Appendix I

Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of 

USFWS-Identified Threats

BLM /Forest Service LUP Alternative Review Matrix Plan: 

Subregion: Nevada and Northeast California

GSG Population(s): MZ III – Northwest Interior (NV), Southern Great Basin (NV Portion), Quinn Canyon Range (NV); MZ IV – Northern Great Basin; MZ V – Warm Springs Valley (NV), Western Great Basin (OR, CA, NV)

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-1

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Priority Areas for 

Conservation 

(PACs)

Retain GRSG habitats within PACs 

(pertains to PAC designation; actions 

below this line are evaluated 

independent of PAC designation for 

each Alternative).

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

All GRSG habitats within PACs are addressed in the action alternatives. The PACs identified in the COT include non-habitat. This matches the 

SGMAs identified in Alternative E. All other action alternatives include the mapped GRSG habitat within the PACs but do not include the nonhabitat.

If PACs are lost to catastrophic 

events, implement appropriate 

restoration efforts.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

Specific actions are listed below in the appropriate sections that follow.

Restore and rehabilitate degraded 

GRSG habitat within PACS.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

Specific actions are listed below in the appropriate sections that follow.

Identify areas and habitats outside 

of PACs which may be necessary to 

maintain viability of GRSG. If 

development or vegetation 

manipulation activities outside of 

PACs are proposed, the project 

proponent should work with 

federal, state or local agencies and 

interested stakeholders to ensure 

consistency with GRSG habitat 

needs.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

Implement the RDFs 

in areas outside of 

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 

their habitat in PPMA 

or PGMA.

Re-evaluate the status of PACs and 

adjacent GRSG habitat at least 

once every 5-years, or when 

important new information 

becomes available.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

GRSG habitat 

categorization and use 

management 

boundaries would be 

evaluated and adjusted 

based 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.
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-2 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Actively pursue opportunities to 

increase occupancy and 

connectivity between PACs.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

There are objectives for improving genetic and seasonal range connectivity in Alternatives B, D, and F. There are specific management actions 

identified in Alternative D.

Maintain or improve existing 

habitat conditions in areas adjacent 

to burned habitat.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

PGMA near where 

PPMA has been 

burned by wildfire will 

be managed as PPMA 

until the burned 

habitat and GRSG use 

has been restored. 

The location and 

amount of PGMA to 

be managed as PPMA 

will be determined in 

coordination between 

the BLM and FS, the 

respective state 

wildlife agency, and in 

Nevada the Sagebrush 

Ecosystem Technical 

Team based on site 

specific evaluations.

Wildfire

MZ III - NI=Y, 

SGB=Y, QCR=Y

MZ IV – NGB=Y

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=Y

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

All action alternatives will decrease habitat loss from prescribed fire and wildfire by limiting prescribed fire and prioritizing wildfire suppression efforts in the state, which meet the 

Conservation Objectives Team report objectives. Alternatives B, D, E, and F would also try to lessen the future probability of large fires in GRSG by putting in fire breaks which would 

further benefit GRSG. Alternatives B, D, and E, and F all move to lessen habitat loss from treatments within winter habitat to varying degrees, which is consistent with objective for 

sagebrush removal. All alternatives have a focus on native or desirable plants to be reseeded within PPMA while D and E provide added flexibility for judicial use of non-natives to meet 

habitat objectives. Alternative C is passive toward fire and fuels management emphasizing natural restorative processes following a reduction in anthropogenic disturbance. In alternative 

C, reduction in the threat of wildfire is implemented through a long-term perspective of overall improvement of habitat.

Varied treatment options 

– no standard.

Impacts such as habitat 

degradation and habitat 

loss from fuels 

treatments would be 

reduced because there 

would be no 

treatments in winter 

habitat, no prescribed 

fire in areas with less 

than 12 inches 

precipitation, and all 

projects would use 

native seeds. Habitat 

loss would be 

decreased because of 

the restrictions on 

fuels management 

treatments and 

Relies on passive 

restoration efforts to 

indirectly reduce the 

risk of wildfires. 

Restores 

anthropogenic 

disturbance such as 

non-native seeding, 

fences, livestock 

grazing. No direct 

actions for reducing 

wildfire 

occurrence/threat.

Habitat loss would be 

reduced from the 

implementation of a 

system of fuel breaks. 

Fuel treatments would 

reduce impacts since 

they would need to be 

designed with the 

emphasis to maintain, 

protect, and expand 

sagebrush. Prescribed 

fire would not be 

allowed unless it is 

shown that noxious 

weeds will not be 

spread. Winter habitat 

loss would be limited 

through restricting 

Expands fire 

suppression plans 

and strategies 

across all land 

jurisdictions 

within SGMAs. 

Identifies proactive presuppression, 

suppression, and 

restoration 

activities and 

completes habitat 

assessments to 

identify highest 

fire risk as well as 

highest 

restoration 

Same as Alternative B
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-3

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

disruption of GRSG 

would be decreased 

with the treatments 

occurring outside of 

important seasons. 

Wildfire suppression 

efforts would be 

prioritized GRSG very 

high. Following best 

practices in IM 2011-

138 will also limit 

negative impacts from 

firefighting activities.

Requiring native seed 

and designing fuels 

treatments for longterm success would 

reduce the long-term 

impact of the shortterm habitat loss and 

not have a negative 

long-term population 

impact.

when treatments 

could occur in these 

areas.

Wildfire suppression 

planning would lessen 

the risk for habitat 

loss from wildfire. The 

emphasis on use of 

native seed or 

desirable plants would 

lessen the long-term 

habitat loss to GSRG 

habitat but provides 

for use of non-natives 

where natives may not 

meet objectives.

potential. Updates 

fire suppression 

plans. Takes 

measures to 

increase initial 

attack capability, 

effectiveness, and 

efficiency. 

Establishes and 

maintains a system 

of targeted fuel 

breaks and green 

strips. Designates 

Occupied and 

Suitable habitat as 

“high priority 

value” for 

suppression 

resource 

allocation.

Retain and restore healthy native 

sagebrush plant communities within 

the range of GRSG.

Restrict or contain fire within the 

normal range of fire activity 

(assuming a healthy native 

perennial sagebrush community), 

including size and frequency, as 

defined by the best available 

science.

B-FFM-HFM-9 C-FFM-HFM-9 D-FFM-4-6,8,10,12,19

D-FFM-HFM-1,20

E-FFM-2-6,10,12

E-FFM-HFM1,9,14,36,49,50,56

F-FFM-HFM-9

Eliminate intentional fires in 

sagebrush habitats, including 

prescribed burning of breeding 

and winter habitats.

B-FFM-HFM-9 D-FFM-HFM-4 E-FFM-HFM-2 F-FFM-HFM-9

Design and implement restoration 

of burned sagebrush habitats to 

allow for natural succession to 

healthy native sagebrush plant 

communities.

