

with dominance of habitat, there would associated populations and Impacts from wild horse would be the same as

invasive annual be 10,522,300 acres of sub-populations. Impacts on GRSG habitat and burro management for Alternative A.

grass understory PPMAs. Withdrawal from locatable minerals under Alternative E would

would be particularly from mineral leasing Management under management would be the be similar to Alternatives Lands and realty

susceptible to these would result in long-term Alternative C would close same as under Alternative B and D. management would

impacts. beneficial impacts

on GRSG habitats

PPMA (17,732,900 acres)

to mineral material sales.

A.

Management under

be expected to

provide greater direct

Wild horses and associated with all Closure would increase Impacts on GRSG habitat Alternative E would protections to GRSG

burros would continue

to be managed on

seasonal life history

requirements.

protection of all acres of

PPMA within modeled

from salable minerals

management would be the

allow leasing within

SGMAs on all lands with

than Alternative A due

to the larger number of

HMAs/WHBTs, nesting habitat. same as under Alternative federal fluid mineral estate. acres managed as ROW

but management Under Alternative B, C. This would include NSO exclusion. Indirect

would not be based management of locatable Under Alternative C, stipulations and a 5 percent impacts on habitat

specifically on the minerals would be ROW avoidance acres Applying avoidance criteria surface-disturbance would be expected

habitat needs of more protective of would remain the same throughout PPMAs and cap. Existing mineral to also be less than

GRSG. Keeping GRSG habitat than as under Alternative A. PGMAs would result in withdrawals would include Alternative A. For

horses and burros under Alternative A. Within PPMA, there are greater control of impacts 1,399,700 acres, and example, all PPMAs

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
328 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

at AML would reduce Proposed withdrawals more acres managed on GRSG in these habitats 11,708,400 acres open to would be managed as

overall impacts on from mineral entry under as ROW exclusion than would occur under leasing would be subject ROW exclusion for new

vegetation, especially Alternative B would under Alternative C Alternative A. ROW to avoid, minimize, and permits with exceptions

nesting cover and include 12,693,500 (17,732,900 acres) than exclusion areas would be the mitigate policy. for co-location of

riparian brood-rearing acres of PPMAs. under Alternative A same as under Alternative projects within existing

habitats during Within modeled nesting (276,600 acres). Under A; therefore these impacts Under Alternative E, lands footprints and valid,

periods of drought. habitat there would be this alternative, fewer would be expected to be the would be generally open to existing rights.

Currently, 1,670,800

acres of PPH and

10,522,300 acres of

PPMA.

acres are identified for

disposal and more areas are

prioritized for acquisition.

same.

Under Alternative D,

mineral location, except if

already withdrawn under

current management.

Under Alternative F,

solar development

PGH as closed to Alternative B closes This alternative would all PPMAs and PGMAs Effects on GRSG would be the same as

fluid minerals leasing; 12,693,500 acres of result in fewer direct would be managed as populations and habitat Alternative A, and the

of this closed area, PPMAs to mineral or indirect impacts on ROW exclusion for wind would be similar to same nature and scope

834,600 acres is material sales GRSG and their habitats facilities. This level Alternative A. of impacts would be

modeled nesting (10,522,300 acres of compared with Alternative of closure provides the expected.

habitat. Lands closed PPMAs in modeled A. maximum preservation of Management under

to mineral entry

comprise 1,296,100

acres of PPH and

374,700 acres of PGH,

including 834,600

acres of PPH and PGH

combined. There are

1,670,800 acres closed

to mineral material

disposal within PPH

and PGH, including

834,600 acres of

modeled nesting

habitat. Closed areas

provide an increased

level of protection

to modeled nesting

habitat associated

with leks representing

32 percent of the

GRSG population for

the sub-region, and by

sub-population.

nesting habitat).

Closing PPMAs to

leasing, entry, and

sales would provide

an increased level

of protection to

modeled nesting habitat

associated with leks

representing a significant

percent of the GRSG

population for the

sub-region and by

sub-population

Under Alternative B,

more habitat would

be managed as ROW

avoidance (4,932,400

acres) and exclusion

(12,693,500 acres) areas

than under Alternative

A. Impacts on GRSG

Compared with Alternative

A, Alternative C

eliminates the impacts

from renewable energy

development on GRSG

and its habitat in all

seasonal ranges.

Under Alternative C,

any designated open

roads within PPMAs

would be managed as

limited for motorized

travel with the exception

of existing closed areas

within PPMAs.

sagebrush habitat.

Under Alternative D,

PPMAs and PGMAs would

be managed as ROW

exclusion for new solar

energy facilities. This

would provide a high level

of protection for sagebrush,

excluding 17,773,300 acres

of sagebrush habitat from

new development.

Under Alternative D, areas

designated as open to

cross-country travel within

PPMAs and PGMAs from

Alternative A would be

managed as limited to

motorized travel, making it

the most limiting to travel

management designations.

Alternative E would

avoid mineral material

sales within SGMAs and

apply a policy of avoid,

minimize, and mitigate.

Existing withdrawn

acreage, avoidance, and

implementation of the

avoid, minimize, and

mitigate policy would

provide an increased

level of protection to all

acres of occupied and

suitable habitat within

modeled nesting habitat

associated with leks

representing 91 percent of

the GRSG population for

the sub-region.

Impacts from lands

and realty management

would be similar to

Under Alternative

F, wind energy

development would

be the same as under

Alternative D, and solar

energy development

would be the same as

under Alternative A.

Impacts from travel

and transportation

management would

be the same as under

Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
329 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

Under current land

use and realty

management,

exclusion would

affect 169,600 acres

of PPH and avoidance

101,000 acres of

PPH. Acres of PPH

and PGH identified

as available for

disposal total 336,300

under Alternative

A. Under this

alternative, avoidance

acres overlap3

percent of the

from lands and realty

management would

be reduced by greatly

increasing acreage

subject to ROW

avoidance and exclusion

and by protection and

acquisition of important

GRSG habitats.

Under Alternative

B, impacts from

management of lands

for wind and solar

energy development

would be the same as for

AlternativeA

AlternativeD establishing

occupied and suitable

habitats within SGMAs as

avoidance areas subject

to an avoid, minimize,

and mitigate strategy

which reduce direct

or indirect impacts on

GRSG and their habitats.

This alternative would

provide few regulatory

mechanisms to reduce

direct or indirect impacts

on GRSG and their habitat

compared with Alternative

A.

modeled population

in the sub-region

and exclusion

acres overlap 12

percent of the

modeled sub-region

population.

ROW exclusion

and avoidance

management would be

expected to continue

to reduce both direct

and indirect impacts

on GRSG.

Under Alternative

B, 874,600 acres

of PPH and PGH

would be closed to

motorized vehicle use,

and 12,992,100 acres

would be limited to

existing roads and trails.

Compared to Alternative

A, AlternativeB would

reduce the potential for

vehicle disturbance to

GRSG within PPMAs

during all phases of their

Under Alternative

E, renewable energy

management would site

projects outside of GRSG

habitat wherever possible.

Because this strategy

would not rule out the

construction of projects

within or adjacent to

GRSG habitat, there would

be the possibility for more

land use for both wind and

solar energy development

than under Alternative A.

Under Alternative

A, 276,600 acres

are managed for

exclusion and 114,200

acres are managed

for avoidance of wind

seasonal life history. Impacts from travel

and transportation

management would be the

same as under Alternative

D.

energy within existing

PPH/PGH.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
330 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Under Alternative A,

874,600 acres of PPH

and PGH would be

closed to motorized

vehicle use, of which

834,600 acres would

be modeled nesting

habitat. 4,113,200

acres of PPH and

PGH would limit

motorized vehicles to

existing roads/trails,

all of which would

be modeled nesting

habitat.

Vegetation and Soils

Integrated Vegetation

Management

Handbook policies

would continue to be

followed and would

provide guidance on

which treatments and

chemicals can be

used. Application of

these policies would

improve vegetation

management in

sagebrush habitat

thereby likely

improving vegetation

conditions in these

areas.

A greater acreage

of sagebrush may

be burned within

Large scale disturbances

within PPMAs would not

be permitted and small

scale disturbances would

be limited to 3 percent

surface disturbance.

This would minimize

disturbance to vegetation

and soils.

Soils and vegetation

management actions

under Alternative

B would aim to

improve vegetation

conditions and prioritize

restoration efforts

to benefit sagebrush

vegetation. As a result,

the restoration and

vegetation management

This alternative relies more

on passive restoration and

would lead to fewer acres

of vegetation management

being treated compared

with Alternative A.

However, it is likely

that more acres of crested

wheatgrass seedings

and cheatgrass invaded

areas would be treated

improving vegetative

conditions for GRSG

habitat with success

in those areas. With

minimizing the use of

herbicides to treat annual

grasses and noxious

weeds fewer acres of

acres of treatment would

be completed under this

Lands would be managed

to meet GRSG and habitat

objectives and, as a result,

sagebrush/perennial grass

ecosystems would be

enhanced or maintained.

With suppression efforts

focused on PPMAs and

PGMAs more acres would

likely burn in areas outside

PPMAs and PGMAs,

increasing the need for ESR

treatments in non-GRSG

habitat.

Grazing management

to achieve vegetation

composition and structure

consistent with ecological

site potential could maintain

Disturbance would be

limited to 5 percent in

occupied or suitable

habitat. This would

directly or indirectly

increase sagebrush

vegetation.

This alternative assigns

the Nevada Sagebrush

Ecosystem Council with

establishment of policies

for the identification

and prioritization

of landscape-scale

enhancement, restoration,

fuel reduction, and

mitigation projects.

Without knowing what

actions would be taken

by the Council, it cannot

Disturbance to

sagebrush would be

limited to 3 percent

surface disturbance.

This could maintain

sagebrush/perennial

grass vegetation

communities within

PPMAs.

Impactsfrom vegetation

and soils management

would be the same

as those described

under Alternative B,

with the exception

that this alternative

would exclude livestock

grazing from burned

areas until woody

and herbaceous plants

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
331 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

PPH areas since this actions would enhance alternative compared with or enhance sagebrush and be determined fully what achieve GRSG habitat

alternative is the least vegetation beyond the Alternative A. perennial grass conditions level of impacts would objectives. This would

restrictive on wildland extent and condition within PPMAs. Drought occur as a result of their accelerate burned

fire management

within PPH and

PGH areas. As a

result, a greater loss

of vegetation could

occur in sagebrush

habitats. This could

result in an increased

risk of annual grass

and noxious weeds

invasion due to the

disturbance.

relative to Alternative A.

Impacts on soils from

livestock grazing

management are likely

to be the same as

those identified under

Alternative A

Fewer acres of sagebrush

habitat would be

converted to an early

seral stage than under

Perennial grass utilization

levels of 10-15 percent

could leave fine fuel levels

at a high risk for wildfire.

Shrub integrity measures

could leave sagebrush

and other upland shrub

species with little impact

other than natural forces.

All PPMAs and PGMAs

closed to livestock grazing

could show a reduction in

the potential for invasive

management and livestock

resting during the growing

season would provide

a more resilient plant

community.

Fewer acres of sagebrush

habitat in PPMAs and

PGMAs would be converted

to an early seral stage, and

would have less risk for

invasive grass and noxious

weed invasion than under

policies.

Grazing management

to achieve vegetation

composition and structure

consistent with ecological

site potential could

maintain or enhance

sagebrush and perennial

grass conditions within

SGMAs.

Impacts from wildland fire

area recovery towards

meeting GRSG habitat

requirements.

Wild horse AMLs

would be reduced by 25

percent within occupied

GRSG habitats. While

impacts from wild

horses and burros would

remain, this would

reduce the effects of

wild horses described

Alternative A. However,

there could also be a

greater potential for

catastrophic fire as a

result of fire suppression

and exclusion.

species establishment.

This may not control

or reduce the existing

invasive species presence.

Impacts from wildland fire

management would be the

same as those described

under Alternative A.

Alternative A. management would be the

same as under Alternative

D.

Under Alternative E, OHV

routes would be designated

to areas outside of SGMAs;

disturbance from OHV use

on vegetation and soils

could be reduced in the

SGMAs through the

avoidance, minimization,

and mitigation of

sagebrush/perennial grass

communities.

under Alternative A.

Impacts from wildland

fire management would

be the same as under

Alternative B.

Limiting motorized

travel to existing routes

under Alternative

F would minimize

disturbance of

vegetation and soils

from vehicle traffic

within the planning

area.

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
332 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Overall, condition and

trend of important

riparian areas and

wetlands within

PMUs would likely

continue to improve.

For example, many

programs designed to

improve watershed

function (fire and

fuels, vegetation,

livestock and wild

horse and burro

management) would

continue to result

in improvement in

condition and trend

of riparian areas and

wetlands within the

sub-region.

As a result of livestock

grazing management,

condition and trend

of riparian areas and

wetlands in PPH

and PPG is likely to

continue to improve

in portions, but not all,

of the sub-region.

Riparian areas and

wetlands could

potentially be

impacted from

activities associated

with leasing of

fluid minerals over

the majority of

the planning area

Identifying 12,693,500

acres as PPMA and

5,039,400 acres for

PGMAs would result in

few land disturbances

and could result in

reduced impacts on

riparian habitats.

Protection measures may

also include protecting

existing riparian areas

and associated water

sources from future

use. As a result,

Alternative B could

result in fewer impacts

on water resources than

Alternative A.

Actions such as

designing new range

improvements to

conserve, enhance,

or restore GRSG habitat,

using BMPs to mitigate

potential impacts due to

West Nile virus when

developing or modifying

water developments

could result in fewer

impacts on riparian

habitats than Alternative

A.

Condition and trend

of riparian areas and

wetlands in PPMAs and

PGMAs is expected

to increase as a result

of an increased focus

In comparison to

Alternative A, Alternative

C would result in greater

improvement in condition

and trend of riparian areas

and wetlands from GRSG

management.

Removal of all grazing

from PPMAs and PGMAs

would mean that overall

condition and trend of

riparian areas and wetlands

in PPMAs and PGMAs

would improve in the short

term, although long-term

improvement is less

certain.

Proposed restoration

of crested wheatgrass

seedings and cheatgrass

infestations, and

reclamation of disturbed

areas would provide an

indirect benefit to riparian

areas. In comparison

to Alternative A, more

acres of riparian areas and

wetlands would improve

under Alternative C

Impacts on riparian

areas and wetlands

from leasable, locatable,

and salable minerals

management would be

reduced under Alternative

C in comparison to

Alternative A.

Reducing land disturbances

would result in fewer

impacts associated with a

particular use compared

with Alternative A.

Implementing actions

including the authorization

of new water developments

and modifications of

existing developments

out of riparian areas could

alleviate impacts due to

grazing. Many of the LUPs

do not have these types of

tools listed as requirements,

so Alternative D could result

in fewer impacts on riparian

habitats than Alternative A.

Utilization standards for

riparian areas and sequential

restrictions on grazing

in the following season

would apply to grazing

authorizations on allotments

not meeting or making

progress towards meeting

GRSG habitat objectives.

Modifying or restricting use

of water developments to

reduce impacts on riparian

areas and wetlands in

PPMAs and PGMAs is also

proposed. These actions

would improve riparian

habitat.

Applying NSO stipulations

in PPMAs for currently

Management of riparian

areas and wetlands within

important GRSG habitat

in Nevada would be

emphasized through

the use of the Nevada

Sagebrush Ecosystem

Council, the Nevada

Technical Team and

the Mitigation Bank

Program. Enhanced

coordination, project

facilitation, technical

assistance and use of a

credit system for effective

mitigation would all likely

result in improvement

condition and trend of

riparian areas and wetlands

as compared to Alternative

A.

Impacts from grazing

management would be

similar to those described

for Alternative A, although

increased emphasis

on collaboration and

coordination across

jurisdictions would

likely provide additional

opportunities to improve

priority riparian and

wetlands habitats in

Nevada.

For fluid minerals

existing withdrawn

acreage, avoidance, and

implementation of the

Alternative F

generally reduces land

disturbances and would

result in fewer impacts

on riparian habitats

associated with a

particular use compared

with Alternative A.

Impacts from GRSG

management on riparian

areas and wetlands are

similar to Alternative

B, with additional

emphasis on protecting

priority GRSG habitat.

Added focus on both

preserving habitat and

limiting disturbance

would result in more

acres of riparian and

wetland habitat being

improved or protected

in comparison to

Alternatives A and

B.

Identifying no new

water developments in

occupied habitat unless

they can be shown

to benefit GRSG and

modifying existing

developments to

maintain the continuity

of the predevelopment

riparian area within

GRSG habitats, could

result in fewer impacts

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
333 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

including PPH and

PPG.

Because ROW

avoidance and

exclusion areas make

up a relatively small

percent of PPH or PPG

within the planning

area, only limited

areas of wetland

and riparian habitats

would continue to

be protected from

disturbance.

on managing livestock

grazing for late brood

rearing habitat.