B-VEG-3,9,11

B-FFM-HFM-22

C-VEG-4,5

C-FFM-HFM-22

D-VEG-2,3,6

D-FFM-8,13,14,18-20

D-FFM-HFM-1,9, 20,

21

E-SSS-ALDM-5

E-FFM-13,14,15

E-FFM-HFM22,29-31,49,50-55

F-VEG-3,11

F-FFM-HFM-22,24

Implement monitoring programs 

for restoration activities. To 

ensure success, monitoring must 

continue until restoration is 

complete, with sufficient 

commitments to make adequate 

corrections to management 

efforts if needed.

B-FFM-HFM-9

B-VEG-7

D-FFM-8,16,17, 20

D-VEG-18-20, 21

D-FFM-HFM-5

E-SSS-AM-5

E-FFM-16,17

F-FFM-HFM-9
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-4 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Immediately suppress fire in all 

sagebrush habitats.

B-FFM-HFM-18-20 C-FFM-HFM-18-20 D-FFM-4, 6, 8, 10, 12

D-FFM-HFM-1,18,20

E-FFM-16,17 F-FFM-HFM-9

Prevention of fires in GRSG 

habitats:

Which (if any) of Options 1a - d 

were applied?

a. Manage for the maintenance 

and restoration of healthy 

perennial grass and sagebrush 

vegetative communities.

b. Manage land uses to minimize 

the spread of invasive species 

and or facilitate fire ignition.

c. Address degraded sagebrush 

systems before fire occurs.

d. Close rangelands that are 

highly susceptible to fire to 

OHV use during the fire 

season.

(a)

B-VEG-2

(a)(b)(c)

B-VEG-2,9

(d)

B-CTTM-4

(a)(c)

C-FFM-HFM-10

(a)(b)(c)

C-VEG-2,9,13,22-32

(a)

D-FFM-HFM-1,4,8,21

(b)

D-FFM-5

D-FFM-HFM-1,9,20

D-LG-16

(c)

D-FFM-6,8

D-FFM-HFM-1,8

(a)(b)(c)

D-FFM-12

D-VEG-1,2,17,18,21

(d)

D-CTTM-4

(a)

E-SSS-MIT-5

(a)(c)

E-FFM-HFM-29-

31,33

(b)

E-FFM-HFM-37

(a)

F-VEG-2

(a)(b)(c)

F-VEG-2,14

(d)

F-CTTM-4

Which (if any) of Options 2a - j 

were applied? Note: Only Options 

c, d, f, and g are appropriate for 

planning decisions. 

c) Establish defensible fire lines in 

areas where: (i) effectiveness is 

high, (iii) fire risk is likely, and 

(iii) negative impacts from 

these efforts are minimized. 

Avoid use of any vegetative 

stripping in healthy, 

unfragmented habitats, unless 

fire conditions and local 

ecological conditions so 

warrant.

d) Carefully consider the use of 

backfires within PACs to 

minimize the potential for 

escape and further damage to 

GRSG and sagebrush habitats.

f) Remove pinyon-juniper stands 

which are highly flammable in 

low elevation sagebrush 

habitats.

g) Reduce risk of human caused 

fires by limiting activities that 

may result in fire during high 

risk fire seasons.

(c)

B-FFM-HFM-12,13

(c)

C-FFM-HFM12,13,28

(c)

D-FFM-6,7,12

D-FFM-HFM-1,3,8,20

D-VEG-16

(f)

D-VEG-1,2,30

D-VEG-ISCE-4,7-9

D-VEG-CC-3

(g)

D-FFM-5

(c)

E-SSS-MIT-5

E-FFM-1,6

E-FFM-HFM2,12,13,20,36,56

(d)

E-FFM-11

E-FFM-HFM-41

(f)

E-VEG-30

E-VEG-ISCE4,8,11

E-FFM-HFM-22,55
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-5

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Which (if any) of Options 3a - e 

were applied? Note: Only Options 

c and d are appropriate for 

decisions in this EIS.

c) Apply available seed 

where it is most likely to be 

effective and to areas of highest 

need.

d) Ensure GRSG habitat 

needs are considered in 

restoration activities including 

managing for the range of 

variation, as appropriate for the 

local areas.

(c)(d)

B-FFM-HFM-21

(c)(d

C-FFM-HFM-21

(c)(d)

D-FFM-HFM-1,21

D-FFM-6,14,19

(d)

D-VEG-22,27,29-32

(c)(d

E-FFM-HFM-20,21

(c)(d)

F-FFM-HFM-21

Was Option 4 applied?

• Incorporate IM 2011-138

YES YES YES YES YES

Non-native, 

Invasive Plant 

Species -

Weeds/Annual 

Grasses

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

All action alternatives would meet the COT report objectives by implementing actions to maintain and restore healthy sagebrush communities. Alternative D provides the lowest surface 

disturbance threshold (no unmitigated loss of habitat), which would reduce opportunities for incursion of non-native species. Alternatives B and F propose 3 percent thresholds in 

priority habitats, and E would propose a 5 percent threshold. Alternatives B, D, E, and F prioritize restoration of areas with invasive weed infestations and emphasize restoration, which 

would further reduce habitat degradation. Alternative C prioritizes restoration of invasive infestations but limits restoration to natural processes following a reduction in anthropogenic 

uses (livestock removal, fencing and roads infrastructure removal).

Various control measures 

– no standard. 

Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation plans 

can help ameliorate the 

threat of invasive annuals 

and strategic wildland fire 

suppression can provide 

long-term protection to 

intact native vegetation, 

thereby preventing the 

spread and conversion to 

invasive annuals. Invasive 

annuals would continue 

to be introduced and 

spread as a result of 

ongoing vehicle traffic in 

and out of the planning 

area, recreational 

activities, wildlife, 

improper livestock 

grazing, fire, and surfacedisturbing activities 

(energy and 

infrastructure).

Impacts on GRSG 

habitats would be 

minimized by 

controlling, 

suppressing, and 

eradicating noxious and 

invasive weeds under 

this alternative. Since 

this alternative would 

limit anthropogenic 

disturbance in priority 

habitat to 3 percent, 

this would likely limit 

the invasive annuals 

introduced. This 

alternative would also 

require native seed for 

restoration efforts and 

the use of BMPs for fire 

and fuels treatments 

also include invasive 

species prevention 

measures that would 

also help reduce 

habitat degradation and 

loss from invasive 

Relies on passive 

restoration efforts to 

indirectly reduce the 

risk of invasive 

annuals. Minimizes 

use of herbicides and 

emphasizes 

mechanical treatment 

methods. Reduces 

spread of invasive 

annuals by eliminating 

livestock grazing.

Similar to Alternative 

B, except the 

disturbance limitation 

would be a no net loss 

approach in priority 

habitat instead of 3 

percent. Disturbance 

thresholds would limit 

the invasive annuals 

introduced. 

Alternative D 

broadens treatment 

options through an 

IVM approach using 

fire, chemical, 

mechanical, and 

biological methods 

based on site 

potential.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

described under 

Alternative D 

except surface 

disturbance could 

be allowed to go 

above 5 percent in 

Occupied habitat 

and up to 20 

percent per year 

in Potential 

habitat. As a 

result, the 

likelihood for 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

annuals would be 

higher than under 

Alternatives B or 

D. Agencies would 

be required to 

aggressively 

respond to new 

infestations to 

keep invasive 

Similar to Alternative 

B. Limits anthropogenic 

disturbance to one 

instance per section 

and a cumulative 3 per 

cent disturbance cap. 
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-6 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

weeds. species from 

spreading, identify, 

and treat new 

infestations before 

they become 

larger problems, 

and contain 

known infestations 

of weeds in or 

near sagebrush 

habitats.

MZ III - NI=Y, 

SGB=Y, QCR=Y

MZ IV – NGB=Y

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=Y

Maintain and restore healthy, native 

sagebrush plant communities.

Retain all remaining large intact 

sagebrush patches, particularly at 

low elevations.

D-FFM-4,6,12,19,20

D-VEG-1,17

Reduce or eliminate disturbances 

that promote the spread of these 

invasive species.

D-FFM-19

D-FFM-HFM-1,4,5,20

D-VEG-15,20

E-FFM-HFM-58 F-FFM-HFM-25-27

Monitor and control invasive 

vegetation post-wildfire for at 

least three years.

B-FFM-HFM-9 D-FFM-16,17

D-FFM-HFM-5

E-FFM-16,17 E-FFM-HFM-9

Require best management 

practices for construction projects 

in and adjacent to sagebrush 

habitats to prevent invasion.

D-FFM-HFM-1

Restore altered ecosystems such 

that non-native invasive plants are 

reduced to levels that do not put 

the area at risk of conversion if a 

catastrophic event were to occur.

B-FFM-HFM-21,22 C-FFM-HFM-21,22 D-FFM-HFM-1,8,21,22

D-FFM-8,19

D-VEG-1,18,25,32

D-VEG-ISCE-2,3

E-FFM-21,22,58-

60

F-FFM-HFM-21,22,24

Energy 

Development 

MZ III - NI=U, 

SGB=L, QCR=N

MZ IV – NGB=L

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=L

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

To varying degrees all alternatives meet the conservation objective for energy, which is to ensure that development will not impinge upon stable or increasing population trends. 

Alternatives B, C, and F provide protection from wind development to GRSG and their habitat since all three stipulate that wind development is excluded from priority habitat. 

Alternative C goes further to exclude development in all GRSG habitats (ACECs). Alternatives D and F exclude from both priority and general habitats. Alternative B excludes in priority 

habitat only. Alternative E provides for avoidance within SGMAs or occupied and suitable habitat (PPMA and PGMA).

Most GRSG habitat is 

open to renewable 

energy development.

Exclusion and avoidance 

areas include 

Congressionally 

designated areas, 

wilderness study areas, 

and some ACECs.

In the sub-region, within 

In addition to exclusion 

and avoidance areas in 

Alternative A, 

renewable energy 

development would be 

managed as exclusion 

in priority habitat and 

avoidance in general 

habitat. 

Habitat and population 

protections same as 

Excludes renewable 

energy development 

from all ACECs, all 

GRSG habitats and 

recommends a 5-10-

mile buffer between 

these habitats and 

wind development. 

Habitat and 

population 

protections same as 

Excludes renewable

energy development 

within priority and 

general habitats with 

provision for on-site 

development within 

existing industrial 

infrastructure.

In the sub-region, 

within modeled GRSG 

nesting habitat there 

Follows the State 

policy of “avoid, 

minimize, and 

mitigate” with 

oversight by the 

Nevada Sagebrush 

Ecosystem 

Council using best 

available science. 

Seeks to avoid 

conflict by locating 

Same as Alternative B.
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-7

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

modeled nesting habitat 

there are 983,600 of 

exclusion and 89,200 of 

avoidance acres of PPH 

and PGH. Proposed 

exclusion and avoidance 

areas provide an 

increased level of 

protection to modeled 

nesting habitat associated 

with leks representing 3 

percent of the population 

for Avoidance areas and 

12 percent of the 

population for the subregion.

Provides no specific 

actions for fluid minerals.

Alternative A.

Provides specific 

actions for fluid 

minerals. See below.

Alternative A.

Provides specific 

actions for fluid 

minerals. See below.

are 12,202,900 acres 

proposed for right of 

way exclusion and an 

additional 89,200 

acres proposed for 

right of way avoidance 

of PPMA and PGMA. 

Proposed exclusion 

and avoidance areas 

provide an increased 

level of protection to 

modeled nesting 

habitat associated with 

leks represented by 94 

percent of the 

modeled GRSG 

population for the 

sub-region occurring 

within the closure and 

exclusion proposed by 

this alternative. 

Provides specific 

actions for fluid 

minerals. See below.

developments in 

non-habitat 

wherever possible.

Emphasizes colocation and 

existing corridors.

Provides specific 

actions for fluid 

minerals. See 

below.

Energy development should be 

designed to insure that it will not 

impinge upon stable or increasing 

GSG population trends

Avoid energy development in 

PACs.

B-FFME-2,3,6

B-FM-1,3

C-LR-IS-1

C-FFME-3,11

C-FM-1

D-LR-WED-1

D-LR-IS-1,2

D-FFME-3,6

D-FM-1,2,3

E-LR-WED-1

E-LR-IS-1,2

E-FFME-3,6

E-FM-1

F-LR-WED-1,2

F-FFME-2,3,6

F-FM-1,3

If avoidance is not possible in 

PACs due to pre-existing valid 

rights, adjacent development, or 

split estate issues, development 

should only occur in non-habitat 

areas, including all appurtenant 

structures, with an adequate 

buffer that is sufficient to preclude 

impacts on GRSG habitat from 

noise, and other human activities.

B-FFME-2,8 E-LR-LUA-9 F-FFME-2,8

If development must occur in 

GRSG habitats due to existing 

rights and lack of reasonable 

alternative avoidance measures, 

the development should occur in 

the least suitable habitat for GRSG 

and be designed to ensure at a 

minimum that there are no 

detectable declines in GRSG 
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-8 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

population trends (see row below 

and COT report for measures to 

implement to facilitate this).

Which (if any) of Measure 3a - 3e 

were applied?

a. Reduce and maintain the 

density of energy structures 

below which there are not 

impacts on the function of the 

GRSG habitats and do not 

result in decline in GRSG 

populations within the PACs.

b. Design development outside 

PACs to maintain populations 

within adjacent PACs and allow 

for connectivity among PACs.

c. Consolidate structures and 

infrastructure associated with 

energy development.

d. Reclamation of disturbance 

resulting from a proposed 

project should only be 

considered mitigation and not 

portrayed as minimization.

e. Design development to 

minimize tall structures or 

other features associated with 

the development.