Closing -12,693,500

acres to fluid mineral

leasing within

PPMAs habitat and

implementing actions

and conservation

measures for areas that

are already leased would

result in fewer impacts

than Alternative A.

Withdrawing important

GRSG habitat from

mineral entry would

result in fewer impacts

on riparian habitat

under Alternative

B in comparison to

Alternative A.

Identifying 4,932,400

acres as ROW

avoidance, 12,693,500

acres as exclusion areas

and 235,500 acres no

longer suitable for

disposal could result

in fewer impacts on

riparian habitats than

Alternative A. Under

Alternative B, fewer

acres of riparian habitats

would be impacted

from disturbance

associated with ROWs

in comparison to

Alternative A.

Identifying 17,732,000

acres as exclusion areas

and 331,200 acres no

longer suitable for could

result in fewer impacts

on riparian habitats than

Alternative A.

Restricting cross-country

travel and removing or

closing roads in priority

habitats would directly and

indirectly benefit riparian

areas and wetlands; these

measures would improve

more acres of riparian

habitat in comparison to

Alternative A.

unleased areas should result

in fewer impacts on riparian

habitats than Alternative A.

Identifying 17,456,300

acres as ROW avoidance,

276,600 acres as exclusion,

and 336,300 acres no longer

suitable for disposal would

result in fewer impacts on

riparian habitats than under

Alternative A.

avoid, minimize, and

mitigate policy would

provide an increased

level of protection to all

acres of occupied and

suitable habitat within

modeled nesting habitat

associated with leks

representing 91 percent of

the GRSG population for

the sub-region.

Under Alternative E,

facilities and activities

would be avoided in

occupied, suitable and

potential habitat. This

could enhance or maintain

vegetation and soils

within those three habitat

categories as compared to

Alternative E.

on riparian habitat than

Alternative A.

Increased focus on

vegetation management

for the benefit of GRSG

habitat would indirectly

benefit riparian and

wetland habitat by

improving overall

watershed health,

resulting in greater

benefits to these

areas in comparison

to Alternative A.

Condition and trend of

riparian habitats would

likely improve under

Alternative F as a result

of a placing greater

emphasis on livestock

impacts on late summer

brood rearing habitat.

Impacts on riparian

areas and wetlands are

similar to Alternatives

A, B, and D. Wild

horse and burro AMLs

would be reduced

by 25 percent within

HMAs/WHBTs with

occupied GRSG habitat.

While impacts from

wild horses and burros

would remain, this

would reduce the effects

of wild horses and

burros described under

Alternatives A, B, and

D.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
334 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Impacts from fluid

minerals management

would be the same as

under Alternative B.

Impacts from lands

and realty management

would be the same as

under Alternative C.

Travel management

under Alternative F is

similar to Alternative

B, but with more focus

on planning and on

closing or remediating

roads in priority habitat.

These measures would

reduce impacts on

riparian areas and

wetlands in comparison

to Alternatives A and B.

Special Status Species

Most of the management actions for GRSG would be beneficial for the majority of sensitive species inhabiting in the planning area. The possible exception

would be species that require pinyon and juniper woodlands for at least part of their life cycle requirements. The BLM and Forest Service acknowledge the

requirements of pinyon and juniper obligate species may be contradictory to the restoration of sagebrush habitat for GRSG, but management decisions would

need to be made on a more local case-by-case basis and therefore is not further discussed in this programmatic document.

Wild Horse and Burros

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
335 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Impacts would

continue to be

the same as those

identified in the

individual LUP

documents.

Allowance of vegetation

treatments designed to

conserve, enhance, or

restore GRSG habitat

would also benefit wild

horses and burros.

Modification or

elimination of livestock

watering sites could

reduce water availability

resulting in potential

need for reduction of

wild horse and burro

numbers within a

HMA/WHBT.

Managing wild horses

and burros and their

habitat to protect and

maintain PPMAs could

impact wild horses

and burros whose

HMAs/WHBTs overlap

with these habitats.

Prioritizing wild horse

and burros gathers in

those HMAs/WHBTs

that overlap PPMAs

could impact population

management activities

within non-GRSG

HMAs/WHBTs.

Modification or

elimination of watering

sites in order to

conserve GRSG habitat

could reduce water

availability resulting

in potential need for

reduction of wild horse

Impacts from vegetation

management would be the

same as under Alternative

A.

Elimination of livestock

grazing within SRAs

and reducing grazing

levels within those areas

that retain grazing use

to protect and maintain

occupied GRSG habitat

would benefit wild

horses and burros where

HMAs/WHBTs overlap

with these habitats.

Evaluation of AMLs and

completing land health

assessments may result

in need to reduce wild

horse and burro numbers

within a HMA/WHBT

to achieve GRSG habitat

needs. Restricting removal

and population control

techniques could hamper

proper management.

Evaluation and

prioritization of GRSG

habitat restoration

treatments identified

for PPMAs or PGMAs

habitat would benefit wild

horse and burro habitat.

Associated landscape-scale

management and surface

disturbance restrictions

would also benefit wild

horse and burro habitat.

Allowance of management

treatments designed

to conserve, enhance,

or restore PPMAs and

PGMAs habitats that benefit

livestock would also benefit

wild horses and burros.

Authorization of new or

modification of existing

livestock watering sites that

benefit or conserve PPMAs

and PGMAs habitats would

benefit wild horses and

burros. Elimination of

existing water sources

that may be identified as

impacting PPMAs and

PGMAs habitats could

reduce water availability

resulting in potential need

for reduction of wild horse

and burro numbers within a

HMA/WHBT.

Fuels projects that protect

and restore existing

sagebrush ecosystems

and associated PPMAs

Impacts from vegetation

management would be the

same as under Alternative

A.

Managing livestock

grazing within SGMAs

to protect and maintain

GRSG habitats would

benefit wild horses

and burros where

HMAs/WHBTs overlap

with these habitats.

Fire management activities

that protect, maintain,

and improve sagebrush

habitat would benefit wild

horses and burros who’s

HMAs/WHBTs overlap

with these habitats.

Evaluation of HMA

designations and their

associated AMLs within

SGMAs may result in

need for the reduction or

elimination of wild horse

and burro HMA/WHBT

in order to achieve GRSG

habitat objectives.

Vegetation treatments

designed to conserve,

enhance, or restore

GRSG habitat would

also benefit wild horses

and burros.

Managing livestock

grazing to protect and

maintain PPMAs would

benefit wild horse and

burro habitats.

To achieve GRSG

habitat objectives,

reducing the AMLs

of the established

HMA/WHBTs within

occupied habitat by 25

percent would reduce

utilization levels and

other impacts associated

with wild horses and

burros.

Fuels treatments

that protect existing

sagebrush ecosystems

and associated PPMAs

would benefit wild

horses and burros

where HMAs/WHBTs

overlap with these

habitats. However,

temporary or long-term

management changes to

wild horses and burros

(i.e. reduction in AML,

removals, movement

patterns, forage access,

etc.) may be necessary

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
336 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

and burro numbers and PGMAs habitats to achieve and maintain

withina HMA/WHBT. would benefit wild the desired project

Prioritizing the horses and burros where objectives.

evaluation of AMLs

and completing land

HMAs/WHBTs overlap

with these habitats. Prioritizing wild horse

health assessments may and burros gathers to

result in need for the

reduction of wild horse

Prioritizing wild horse and

burros gathers to those

those HMAs/WHBTs

that overlap PPMAs

and burro numbers HMAs/WHBTs that overlap could impact population

withina HMA/WHBT in

order to achieve GRSG

PPMAs and PGMAs

habitats could impact

management activities

within non-GRSG

habitat objectives. population management

activities within non-GRSG

HMAs/WHBTs. Evaluation

of AMLs may result in need

for the reduction of wild

horse and burro numbers

withina HMA/WHBT

to achieve GRSG habitat

objectives.

HMAs/WHBTs.

Modification or

elimination of watering

sites could reduce water

availability resulting

in potential need for

reduction of wild horse

and burro numbers

withina HMA/WHBT.

Prioritizing the

evaluation of AMLs,

HMA designations,

and completing land

health assessments may

result in need for the

reduction or elimination

of wild horse and burro

populations within a HMA/WHBT in

order to achieve GRSG

habitat objectives.