(a)

B-FFME-2,6,7

(c)

D-LR-WED-3

D-LR-IS-2

(e)

D-LR-LUA-5

(a)

E-FFME-6

(c)

E-LR-WED-3

E-LR-IS-2

(e)

E-LR-LUA-5

(a)

F-FFME-2,6,7

Sagebrush 

Removal / 

Elimination 

MZ III - NI=N, 

SGB=L, QCR=N

MZ IV – NGB=L

MZ V – WSV=N, 

WGB=L

Avoid SB removal or manipulation 

in GSG breeding or wintering 

habitats. Exceptions can be 

considered where minor habitat 

losses are sustained while 

implementing other habitat 

improvement or maintenance 

efforts and in areas used as late 

summer brood habitat.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

YES

B-FFM-HFM-9,20

B-CTTM—6

B-LR-LUA-1,6

B-FFME-2,7,10

B-FM-3

YES

C-LR-LUA-1

YES

D-SSS-AM-3

D-VEG-15,17

D-FFM-6,8,12,13,19,20

D-FFM-HFM-1,20

D-CTTM-6

D-LR-LUA-1,6

D-FFME-10

D-FM-3

YES

E-SSS-ACDM-6

E-FFM-11

E-FFM-HFM2,9,20,41

E-CTTM-6

E-LR-LUA-1,6

E-LR-DMA-1

E-FM-3

YES

F-CTTM-6

F-LR-LUA-1

F-FFME-2,7,10

F-FM-3

Grazing

MZ III - NI=Y, 

SGB=Y, QCR=Y

MZ IV – NGB=Y

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=Y

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

All action alternatives would manage grazing to better meet the ecological conditions that maintain or restore healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb communities 

and conserve the essential habitat components for GRSG (e.g. shrub cover, nesting cover), which is the Conservation Objectives Team report objective. All action alternatives emphasize 

GRSG in decision making for livestock grazing however, Alternative C eliminates livestock grazing from PPMA and PGMA. Alternative F adds utilization and rest goals but is otherwise 

similar to Alternatives B and D. Alternative E promotes proper livestock grazing practices and meeting RAC S&Gs and is similar to the No Action alternative. For wild horses there 

would be a focus on GRSG habitat and priority for gathers in GRSG habitat for Alternatives B, D, and F. These Alternatives include evaluation of HMAs and WHTs to consider 

adjustments in AML to meet GRSG habitat standards. Alternative E is similar requiring management at AML but does not include a prioritization for gathers based on GRSG management 

areas. Alternative C does not directly address WHB.
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-9

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Impacts on GRSG vary 

on each allotment since 

there is no set direction 

to specifically consider 

GRSG in grazing 

decisions. There could be 

localized to generalized 

landscape scale 

degradation to GRSG 

habitat from grazing.

Structural range 

improvements are 

considered on a case-bycase basis while 

maintaining rangeland 

health which could lead 

to GRSG habitat 

degradation with the 

introduction of invasive 

species in some areas.

Under Alternative A, 

17,589,700 acres would 

be open for livestock 

grazing affecting 94 

percent of the modeled 

populations within the 

sub-region.

Wild horses would be 

managed within 

appropriate management 

levels.

Rangeland would be 

managed for vegetation 

composition and 

structure consistent 

with ecological site 

potential and within the 

reference state to 

achieve GRSG seasonal 

habitat objectives in 

Connelly et al. 2000 

and Hagen et al. 2007. 

GRSG would benefit by 

having the structural 

components needed 

for all of their life cycle 

needs. 

Structural range 

improvements must 

conserve, maintain, 

enhance or restore 

GRSG habitat through 

improved grazing 

management system. 

Water development 

would need to be 

neutral or beneficial to 

GRSG.

Same open/closed 

acreages as Alternative 

A.

Wild horses would be 

managed within 

appropriate 

management levels 

with gathers in PGMA 

receiving highest 

priority. Wild horse 

HMAPs and WHTPs 

would be prioritized 

for evaluation of AML 

based on GRSG habitat 

needs.

Alternative C 

requires a substantial 

reduction in livestock 

grazing by removing 

all grazing use from 

priority and general 

habitats. Some 

allotments would 

have a decrease in 

AUMs and some 

would be closed if 

deemed necessary 

upon review. Habitat 

degradation would 

be lessened on 

remaining grazed 

allotments by 

establishing residual 

nesting cover, 

riparian stubble 

height, and upland 

trampling standards. 

Structural range 

improvements would 

be removed where 

possible. 

No new water 

developments would 

be authorized and 

existing water 

developments that 

are harmful to GRSG 

could be dismantled.

Under Alternative C, 

livestock use would 

be closed on about 

17,589,700 acres. 

About 94 Percent of 

the modeled GRSG 

population in the 

sub-region would be 

affected and 

anywhere from 100 

to 88 percent of each 

sub-population. 

Establishes desired 

cover percentages for 

sagebrush, grasses, 

and forbs in seasonal 

habitats developed 

from Great Basin 

specific GRSG habitat 

studies. GRSG would 

benefit by having the 

structural components 

needed for all of their 

life cycle needs.

Prescribes standards 

for assessing GRSG 

habitat in the permit 

renewal process.

Any new structural 

range improvements 

would be designed to 

conserve, enhance, or 

restore GRSG habitat 

through an improved 

grazing management 

system relative to 

GRSG objectives. 

New water 

developments within 

PH would be limited 

and need have a 

neutral effect or be 

beneficial to PH (such 

as by shifting livestock 

use away from critical 

areas). New 

developments must be 

designed to maintain 

continuity of 

predevelopment 

riparian or wet 

meadow vegetation 

and hydrology so 

there is no 

degradation of GRSG 

brood-rearing habitat.

Same open/closed 

Similar to 

Alternative D 

except:

Applies 

management 

actions within 

occupied and 

suitable habitat 

within SGMAs.

Utilizes GRSG 

habitat standards 

from Connelly et 

al 2000 instead of 

localized Great 

Basin specific 

habitat objectives. 

Promotes use of 

livestock grazing 

as a tool to 

improve GRSG 

habitat quantity, 

quality, or to 

reduce wildfire 

threat.

Same as Alternative B, 

except:

Structural range 

improvements would 

be avoided in priority 

and general habitats.

Evaluation of existing 

water developments 

would include 

dismantling where 

necessary.

Proposes changes in 

grazing management in 

lieu of building new 

range management 

structures compatible 

with GRSG habitat 

objectives.

Includes pre- and postvegetation treatment 

monitoring 

requirements. 
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-10 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

No specific 

recommendations for 

reduction of wild 

horse impacts. 

Recommends 

reduced capabilities 

regarding methods 

for capture/control. 

acreages as 

Alternative A.

Wild horses would be 

managed similarly to 

Alternative B.

Conduct grazing management for 

all ungulates in a manner consistent 

with local ecological conditions that 

maintains or restores healthy 

sagebrush shrub and native 

perennial grass and forb 

communities and conserves the 

essential habitat components for 

GRSG (shrub and nesting cover). 

Areas which do not currently meet 

this standard should be managed to 

restore these components. 

Adequate monitoring of grazing 

strategies and their results, with 

necessary changes in strategies, is 

essential to ensuring that desired 

ecological conditions and GRSG 

response are achieved. Livestock 

and wild ungulate numbers must be 

managed at levels that allow native 

sagebrush vegetative communities 

to minimally achieve Proper 

Functioning Conditions (PFC; for 

riparian areas) or Rangeland Health 

Standards (RHS; uplands).