Wildland Fire Management

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
337 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Few management Focusing fire Alternative C would Impacts would be similar Management actions Similar to Alternative

actions would be suppression in PPMAs generally have the to those described under would allow for B, this alternative would

applied specific and PGMAs would broadest restrictions on Alternative B, but with some level of fuels impose some limits on

to GRSG habitat impose some limits on fuel management activities an added emphasis on treatments providing fuels treatments in this

protection. Therefore fuels treatments in this extending to all occupied region-specific habitat greater flexibility for area, resulting in higher

impacts on fire area, resulting in higher habitat by limiting fuel needs and variations wildfire management. level of protection but

management would level of protection but treatments to the interface in requirements for This alternative places reduced management

continue to vary reduced management of human habitation, and specific GRSG habitat added emphasis on a options. Alternative

across the planning options in this area. It existing disturbances. types resulting in more comprehensive wildfire F also prioritizes

area based on would also increase costs This would impact the site-specific variation management program that fire suppression in

site-specific habitat for fire management fire program’s ability to in fire management engages all interagency only PPMAs, while

objectives for other programs as compared efficiently manage fuels impacts. Alternative partners (federal, state & Alternative B includes

resource concerns. with Alternative A

because aggressive

suppression response

to conserve and protect

would require more

suppression resources.

Restricting surfacedisturbing activities

in PPMAs would

decrease the chance for

human-caused ignition

in PPMAs.

Fuels management

projects in PPMAs

would be designed to

reduce wildfire threats

in the greatest area

thereby decreasing

risk of high-intensity

fire in PPMAs in the

long-term. Restrictions

on the location of fuel

breaks, and location of

other fuels treatments,

however, would reduce

management options and

and could increase costs

of vegetation management

and fire suppression.

Broader restrictions on

resource uses and a

higher level of protection

for all occupied GRSG

habitat than Alternative A

would further reduce

opportunities for

human-caused fires.

Prohibiting livestock

grazing within occupied

GRSG habitat would

increase fine fuels and fire

risk throughout occupied

habitat.

Reducing vegetation

treatments that mimic

the natural fire effects

would increase the FRCC

resulting in an increased

potential for large intense

wildfires. This increased

potential for large wildland

D also places added

emphasis to pre-suppression

planning, prevention, and

educational objectives for

fire suppression personnel.

Alternative D would

generally have broader

restrictions on resource

use and highest level

of protection for all

occupied GRSG habitat than

Alternative A. This would

further reduce opportunities

for human-caused fires.

Impacts from vegetation

management would be

similar to those described

under Alternative B.

Impacts from livestock

grazing management would

be similar to those described

under Alternative B.

Emphasizing fuels and

habitat treatments in PH

local), to reduce the threats

of catastrophic wildfire,

rapidly suppress wildfires,

and rehabilitate lands

damaged by wildfire.

Not more than five percent

of the occupied and

suitable SGMAs and 20

percent of potential habitat

would undergo habitat

disturbance. This would

cause a shift in FRCC to a

more historical regime.

As shrub and grass cover

becomes more continuous

and ground cover is

higher, the risk for large

uncharacteristic fires

would increase.

Impacts from vegetation

management would be

similar to those described

under Alternative B.

Management under

Alternative E for riparian

both PPMAs and

PGMAs. The effects

would be the same as

Alternative B except

there would be a

slight reduction in

fire suppression costs

under this alternative.

Maintaining or

increasing sagebrush

cover to at least 70

percent of the decision

area may cause an

increase in fire severity

and size due to the

increase in fuel loading

over time. Alternative

F also identifies the

need to designate

sagebrush reserves(e.g.,

ACECs and Special

Conservation Areas),

which would cause an

increase in planning and

implementation costs

associated with special

designations.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
338 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

would increase costs of

fuel management.

fire would increase costs

associated with both fire

and opportunity habitat

would result in a long term

areas would lessen impacts

from fire by providing Restrictions from

suppression and post fire reduction in risk of high technical assistance, vegetation management

rehabilitation. An increase

in fire size would increase intensity fire in these areas,

of particular importance in

projectsuccess monitoring,

and financial support to

would impact the ability

to efficiently manage

the exposure to firefighters FRCC III. areas across the state that fuels and could increase

and public to the inherent were previously burned costs of vegetation

risks associated with and currently threatened by management and limit

firefighting. fires due to noxious weed fire suppression options.

infestations or fire fuels.

Impacts from livestock

Prepositioning and grazing management

preventative actions would be similar to

would increase the those described under

likelihood of successful Alternative D.

fire management actions

with response to wildfire,

but increase overall

management costs. Fuels

reduction treatments would

be similar to Alternative

B, with added emphasis

on coordination of state

and local agencies and

individual landowners.

Livestock Grazing

Management Land health assessments Impacts from GRSG Impacts from GRSG Impacts from GRSG Impacts from GRSG

designed to address would be conducted management would be the management would be management would be management would

nonattainment of on all allotments open same as under Alternative similar to those under the similar to Alternative be the same as under

wildlife habitat to grazing; however, A. Alternative A. A. Alternative E stresses Alternative A.

standards would likely under this alternative, cooperative, seasonal

reduce permitted allotments overlapping No livestock grazing Impacts from livestock adjustments to grazing use This alternative rests

AUMs. Grazing PPMAs would be would be allowed on grazing management would to ensure that they maintain 25 percent of occupied

management changes the highest priority. 37,488,811 acres in the be greater than those under or enhance SGMAs. habitat each year. Also,

would include the Changes to permitted decision area for a total of Alternative A. All PPMA Under Alternative A, in utilization levels are

timing, duration, AUMs could occur on 0 AUMS in the decision and PGMA acres would be contrast, BLM grazing limited to 25 percent.

or frequency of up to all PPMAs habitat area. This would force required to meet rangeland permits are evaluated These actions would

permitted use, acres first. The effect permittees/lessees to graze health standards, and range against Rangeland Health reduce permitted

including temporary would be less than under improvements would be Standards and grazing use drastically in

closures. evaluated to make sure management changes occupied habitat.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
339 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Current levels and

seasons of use would

continue pending

completion of land

health assessments.

Forage availability

may increase in

the long term due

to improved land

health and forage

productivity. Weed

control treatments

would increase

forage availability

in the long term by

improving native

plant productivity.

Wildfire would

remove livestock

forage over the short

term but can result

in increases in forage

post-fire. Impacts on

livestock operations

could also occur when

a livestock grazing

rest period is required

following vegetation

stabilization and

Alternative A due to the

reduced area.

Completion of land

health assessments

and permits would

be prioritized within

PPMAs, particularly

those with the best

opportunity to conserve,

enhance or restore

habitat for GRSG. As a

result, impacts on range

management would be

most likely to occur in

these areas.

Management actions

(grazing decisions,

AMP/Conservation Plan

developments, or other

agreements) to modify

grazing management

would be made to

meet seasonal GRSG

habitat requirements

Such changes would

have the potential to

decrease management

options and, therefore,

result in increased time

and costs required for

on private lands or give up

their grazing operations. they conserve, enhance, or

restore GRSG habitat.

Wet meadow treatments

may result in more

restrictions to livestock

grazing and the ability

to continue existing

terms and conditions

of permits. Additional

acres may be closed to

grazing temporarily within

allotments to allow for

riparian areas and meadows

to rest from grazing in

order to improve vegetation

composition for GRSG

habitat.

Impacts from wildland

fire management would be

similar to those described

under Alternative B.

must be implemented

by the next grazing

season, if necessary,

when currently permitted

use is determined to be

causing a GRSG habitat

related Standard to be

unmet or not making

significant progress.

Alternative E would result

in positive impacts on

GRSG habitat in SGMAs

where cooperation is

present.

Impacts from livestock

grazing management

would be the similar to

Alternative A, as current

BLM grazing management

is required to meet many

or all of the desired

conditions found outlined

in Alternative E.

Impacts from vegetation

management would be the

same as under Alternative

A.

Impacts from wildland fire

management would be the

Range improvement

construction would

increase due to the

need to fence out

PPMAs/PGMAs areas

from grazing use being

permitted on adjacent

areas.

Impactsfrom vegetation

management would be

the same as under

Alternative A.

Impacts from wildland

fire management would

be the same as under

Alternative A.

rehabilitation

treatments post-fire.

These required rest

periods may impact

the ability of livestock

operators to fully

utilize permitted

AUMs.

permittees/lessees.

Vegetation restoration

may directly affect

livestock grazing if

treatments include

restrictions on available

grazing acreage or

changes to permitted

same as under Alternative

B.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
340 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

AUMs, grazing

strategies, or season

of use, which could

result in increased

cost to permittees.

Required rest periods

following treatments

may impact the ability

of livestock operators to

fully utilize permitted

AUMs. Impacts could

occur should treatments

for GRSG habitat not

match with vegetation

objectives for livestock

grazing; however, in

most cases, treatment

would improve forage

conditions in the long

term.

Measures to protect

sagebrush habitat might

reduce the spread

of wildfire and the

associated disruption

to livestock operations.

Forage availability

would be maintained or

increased long term.

Mechanical, manual,

and chemical treatments

would be utilized

to prevent confer

encroachment and

prevent the spread of

undesirable annual grass

and weed species. These

actions could improve

forage in the long term.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
341 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Recreation

Existing recreation Only BLM SRPs and Impacts from GRSG Only BLM SRPs and Impacts from GRSG and Only BLM SRPs and

opportunities in the Forest Service SUPs that management would be the Forest Service SUPs that travel and transportation Forest Service SUPs

planning area would have neutral or beneficial same as under Alternative have neutral or beneficial management would be the that have neutral

be maintained. effects would be allowed

in approximately

12,693,500 acres of

PPMAs. This may

restrict some types of

permitted uses. As a

result, some types of

permitted activities

(e.g., OHV races)

that could negatively

affect PPMAs may be

impacted resulting in

fewer opportunities to

engage in those types of

events and activities in

those areas.

OHV area designation

would change 8,878,900

acres from open to

limited in PPMAs.

The restriction on

cross-country travel

may impact some

motorized recreation,

such as OHV exploration

which depends on

unrestricted travel.

However, opportunities

for nonmotorized

recreation, such as

hiking, horseback riding,

and hunting, in a more

natural or primitive

setting may be expanded

and enhanced.

A.

OHV area designation

would change 12,744,900

acres from open to limited

in PPMAs/PGMAs.

The restriction on

cross-country travel may

impact some motorized

recreation, such as OHV

exploration which depends

on unrestricted travel.

However, opportunities for

nonmotorized recreation,

such as hiking, horseback

riding, and hunting, in a

more natural or primitive

setting may be expanded

and enhanced.

effects in approximately

-17,732,900 acres of both

PPMAs and PGMAs would

be allowed. As a result,

some types of permitted

activities (e.g., OHV races)

that could negatively affect

PPMAs/PGMAs may be

impacted resulting in fewer

opportunities to engage in

those types of events and

activities in those areas.

Impacts from travel and

transportation management

would be the same as under

Alternative C.

same as under Alternative

D.

or beneficial effects

on approximately

12,693,500 acres in

PPMA. As a result,

some types of permitted

activities (e.g., OHV

races) that could

negatively affect

PPMAs/PGMAs may

be impacted resulting in

fewer opportunities to

engage in those types of

events and activities in

those areas. Additional

management actions

that would seasonally

prohibit camping and

other nonmotorized

recreation activities

within four miles

of active leks

would decrease

the area available

for recreational

opportunities

such as camping,

mountain biking, and

hiking, resulting in

seasonal reductions

in recreational

opportunities.

Impacts from travel

and transportation

management would

be the same as under

Alternative C.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
342 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Travel and Transportation Management

Existing travel

opportunities in the

planning area would

be maintained.

There would be

8,878,900 acres in

PPMAs previously

open to cross-country

travel where motorized

travel would be limited

to existing routes.

This would reduce

opportunities for

cross-country travel

in the decision area.

The 3 percent

disturbance threshold

could restrict the amount

of new routes that could

be constructed; any

routes constructed in

excess of the disturbance

cap would require

mitigation necessary

to offset the resulting

loss of habitat.

Impacts from

implementation actions,

such as evaluating the

need for permanent or

seasonal road closures,

activity-level travel

plans, limiting new

route construction, and

restoration of routes

in PPMAs would be

analyzed in subsequent

NEPA documents.

There would be 17,732,900

acres in PPMAs and

PGMAs previously

open to cross-country

travel where motorized

travel would be limited

to existing routes. This

would reduce opportunities

for cross-country travel in

the decision area.

Impacts from

implementation actions,

such as evaluating the

need for permanent or

seasonal road closures in

PPMAs/PGMAs would

be analyzed in subsequent

NEPA documents.

There would be 17,732,900

acres in PPMAs and

PGMAs previously open to

cross-country travel where

motorized travel would

be limited to existing

routes. This would

reduce opportunities for

cross-country travel in the

decision area.

Upgrades to existing routes

that would change the

route category would

be prohibited, and route

construction would be

limited to realignments

of existing routes that

minimize impacts on

PPMAs/PGMAs. These

actions would result in

fewer upgrades to the travel

network to accommodate

current and future use.

Impacts from

implementation actions,

such as evaluating the

need for permanent or

seasonal road closures in

PPMAs/PGMAs would

be analyzed in subsequent

NEPA documents.

Impacts from Alternative

E would be the same as

or similar to those under

Alternative D.

Impacts would be the

same as or similar to

those under Alternative

B, except Alternative F

would further restrict

the construction of new

routes by not allowing

new routes within a

4-mile buffer from

leks. This would result

in fewer new travel

opportunities.

Lands and Realty

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
343 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

The continuation of Management actions to This alternative would PPMAs would be managed Under Alternative E, the New ROWs would be

current management protect GRSG habitat make PPMAs areas as ROW/SUP avoidance BLM/Forest Service excluded in PPMAs

would have direct would impact lands designated as ACECs. areas. These additional would allow ROW and the BLM would

impacts on the ROW and realty through the All lands within the restrictions would impact development within GRSG un-designate all

program by allowing closure of areas to ACECs would be managed processing time for BLM habitat subject to ROW currently designated

new facilities to be ROW authorizations, as ROW exclusion; and increased cost for conditions. Specific ROW corridors within

constructed and additional criteria for Alternative C would the applicants. Alterative mitigation measures occupied habitat.

service renewable land exchanges, and impose the greatest D would have greater would be set in place Impacts on ROW

energy projects. limitations on new

mineral development

and road construction.

Limitations on

new ROWs and

above-ground linear

features, such as

transmission lines and

pipelines, could restrict

the availability of energy

or service availability

and reliability for

communication systems.

limitations on the lands

and realty program.

Impacts on ROW

authorizations would

be similar to Alternative

B, but would apply to a

larger land area and there

would be no designated

corridors to accommodate

new ROW infrastructure.

For linear ROWs (e.g.

pipelines and transmission

lines) this could increase

the length of these

projects, thus increasing

project costs. Costs also

would be incurred as a

result of requirements

for mitigation in areas

with limits on surface

disturbance.

limitations on the lands

and realty program than

Alternative A, but fewer

impacts than Alternatives B

and C.

This alternative allows

the most flexibility

in acres available for

acquisition, disposal, or

exchange because there

is no management action

proposed to retain public

ownership of PPMAs.

to avoid, minimize, and

mitigate impacts on leks,

nesting, brood-rearing,

and wintering habitats.

Infrastructure would not

be located within 0.6

mile of specific habitat.

Traveling along routes

would be limited to

specific times that least

impact habitats. These

increased measures would

restrict ROW development

in specific areas and would

impact management and

maintenance of existing

and future development.

authorizations would be

similar to Alternative

B, but would apply

to a larger land area

and there would be no

designated corridors

to accommodate new

ROW infrastructure.

Renewable Energy

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
344 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Within existing

PPH/PGH 114,200

acres would continue

to be managed as

ROW avoidance

areas, while 276,600

acres would be

designated exclusion.

All other lands within

the decision area

would continue

to be open for

ROW development.

Continuation of

current management

would have direct

impacts on the ROW

program by allowing

new facilities to be

constructed and

service renewable

energy projects.

Impacts from GRSG

management would be

similar to Alternative for

wind.

Limitations on

new ROWs and

above-ground linear

features, such as

transmission lines,

fiber optic, natural

gas lines, and power

substations, would limit

the BLM’s ability to

accommodate demand

for renewable energy

ROW development,

which in turn

could restrict the

availability of energy

or service availability

and reliability for

communication systems.

Impacts from GRSG

management would be

similar to Alternative for

wind.

Limitations on new

ROWs and above-ground

linear features, such as

transmission lines, would

limit the BLM’s ability to

accommodate demand for

renewable energy ROW

development, which in

turn could restrict the

availability of energy

or service availability

and reliability for

communication systems.

12,693,500 acres of PPMAs

and 5,039,400 acres of

PGMAs on public lands

would be managed as wind

ROW exclusion areas and

would not be open for

Renewable Energy ROW

applications.

Limitations on new

ROWs and above-ground

linear features, such as

transmission lines, would

limit the BLM’s and

Forest Service’s ability to

accommodate demand for

renewable energy ROW

development, which in turn

could restrict the availability

of energy or service

availability and reliability

for communication systems.

Impacts from GRSG

management would be

similar to Alternative A

except decisions would

avoid occupied and

suitable habitat wherever

possible.