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 5 

were applied? Note: Only Options 

1, 3, and 4 are appropriate for 

decisions in this EIS.

1. Ensure that allotments meet 

ecological potential and wildlife 

habitat requirements, and that 

the health and diversity of the 

native perennial grass 

community is consistent with 

the ecological site.

3. Incorporate GRSG habitat 

needs or habitat characteristics 

into relevant resource and 

allotment management plans, 

including the desired 

conditions.

4. Conduct habitat assessments 

and, where necessary, 

determine factors causing any 

failure to achieve the habitat 

characteristics. Make 

adjustments as appropriate.

(1)

B-LG-7,10-13,16,17,20-

22

(3)

B-LG-2,6,8

(4)

B-LG-4,5,9

(1)

C-LG-1

(1)

D-LG-10,13,16,20-

22,28,29

(3)

D-LG-25,30

(4)

D-LG-2,4,26,27

(1)

E-LG-10,16,20-

22,32-34

(3)

E-LG-8,30,31

(4)

E-LG-4

(1)

F-LG-7,10-13,16,17,20-

22

(3)

F-LG-2,8

(4)

F-LG-4,5,9

Range 

Management 

Structures (no 

ratings)

Avoid or reduce the impact of 

range management structures on 

GRSG.

Range management structures 

should be designed and placed to 

be neutral or beneficial to GRSG.

B-LG-14,15,18,19 C-VEG-12 D-LG-14,15,20 F-LG-14,15,18,19

Structures that are currently 

contributing to negative impacts 

on either GRSG or their habitats 

should be removed or modified to 

remove the threat.

B-LG-19,20,21 D-LG-18,20,21 E-LG-21 F-LG-19,20,21
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-11

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Free-Roaming 

Equid 

Management 

MZ III - NI=Y, 

SGB=Y, QCR=Y

MZ IV – NGB=L

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=Y

Protect GRSG from the negative 

influences of grazing by free 

roaming equids.

Develop, implement, and enforce 

adequate regulatory mechanisms 

to protect GRSG habitat from 

negative influences of grazing by 

free-roaming equids.

B-WHB-3,4 D-WHB-1 E-WHB-1 F-WHB-4

Manage free-roaming equids at 

levels that allow native sagebrush 

vegetative communities to 

minimally achieve PFC (for 

riparian areas) or RHS (for 

uplands).

B-WHB-2 D-WHB-1 E-WHB-1 F-WHB-2

Pinyon-juniper 

Expansion / 

Conifers 

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

All action alternatives except Alternatives C and F meet the Conservation Objectives Team report objective, which is to remove pinyon-juniper from areas of sagebrush that are most 

likely to support GRSG at a rate that is at least equal to rate of pinyon-juniper incursion. Alternative E is the most aggressive toward removal of juniper assuming that economic 

incentives are a viable means of increasing removal for biomass or other uses. Alternative D specifically targets conifer encroachment and establishes new GRSG habitat objectives 

regarding conifer. Alternative B contains similar objectives but does not specifically target juniper. Alternatives C and F represent more passive approaches with C not addressing direct 

conifer removal and F recognizing a need in specific instances where conifer is considered invasive rather than re-establishing within historic range.

MZ III - NI=N, 

SGB=Y, QCR=Y

MZ IV – NGB=Y

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=Y

Remove pinyon-juniper from areas 

of sagebrush that are most likely to 

support GRSG (post-removal) at a 

rate at least equal to the rate of 

pinyon-juniper incursion

No conservation measures 

specified. Is conservation objective 

addressed applying locally-derived 

measures?

YES NO YES YES YES

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 4 

were applied?

1. Favor the use of mechanical 

treatments for removing pinion 

and/or juniper as they are 

more selective in removal of 

invading plants and allows 

understory habitats to remain 

intact.

2. Use prescribed fire in high 

elevation mountain big sage 

sites with caution to prevent 

fire escape and any subsequent 

establishment of invasive annual 

grasses or other weeds.

3. Reduce juniper cover in GRSG 

habitats to less than 5 percent 

but preferably eliminate 

entirely.

4. Employ all necessary actions to 

maintain the benefit of pinyon 

and/or juniper removal for 

GRSG habitats

(2)

B-FFM-HFM-9

(1)

D-VEG-30

D-VEG-ISCE-7,8

(3)

D-VEG-3,30

D-FFM-HFM-4

(4)

D-VEG-1,2

D-VEG-ISCE-4,8

(1)

E-VEG-30

E-VEG-ISCE-8,11

(3)

E-VEG-30

(4)

E-VEG-ISCE4,5,7,8

(2)

B-FFM-HFM-9
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-12 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Agricultural 

Conversion 

MZ III - NI=N, 

SGB=L, QCR=N

MZ IV – NGB=L

MZ V – WSV=N, 

WGB=L

Avoid further loss of sagebrush 

habitat for agricultural activities 

(both animal and plant production) 

and prioritize restoration. In areas 

where taking agricultural lands out 

of production has benefited GSG, 

the programs supporting these 

actions should be targeted and 

continued (e.g., CRP/SAFE). Threat 

amelioration activities should, at a 

minimum, be prioritized within 

PACS, but should be considered in 

all GSG habitats.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

(4)

E-VEG-HCA-1

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 4 

were applied?

1. Revise Farm Bill policies and 

commodity programs that 

facilitate ongoing conversion of 

native habitats to marginal 

croplands (e.g., through the 

addition of a ‘Sodsaver’ 

provision), to support 

conservation of remaining 

sagebrush-steppe habitats.

2. Continue and expand incentive 

programs that encourage the 

maintenance of sagebrush 

habitats.

3. Develop criteria for set-aside 

programs which stop negative 

habitat impacts and promote 

the quality and quantity GRSG 

habitat.

4. If lands that provide seasonal 

habitats for GRSG are taken 

out of a voluntary program, 

such as CRP or SAFE, 

precautions should be taken to 

ensure withdrawal of the lands 

minimizes the risk of direct 

take of GRSG (e.g., timing to 

avoid nesting season). 

Voluntary incentives should be 

implemented to increase the 

amount of GRSG habitats 

enrolled in these programs.

These options are outside the scope of this EIS. BLM and FS do not have authority to conduct these actions.

Mining 

MZ III - NI=Y, 

SGB=L, QCR=N

MZ IV – NGB=L

MZ V – WSV=N, 

WGB=L

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

To varying degrees all action alternative meet the Conservation Objectives Team report objective, which is to maintain stable to increasing GRSG population trends and no net loss of 

GRSG habitat in in areas affected by mining. Alternatives B and F would withdraw priority habitat from mineral entry while Alternative C would withdraw all occupied GRSG habitat. 

Under Alternatives D and E, no withdrawals are proposed. Application of existing laws and RDFs would be enforced along with aggressive reclamation/rehabilitation.

Continued impacts on 

GRSG are anticipated 

such as habitat loss, 

fragmentation, 

disturbance to the 

GRSG, and habitat 

degradation due to the 

Priority habitat would 

be withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry.

Existing claims within 

withdrawals would be 

subject to validity 

Same as Alternative 

B except decisions 

would be applied to a 

larger geographical 

area (all occupied 

habitat).

GRSG habitat would 

be open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

Stipulations placed on 

the type, amount, 

timing, and location of 

mining would 

GRSG habitat 

would be open to 

locatable mineral 

entry. The 

implementation of 

other temporal 

and spatial 
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-13

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

variability of restrictions.

There is no surface 

disturbance limitation 

recommendation 

included in this 

alternative.

There are 1,226,900 

acres of PPH and 374,700 

acres of PGH withdrawn. 

Withdrawal within 

modeled GRSG nesting 

habitat includes 834,600 

acres of PPH and PGH 

combined. Current 

withdrawals provide an 

increased level of 

protection to modeled 

nesting habitat associated 

with leks representing 32 

percent of the GRSG 

population for the subregion.

exams or buy-out.

Alternative B would 

include a total of 

4,664,700 acres open 

to locatable mineral 

entry and a withdrawal 

of 12,693,500 acres of 

PPMA and 374,700 

acres of PGMA. Within 

modeled nesting 

habitat there are 

10,720,200 acres of 

PPMA and PGMA 

combined. Withdrawn 

lands would provide an 

increased level of 

protection to modeled 

nesting habitat 

associated with leks 

representing 97 

percent of the GRSG 

population for the subregion.

Under Alternative C, 

PPMA (17,732,900 

acres) would be 

closed to mineral 

materials sales. 

Within modeled 

nesting habitat there 

are 15,485,100 acres 

of PPMA. Closure 

would provide an 

increased level of 

protection to all 

acres of PPMA within 

modeled nesting 

habitat associated 

with leks 

representing 100 

percent of the 

population for the 

sub-region

minimize net loss in 

priority habitats.

Acreages and effects 

to populations same 

as Alternative A.

restrictions may 

lessen some of the 

impacts of mining.

Acreages and 

effects to 

populations same 

as Alternative A.

Maintain stable to increasing GRSG 

populations and no net loss of 

GRSG habitats in areas affected by 

mining

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

YES YES YES YES YES

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 4 

were applied?

1. Avoid new mining activities 

and/or any associated facilities 

within occupied habitats, 

including seasonal habitats.

2. Avoid leasing in GRSG habitats 

until other suitable habitats can 

be restored to habitats used by 

GRSG.

3. Reclamation plans should focus 

on restoring areas disturbed by 

mining and associated facilities 

to healthy sagebrush 

ecosystems, including evidence 

of use by GRSG.

4. Reclamation of abandoned 

mine lands should focus on 

restoring areas to healthy 

sagebrush ecosystems where 

(1)

B-SAL-1

B-NEL-1

(3)

B-SAL-2

(4)

B-SAL-2

(1)

D-SAL-1

D-NEL-1

(3)

D-SAL-2

(4)

D-SAL-2

(1)

E-LR-W-1

E-LOC-3

(3)

E-LR-W-1

E-LOC-3,6,7

(4)

E-LR-W-1

E-LOC-3

(1)

F-SAL-1

F-NEL-1

(3)

F-SAL-2

(4)

F-SAL-2
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-14 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

possible.

Recreation 

MZ III - NI=Y, 

SGB=Y, QCR=Y

MZ IV – NGB=Y

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=U

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

All action alternatives would partially meet the Conservation Objectives Team report objective, which is that areas subject to recreation activities should maintain healthy native 

sagebrush communities based on local ecological conditions and with consideration of drought conditions, and managed direct and indirect human disturbance (including noise) to avoid 

interruption of normal GRSG behavior. Alternatives B and F close PPMA to cross-country travel. Alternative D extends provisions of Alternatives B and F to include all general habitats 

which is presumed to be the intent of Alternative C. These alternatives would prevent proliferation of new routes, include direction for seasonal closures, route realignment, provisions 

for valid existing rights, etc. Alternative E recommends study of impact of OHV use on GRSG habitats and recommends an “avoid, minimize, and mitigate” approach which translates as 

limiting travel to existing roads as in Alternative D. While Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F are similar in provisions for travel management, Alternative D and E extend protections to both 

priority and general GRSG habitats (occupied and suitable in E).

Cross-country motorized 

travel is generally allowed 

across BLM lands in 

Nevada with the 

exception of 

Congressionally 

designated areas and 

some ACECs. BLM lands 

in the California-managed 

Field Offices are limited 

to existing or designated 

routes. Forest Service 

lands are closed within 

Congressionally 

designated areas and 

limited elsewhere.

Under current 

management 874,000 

acres are Closed to 

motorized vehicles, 

4,113,300 acres are 

Limited to existing routes 

for motorized vehicles, 

and 12,745,000 acres are 

Open to all modes of 

cross country travel. 

Closed:

PPH 731,000

PGH 143,600

mod. nest hab. 834,600

sub-reg pop affected 20 

percent

Limited:

PPH 3,083,600

PGH 1,029,700

mod. nest hab. 3,681,900

In addition to current 

limited and closed 

designations in the No 

Action alternative, all 

PPMA would be 

designated as limited to 

existing roads pending 

travel management 

planning and roads 

designation.

Provides guidance for 

restricting new road 

construction and 

mitigation where roads 

are allowed under 

prior existing rights.

Provides for road 

closure and 

rehabilitation.

Provides for seasonal 

road closures.

874,000 acres are 

Closed to motorized 

vehicles, 12,992,100 

acres are Limited, and 

3,866,100 acres are 

Open to all modes of 

cross country travel.

Closed:

PPMA 731,000

PGMA 143,600

mod. nest hab 834,600

sub-reg pop affected 20 

percent

Alternative lacks 

specificity regarding 

travel management 

but states that all 

lands will be closed 

to cross-country 

travel and some 

roads that intrude 

into lek or winter 

habitats will be 

removed or 

seasonally closed.

Same as Alternative 

D.

In addition to 

provisions of 

Alternative B 

regarding priority 

habitat, PGMA would 

also be limited to 

existing roads pending 

travel management 

planning and roads 

designation.

874,000 acres are 

Closed to motorized 

vehicles, 16,858,200 

acres are Limited, and 

0 acres are Open to 

all modes of cross 

country travel.

Closed:

PPMA 731,000

PGMA 143,600

mod. nest hab 834,600

sub-reg pop affected 

20 percent

Limited:

PPMA 11,962,500

PGMA 4,895,700

mod. nest hab 

12,172,700

sub-reg pop affected 

94 percent

Open: N/A

Same as 

Alternative D.

Management would be 

similar to Alternative B 

except specifies in 

priority habitat camping 

and other nonmotorized recreation 

would be prohibited 

during certain seasons 

within 4 miles of a lek. 

In addition, there 

would be no new route 

construction within 4 

miles of a lek. These 

decisions would reduce 

disturbance to nesting 

and brood-rearing 

GRSG and their 

habitat.
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-15

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

sub-reg pop affected 49 

percent

Open:

PPH 8,878,900

PGH3,866,100

mod. nest hab 11,292,000

sub-reg pop affected 77 

percent

Limited:

PPMA 11,962,500

PGMA 1,029,600

mod. nest hab 

10,720,200

sub-reg pop affected 94 

percent

Open: N/A

In areas subjected to recreational 

activities, maintain healthy native 

sagebrush communities based on 

local ecological conditions and with 

consideration of drought 

conditions, and manage direct and 

indirect human disturbance 

(including noise) to avoid 

interruption of normal GRSG 

behavior.

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

YES NO YES YES YES

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 2 

were applied?

1. Close important GRSG use 

areas to off-road vehicle use.

2. Avoid development of 

recreational facilities in GRSG 

habitats.

(1)

B-CTTM-1,4

(2)

B-CTTM-7

(1)

D-CTTM-1,4

(2)

D-REC-2

(1)

E-REC-3

(2)

E-REC-3,4

E-CTTM-3,5

(1)

F-REC-2

F-CTTM-1,4,5

(2)

F-CTTM-7

Ex-Urban 

Development / 

Urbanization 

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

All action alternatives would partially meet the Conservation Objectives Team report objective to limit urban and exurban development in GRSG habitats and maintain intact native 

sagebrush communities by managing land tenure, consolidating and otherwise minimizing the impacts of infrastructure supporting adjacent development, and burial/removal of 

infrastructure. Alternatives B, C, D and F favor land acquisition as a tool for conserving important habitat on private lands. Alternative E favors easements and covenants without change 

of ownership. All alternatives prescribe ROW exclusion or avoidance (see Infrastructure) and colocation of infrastructure to minimize footprint. Alternatives B, D, E, and F contain 

specific actions directed at burial or removal of existing infrastructure such as powerlines. Alternatives B, C, D, and F call for retention of all GRSG habitats in public ownership and 

Alternative E for review of amendments to city and county which would intensify development in GRSG habitat.

Most LUPs include a 

management action that 

allows for acquisition of 

lands that have important 

resource values including 

GRSG. Land tenure 

adjustments could result 

in consistent 

management across the 

landscape. 

Some lands with GRSG 

habitat are identified for 

disposal. Typically these 

lands are located near 

the existing urbanized 

area where there are 

mixed land ownership 

patterns, which makes it 

difficult to manage for 

Retains public 

ownership of PPMA 

with exceptions for 

considering which 

improve ownership 

patterns in a manner 

which enhances GRSG 

habitat management. 

Takes advantage of 

opportunities to 

remove or bury 

existing infrastructure 

associated with 

urban/ex-urban 

development and to 

collocate infrastructure 

to consolidate impacts. 

(See Infrastructure 

below)

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative B. Relies on 

conservation 

easements and 

covenants as 

means of retaining 

important habitats 

on private lands. 

Adds a 

management 

action for review 

of municipal land 

use planning to 

ensure that GRSG 

habitats are 

considered. 

Infrastructure 

considerations and 

similar to 

Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B.
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-16 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

specific purposes 

including GRSG 

protection. 

MZ III - NI=N, 

SGB=L, QCR=N

MZ IV – NGB=Y

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=N

Limit urban and exurban 

development in GRSG habitats and 

maintain intact native sagebrush 

communities

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

YES YES YES YES YES

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 5 

were applied? Note: Only Options 

2, 3, and 5 are appropriate for 

decisions in this EIS.

2. Acquire and manage GRSG 

habitat to maintain intact 

ecosystems.

3. Consolidate infrastructure that 

supports urban and exurban 

development.

5. Do not relinquish public lands 

for the purpose of urban 

development in GRSG habitat.

(2)

B-LR-LT-2

(3)

B-LR-LUA-1,2

(5)

B-LR-LT-1

(2)

C-LR-LT-2

(3)

C-LR-LUA-1,2

(5)

C-LR-LT-1

(2)

D-LR-LT-2

(3)

D-LR-LUA-1,2

(5)

D-LR-LT-1

(2)

E-LR-LT-2

(3)

E-LR-LUA-1,2

(5)

E-LR-U-1

(3)

F-LR-LUA-1,2

(5)

F-LR-LT-1

Infrastructure

MZ III - NI=Y, 

SGB=Y, QCR=Y

MZ IV – NGB=Y

MZ V – WSV=Y, 

WGB=L

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

All alternatives meet the conservation objective for infrastructure identified in the Conservation Objectives Team report, which is to avoid development within PACs. Alternatives B, C, 

and F all close certain areas to new ROWs. The difference between these alternatives is the amount of GRSG habitat that would be closed and the type of ROWs that would be 

prohibited or restricted. Alternative C closes all occupied GRSG habitat to new ROWs and is the most restrictive. Alternative B and F identify priority habitats as ROW exclusion zones 

and Alternative D as ROW avoidance. Alternative E provides for ROW avoidance in SGMAs. All alternatives seek to avoid conflict with GRSG habitat, to utilize existing corridors, and 

to co-locate within existing development footprints.

New ROWs could cause 

additional fragmentation 

to habitat, habitat loss, 

and functional loss of the 

habitat, especially in areas 

adjacent to above-ground 

and site-type ROWs. 

Exclusion and avoidance 

areas include 

Congressionally 

designated areas, 

wilderness study areas, 

and some ACECs. 

In the sub-region, within 

modeled nesting habitat 

there are 983,600 of 

exclusion and 89,200 of 

avoidance acres of PPH 

and PGH. Proposed 

exclusion and avoidance 

areas provide an 

In addition to exclusion 

and avoidance in 

Alternative A, all PPMA 

would be managed as 

ROW exclusion and all 

PGMA as ROW 

avoidance.

Emphasizes 

opportunities for colocation within 

designated corridors 

and within the 

footprint of existing 

disturbance. 

Recommends 

removing, burying, or 

modifying existing 

power lines within 

priority habitat. 

All GRSG habitat 

would be managed as 

ROW exclusion 

resulting in no 

further habitat 

fragmentation, 

indirect and direct 

loss, and habitat 

degradation. 

Provides for review 

of all existing 

transmission lines to 

amend ROWs to 

require features that 

enhance GRSG 

habitat security.

Avoidance areas 

provide a level of 

protection the same 

as Alternative B. 

In addition to 

exclusion and 

avoidance in 

Alternative A, all 

PPMA would be 

managed as ROW 

avoidance.

Avoidance acreage 

covers about 94 

percent of the 

modeled sub-regional 

GRSG population with 

exclusion acreage 

being around 12 

percent of the 

modeled sub-regional 

population. 

Otherwise similar to 

Alternative B.

Follows the State 

policy of “avoid, 

minimize, and 

mitigate” with 

oversight by the 

Nevada Sagebrush 

Ecosystem 

Council using best 

available science. 

Seeks to avoid 

conflict by locating 

developments in 

non-habitat 

wherever possible.

Emphasizes colocation and 

existing corridors.

Same as Alternative B.
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-17

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

increased level of 

protection to modeled 

nesting habitat associated 

with leks representing 3 

percent of the population 

for Avoidance areas and 

12 percent of the 

population exclusion for 

the sub-region.

Avoidance zones total 

4,872,200 acres under 

Alternative B and 

exclusion zones total 

12,860,700 acres.

Avoidance areas 

provide a level of 

protection to 64 

percent of the modeled 

sub-regional population 

and exclusion 94 

percent of the modeled 

sub-regional 

population.

Exclusion areas 

presumable provide a 

level of protection to 

100 percent or all 

occupied GRSG 

habitat.

Avoid development of 

infrastructure within PACs

No new development of 

infrastructure within PACs. 

Designated, but not yet developed 

infrastructure corridors should be 

re-located outside of PACs unless 

it can be demonstrated that these 

corridors will have no impacts on 

the maintenance of neutral or 

positive GRSG population trends 

or habitats. New infrastructure 

should be avoided where 

individual state plans have 

identified key connectivity 

corridors outside of PACs.

B-LR-LUA-1,4

B-FFME-2

B-FM-1

B-LOC-1

B-SAL-1

C-LR-LUA-1

C-LR-IS-1

D-LR-LUA-1

D-LR-WED-1

D-LR-IS-1

D-FM-1,2

D-LOC-1

D-SAL-1

E-LR-LUA-1

E-LR-WED-1

E-LR-IS-1

E-LOC-1,2,3,4

F-LR-LUA-1,4

F-LR-WED-1

F-FFME-2

F-FM-1

F-LOC-1

F-SAL-1

Where state GRSG management 

plans provide an effective strategy 

for infrastructure those strategies 

should be implemented. In all 

other situations the conservation 

options in the COT report should 

be considered.

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 10 

were applied?

1. Avoid construction of these 

features in GRSG habitat, both 

within and outside of PACs.

2. Power transmission corridors 

which cannot avoid PACs 

should be buried, if technically 

feasible, and disturbed habitat 

restored.

a. If avoidance is not possible, 

consolidate new structures 

(1)

B-LR-LUA-1

B-FFME-2

B-FM-1

B-LOC-1

B-SAL-1

B-NEL-1

B-MSE-1

(2)

B-LR-LUA-6

(4)

B-CTTM-1,6

(1)

C-LR-LUA-1

C-LR-IS-1

(1)

D-LR-LUA-1

D-LR-WED-1

D-LR-IS-1

D-FM-1,2

D-LOC-1

D-SAL-1

D-NEL-1

D-MSE-1

(2)

D-LR-LUA-6,18

(4)

(1)

E-LR-LUA-1

E-LR-WED-1

E-LR-IS-1

E-LOC-1,2,3,4

(2)

E-SSS-ACDM-2

E-LR-LUA-6

(3)

E-LR-LUA3,5,17,18

(5)

(1)

F-LR-LUA-1

F-LR-WED-1

F-FFME-2

F-FM-1

F-LOC-1

F-SAL-1

F-NEL-1

F-MSE-1

(4)

F-CTTM-1,6

(5)
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-18 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

with existing features 

and/or preclude 

development of new 

structures within locally 

important GRSG habitats.

b. Consolidate with existing 

features should not result in 

a cumulative corridor width 

of greater than 200 m. 

c. Habitat function lost from 

placement of infrastructure 

should be replaced. 

3. Infrastructure corridors should 

be designed and maintained to 

preclude introduction of 

invasive plant species.

4. Restrictions limiting use of 

roads should be enforced.

5. Remove transmission lines and 

roads that are duplicative or 

not functional.

6. Transmission line towers 

should be constructed to 

severely reduce or eliminate 

nesting and perching by avian 

predators.

7. Avoid installation of 

compressor stations in PACs 

or other GRSG habitats.

8. All commercial pipelines should 

be buried and habitat that is 

disturbed needs to be 

reclaimed with current and 

future emphasis placed on 

suppression of non-native 

invasive plant species.

9. Mitigate impacts on habitat 

from development of these 

features.

10.Remove or decommission nondesignated roads within 

sagebrush habitats.

(5)

B-CTTM-4,9

(6)

B-LR-LUA-2,7

(9)

B-FFME-6,9

(10)

B-LR-LUA-3

B-CTTM-4,9

D-CTTM-1,6

(5)

D-LR-LUA-15

C-CTTM-4,9

(6)

D-LR-LUA-2

(9)

D-SSS-OPM-5

D-SSS-AM-3

D-FFME-6

(10)

D-LR-LUA-3

D-LR-LUA-15

C-CTTM-4,9

E-LR-LUA-15

(6)

E-SSS-4,5,6

E-LR-LUA-2,5,7

(7)

E-LR-LUA-5

(8)

E-LR-LUA-3,5

(9)

E-SSS-OPM-5

E-SSS-AM-5

E-SSS-MIT-1-7

E-LOC-1

(10)

F-CTTM-4,9

(6)

F-LR-LUA-2

(9)

F-FFME-6,9

(10)

F-LR-LUA-3

F-CTTM-4,9
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS I-19

Issue1 Conservation Objective from 

COT Report

Conservation Measures / 

Options from COT Report Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Fences (no 

ratings)

Minimize the impact of fences on 

GSG populations

No conservation measures 

specified. Are locally-derived 

actions/measures consistent with 

conservation objective?

YES YES YES YES YES

Which (if any) of Options 1 - 3 

were applied?

1. Mark fences that are in high 

risk areas for collision.

2. Identify and remove 

unnecessary fences.

3. Placement of new fences and 

livestock management facilities 

should consider their impact 

on GRSG and be placed at 

least 1 km from occupied leks.

(1)

B-LG-21

(2)

B-LR-LUA-3

(3)

B-LG-18

(1)

D-LG-21

(2)

D-LR-LUA-3

(3)

D-LG-18

(1)

E-LG-21

E-LR-DMA-1

(1)

F-LG-21

(2)

F-LR-LUA-3

(3)

F-LG-18

1Threat Ratings 

from COT Report

2Subjective Consistency (with 

COT Report) Rating 

Continuum

3Actions as Labeled in Table 

2-1 of DEIS

4Other Abbreviations

Y: Pres. and 

Widespread

High Concern &/or Very Low 

Consistency

FM/PF = Fuels Management/Prescribed Fire

COT = Conservation Objectives Team

L: Pres. and 

Localized ↑

GH = Sage-Grouse Habitat - General Habitat Areas

N = No, action appears to be inconsistent with objective

N: Not Known to 

be Pres. ↑

GSG ACEC = Greater Sage-Grouse Area

NA = Not Applicable

NA

Lower Concern &/or Higher 

Consistency HC = Sage-Grouse - Habitat Compensation PAC = Priority Areas for Conservation

NA IS = Invasive species PRB = Powder River Basin Population

LG = Livestock Grazing U = Unknown / unclear from EIS as to whether action is consistent with objective

LTA = Land Tenure Adjustment Y = Yes, action appears to be consistent with objective

PPA = Sage-Grouse Habitat - Protection Priority Areas

RA = Sage-Grouse Habitat - Restoration Areas

RE = Renewable Energy

RWA = Riparian and Wetland Areas

SG = Sage-Grouse

TM/OHV = Travel Management/Off-Highway Vehicle

V = Vegetation
Appendix I. Comparison of Alternatives Alleviation of USFWS-Identified Threats

I-20 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.