Limitations on new

ROWs and above-ground

linear features, such as

transmission lines, would

limit the BLM’s and

Forest Service’s ability to

accommodate demand for

renewable energy ROW

development, which in

turn could restrict the

availability of energy

or service availability

and reliability for

communication systems.

Measures limiting travel

along certain routes and

prohibiting infrastructure

within 0.6-mile of a lek

would restrict renewable

energy development in

specific areas and would

impact management and

maintenance of existing

and future development.

12,693,500 acres of

PPMA and 5,039,400

acres of PGMAs on

public lands would

be managed as wind

ROW exclusion areas

and would not be open

for Renewable Energy

ROW applications.

Limitations on

new ROWs and

above-ground linear

features, such as

transmission lines,

would limit the BLM’s

and Forest Service’s

ability to accommodate

demand for renewable

energy ROW

development, which

in turn could restrict the

availability of energy

or service availability

and reliability for

communication

systems.

Minerals – Fluid

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
345 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

It is projected that 100

new exploratory and

development wells

would be drilled on

during the life of the

LUP. Of these new

wells, 48 are expected

to be producing oil and

gas (see Appendix

H).

Overall, as a result of

increased restrictions

and limitations as

compared to Alternative

A, Alternative B would

result in an increase

in the magnitude and

duration of effects

on fluid minerals

development over time.

Geophysical exploration

would be permitted

within PPMAs areas

with restrictions. These

restrictions would likely

reduce the amount of

geophysical exploration

within the decision

area, which could

reduce the amount of

fluid mineral resources

that are identified and

developed.

The Forest Service and

BLM would develop

strategies to terminate

existing leases and close

the decision area to

leasing. This would reduce

the amount of fluid mineral

resource exploration and

development on existing

leases within the decision

area.

No lands within the

decision area would

be available for new

ROWs. Because federally

managed lands are

closed to leasing under

this alternative, there

would be no impacts on

public lands. However,

Alternative C could

decrease development of

fluid mineral projects on

private lands by decreasing

the accessibility and

availability to develop

infrastructure (e.g.

pipelines and transmission

lines).

All federal fluid minerals

in PPMAs would be open

to fluid mineral leasing

subject to a NSO stipulation

that provides no exception,

modification or waiver

language. This stipulation

would restrict leasing on

144,300 acres of unleased

lands with high oil and gas

potential.

Geophysical exploration

would be permitted

within PPMAs areas

with restrictions. These

restrictions would likely

reduce the amount of

geophysical exploration

within the decision area,

which could reduce the

amount of fluid mineral

resources that are identified

and developed.

Limitations on new

ROWs and above-ground

linear features, such as

transmission lines, would

limit the BLM’s ability

to accommodate demand

for fluid mineral ROW

development, which in turn

could restrict the availability

of fluid minerals.

Under Alternative E, all

GRSG habitat would

be avoided through the

use of stipulations with

exception, waiver, and

modification language.

The impacts on leasable

minerals would be less

than those described under

Alternative A.

In addition to

applying the restrictive

management under

Alternative B to more

acres, Alternative

E would call for

COAs implementing

seasonal restrictions

on vehicle traffic

and human presence

associated with

exploratory drilling.

Overall, as a result of

increased restrictions

and limitations as

compared to Alternative

A, Alternative F would

result in an increase

in the magnitude and

duration of effects

on fluid minerals

development over time.

Minerals – Locatable

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
346 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

This alternative Total withdrawals Impacts would be the same Additional restrictions and Additional restrictions Impacts would be

would be the least (including lands as under Alternative A. design features for locatable and design features for the same as under

restrictive to locatable currently withdrawn) minerals may apply in locatable minerals may Alternative B.

minerals because a under this alternative PPMAs and PGMAs. apply in GRSG habitat.

larger percentage of would increase 274 This could result in (1) This could result in

the planning area percent in comparison reduced availability of (1) reduced availability

would continue to with Alternative A; locatable mineral resources, of locatable mineral

be open to locatable thereby further limiting (2) reduced access to resources, (2) reduced

mineral entry and no opportunities for new or existing mines access to new or existing

additional restrictions locatable mineral due to restrictions on use mines due to restrictions on

would be applied to development in the of the overlying surface use of the overlying surface

mining operations. decision area. lands, and (3) reduced

efficiency and increased

operational costs that make

potential locatable mineral

development economically

infeasible.

lands, and (3) reduced

efficiency and increased

operational costs that make

potential locatable mineral

development economically

infeasible.

Minerals – Salable

Approximately Approximately Impacts would be the same Approximately 12,927,400 Under Alternative E, acres Impacts would be

1,670,800 acres of 12,693,500 acres of as under Alternative A. acres of federal mineral of federal mineral estate the same as under

federal mineral estate federal mineral estate in estate in PPMAs and closed to disposal would Alternative B.

within existing habitat PPMAs would be closed 4,805,500 acres of federal be the same as Alternative

would continue to to mineral material mineral estate in PPMAs A. However, additional

be closed to mineral disposal. These closures would be closed to mineral restrictions would apply

material disposal. would decrease access

for local governments

material disposal. The

types of impacts from

within areas open within

GRSG habitat, including

Road construction and members of the these closures would maximum disturbance of

would likely decrease public to mineral decrease access for local no more than five percent

on BLM- and Forest material sites. governments and members of occupied habitat in

Service-administered of the public to mineral each population area.

surface in the Requiring reclamation material sites. Noise, structure height,

decision area that of mineral material pits and timing limitations

would continue in PPMAs no longer In PPMAs, mineral material would also apply and

to be managed as in use could increase pits no longer in use mitigation may be

ROW avoidance costs on developers if would be restored to meet required. This may result

or exclusion under the BLM and Forest GRSG habitat conservation in in decreased access

this alternative, Service required the objectives. Requiring for local governments

which would result developers to pay for the reclamation of mineral and members of the

in a decrease in reclamation. material pits no longer in public to mineral material

demand for mineral use could increase costs on sites and/or increase

materials in those developers if the BLM and

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
347 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

areas. Impacts

from this decrease

in demand would

be mitigated where

new ROWs could

be co-located within

existing ROWs to

satisfy valid existing

rights.

Forest Service required the

developers to pay for the

reclamation.

costs of mineral material

development.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Management Impacts would be The number of acres under Impacts would be the same Impacts would be the same Impacts would be

decisions would the same as under ACEC management would as under Alternative A. as under Alternative A. the same as under

continue to provide Alternative A. increase exponentially. Alternative C.

supplemental support In certain circumstances,

for the protection GRSG Management

of existing ACEC decisions may benefit and

relevance and compliment management

importance values. decisions protecting

relevance and importance

values in existing ACECs.

The increase in the

amount of acreage

under GRSG ACECs

may be both beneficial

and detrimental to other

special designations.

Suitable wild and scenic

river segments may see

long term benefits from

proposed management

decisions that involve

vegetative restoration

which can enhance the

river corridors. While

cultural and wildlife

related ACECs may see

impairments which could

cause irreparable harm to

relevance and importance

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
348 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

values. Potential impacts

on wilderness and WSAs

would be offset by

Minimal Requirements

Analysis and the

Minimum Requirements

Decision Guide, which

would mitigate GRSG

management projects

methodology and activities

within these areas.

Potential impacts on

National Historic Trails are

tentative; surface impacts

on the trail tread can be

mitigated and avoided

where the tread is known.

However, current NHT

management direction also

emphasizes the setting of

the trail as part of the trail

experience.

Water Resources

Identifying 114,200 Alternative B Identifying 114,200 acres Alternative D generally Alternative E does Alternative F

acres as ROW generally reduces land as ROW avoidance and reduces land disturbances not outline specific generally reduces land

avoidance and disturbances and would 17,732,900 acres as and would result in management actions disturbances and would

276,600 acres as result in fewer impacts exclusion areas would fewer impacts on water and would result in similar result in fewer impacts

exclusion areas on water resources result in fewer impacts resources associated with impacts on water resources on water resources

would continue to associated with a on water resources than a particular use compared as Alternative A. associated with a

limit the amount of particular use compared Alternative A. with Alternative A. particular use compared

man-made runoff of with Alternative A. with Alternative A.

soils and chemicals Eliminating grazing from Identifying 17,456,300

into waterways within Identifying 4,932,400 occupied habitat should acres as ROW avoidance Impacts from lands

those areas and are acres as ROW result in fewer impacts and 276,600 acres as and realty management

generally considered avoidance, 12,693,500 on water resources than exclusion areas could result would result in fewer

to be protective acres as exclusion, Alternative A. in fewer impacts on water impacts on water

of water quality. and 235,500 acres no resources than Alternative resources than under

ROW exclusion longer suitable for Impacts from fluid A. Alternative A, because

and avoidance are disposal, could result minerals management there would be a 3% cap

also seen to reduce in fewer impacts on would be the same as Impacts from livestock on disturbance within

the likelihood of under Alternative A. grazing management would GRSG habitat.

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
349 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

chemical spills onto water resources than be the same as under

the ground, which Alternative A. Impacts from wildland fire Alternative A. Impacts from livestock

can then sink into the

earth and contaminate

groundwater.

Impacts from livestock

grazing management

would be the same as

management would be the

same as under Alternative

A.

Identifying 1,670,800

acres as closed to fluid

minerals, oil and gas and

grazing management

would be the same as

under Alternative A.

Identifying under Alternative A. geothermal and applying Impacts from wild horse

17,551,600 acres as

open to livestock

grazing would

Under Alternative B,

13,068,600 acres of

NSO stipulations in PPMAs

for currently unleased areas

should result in fewer

and burro management

would be similar to

Alternative A, except

generally continue

to cause decreases

in water quality

through the heavy

trampling of soils

and vegetation along

and within natural

water features that are

also used by GRSG

as drinking water

sources. At the same

time, water supply

structures throughout

the landscape that

have been established

for the benefit of

livestock and wild

horses and burros also

often provide drinking

water sources for

GRSG.

PPMA and PGMA

would be closed to

mineral leasing oil and

gas and geothermal;

4,664,700 acres would

be open to fluid

mineral leasing, oil

and gas, and geothermal

development. This

would result fewer

impacts on water

resources than

Alternative A.

Alternative B does not

specify any specific

numbers of acres

for hazardous fuels

management nor does it

specify suppression

activities. It does

identify general actions

impacts on water resources

than Alternative A.

Alternative D does not

specify any specific

numbers of acres

for hazardous fuels

management. It does

identify general actions for

suppression activities, preand post-fire treatment

activities, timing of

treatments, resting, and

use of native plants for

revegetation. Based on

these actions, Alternative D

could have fewer impacts

on water resources than

Alternative A.

that wild horse AMLs

would be reduced by 25

percent within occupied

GRSG habitats.

Impacts from wildland

fire management would

be the same as under

Alternative B.

Impacts from fluid

minerals management,

locatable minerals

management, or salable

minerals management

would be reduced

in comparison to

Alternative A because

fewer activities would

be permitted.

The 3% cap on

Identifying for pre- and post-fire disturbance from

16,061,900 acres

as open to fluid

treatment activities,

timing of treatments,

renewable energy

development within

minerals, oil and resting, and use of native GRSG habitat under

gas and geothermal

leasing would

plants for revegetation.

Based on these actions,

Alternative F could

result in fewer impacts

generally continue Alternative B could on water resources than

to increase the risk of have fewer impacts on Alternative A.

impairments to local

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
350 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

surface waters and

groundwater.

AlternativeA does not

specify any specific

numbers of acres

for hazardous fuels

management nor does

it specify suppression

activities or post-fire

rehabilitation

treatments. Effects of

fire on water resources

are determined largely

by the severity of

the fire, suppression

tactics used for fire

management and

post-fire precipitation

regimes. Hazardous

fuels treatments will

continue to result in

an overall decrease

in wildfire potential,

thereby decreasing

impacts on water

resources.

water resources than

Alternative A. Fewer travel and

transportation activities

permitted on the

landscape under

AlternativeF would

lessen impacts on water

quality compared to

Alternative A.

Tribal Interests

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
351 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

This alternative could

lead to decreased

opportunities for

tribes to maintain

traditional cultural

practices and values

such as observing

lekking behavior if the

nonestablishment of

PPH/PGH acres leads

to future decreases in

GRSG populations.

This alternative is

expected to maintain

tribal access to pine

nutting areas and

observing lekking

behavior because

future access to these

areas would likely be

maintained at current

levels.

Comprehensive travel

and transportation

management would

maintain current tribal

access to important

pine nutting areas

and juniper trees

used to maintain

traditional tribal

cultural practices

and values.

GRSG management

goals and objectives

could lead to increased

opportunities for tribes

to maintain traditional

cultural practices and

values such as observing

lekking behavior.

Because this alternative

proposes ROW

avoidance in PPMAs

and/or PGMAs, this

could result in decreased

opportunities for

tribes to maintain

traditional practices

through restrictions

imposed on access

to pine nutting areas

and observing lekking

behavior. However,

exceptions to tribes to

access current areas used

for traditional practices

could be granted in

future site-specific

NEPA analyses.

While this alternative

would limit motorized

travel to existing roads

within PPMAs, current

tribal access to important

pine nutting areas and

juniper trees used to

maintain traditional

tribal cultural practices

and values would be

maintained.

GRSG management

goals and objectives

could lead to increased

opportunities for tribes

to maintain traditional

cultural practices and

values such as observing

lekking behavior.

Because this alternative

proposes ROW avoidance

in PPMAs and/or PGMAs

habitat, this could result

in decreased opportunities

for tribes to maintain

traditional practices

through restrictions

imposed on access

to pine nutting areas

and observing lekking

behavior. However,

exceptions to tribes to

access current areas used

for traditional practices

could be granted in

future site-specific NEPA

analyses.

This alternative would

limit motorized travel

to existing roads within

PPMAs; however, current

tribal access to important

pine nutting areas and

juniper trees used to

maintain traditional tribal

cultural practices and

values would likely be

maintained.

GRSG management goals

and objectives could lead to

increased opportunities for

tribes to maintain traditional

cultural practices and values

such as observing lekking

behavior.

Because this alternative

proposes ROW avoidance

in PPMAs and/or PGMAs

habitat, this could result

in decreased opportunities

for tribes to maintain

traditional practices through

restrictions imposed on

access to pine nutting areas

and observing lekking

behavior. However,

exceptions to tribes to

access current areas used

for traditional practices

could be granted in future

site-specific NEPA analyses.

Impacts from travel and

transportation would be the

same as under Alternative

C.

GRSG management

goals and objectives

could lead to increased

opportunities for tribes

to maintain traditional

cultural practices and

values such as observing

lekking behavior.

This alternative is expected

to maintain tribal access

to pine nutting areas and

observing lekking behavior

because future access to

these areas would likely

be maintained at current

levels.

Impacts from travel and

transportation would be the

same as under Alternative

D.

GRSG management

goals and objectives

could lead to increased

opportunities for tribes

to maintain traditional

cultural practices

and values such as

observing lekking

behavior.

Because this alternative

proposes ROW

avoidance in PPMAs

and/or PGMAs habitat,

this could result in

decreased opportunities

for tribes to maintain

traditional practices

through restrictions

imposed on access

to pine nutting areas

and observing lekking

behavior. However,

exceptions to tribes to

access current areas

used for traditional

practices could be

granted in future

site-specific NEPA

analyses.

Impacts from travel and

transportation would

be the same as under

Alternative B.

Climate Change

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
352 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Impacts would be Alternative B generally Alternative C generally Alternative D generally Alternative E does Alternative F generally

the same as those constrains resource use constrains resource use and constrains resource use and not outline specific constrains resource use,

resulting from current and would decrease would decrease any GHG would decrease any GHG management actions and would require a

management and no any GHG emissions emissions associated with emissions associated with and would result in similar 3% cap on disturbance

changes to greenhouse associated with a a particular use compared a particular use compared impacts on climate change within GRSG habitat;

gas (GHG) emissions particular use compared with Alternative A. with Alternative A. as Alternative A. this would decrease

would occur. with Alternative A.

Implementation of

Alternative B would

result in overall

conservation of

PPMAs and PGMAs

reducing anthropogenic

disturbances and

potential for GHG

emissions.

Closing areas of high

potential to fluid mineral

leasing and development

would have the potential

to result in fewer releases

of GHGs in the planning

area as compared with

Alternative A.

NSO stipulations in PPMAs

for currently unleased

areas and conservation

measures for reducing

land disturbance on leased

areas would result in fewer

impacts than Alternative A.

any GHG emissions

associated with a

particular use compared

with Alternative A.

Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice

Under Alternative A, Under Alternative B, Adverse impacts on Under Alternative D, Changes in output, Under Alternative F,

existing opportunities reductions in oil and gas, output, employment, and reductions in output, employment, and earnings reductions in output,

for grazing, geothermal, and wind earnings would be greater employment, and earnings under Alternative E would employment, and

recreation, mineral energy development in Alternative C than any compared to Alternative A be similar to Alternative earnings compared

development, lands opportunities would other alternative. would be entirely due to A. Note that restrictions in to Alternative A

and realty (including result in reductions in anticipated reductions in Alternative E would affect would be primarily

renewable energy output, employment, and Under Alternative geothermal exploration and Nevada only. due to anticipated

development), and earnings compared to C, economic activity development. reductions in oil and

travel would not be Alternative A. attributable to grazing and gas development,

affected. There would oil and gas, geothermal, Economic activity due to geothermal exploration

be no change in annual Alternative B would also and ROW (including grazing on federal lands and development, and

output, annual jobs, or impose limitations and wind energy) development within GRSG habitat new ROWs.

annual earnings. added costs to future

economic investments

on federal lands would would likely result in some

reductions in economic Alternative F would

also reduce economic

Chapter

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
353 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

AlternativeA AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE AlternativeF

in ROW development,

including new roadways,

compared with

AlternativeA

Economic activity

attributable to grazing

on federal lands with

GRSG habitat is likely

to be broadly similar to

Alternative A.

The economic effect

from recreational

activity, locatable

minerals, and salable

minerals is not possible

to quantify, but if there

isa difference versus

Alternative A, it is likely

to be small.

be reduced compared to

Alternative A.

PPMAs would be closed

to livestock grazing, new

ROWs, and new fluid

mineral leasing. Livestock

grazing on federal lands

would be restricted to

those allotments with no

GRSG habitat, which

would account for more

than two-thirds of the

output, employment,

and earnings reductions

under AlternativeC when

compared to Alternative A.

activity compared to

AlternativeA (and the

magnitude of impact would

be lower than in Alternative

B), but to what extent is

unknown.

Restrictions and costs to

infrastructure development,

including wind energy and

roads, under AlternativeD

would be greater than under

AlternativeA but less than

under AlternativesB or C.

activity due to grazing

on federal lands because

of the closure of some

PPMAs and PGMAs

to livestock grazing, as

well as the action to rest a portion of PPMAs and

PGMAs each year and

limit utilization levels.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences
354 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

2.10. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified

Threats

Approaches to GRSG management and alleviation of the USFWS-identified threats, as identified

in the COT report, vary by alternative. See Appendix I, Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation

of USFWS-Identified Threats, which summarizes and cross references specific management

by the applicable BLM and Forest Service resource programs under each alternative with the

USFWS-identified threat.

Note

Data from geographic information systems (GIS) have been used in developing acreage

calculations and for generating many of the figures. Calculations in this EIS are rounded and

are dependent upon the quality and availability of data. Data were collected from a variety of

sources, including the BLM, collaborative partners, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies.

Given the scale of the statewide analysis, the compatibility constraints between datasets, and

lack of data for some resources, all calculations are approximate and serve for comparison

and analytic purposes only. Likewise, the figures are provided for illustrative purposes and

subject to the limitations discussed above. Detailed, site-specific information is available from

local BLM offices. BLM may receive additional GIS data; therefore, the acreages may be

recalculated and revised at a later date.

(PDF Map 2–1)

Figure 2.1. Alternative A: Preliminary Priority and General Habitat

(PDF Map 2–2)

Figure 2.2. Alternative B: Preliminary Priority and General Management Areas

(PDF Map 2–3)

Figure 2.3. Alternative C: Preliminary Priority Management Areas

(PDF Map 2–4)

Figure 2.4. Alternative D: Preliminary Priority and General Management Areas

(PDF Map 2–5)

Figure 2.5. Alternative E: Greater Sage-Grouse Management Areas Occupied and Suitable

Habitat

(PDF Map 2–6)

Figure 2.6. Alternative F: Preliminary Priority and General Management Areas

(PDF Map 2–7)

Figure 2.7. Alternatives A, B, C, and F: Wild Horses and Burros

(PDF Map 2–8)

Figure 2.8. Alternative D: Wild Horses and Burros

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of

USFWS-Identified Threats
Draft Resource Management 355

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(PDF Map 2–9)

Figure 2.9. Alternative E: Wild Horses and Burros

(PDF Map 2–10)

Figure 2.10. Alternative A: Livestock Grazing

(PDF Map 2–11)

Figure 2.11. Alternative C Livestock Grazing

(PDF Map 2–12)

Figure 2.12. Alternative A: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

(PDF Map 2–13)

Figure 2.13. Alternatives B and F: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

(PDF Map 2–14)

Figure 2.14. Alternative C: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

(PDF Map 2–15)

Figure 2.15. Alternative D: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

(PDF Map 2–16)

Figure 2.16. Alternative E: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

(PDF Map 2–17)

Figure 2.17. Alternative A: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–18)

Figure 2.18. Alternative B: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–19)

Figure 2.19. Alternative C: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–20)

Figure 2.20. Alternative D: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–21)

Figure 2.21. Alternative E: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–22)

Figure 2.22. Alternative F: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of

USFWS-Identified Threats
356 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(PDF Map 2–23)

Figure 2.23. Alternative A: Land Tenure

(PDF Map 2–24)

Figure 2.24. Alternative B: Land Tenure

(PDF Map 2–25)

Figure 2.25. Alternative C: Land Tenure

(PDF Map 2–26)

Figure 2.26. Alternative D: Land Tenure

(PDF Map 2–27)

Figure 2.27. Alternative F: Land Tenure

(PDF Map 2–28)

Figure 2.28. Alternatives A, B, and C: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–29)

Figure 2.29. Alternative D: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–30)

Figure 2.30. Alternative E: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–31)

Figure 2.31. Alternative F: Wind ROW Exclusion and Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–32)

Figure 2.32. Alternatives A, B, and F: Utility-Scale Solar

(PDF Map 2–33)

Figure 2.33. Alternative C: Utility-Scale Solar

(PDF Map 2–34)

Figure 2.34. Alternative D: Utility-Scale Solar

(PDF Map 2–35)

Figure 2.35. Alternative E: Utility-Scale Solar

(PDF Map 2–36)

Figure 2.36. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of

USFWS-Identified Threats
Draft Resource Management 357

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(PDF Map 2–37)

Figure 2.37. Alternative B: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas

(PDF Map 2–38)

Figure 2.38. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas

(PDF Map 2–39)

Figure 2.39. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas

(PDF Map 2–40)

Figure 2.40. Alternative F: Open and Closed to Oil and Gas

(PDF Map 2–41)

Figure 2.41. Alternative B: Open to Oil and Gas, Leased, No New Surface Occupancy

(PDF Map 2–42)

Figure 2.42. Alternative D: Open to Oil and Gas, Un-leased, No Surface Occupancy

(PDF Map 2–43)

Figure 2.43. Alternative E: Open to Oil and Gas, Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–44)

Figure 2.44. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Geothermal

(PDF Map 2–45)

Figure 2.45. Alternative B: Open and Closed to Geothermal

(PDF Map 2–46)

Figure 2.46. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Geothermal

(PDF Map 2–47)

Figure 2.47. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Geothermal

(PDF Map 2–48)

Figure 2.48. Alternative F: Open and Closed to Geothermal

(PDF Map 2–49)

Figure 2.49. Alternative B: Open to Geothermal, Un-leased, No New Surface Occupancy

(PDF Map 2–50)

Figure 2.50. Alternative D: Open to Geothermal, Leased, No Surface Occupancy

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of

USFWS-Identified Threats
358 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(PDF Map 2–51)

Figure 2.51. Alternative E: Open to Geothermal, Avoidance

(PDF Map 2–52)

Figure 2.52. Alternative A: Locatable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–53)

Figure 2.53. Alternatives B and F: Locatable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–54)

Figure 2.54. Alternative C: Locatable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–55)

Figure 2.55. Alternative D: Locatable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–56)

Figure 2.56. Alternative E: Locatable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–57)

Figure 2.57. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales

(PDF Map 2–58)

Figure 2.58. Alternatives B and F: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales

(PDF Map 2–59)

Figure 2.59. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales

(PDF Map 2–60)

Figure 2.60. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales

(PDF Map 2–61)

Figure 2.61. Alternative E: Open and Closed to Mineral Material Sales

(PDF Map 2–62)

Figure 2.62. Alternative A: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–63)

Figure 2.63. Alternatives B and F: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–64)

Figure 2.64. Alternative C: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of

USFWS-Identified Threats
Draft Resource Management 359

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(PDF Map 2–65)

Figure 2.65. Alternative D: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–66)

Figure 2.66. Alternative E: Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

(PDF Map 2–67)

Figure 2.67. Alternatives A, B, D, and E: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(PDF Map 2–68)

Figure 2.68. Alternative C: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(PDF Map 2–69)

Figure 2.69. Alternative F: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives