Appendix J

Forest Service

Draft Management Indicator Species Report and 

Draft Wildlife and Sensitive Plant Specialists Report

1

Draft 

Management Indicator Species Report

for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort to Amend the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Plans

July 4, 2013 

Prepared by 

Katherine Malengo, Wildlife Biologist 

kmalengo@fs.fed.us

559-920-7705 

Rick Baxter, Wildlife Biologist 

rbaxter@fs.fed.us

559-920-4676 

Chris Colt, Wildlife Biologist 

ccolt@fs.fed.us

208-236-7506
2

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3

II. PROJECT HISTORY ...................................................................................................... 4

III. PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................... 9

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 9

V. ANALYSIS AREA .......................................................................................................... 11

VI. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (Direct, Indirect and 

Cumulative) ................................................................................................................................. 14

VII. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 76
3

I. INTRODUCTION 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs National Forests to identify Management 

Indicator Species (MIS). MIS are chosen as a representative of certain habitat conditions 

important to a variety of other species. MIS are generally presumed to be sensitive to habitat 

changes. By monitoring and assessing populations of MIS, managers can determine if 

management actions are affecting other species populations. The Humboldt and Toiyabe 

National Forest Plans (USDA Forest Service 1986a and USDA Forest Service 1986b, 

respectively) identify the species listed in Table 1 as MIS for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest. Land and resource management plans for the Humboldt National Forest and the Toiyabe 

National Forest were finalized in 1986. The forests were managed separately until they were 

administratively combined into the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in 1996. Because the 

forests have not undergone a forest plan revision since they were combined, each unit continues 

to follow its respective plan and associated amendments. There are no plant MIS on the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 

Table 1. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest MIS list 

Common Name Scientific name Forest(s)

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Humboldt & 

Toiyabe

Pine marten Martes martes Toiyabe

Palmer’s chipmunk Neotamias palmeri Toiyabe

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Humboldt & 

Toiyabe

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Humboldt & 

Toiyabe

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Toiyabe

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Toiyabe

Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Toiyabe

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Toiyabe

Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi Humboldt & 

Toiyabe

Paiute cutthroat trout Paiute cutthroat trout Toiyabe

Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii utah Humboldt

Other trout species n/a Humboldt

Macroinvertebrates n/a Toiyabe
4

The 1982 (36 CFR 219.19) regulations for viability state that the Forest Service has the 

responsibility to provide sufficient habitat that can support viable populations of native and 

desired nonnative vertebrates across the planning area at a level that populations are likely to 

persist on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

On December 18, 2009 the Department of Agriculture issued a final rule reinstating the National 

Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning rule of November 9, 2000, as amended 

(2000 rule) (74 FR 242 [67059-67075]). This rescinded the 1982 planning rule. The 2000 rule 

states: Projects implementing land management plans must comply with the transition provisions 

of 36 CFR §219.35, but not any other provisions of the planning rule. Projects implementing 

land management plans and plan amendments, as appropriate, must be developed considering the 

best available science in accordance with §219.35(a). Projects implementing land management 

plans must be consistent with the provisions of the governing plans. 

In order to address the MIS species, the issues surrounding the change in planning rules, and to 

assure the best available science was used our approach was as follows: 

1. Identify habitat and population characteristics/trends by Forest 

2. Identify the role of the habitat on each Forest in the overall viability of the population 

3. Analyze effects of each alternative based on relevant threats, as well as current and past 

management 

4. Make a determination whether the effects of the alternatives will affect overall viability 

II. PROJECT HISTORY 

Greater Sage-Grouse have emerged as a significant conservation concern over the last 10 years. 

The species is currently a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

inferring that listing is “warranted, but precluded due to higher priorities” because of two 

primary factors: 1) the large-scale loss and fragmentation of habitats across the species range, 

and 2) a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the conservation of the species. The 

primary threats to sage-grouse habitat are summarized in the listing decision. The two dominant 

threats are related to infrastructure associated with energy development in the eastern portion of 

the species range, and the conversion of sagebrush communities to annual grasslands associated 

resulting in large uncharacteristic wildfires in the western portion of the species range (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2010). 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately half of the Greater SageGrouse habitats, whereas the Forest Service (FS) manages approximately 8 percent of species 

habitat, with most of that occurring on national forests in the Intermountain Region. The Forest 

Service manages approximately 9 million acres of sage-brush habitats, of which about 7.5 

million acres occurring in the Intermountain Region. Most habitats on FS administered lands 

contribute to summer brood-rearing habitats, although some forests and grasslands do contribute 

important breeding nesting and winter habitat. 

In 2011 and 2012, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submitted letters to the 

BLM and FS recommending that the agencies amend Land Use Plans to provide adequate 
5

regulatory mechanisms to conserve the species. Originally, this recommendation identified 10 

National Forests viewed as “high priority” to ensure appropriate regulatory mechanisms. 

Following scoping and discussion the FS added an additional 10 Forest Plans that would be 

considered for amendment. The FS is participating in several joint Environmental Impact 

Statements (EISs) with the BLM to develop Records of Decision that will be used as a basis for 

amending Land Use Plans, including Forest Plans. 

Since half of all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat occurs on BLM lands, the BLM is leading the 

effort to amend or revise land use plans, with the Forest Service as a cooperating agency. The 

purpose is to provide direction in land management plans that conserve and protect sage-grouse 

habitat and to provide assurances to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure the conservation of the species. EISs will be 

completed for seven sage-grouse planning subregions: 1) eastern Montana and portions of North 

and South Dakota, 2) Idaho and southwest Montana, 3) Oregon, 4) Wyoming, 5) northwest 

Colorado, 6) Utah, and 7) Nevada and northern California. The FS is participating in six of these 

EISs (excluding Eastern Montana/Dakotas and some of the areas in Wyoming). The EISs will 

include joint agency signatures, but separate Records of Decision.” 

This Management Indicator Species report is being prepared to address National Forest Systemadministered lands in support of the Nevada and northern California EIS. The HumboldtToiyabe National Forest in Nevada is planning to amend their respective Land and Resource 

Management Plans for the Greater Sage-Grouse. MIS were reviewed to determine which are 

present and/or have habitat in the analysis area, and to identify those likely to be affected by the 

implementation of a management decision. Table 2 outlines Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 

MIS, their presence in the analysis area, and anticipated effects due to implementation of an 

action alternative. 
6

Table 2. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest MIS, presence in the analysis area, and anticipated effects from implementation of an 

action alternative. 

Common 

name 

MIS

of Management 

issue

Species 

present in 

analysis 

area?

Habitat 

present in 

analysis 

area?

Summary of anticipated effects from implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Mule deer

All vegetative 

types 

(Humboldt); 

deer habitat 

(Toiyabe)

Y Y A widespread resident of NV, with habitats ranging from low-elevation shrublands to 

upper elevation subalpine communities

Pine 

marten

Habitat 

capability 

(only for the 

Sierra Nevada 

Range)

N N

Usually in dense deciduous, mixed, or (especially) coniferous upland and lowland forest. 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. Implementation of the 

alternatives will cause no changes to populations of pine marten or their habitat. 

Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more detail.

Palmer’s 

chipmunk

Coniferous 

forest 

(SMRNA)

N N

Uses large rocks, logs, or cliff crevices in coniferous forests. No habitat within 

mapped PPH or PGH habitat. Implementation of the alternatives will cause no 

changes to populations of Palmer’s chipmunk or their habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail.

Northern 

goshawk

Old growth 

cottonwood, 

aspen and fir 

stands 

associated 

with riparian 

areas 

(Humboldt); 

Mature and 

old growth 

habitats (DF, 

Mixed Fir) -

N N

Typically inhabit late seral or old growth forests that have closed canopies 

(greater than 40 percent) and a relatively open understory. No habitat within 

mapped PPH or PGH habitat. Implementation of the alternatives will cause no 

changes to populations of northern goshawk or their habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail.
7

now may refer 

to mature/old 

growth Apsen 

(Toiyabe)

SageGrouse

Sagebrushgrass, riparian 

(Humboldt); 

livestock 

impacts on 

key habitat 

(Toiyabe)

Y Y

Uses the following habitats in Nevada: sagebrush, montane shrubland, wet 

meadow; agriculture, springs; montane riparian, aspen; and Great Basin Lowland 

Riparian with sagebrush species (esp. Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big 

sagebrush, and low sagebrush), flowering forbs, agricultural crops (particularly 

alfalfa), variety of montane shrubs, aspen, alder, willow

Yellow 

warbler

Willow and 

riparian 

habitat

N N

Uses open scrub, second-growth woodland, thickets, farmlands, and gardens, especially 

near water; riparian woodlands, especially willows, with closed canopies. The 

alternatives propose some changes to grazing management, but it is not 

anticipated that these actions will affect in more than a negligible way the yellow 

warbler or its habitat. This species will not be evaluated in more detail. 

Hairy 

WoodpeckerSnag habitat N N

Utilizes forested environment with suitable snags or live trees for nesting habitat. 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. Implementation of the 

alternatives will cause no changes to populations of hairy woodpecker or their 

habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more detail.

Williamson’s 

sapsucker

Snag habitat N N

Utilizes forested environment with suitable snags or live trees for nesting habitat. 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. Implementation of the 

alternatives will cause no changes to populations of Williamson’s sapsucker or 

their habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more detail.

Red-naped 

sapsucker

Snag habitat 

(SMRNA) N N

Utilizes forested environment with suitable snags or live trees for nesting habitat. No 

habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. Implementation of the alternatives will 

cause no changes to populations of red-naped sapsucker or their habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail.

Lahontan 

cutthroat 

trout

Riparian 

(Humboldt); 

occupied 

aquatic 

habitat 

Y Y

Inhabit both lakes and streams, but are obligatory stream spawners in habitat is 

characterized by well-vegetated and stable streambanks, stream bottoms with relatively 

silt-free gravel/rubble substrate, cool water, and pools in close proximity to cover and

velocity breaks. There are records of the species within PPH/PGH habitat. Subsequent 

review of the alternatives indicates that this species will experience no effects to its 
8

(Toiyabe) habitat or populations. None of the alternatives is expected to impact any of the 

identified limiting factors for Lahontan cutthroat trout or its life requirements. Based on 

these factors, Lahontan cutthroat trout will not be analyzed in additional detail.

Paiute 

cutthroat 

trout

Occupied 

aquatic 

habitat

N N

Historic range included the Silver King Creek system, Toiyabe NF, CA, and introduced 

populations occur in CA – all outside of the range of GSG PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes to populations of Paiute 

cutthroat trout or their habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in 

additonaldetail.

Bonneville 

cutthroat 

trout

Riparian Y Y

Occur within the Bonneville Basin in relatively cool, well-oxygenated water with clean, 

well-sorted gravels and minimal fine sediments. There are records of the species within 

PPH/PGH habitat. Subsequent review of the alternatives indicates that this species will 

experience no effects to its habitat or populations. None of the alternatives is expected to 

impact any of the identified limiting factors for Bonneville cutthroat trout or its life 

requirements. Based on these factors, Bonneville cutthroat trout will not be analyzed in 

additional detail.

Other trout 

species Riparian Y Y

Includes seven salmonid species present within perennial waters on the Humboldt 

National Forest: Lahontan and Bonneville cutthroat trout (separately considered MIS 

species), bull trout, redband trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout. There are 

records of these species within PPH/PGH habitat. Subsequent review of the alternatives 

indicates that these species will experience no effects to their habitat or populations. 

None of the alternatives is expected to impact any of the identified limiting factors for 

trout species or their life requirements. Based on these factors, other trout species will 

not be analyzed in additional detail.

Macroinver

tebrates

Aquatic 

habitat Y Y

Live on the bottom of freshwater habitats during all or part of their life cycle. 

Widespread throughout the Toiyabe National Forest and can be found in all types 

of perennial and ephemeral aquatic habitats including lakes, streams, seeps, and 

springs. Although freshwater habitats within PPH and PGH habitat may contain 

these species, subsequent review of the alternatives indicates that these species 

will experience no effects to their habitat or populations. None of the alternatives 

is expected to impact any of the identified limiting factors for macroinvertebrates 

or their life requirements. Based on these factors, macroinvertebrates will not be 

analyzed in additional detail.
9

III. PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the Land and Resource Management Plan amendments for the Greater SageGrouse is to identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance, 

and/or restore sage-grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to their 

habitat. The need to create this amendment arose when the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the 

Greater Sage-Grouse. The USFWS identified conservation measures within Forest Service Land 

and Resource Management Plans (as well as BLM Land Use Plans) as the principal regulatory 

mechanisms for habitat conservation. Therefore, the Land and Resource Management Plan 

amendments will focus on areas affected by threats to sage-grouse habitat identified by the 

USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision (USFWS 2010). 

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative A: 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Land and Resource Management Plans would not be 

amended. Current plans direction and prevailing conditions set forth in the plans for sage-grouse 

and sagebrush habitats would continue. The No Action Alternative highlights those decisions 

that can be shown to have a direct effect or link to conserving or restoring Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat or sagebrush vegetation communities that support Greater Sage-Grouse throughout its life 

cycle. 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. 

Alternative B: 

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

Conservation Measures [Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) Report 2011] were used 

to form BLM and Forest Service management direction under Alternative B. To ensure BLM 

and Forest Service management actions are effective and based on the best available science, the 

BLM’s National Policy Team created a National Technical Team in August 2011. The BLM’s 

objective for chartering this planning strategy effort was to develop new or revised regulatory 

mechanisms, through land use plans, to conserve and restore Greater Sage‐Grouse and its habitat 

on BLM-administered and National Forest System lands on a range‐wide basis over the long 

term. Conservation measures in the report are focused primarily on Greater Sage‐Grouse 

preliminary priority habitat (PPH) areas. PPH areas have the highest conservation value to 

maintaining or increasing sage‐grouse populations. See Chapter 2 of the DEIS for additional 

information. 
10

Alternative C: 

During scoping individuals and conservation groups had the opportunity to submit management 

direction recommendations for protection and conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitat. Western Watersheds Project (WWP) submitted a complete alternative proposal in their 

scoping comment letter. The recommendations by WWP, 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 Greater Sage-Grouse under Alternative C. 

Conservation measures in Alternative C are mostly focused on all occupied Greater Sage‐Grouse 

habitat areas: PPH and preliminary general habitat (PGH). Refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS for 

additional information. 

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 modifies the recommendations from the NTT Report to 

provide a balanced level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and 

services to meet ongoing programs and land uses. The goal of the agency developed alternative 

is to provide for no unmitigated loss to sage-grouse. No unmitigated loss is described as follows: 

Continued losses of sage-grouse 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 Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. See Chapter 2 of the 

DEIS for additional information. 

Alternative E: 

Alternative E is based on the State of Nevada’s Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Nevada 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. The goals, 

objectives, and actions under Alternative E reflect concurrent state-level planning efforts for the 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. Since state-level planning efforts focus on all 

lands within the state, regardless of ownership, certain actions under Alternative E would not be 

legally implementable on public lands unless these lands were incorporated into the federal 

decision. 

The Nevada State Plan identifies 15 sage-grouse management areas (SGMAs) located across the 

state (refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS). The Sage-Grouse Management Area map defines the 

overall area where the state would like resources to be managed to maintain and expand SageGrouse populations (refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS). The State of Nevada Sage-Grouse 

Management Area map is based on the best biological information and knowledge at this time, 
11

taking into account the 85 percent breeding bird density, Nevada Department of Wildlife’s 

(NDOW’s) Preliminary Priority and General Habitat maps, and areas of known resource 

conflicts. Refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS for additional information. 

Alternative F: 

Similar to Alternative C, Alternative F is based on recommendations submitted by individuals 

and conservation groups (including Wild Earth Guardians) for the protection and conservation of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. Alternative F includes similar goals, objectives, and actions 

as Alternative C, but with notable differences, particularly related to grazing, lands and realty, 

and minerals. Like Alternative C, conservation measures in Alternative F are mostly focused on 

all occupied Greater Sage‐Grouse habitat areas (PPH and PGH). See Chapter 2 of the DEIS for 

additional information. 

V. ANALYSIS AREA 

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

decisions during this planning effort. The planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of 

jurisdiction (Figure 1). For the EIS and LUP amendments, the planning area is the entire subregion. Lands addressed in the LUP amendments will be lands (including surface and split estate 

lands with BLM subsurface mineral rights) managed by the BLM and Forest Service in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats. Any decisions in the LUP amendments will apply only to BLM-or Forest 

Service-administered lands (Decision Area). The LUP amendments will be limited to making 

land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat. 

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest administers two forest LRMPs that will also be amended 

by this LUP amendment/EIS. Lands within the planning area include a mix of private, federal, 

and state lands. 

The planning area incorporates PPH and PGH (Figure 2). Though the planning area includes 

private lands, decisions in this amendment are made only for BLM-administered, and Forest 

Service-administered lands. Management direction and actions outlined in the EIS apply only to 

these BLM-and Forest Service-administered lands in the planning area and to federal mineral 

estate under BLM jurisdiction that may lie beneath other surface ownership. See Chapter 1 of the 

DEIS. This analysis focuses solely on National Forest-administered lands within the analysis 

area. 
12

Figure 1. Nevada and northeastern California EIS analysis area showing National Forest-administered lands 
13

Figure 2. Nevada and northeastern California analysis showing PPH, PGH and Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management zones 
14

VI. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (Direct, Indirect and 

Cumulative) 

A. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Life History 

Sage-grouse depend on a variety of semiarid shrub-grassland (shrub steppe) habitats throughout 

their life cycle, and are considered obligate users of sagebrush (e.g., Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

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

tridentata (basin big sagebrush)) (Patterson 1952; Braun et al. 1976; Connelly et al. 2000; 

Connelly et al. 2004; Miller et al. 2011). Sage-grouse also use other sagebrush species (which 

can be locally important) such as A. arbuscula (low sagebrush), A. nova (black sagebrush), A.

frigida (fringed sagebrush), and A. cana (silver sagebrush) (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et

al. 2004). Sage-grouse distribution is strongly correlated with the distribution of sagebrush 

habitats (Schroeder et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2011b). Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity 

(loyalty to a particular area) to seasonal habitats (i.e., breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and 

wintering areas) (Connelly et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2011a). Adult sage-grouse rarely switch 

from these habitats once they have been selected, limiting their ability to respond to changes in 

their local environments (Schroeder et al. 1999). (Life history section was copied from the 

USFWS FINAL COT report – Feb. 2013) 

Based on GIS analysis of the EIS planning area, the following table describes the number of 

acres of GRSG PPH and PGH on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the percentage of 

the Forest considered occupied habitat. 

FORESTNAME

Forest 

Acres PPH PGH

Total 

Occupied

% of 

Forest

Humboldt-Toiyabe 4,661,100 1,183,600 539,900 1,723,500 37%

* NV acres had to be rounded to nearest 100 acres due to boundary sliver polygons between FS 

boundaries (developed for SG EIS) and EDW District data boundaries.

Habitat conditions and population information were largely taken from the USFWS FINAL COT 

report – Feb. 2013. 

Habitat and Population Condition by Forest 

Humboldt-Toiyabe NF 

The Humboldt-Toiyabe (H-T) National Forest is unique in that there are 7 ranger districts that 

contain sage-grouse habitat that are spread out over a very large area in the central and southern 

portion of the Great Basin in Nevada. All of the ranger districts that comprise the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest are found within two grouse populations: Great Basin core and Quinn 

Canyon. 

The Nevada portion of this population contains the largest number of sage-grouse in this 

population delineation. Suitable habitats are somewhat uncharacteristic of sage-grouse habitats 

because use areas are disjunct, but connected. This is due to the “basin and range” topography 

that is characteristic of this region. Lower elevation valley bottoms often are dominated by 
15

playas and salt desert shrub vegetation, but transcend quickly into sagebrush dominated benches, 

which often comprises the breeding and winter habitat. Moving up in elevation, pinyon-juniper 

woodlands dominate the mid-elevation and gives way to little sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush 

and mountain shrub communities used by sage-grouse as nesting and brood rearing habitat in the 

higher elevations (> 2,200 m). There are a total of 1,183,600 acres of PPH and 539,900 acres of 

PGH on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 

Garton et al. (2011) determined that this population has declined by 19 percent from the period 

1965-69 through 2000-2007 and that average rates of population change were <1.0 for three of 

the eight analysis periods from 1965-2007. In addition, Garton et al. (2011) determined that this 

population has a two percent chance of declining below 200 males within the next 30 years and a 

78 percent chance of declining below 200 males within 100 years (by 2107). 

The Quinn Canyon population is a very small and isolated population located in southeastern 

Nevada. There were not enough data for Garton et al. (2011) to conduct an analysis on 

population trends or persistence. Two to three leks have been identified in this area, but there is 

very little information associated with these sites and most of this information is anecdotal. 

Habitat within this area has been compromised by pinyon-juniper encroachment. Very little 

sagebrush exists within this population. Overall this is a high risk population. 

Threats by Forest 

Humboldt-Toiyabe NF 

Threats to sage-grouse on and around the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF include, but are not limited to 

fragmentation and loss of habitat, primarily from fire, wind and solar energy development, 

grazing, and recreation. In addition some of the historic habitat available to sage-grouse within 

this population has transitioned to pinyon-juniper woodlands. Miller and Tausch (2001) 

estimated that the area of pinyon-juniper woodlands has increased approximately 10-fold 

throughout the western United States since the late 1800s. Additionally, Wisdom et al. (2005) 

determined that 35 percent of the sagebrush area in the eastern Great Basin is at high risk to 

future displacement by pinyon-juniper woodlands and that mountain big sagebrush appeared to 

be most at risk, which could have meaningful impacts to sage-grouse brood rearing habitats 

within the upper elevations of mountain ranges within this region. In addition to this threat, much 

of the Great Basin is also susceptible to sagebrush displacement by cheatgrass. The most at risk 

vegetative community in this region is Wyoming basin big sagebrush (Wisdom et al. 2005) 

located predominately within the lower elevation benches of mountain ranges. In some areas, 

this condition has already been realized and the future risk for existing sagebrush habitats is 

moderate to high. This threatens both breeding and winter habitats for sage-grouse. For example, 

in a study conducted within this region (in Eureka County, NV), Blomberg et al. (2012) 

determined that sage-grouse leks that were not impacted by exotic grasslands experienced 

recruitment levels that were six times greater than those impacted by exotic grasslands. Additionally, 

this study found that drought is a major contributor to reduced recruitment and low population 

growth within the Southern Great Basin. Other threats such as mining and infrastructure have the 

potential to affect this sage-grouse population due to mine expansions, as well as new mines and the 

infrastructure associated with them. Existing mining claims are virtually ubiquitous throughout the 

Southern Great Basin PAC. Overall, sage-grouse in the Southern Great Basin in Nevada are 

potentially at-risk. 
16

Alternative A - No Action 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

In parts of the sub-region, invasive species such as cheatgrass or native species such as pinyon or 

juniper have replaced desirable dominant species. Invasive plants are thought to alter plant 

community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may 

competitively exclude native plant populations. Cheatgrass competes with native grasses and 

forbs that are important components of Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat. Invasive species 

cause direct degradation of sagebrush habitats resulting in effects on local GRSG populations by 

affecting forage, cover quality and composition, increased wildfire frequency and intensity (see 

Fire and Fuels discussion below), with the potential to cause complete avoidance. As discussed 

below in Fire and Fuels, the encroachment of pinyon and juniper from higher elevations into 

sagebrush habitats can have a negative impact on GRSG habitat. Expansion of conifer 

woodlands also threatens GRSG populations because they do not provide suitable habitat and 

trees displace shrubs, grasses and forbs, required for GRSG through competition for resources. 

Juniper expansion is also associated with increased bare ground and the potential for erosion, as 

well as an increase in perch sites for raptors and raptor predation threats. 

To reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the extent of current infestations, 

integrated weed management techniques, including mechanical, manual, chemical, and 

biological control are utilized. Implementation of the above policies and plans would improve 

vegetation management by decreasing invasive species, provide for native vegetation 

establishment in sagebrush habitat, reduce the risk of wildfire, and restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems and repair lands damaged by fire. Mechanical juniper and pinyon pine treatments 

would result in short-term disturbances of soils and sagebrush due to heavy equipment, skid 

trails and temporary roads. Mechanical and manual treatments would also increase noise, 

vehicular traffic and human presence. However, once the site potential is restored there would be 

an increase in forage, cover quality and composition, reduction in predator perches, decrease in 

fire spread and intensity and a potential increase in water availability. 

Cumulative Effects 

The baseline date for the cumulative impacts analysis for Greater Sage-Grouse is 2012. The 

temporal scope of this analysis is a 20-year planning horizon; land use planning documents are 

generally evaluated on a 5-year cycle. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects analysis for 

Greater Sage-Grouse includes Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

Management Zones III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake River Plain), and V (Northern Great 

Basin) (Figure 2) which comprise Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in the state of Nevada. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts, including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils 

management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management 
17

actions under Alternative A, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation, water and nutrient availability by consuming or 

altering vegetation, redistributing nutrients and plant seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and 

disrupting microbial composition (Connelly et al. 2004, ch.7). At unsustainable levels of grazing, 

negative impacts to GRSG can include loss of vegetative cover, reduced water infiltration rates, 

decreased plant litter, increased bare ground, reduced nutrient cycling, decreased water quality, 

increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG. Properly 

managed grazing, however, may protect GRSG habitat by reducing fuel loads. Structural range 

improvements such as fences represent potential movement barriers (especially woven-wire 

fences), predator perches or travel corridors, and are a potential cause of direct mortality to 

GRSG. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing 

plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain ecological 

conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining healthy, 

productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Riparian habitats would be 

managed to achieve standards. Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife 

and range objectives, and would include building or modifying fences to permit passage of 

wildlife and reduce the chance of bird strikes, use of off-site water facilities, and in some cases 

modification or removal or improvements not meeting resource needs. Modifications may 

involve moving troughs, adding or changing wildlife escape ramps, or ensuring water is 

available on the ground for a various different wildlife species. Although not directly created to 

protect GRSG, these approaches would protect and enhance GRSG habitat by reducing the 

likelihood of surface disturbance in sensitive areas and ensuring brood rearing habitat is 

available to GRSG. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue 

to be managed through existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing 

plans followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, 

which include maintaining healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and 

animals. Wild horses and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management section below) and healthy populations of 
18

wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, 

livestock use, and other multiple uses. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, 

IV and V from the management actions under Alternative A, which would be largely neutral for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fire is particularly problematic in sagebrush systems because it kills sagebrush plants and, in 

some cases, re-burns before sagebrush has a chance to re-establish. Fire is a primary threat to 

GRSG populations where increasing exotic annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass, are resulting in 

sagebrush loss and degradation. Without fire, cheatgrass dominance can exclude sagebrush 

seedlings from establishing. With fire, areas can be converted to annual grasslands. Without 

shrubs and a diversity of grasses and forbs, such annual grasslands will not support GRSG and 

populations could be displaced. In degraded GRSG habitats where cheatgrass is dominant under 

the sagebrush canopy, the habitat may be adequate winter habitat or provide adequate cover for 

nesting. However, these areas may lack the understory forb diversity and insect abundance 

necessary for brood-rearing and could result in lower chick survival. As GRSG habitats become 

smaller and less connected to adjacent GRSG populations, they become increasingly susceptible 

to stochastic events, local extirpation and genetically isolation that can cause inbreeding 

depression. 

Another factor affecting fire in some sagebrush sites is the encroachment of pinyon and juniper 

trees from higher elevations into sagebrush habitats. Under suitable conditions, wildfires that 

start in pinyon and juniper stands can move into Wyoming big sagebrush stands. In the absence 

of cheatgrass, Wyoming sagebrush sites can take 150 years to recover. Where cheatgrass is 

present, fire can open the site to invasion of annual grasses described above. 

The cheatgrass fire cycle causes GRSG habitat loss and degradation on an annual basis. 

Currently, due to the extent of the threat, there are no management actions that can effectively 

alter this trend. Facilitation of the spread of cheatgrass and the likelihood of ignition through 

BLM and Forest Service-authorized programs is further discussed in the Lands and Realty 

Management, Energy and Locatable Minerals Development and Travel, Transportation and 

Recreation sections. 

Alternative A would continue to manage fire suppression and fuels management under current 

direction. Policies would not prioritize protection or restoration of mature sagebrush habitat. 

Under Alternative A, wildfires would likely continue to increase in size and frequency in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats and those habitats would subsequently continue to be degraded or lost. 

Small and heavily disturbed populations with dominance of invasive annual grass understory 

would be particularly susceptible to these impacts. Additionally, there may be some direct and 

indirect effects to individual Greater Sage-Grouse from direct morality or disturbance due to fire 

suppression or fuels treatment activities. Increased human activity and noise associated with 

wildland fire suppression or fuels treatments in areas occupied by sage-grouse can disrupt 

nesting, breeding, or foraging behavior. Important habitats can be removed or degraded because 

of the use of heavy equipment or hand tools. Other potential impacts may include injuring or 

killing eggs/chicks, or causing changes in species movement patterns due to areas devoid of 

vegetation. 
19

Cumulative Effects 

Current wildfire suppression operations and fuels management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. The limitation or prohibition of the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush habitats 

and the sagebrush protection emphasis during wildland fire operations would not be instituted as 

they would be in Alternatives B, C, D, E and F. Under Alternative A, the direct and indirect 

effects, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and the 

likelihood of increasing future fires from annual weed invasions and predicted climate change, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from wildfire 

in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS).

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

While not as widespread as livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management is still a major 

land use across the sagebrush biome. Equid grazing results in a reduction of shrub cover and 

more fragmented shrub canopies, which can negatively affect GRSG habitat (Beever and 

Aldridge 2011). Additionally, sites grazed by free-roaming equids have a greater abundance of 

annual invasive grasses, reduced native plant diversity and reduced grass density (Beever and 

Aldridge 2011). Effects of wild equids on habitats may also be more pronounced during periods 

of drought or vegetation stress (NTT 2011, pg 18). 

Fences associated with wild horse and burro management represent potential movement barriers, 

predator perches or travel corridors, and are a potential cause of direct mortality to GRSG. In 

addition to the impacts of fencing on GRSG, The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 

Act of 1971 requires that water must also be available yearlong in horse management areas. This 

often leads to riparian areas receiving yearlong use by horses or riparian areas being modified 

with additional fencing and troughs in order to accommodate yearlong horse use. The range 

improvements would result in increased potential perch sites, less water available on the ground, 

and possibly have negative effects to riparian habitat depending on how each facility is 

constructed. According to Berger (1986), one measure of habitat quality for horses is the 

presence of meadows. Horse bands that spent more time foraging in meadows had higher 

reproductive success and meadows received the highest use in proportion to their availability. At 

levels higher than Appropriate Management Level (AML), impacts can lead to loss of vegetative 

cover, decreased water quality, increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat quality for 

wildlife, including Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Within the Sub-region, all Forest Service districts manage for wild horses and/or burros within 

established Territories. Under current direction, overall direction is to manage for healthy 

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

to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. All Forest Service Territories are managed for 

AML. Initially, AML is established in Land and Resource Management Plans 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, 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 Alternative A, there are no GRSG goals, 
20

objectives, or management actions specifically identified within the management framework for 

the Wild Horse and Burro program. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of wild horse and burro management on 

these lands, in the DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative 

cumulative actions” and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zone III, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management 

section below) and healthy populations of wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural 

ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. Within 

Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain 

ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining 

healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management and livestock grazing to Greater SageGrouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative A, 

which would be largely neutral for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater 

Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Minerals development within the sub-region consists of locatable mineral resources at various 

scales. Mining is primarily for gold, silver, and copper and is largely absent from the basaltcapped areas of northwestern Nevada. Leasable minerals include mineral material sales such as 

sand and gravel for road maintenance, and limited additional commodities such as potash. Oil 

and gas is in limited production occurring only in the far southeastern sub-region. Oil and gas 

leasing occurs over a much larger footprint in western Nevada and additional production is 

projected as new technologies expand recovery potential. Development of locatable and leasable 

mineral resources typically requires significant infrastructure and human activity for 

construction, operation, and maintenance. 

Within the sub-region, most public lands are open to oil and gas leasing, saleable mineral 

material development, and solar development, although specific closures of areas to leasing such 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) or crucial or essential wildlife habitat exist 

throughout the sub-region. Lands within the sub-region are generally open to mineral location. 

There are specific locatable mineral withdrawals for particular rights of way, designated 

wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern and other administrative needs, none 

specific to protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. All locatable mineral activities are managed 

under the regulations at 43 CFR 3800 through approval of a Plan of Operations. Mitigation of 
21

effects to GRSG and its habitat are identified through the NEPA process approving plans of 

operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals are to provide opportunities to develop the 

resource while preventing undue or unnecessary degradation of public lands. Within the subregion, most areas of public land would remain open for wind development. 

Under Alternative A, all energy and locatable minerals development and associated 

infrastructure, including power lines, roads, buildings, fences, wind turbines, solar panels, and 

others, would continue to be managed under current direction. As such, this alternative would be 

expected to cause the greatest amount of direct and indirect impacts on GRSG and their habitat 

including habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation by roads, pipelines and power lines, higher 

levels of noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and a larger number of anthropogenic 

structures in an otherwise open landscape that could result in abandonment of leks, decreased 

attendance at the leks that do persist, lower nest initiation, poor nest success, decreased yearling 

survival, and avoidance of energy infrastructure and ancillary facilities in important wintering 

habitat. Please also refer to the Land Uses and Realty Management section below. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management under Alternative A would maintain the current 

acreage open to leasing of fluid minerals, without stipulations, and locatable mineral 

development, although areas closed to these activities under Alternative A include some existing 

ACEC designations, designated wilderness, and wilderness study areas. Current energy and 

minerals development activities would continue under Alternative A. The closure of areas to 

fluid minerals and other energy development and withdrawal of areas from mineral entry would 

not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Therefore, under Alternative A, 

the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development, in conjunction with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from energy and locatable minerals development 

in Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS).

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to current 

disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or 

endangered species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest. Although land tenure adjustments or withdrawals made in GRSG 

habitat could reduce the habitat available to sustain GRSG populations, unless provisions were 

made to ensure that GRSG conservation remained a priority under the new land management 

regime, land tenure adjustments would likely include retention of areas with GRSG, and would 

thus retain occupied habitats under BLM or FS management. This would reduce the likelihood of 

habitat conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove sagebrush 

habitat. 

Existing Land and Resource Management Plan direction would apply under Alternative A. There 

would be no changes to the current National Forest System infrastructure including power lines, 
22

wind turbines, solar panels, communications towers, fences, or roads. Although mitigation is 

typically developed under the NEPA process and most right of way and surface developments 

are subject to limited operation periods or other stipulations in local GRSG conservation 

strategies, permitted right-of-ways (ROWs) or special use authorities (SUAs) would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that could result in habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation of GRSG habitat or result in barriers to migration corridors or 

seasonal habitats. Construction, maintenance, and use of infrastructure and ancillary facilities 

would continue to lead to higher short-term concentrations of human noise and disturbance that 

could cause disruption of nesting activities, abandonment of young or temporary displacement; 

these could also facilitate establishment and spread of cheatgrass and other invasive weeds (see 

discussion on Vegetation and Soils) and an increase in edge habitat. Existing and new power 

lines, wind turbines, solar panels, communications towers, fences, and vehicles traveling on 

associated roads would continue to pose a collision hazard to GRSG or to provide potential 

perching and/or nesting habitat for avian predators that could result in declines in lek attendance 

or nest success. Though most projects would be forced to mitigate or minimize impacts, this 

alternative would likely have the greatest impact on the GRSG and its habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current lands and realty (i.e., infrastructure) management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D, or F. Therefore, under Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects of lands 

and realty management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat and 

disturbance to GRSG in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Under Alternative A, there would be 

no changes to the current National Forest System Roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management on these forests. There would be minimal seasonal restrictions on casual use and 

some of the areas within GRSG habitat would remain open to cross country travel. In general, 

the more acres and miles of routes that are designated in an area, the greater the likelihood of 

habitat fragmentation and introduction of invasive plants within GRSG habitat and disturbance 

on GRSG. In addition, less restrictive travel conditions usually mean higher concentrations of 

human use adjacent to motorized routes. This can cause disruption of nesting activities, 

abandonment of young and temporary displacement. Impacts from roads may include habitat 

loss from road construction, noise disturbance from vehicles, and direct mortality from collisions 

with vehicles. Roads may also present barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats. 

Although the majority of cross country travel for big game retrieval would occur outside of the 

GRSG lekking and breeding season limiting the potential for OHV-related disturbance impacts 

to GRSG, OHV use in these areas would still have the potential to fragment and introduce weeds 

into GRSG habitat. This alternative has the highest potential to impact GRSG due to the lack of 

restrictions on activities that cause these effects. Therefore all direct and indirect effects on the 

species and its habitat would likely cause current trends to continue. 
23

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management would continue under Alternative A. The limitation of 

motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational SUAs that are neutral or 

beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road construction and upgrading of 

current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under 

Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects from travel, transportation and recreation 

management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Alternative B 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, weed control efforts and pinyon-juniper encroachment would continue to 

be managed under current direction (see Alternative A). However, GRSG vegetation 

management conservation measures included in Alternative B would benefit weed and conifer 

control efforts by prioritizing restoration efforts, including reducing invasive plants in PPH, in 

order to benefit GRSG habitats. BLM and Forest Service would require the use of native seeds 

and would design post-restoration management to ensure the long-term persistence of the 

restoration efforts, and would consider changes in climate when determining species for 

restoration. Invasive species would also be monitored and controlled after fuels treatments and at 

existing and new range improvements in PPH. Alternative B incorporates fewer invasive plant 

management measures in PGH compared to PPH. However, many of the same habitat restoration 

and vegetation management actions would be applied, including prioritizing the use of native 

seeds. Together, these measures would reduce impacts from invasive plants and pinyon-juniper 

encroachment on GRSG habitat described under Alternative A although the effects of the 

treatments would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat, under Alternative B would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative B, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 
24

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B would implement a number of beneficial management actions in PPH to 

incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into livestock grazing 

management. These include completion of Land Health Assessments, consideration of grazing 

methods and systems to reduce impacts on sage-grouse habitat, consideration of retiring vacant 

allotments, improved management of riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing 

introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new water developments and structural 

range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, BMPs for West Nile Virus, and fence 

removal, modification or marking. Several management actions to reduce impacts from livestock 

grazing on sage-grouse general habitat would be incorporated, including the potential to modify 

grazing systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements and management to improve 

the conditions of riparian areas and wet meadows. Together these efforts would reduce the 

impacts from grazing on GRSG described under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse 

and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would provide 

an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing 

and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and 

V from the management actions under Alternatives B, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, suppression would be prioritized in PPH to protect mature sagebrush 

habitat. Suppression would be prioritized in PGH only where fires threaten PPH. Alternative B 

does not include any other specific management for wildland fire management in PGH. Fuels 

treatments would be designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining sagebrush cover, 

implementing fuel breaks, applying seasonal restrictions, protections for winter range, and 

requiring use of native seeds. Post-fuels treatments in PPH would be designed to ensure longterm persistence of seeded areas and native plants and maintain 15 percent canopy cover. Fuels 

treatments in PPH would also monitor and control for invasive species, and fuels management 

BMPs would incorporate invasive plant prevention measures. Overall, these conservation 

measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to sagebrush compared to Alternative A though, in 
25

general, the effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of 

Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions under Alternative B with regard to fire would increase protection of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), current wildfire suppression operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat during suppression 

activities and pre-suppression planning and staging for maximum protection of Greater SageGrouse habitat would be included. Fuels treatment activities would focus on protecting Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire to 

Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under 

Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML on the same number of 

acres as Alternative A, with gathers prioritized based on PPH habitat and emergency 

environmental issues. Wild Horse Territory (WHT) Plans would incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives in PPH. Land health assessments to determine existing 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation within all Territories would be conducted. 

Implementation of any range improvements in PPH would follow the same guidance as 

identified for livestock grazing in this alternative including designing and locating new 

improvements only where they “conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through improved 

grazing management”. Design features could include treating invasive species associated with 

range improvements. Additional range improvements in PPH would specifically address the 

needs of GRSG. In comparison to Alternative A, Alternative B would prioritize GRSG habitat 

objectives in WHT Plans and base AML numbers on GRSG habitat needs. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

wild horse and burro Territories would continue to be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level and livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans. 

However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B 

would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 
26

livestock grazing and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV or V from the management actions under Alternative B, which would be largely 

beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this Alternative, PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing, and mineral material sales, and it would be proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry. In addition, mandatory BMPs would be applied as conditions of approval on fluid 

mineral leases. No surface occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals within 

PPH. A 3% disturbance cap to activities in PPH would be applied and numerous conservation 

measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from mineral exploration and development 

activities in PPH. These measures would reduce the impacts of energy development on GRSG 

and GRSG PPH described under Alternative A. 

Alternative B does not include specific management for fluid, saleable, locatable, and nonenergy 

leasable minerals in PGH or wind energy or solar energy development in PPH or PGH. As a 

result, current trends would continue and impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A. 

Although Alternative B does not directly address wind energy development or industrial solar 

development, its 3% threshold for anthropogenic disturbances (See Land Uses and Realty 

Management) would apply to energy development and would limit the extent of all types of 

energy development in PPH. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, 

primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the 

current energy and locatable minerals management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing 

closures and proposing it for withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management 

actions associated with energy and locatable minerals development under Alternative B, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, all PPH would be managed as exclusion areas and PGH would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new ROW and SUA projects and co-location of new ROWs or 

SUAs with existing infrastructure would occur in PPH and PGH. It would also include the 

following within PPH: co-location of new ROWs or SUAs with existing infrastructure; removal, 

burying, or modification of existing power lines; co-location of new facilities with existing 
27

facilities, where possible; use of existing roads, or realignments to access valid existing rights 

that are not yet developed or constructing new roads to the absolute minimum standard necessary 

if valid existing rights could not be accessed via existing roads; and a 3% threshold on 

anthropogenic disturbance (including, but not limited to, highways, roads, geothermal wells, 

wind turbines, and associated facilities) within PPH. 

In addition, Alternative B would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority sagegrouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate where 

suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved. This alternative would 

benefit GRSG by maximizing connectivity and minimizing loss, fragmentation, degradation and 

disturbance of sagebrush habitats within PPH by power lines, communication towers and roads. 

GRSG and GRSG habitat outside PPH would likely experience little change in direct or indirect 

effects. However, if the 3% development threshold ended up concentrating new infrastructure 

development outside PPH rather than just reducing it within PPH, the extent of impacts on 

GRSG and GRSG habitat outside PPH could increase under Alternative B relative to Alternative 

A. Alternative B would reduce the likelihood of collisions addressed in Alternative A. These 

conservation measures make this alternative more protective than Alternative A, although the 

general effects would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternatives B would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus 

ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones 

III, IV and V under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, motorized travel in PPH would be limited to designated roads, primitive 

roads, and trails at a minimum. Only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sagegrouse would be permitted in PPH and there would be limited opportunities for road construction 

in PPH, with minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads. Although general 

impacts would be the same as Alternative A, Alternative B is more restrictive than Alternative A 

and it would reduce loss, fragmentation and disturbance to GRSG leks and nesting habitat by 

limiting motorized travel to designated routes, minimizing human use and road construction or 

upgrades and reducing automotive collisions with individual birds. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative B would increase 
28

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater 

Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within 

Management Zones III, IV and V, some of the current travel, transportation and recreation 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV 

and V under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Alternative C 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would maintain the direction described under Alternative A for weed control and 

pinyon-juniper encroachment and include additional provisions that would limit invasive weed 

spread in all occupied GRSG habitat. Vegetation management would benefit weed control 

efforts, by prioritizing restoration, including reducing invasive plants, in order to benefit sagegrouse habitats. In all cases, local native plant ecotype seeds and seedlings would be used. These 

policies would reduce impacts from invasive plants described under Alternative A and have 

similar impacts associated with treatment, but would include additional conservation measures 

specific to limiting the spread of invasive plants. In addition, grazing would be eliminated 

within all occupied sage-grouse habitat, eliminating the potential for invasive plant spread by 

livestock. This would make Alternative C more protective of GRSG and GRSG habitat than 

Alternatives A or B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative C would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative C, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, grazing would be eliminated within all occupied sage-grouse habitat (PPH 

and PGH) reducing both the negative and positive grazing-related impacts on GRSG and GRSG 

habitat discussed under Alternative A more so than any of the other alternatives. No new water 

developments or range improvements would be constructed in occupied habitat and only habitat 
29

treatments that benefit GRSG would be allowed. Retirement of grazing would be allowed and 

fast tracked. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Under Alternative C, within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), livestock grazing would be eliminated 

within all occupied GRSG habitat, providing a net benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of livestock grazing to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV 

and V from management under Alternative C, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it is more protective of GRSG and GRSG 

habitat because prioritization of suppression would apply to PGH in addition to PPH (i.e., All 

Occupied Habitat), it includes measures to manage vegetation for good or better ecological 

condition, and it focuses fuel breaks on areas of human habitation or significant disturbance. 

The general effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of 

Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions related to fire and fuels under Alternative C, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the 

cumulative effects described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the 

existing population trend, or remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold 

within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS).

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML. However, AML 

establishment would be analyzed in conjunction with livestock numbers during grazing permit 

renewals. Combined with the removal of some fences during “active restoration” processes 

related to livestock grazing, horses and burros would be expected to range over a larger area than 

in Alternative A and would necessitate the need for increased gather schedules. The increase in 

access to riparian and upland habitats that are currently protected by fences, and expected 

temporary increases in horses and burros over AML, could over time reduce food and cover for 

GRSG and change water holding capacities of riparian brood rearing sites compared to 

Alternative A, although needs of GRSG would be fully considered as part of the AML 

establishment process. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative C, wild horse and burro Territories would be 
30

managed for AML as under current management, however, there would be fewer restrictions on 

wild horse and burro movement than under Alternative A. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of wild horse and burro management under Alternative C, in conjunction with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would expand several of the protections under Alternative B to all occupied habitat 

as well as prohibit new exploration permits for unleased fluid minerals (also see Land Uses and 

Realty Management below). Like Alternative B, the conservation measures proposed under 

Alternative C would reduce the impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on GRSG 

described under Alternative A, but to a larger degree than any of the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions under Alternative C with regard to energy and 

locatable minerals development would increase protection of all occupied habitat, thereby 

benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative 

C, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the current energy and locatable minerals 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat by adding all occupied habitat to existing closures and proposing it for 

withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire to Greater SageGrouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative C, 

which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for GRSG. Alternative C would extend 

many of the Alternative B conservation measures to all occupied habitat and all occupied habitat 

would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. As a result, management under 

Alternative C would encourage consolidation of sage-grouse habitats, facilitating habitat 

conservation and management and reduce the impacts of infrastructure on GRSG described 

under Alternatives A and B in a wider area than Alternative B. 

Unlike Alternative B, which would permit wind energy siting in PPH provided a development 

disturbance threshold of 3% were not exceeded, Alternative C would not permit wind energy 

development siting in all occupied GRSG habitat. This would reduce the effects of wind energy 

on GRSG as discussed under Alternative A more so than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternative C would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 
31

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus 

ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones 

III, IV and V under Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it would apply to all occupied habitat and, 

therefore, protect a larger area of GRSG habitat than Alternative B from the same types of 

general recreational impacts described in Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative C would increase 

protection of all occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse 

rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, 

IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, transportation and 

recreation management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV 

and V under Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Alternative D 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D would treat sites within priority and general sage-grouse habitat that are dominated 

by invasive species through an IVM approach using fire, chemical, mechanical and biological 

methods based on site potential. Targeted grazing would be allowed to suppress cheatgrass or 

other vegetation that are hindering achieving sage-grouse objectives in priority and general 

habitat. Sheep, cattle, or goats may be used as long as the animals are intensely managed and 

removed when the utilization of desirable species reaches 35%. In perennial grass, invasive 

annual grass, and conifer-invaded cover types, sagebrush steppe would be restored with 

sagebrush seedings where feasible. 

Pinyon and juniper treatment in encroached sagebrush vegetation communities in priority habitat 

and general habitat would focus on enhancing, reestablishing, or maintaining habitat components 

(e.g. cover, security, food, etc.) in order to achieve habitat objectives. Phase II and III pinyon 

and/or juniper stands would be removed or reduced in biomass to meet fuel and sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and appropriate action would be taken to establish desired understory species 
32

composition, including seeding and invasive species treatments. Treatment methods that 

maintain sagebrush and shrub cover and composition would be used in areas with a sagebrush 

component. 

Alternative D would be more protective of GRSG habitat than Alternative B because it contains 

several conservation measures specifically targeted to invasive species infestations and pinyonjuniper encroachment and it would apply them over a larger area (within priority and general 

habitat) than Alternative B (only PPH). 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative D would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative D, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D, similar to Alternative B, would implement a number of beneficial management 

actions to incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into 

livestock grazing management: consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts 

on sage-grouse habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of 

riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, 

authorization of new water developments and structural range improvements only when 

beneficial to GRSG, the potential to modify grazing systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse 

habitat requirements and fence removal, modification or marking. The main difference is that 

Alternative D would apply these conservation measures to priority and general habitat rather 

than limiting them to PPH as Alternative B would and Alternative D would not require the 

completion of Land Health Assessments to determine if standards of range-land health are being 

met as Alternative B would. These measures would reduce the negative impacts from grazing on 

GRSG described under Alternative A probably more so than Alternative B but less so than 

Alternative C that would eliminate livestock grazing in all occupied habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 
33

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse 

and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide 

an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing 

and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and 

V from the management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, in which suppression would be prioritized in PPH, but only in PGH where 

fires threaten PPH, Alternative D would prioritize suppression in priority and general sagegrouse habitat. In priority and general habitat, fuels treatments emphasizing maintaining, 

protecting, and expanding GRSG habitat would be designed and implemented and would include 

measures similar to Alternative B except they would apply to priority and general habitat rather 

than only PPH. These include generally enhancing or maintaining/retaining sagebrush canopy 

cover and community structure; applying appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

fuels treatments according to the type of sage-grouse seasonal habitats present; and requiring use 

of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. In addition, Alternative D would not allow fuels treatment projects to 

be implemented in priority and general habitat if it is determined the treatment would not be 

beneficial to GRSG or its habitat. It would identify opportunities for prescribed fire and require 

use of certified weed-free seeds. Alternative D would prioritize pre-suppression activities in 

sage-grouse habitats that are vulnerable to wildfire events and post-fire treatments in priority and 

general habitat to maximize benefits to greater sage-grouse. Overall, these conservation 

measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to sagebrush compared to Alternative A, although 

in general, the effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of 

Alternative A. Prioritization of suppression and fuels treatments in priority and general habitat 

under Alternative D, rather than limiting them to PPH under Alternative B, would make 

Alternative D more protective of GRSG and GRSG habitat, in the long term, than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative D, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects 

described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the existing population 

trend, or remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, gathers would be prioritized in priority and general habitat as opposed to 

only PPH under Alternative B. Otherwise Alternative B is similar to management proposed in 

Alternative B in that wild horse and burro populations would be managed within established 
34

AML to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives for all WHTs within or containing priority or 

general habitat. Unlike Alternative B, adjustments to AML through the NEPA process would be 

considered in WHTs not meeting standards due to degradation that can be at least partially 

contributed to wild horse or burro populations; adjustments would be based on monitoring data 

and would seek to protect and enhance priority and general habitat and establish a thriving 

ecological balance. Alternative D would be expected to reduce the impacts of wild horses and 

burros on GRSG described under Alternative A over a larger area than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level and 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide 

an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing 

and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and 

V from the management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not substantially increase impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, a NSO stipulation, with no allowance for waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications, would be applied to un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in priority sage-grouse 

habitat and a NSO stipulation, with allowance for waivers, exception, or modifications, would be 

applied in un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in general sage-grouse habitat. Geophysical 

exploration that does not result in crushing of sagebrush vegetation or create new or additional 

surface disturbance would be allowed within priority and general sage-grouse habitat, but 

geophysical operations would be subject to timing and controlled surface use limitations. 

Proposed surface disturbance in unleased priority habitat must achieve no net unmitigated loss of 

priority habitat; seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling that prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities in winter habitat and during the lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing season would 

be applied in all priority sage-grouse habitat. Required Design Features (RDFs) would be applied 

as Conditions of Approval within priority and general sage-grouse habitat on existing fluid 

mineral leases. 

Similar to Alternative A, new plans of operation for authorized locatable minerals on forest 

service-administered lands would require the inclusion of measures to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to GRSG populations or their habitat. Priority and general habitat would be closed to non-
35

energy leasable mineral leasing and prospecting. No new commercial mineral material sales 

would be allowed in priority and general habitat, but sales to meet Federal, Tribal, State, County 

and public needs would be allowed in general habitat; loss of habitat through disturbance in 

general habitat would be off-set through off-site mitigation. Alternative D would manage priority 

and general habitat as ROW exclusion areas for new large-scale wind and solar energy facilities 

(see Land Uses and Realty Management), whereas Alternative B would manage PPH as a new 

ROW exclusion area and PGH as a new ROW avoidance area. 

Although the conservation measures proposed under Alternative D would overall reduce the 

general impacts on GRSG associated with energy and locatable minerals development discussed 

under Alternative A, Alternative D would be less protective of PPH than Alternative B with 

respect to new fluid mineral leasing, because Alternative B would close PPH to new fluid 

mineral leasing. On the other hand, it would be more protective of PGH than Alternative B with 

respect to new fluid mineral leasing, because Alternative B does not include specific 

management for new or existing fluid minerals leasing in general habitat. Alternative D would be 

similar to Alternative B with respect to existing fluid mineral leases by requiring application of 

design features in priority habitat. Under Alternative D, both priority and general habitat would 

be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing and prospecting as opposed to only PPH under 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III IV and V, some 

of the current management direction associated with energy and locatable minerals development 

would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush would be 

included. Alternative D is the same as Alternative A with respect to areas closed to entry, but 

adds NSO restrictions to all PPH and PGH without waiver, exception, or modification. NSO 

restrictions would apply to PGH with allowance for waivers, exceptions and modifications. 

Management under Alternatives D would maintain current acreage open to mineral development 

but add the application of best management practices and off-site mitigation. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development to Greater Sage-Grouse 

in Management Zones III, IV and V from the added management actions under Alternative D, 

which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

 

Like Alternative B, Alternative D would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority 

sage-grouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate 

where suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved, require colocation of new ROWs or SUAs associated with valid existing rights with existing development, 

and, where appropriate, bury new and existing utility lines as mitigation unless not feasible. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would manage priority and general habitat as ROW 
36

exclusion areas for new large-scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities and 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, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net un-mitigated loss of 

priority or general habitat. In addition, ROW holders in priority and general habitat would be 

required to retro-fit existing power lines and other utility structure with perch-deterring devices 

during ROW renewal process. These conservation measures make this alternative more 

protective than Alternative A, although the general effects would be the same. It would be less 

protective than Alternatives B and C with respect to new siting of general ROWs and SUAs 

because priority habitat would be an avoidance area rather than an exclusion area. But it would 

be more protective with respect to large-scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities by 

excluding them in priority and general habitat altogether. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative D would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Land uses and realty management activities would 

focus ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for Greater SageGrouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would

not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Like Alternative B, Alternative D 

would limit motorized travel to designated routes, there would be limited opportunities for road 

construction with minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads, and only 

recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse would be permitted. Unlike 

Alternative B, Alternative D would extend these measures beyond PPH to include PGH. In 

addition, under Alternative D no new recreation facilities (including, but not limited to, 

campgrounds, day use areas, scenic pullouts, trailheads, etc.) would be constructed in priority 

and general habitat. Although general impacts would be the same as Alternative A, Alternative D 

is more restrictive than Alternative A or Alternative B. It would likely reduce loss, fragmentation 

and disturbance to GRSG leks and nesting habitat by minimizing human use and road 

construction or upgrades and reducing automotive collisions with individual birds. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative D would increase 
37

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within PPH and PGH, thereby benefitting Greater 

Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative D, within 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, 

transportation and recreation management direction would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Alternative E 

All management actions under Alternative E would correspond to areas identified on the SageGrouse Management Areas (SGMAs) Map contained in the “2012 Strategic Plan for the 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Nevada” (2012 Plan) produced by Nevada stakeholders 

at the request of the governor. The SGMAs include four categories - Occupied Habitat, Suitable 

Habitat, Potential Habitat, and Non Habitat areas - as defined in the 2012 Plan. The Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Council would further refine the habitat categories within the SGMAs and 

determine where the best possible habitat exists based on recommendations from the Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. All management Actions would be implemented through 

a coordinated effort among local, state and federal agencies, unless an agency is specifically 

noted. Alternative E would not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, but would seek to 

achieve conservation through a goal of “no net loss” in the Occupied, Suitable and Potential 

Habitat categories for activities that could be controlled, such as a planned disturbance or 

development. Management under Alternative E would be subject to an avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate approach, which would provide a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have 

fixed exclusion and avoidance land allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, landscape-level treatments in Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs) 

would be initiated to reverse the effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment and restore healthy, 

resilient sagebrush ecosystems. Plans to remove Phase I and Phase II encroachment and treat 

Phase III encroachment would be aggressively implemented to reduce the threat of severe 

conflagration and restore SGMAs where possible, especially in areas in close proximity to 

Occupied and Suitable Habitat. Temporary roads to access treatment areas would be allowed and 

constructed with minimum design standards to avoid and minimize impacts and removed and 

restored upon completion of treatment. Under Alternative E, the State of Nevada would continue 

to incentivize and assist in the development of bio-fuels and other commercial uses of pinyonjuniper resources and 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. Alternative E would provide for an increase in conifer encroachment efforts for 

GRSG habitat compared to Alternative A and addresses it more specifically than Alternatives B 

or C. 

Under Alternative E, invasive plants would be managed through a combination of surveys, 

biological control, educational activities, native planting and reseeding of previously treated sites 
38

in areas susceptible to invasion, and weed-free gravel and forage certifications and inspections. 

SGMAs would be managed to prevent invasive species and to suppress and restore areas with 

existing infestations. Existing areas of invasive vegetative that pose a threat to SGMAs would be 

treated through the use of herbicides, fungicides or bacteria to control cheatgrass and 

medusahead infestations. All burned areas within SGMAs would be reviewed and evaluated in a 

timely manner to ascertain the reclamation potential for reestablishing Sage-Grouse habitat, 

enhancing ecosystem resiliency, and controlling invasive weed species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative E would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative E, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse.

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would manage grazing permits to maintain or enhance SGMAs. It would utilize 

livestock grazing, when appropriate, as a management tool, to improve Sage-Grouse habitat 

quantity, quality or to reduce wildfire threats. Alternative E would expand the promotion of 

proper livestock grazing practices that promote the health of perennial grass communities in 

order to suppress the establishment of cheatgrass. Riparian areas would be managed to current 

agency standards. Within riparian areas, Alternative E would promote grazing within acceptable 

limits and development of additional infrastructure (e.g., fences and troughs) in order to facilitate 

this action. In comparison with Alternative A, management under Alternative E would provide 

less protection to GRSG and their habitats. There are fewer conservation measures associated 

with this alternative including no management actions associated with direct impacts on GRSG 

or lek or nesting habitat (refer to Alternative A). Riparian impacts would be expected to be 

greater due to more areas being available for livestock use and fewer overall GRSG specific 

habitat enhancement/maintenance actions would occur under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 
39

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

there would be fewer restrictions on livestock grazing than under Alternative A, including no 

management actions associated with direct impacts on GRSG or leks or nesting habitat. In 

addition, riparian impacts would be expected to be greater due to more areas being available for 

livestock use and fewer overall GRSG specific habitat enhancement/maintenance actions would 

occur. Wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level 

as under current management. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, could 

result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would utilize a unique approach to fire and fuels management. Under Alternative 

E, emphasis would be on sagebrush habitat protection and restoration within the State of Nevada 

Sage-Grouse Management Areas. With respect to hazardous fuels treatments, this alternative sets 

a goal of supporting incentives for developing a beneficial use for biomass. Wildland fires in 

SGMAs would be managed 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. Additional emphasis under Alternative E integrates the prepositioning of 

suppression resources and preventative actions similar to Alternative D. Prepositioning and 

preventative actions would increase the likelihood of successful fire management actions with 

response to wildfire. Fuels reduction treatments would be similar to Alternative B, with added 

emphasis on coordination of state and local agencies and individual landowners. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative E, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the existing population trend, or 

remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, 

IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS).

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Management under Alternative E would maintain wild horses at AML in WHTs to avoid and 

minimize impacts on Sage-Grouse Management Areas, evaluate conflicts with WHT 

designations in Sage-Grouse Management Areas, modify Land and Resource Management Plans 

to avoid negative impacts on GRSG and, if necessary, resolve conflicts between the Wild and 

Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the Endangered Species Act. Wild horse and burro 

management under Alternative E would be similar to Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse are expected to be similar. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 
40

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative E, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level as under current management. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative E, which would be largely 

neutral for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Alternative E management strategy would be to avoid conflicts with GRSG habitat by siting 

new minerals and energy facilities and activities outside of habitat wherever possible. Projects 

that have an approved BLM notice, plan of operation, right-of-way, or drilling plan would be 

exempt from any new mitigation requirements above and beyond what has already been 

stipulated in the projects’ approvals. Exploration projects would be designed for mineral access 

and the betterment of GRSG habitat. Roads and other ancillary features that impact GRSG 

habitat would be designed to avoid where feasible and otherwise minimize and mitigate impacts 

in the short and long term. New linear features would be sited in existing corridors or, at a 

minimum, co-located with existing linear features in SGMAs. Measures to deter raptor perching 

and raven nesting on elevated structures would be applied to energy development projects. 

Energy developers would be required to work closely with state and federal agency experts to 

determine important GRSG nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats and avoid those areas, and 

energy development or infrastructure features would be restricted within a 0.6 mile (1 km) radius 

around seeps, springs and wet meadows within identified brood rearing habitats wherever 

possible. As previously stated, Alternative E does not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance 

areas, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate approach, which 

provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance land 

allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. Under Alternative E, there would be the 

possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals development than under Alternative 

A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to GRSG habitat would not be ruled out, 

but the amount is not quantifiable. Therefore, the general impacts of energy and locatable 

minerals development on GRSG discussed under Alternative A would have the potential to 

increase under Alternative E. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer 

to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), there would be no fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, as under 

Alternatives B, C, D or F, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

approach, which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion 

and avoidance land allocations based on habitat designations. In addition, there would be the 

possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals development than under Alternative 

A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to GRSG habitat would not be ruled out. 

Therefore, under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals 
41

development, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, no areas would be subject to exclusion or avoidance, but habitat 

disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in Occupied and Suitable Habitat would be 

limited to not more than five percent per year, and in Potential Habitat to not more than twenty 

percent per year, per SGMA, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results. On federal 

lands in Nevada with pre-approved activities, no new mitigation would take place beyond 

previously approved in Plans of Development, right of ways, or drilling plans. General guidance 

would be to avoid when possible, minimize adverse effects as practicable, and mitigate adverse 

effects in Occupied or Suitable Habitat. Whenever possible, this alternative would locate 

facilities in non-habitat areas, site new linear features in existing corridors or co-locate them with 

other existing features and engage in reclamation and weed control efforts. This alternative 

provides fewer measures when compared to Alternatives A, B, C, D or F to reduce the general 

impacts of land uses and realty management described under Alternative A to GRSG and 

sagebrush habitats. Therefore, Alternative E would not be as protective of GRSG as any of the 

other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative E would not include 

specific exclusion or avoidance areas but would limit total disturbance within Occupied and 

Suitable Habitats and implement an avoid, minimize, mitigate approach, as discussed above. 

This would provide a lower level of certainty for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat protection under 

Alternative E than under alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance areas based on 

habitat designations and could lead to greater habitat fragmentation under Alternative E. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects land uses and realty management under Alternative E, 

in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the 

increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV 

or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, travel, transportation and recreation management would essentially remain 

the same as it currently is under Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse under 

Alternative E are expected to be similar to those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management as it exists under Alternative A would continue under 

Alternative E. The limitation of motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational 

SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road 

construction and upgrading of current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects from travel, 
42

transportation and recreation management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing 

sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Alternative F 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F includes a conservation measure specifically directed at 

invasive plants that would develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring 

sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants. Like Alternative B, Alternative F would manage 

pinyon-juniper encroachment under current direction (see Alternative A). In addition, GRSG 

vegetation management conservation measures would benefit weed and conifer control efforts by 

prioritizing restoration efforts, including reducing invasive plants, and monitoring and 

controlling invasive species after fuels treatments and at existing new range improvements in all 

occupied GRSG habitat (PPH and PGH as opposed to only PPH under Alternative B). Together, 

these measures would reduce impacts from invasive plants and pinyon-juniper encroachment on 

GRSG habitat, as described under Alternative A, more so than Alternative B although the effects 

of the treatments would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative F would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative F, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative F would include beneficial management actions similar to those of Alternative B 

except they would apply in all GRSG habitats. These include completion of Land Health 

Assessments, consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts on sage-grouse 

habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of riparian areas and 

wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new 

water developments and structural range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, BMPs 

for West Nile Virus, and fence removal, modification or marking.. Together these efforts would 

reduce the impacts from grazing on GRSG described under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 
43

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans Wild horse and 

burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative F would provide an added 

benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild 

horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from 

the management actions under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fire and fuels management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that under 

Alternative B. Please refer to Alternative B. The impacts on GRSG would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative of management actions under Alternative F, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the existing population trend, or 

remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, 

IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS).

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Wild horse and burro management under Alternative F would be similar to that proposed under 

Alternative B except all conservation measures, but the measure prioritizing gathers in PPH, 

would extend to all occupied GRSG habitat. Therefore, the beneficial impacts on GRSG under 

Alternative F would be the same as those under Alternative B except they would apply to all 

occupied GRSG habitat making Alternative F more protective of GRSG and GRSG habitat than 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Refer to Alternative B. Cumulative effects would be the same. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Energy and locatable minerals development is similar to proposed management under 

Alternative B. Under Alternative F siting of wind energy development would be prevented in 

PPH; PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable mineral leasing, and 

mineral material sales; it would be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry; no new surface 
44

occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals and a 3% disturbance cap would 

be applied. Numerous conservation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from 

mineral exploration and development activities in PPH. Like Alternative B, Alternative F does 

not include specific management for locatable, or saleable or nonenergy minerals in PGH. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F directly addresses wind energy and fluid minerals 

development outside of PPH: wind energy would be sited at least five miles from active sagegrouse leks and at least four miles from the perimeter of sage-grouse winter habitat and areas 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks would be closed to new fluid minerals leasing. 

Alternative F, although similar to Alternative B, would reduce the impacts of energy 

development on GRSG and GRSG habitat, as described under Alternative A, more so than 

Alternative B because it addresses siting of wind energy and fluid minerals leasing outside of 

PPH more thoroughly than alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, 

primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternatives B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the 

current energy and locatable minerals management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing 

closures and proposing it for withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of energy and locatable minerals development to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative B, which would be largely 

beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Land uses and realty management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that 

under Alternative B. Please refer to Alternative B. The effects would be the same.

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative F would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus 

ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones 

III, IV and V under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 
45

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

With respect to travel, transportation and recreation, Alternative F is similar to Alternative B: 

within PPH, only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to GRSG would be permitted, 

there would be limited opportunities for new route construction and upgrading of existing routes 

could only occur if they would not result in a new 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. In addition, Alternative F would expand the Alternative B measure restricting motorized 

travel to designated routes in PPH to include PGH, designated routes in sage-grouse priority 

habitat would be considered for closure, camping areas within 4 miles of active leks would 

seasonally be closed, permanent seasonal road or area closures to protect breeding, nesting and 

brood rearing sage-grouse would be implemented and new road construction would be prohibited 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks. Although the general recreational effects of Alternative 

F would be the same as those for Alternatives A and B, Alternative F would be more protective 

of GRSG and GRSG habitat, particularly with respect to reducing disturbance to GRSG and 

protecting sagebrush habitat from degradation and introduction of invasive weeds, than 

Alternative B due to the additional measures. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative F would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within PPH and, in some instances, PGH and PPH, 

thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under 

Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of 

the current travel, transportation and recreation management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to Greater SageGrouse in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely 

beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

B. Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 

Life History 

Mule deer (including all subspecies) are distributed throughout western North America from 

southern Alaska, south to Baja Mexico, east to central Canada and the Plains states. The species 

is a widespread resident of Nevada, with habitats ranging from low-elevation shrublands to upper 

elevation subalpine communities. Mule deer in Nevada generally summer at higher elevations 

and migrate to lower woodlands or shrublands in winter to find food and seek cover from winter 

weather. 

Mule deer occur in a diversity of habitat types throughout Nevada but occur in highest densities 

in montane shrub dominated communities [Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) 2012]. 

Cover habitat is utilized to ameliorate thermal conditions, as well as provide security. 

Vegetation providing cover may include basin big sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, aspen, and conifer 

stands. Dietary composition consists of a mix of grasses, grass-like plants (i.e. sedges and 
46

rushes), forbs, shrubs, and trees. Species selection and ratio of relative use varies locally, 

regionally, and seasonally. Shrubs and trees (browse) dominate deer diets during the winter. 

During the spring, consumption of forbs, grasses, and grass-like species increases. As grasses 

cure, forbs and browse become the species utilized as summer forage, and in the fall use of 

shrubs and trees increase and again are the predominate forage. Lands on the Humboldt National 

Forest provide the full complement of seasonal habitats and encompass a considerable portion of 

mule deer range in Nevada (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Mule deer habitat distribution in Nevada 
47

Habitat loss and degradation are the primary concerns for this species: invasive weeds, increase 

in number and frequency of large‐scale fires, pinyon‐juniper encroachment, shrubland 

decadence, urban development and expansion, and drought all contribute to habitat degradation 

and loss (NDOW 2012). Decreases in quality of summer range and loss of critical wintering 

habitat in particular has been the biggest challenges to the species (NDOW 2012). 

Statewide Population, Status, Abundance and Trend 

Mule deer are monitored through annual aerial surveys (NDOW) and managed under the Mule 

Deer Species Policy Plan (NDOW) (NDOW 2012). Populations have been stable near the long‐

term average since 2002 and remain significantly higher than historic levels. The mule deer is 

ranked as secure (at very low risk of extirpation, extinction, or elimination due to a very 

extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or 

threats), both globally (G5) and in the State of Nevada (S5) (NatureServe 2010). Mule deer 

populations in Nevada have undergone dramatic highs and lows over the past 150 years. Today's 

numbers are estimated to be higher than historic populations. Statewide mule deer numbers have 

remained relatively stable over the past 10 years (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Approximate mule deer population trends in Nevada (source: NDOW 2006) 

Forest MIS Monitoring 

The 1986 Humboldt NF LRMP identified the mule deer as the MIS representing all vegetative 

types, and the current (1986) population of mule deer at 63,000 animals, with a maximum 

potential of 88,200 animals (July 1990 Amendment #2). The 1986 Toiyabe NF LRMP identified 

the mule deer as the MIS to evaluate Forest activities on deer habitat, with a population objective 

of 33.6 thousand deer by decade 3 (2001-2010) and maintained through 2030. Mule deer habitat 

has been carefully reviewed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and is included in the 

Forest MIS Reports (Humboldt National Forest 2008 and Toiyabe National Forest 2008). 
48

Alternative A - No Action 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

As previously discussed for GRSG, invasive species such as cheatgrass or native species such as 

pinyon or juniper have replaced desirable dominant species in parts of the sub-region. Invasive 

plants are thought to alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient 

cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude native plant populations. Cheatgrass 

competes with native grasses and forbs in sagebrush habitat. Invasive species cause direct 

degradation of sagebrush habitats including cover quality and composition, increased wildfire 

frequency and intensity (see Fire and Fuels discussion below) and are a particular threat to mule 

deer habitat. As discussed below in Fire and Fuels, the encroachment of pinyon and juniper from 

higher elevations into sagebrush habitats can have a negative impact on sagebrush habitat. 

Expansion of conifer woodlands threatens mule deer habitat, because they do not provide 

suitable habitat and trees displace shrubs, grasses and forbs. 

To reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the extent of current infestations, 

integrated weed management techniques, including mechanical, manual, chemical, and 

biological control are utilized. Implementation of these techniques would improve vegetation 

management by decreasing invasive species, provide for native vegetation establishment in 

sagebrush habitat, reduce the risk of wildfire, and restore fire-adapted ecosystems and repair 

lands damaged by fire. Mechanical juniper and pinyon pine treatments would result in short-term 

disturbances of soils and sagebrush due to heavy equipment, skid trails and temporary roads and 

could reduce the amount of available cover although the amount would be expected to be small 

relative to the overall amount of available cover. Mechanical and manual treatments would also 

increase noise, vehicular traffic and human presence. However, once the site potential is restored 

there would be an increase in forage, cover quality and composition benefitting mule deer. In 

addition, there would be a decrease in fire spread and intensity and a potential increase in water 

availability. 

Cumulative Effects 

Temporal and spatial boundaries used in the cumulative effects analysis for mule deer are the 

same as those for Greater Sage-Grouse. The baseline date for the cumulative impacts analysis is 

2012. The temporal scope of this analysis is a 20-year planning horizon; land managment 

planning documents are generally evaluated on a 5-year cycle. The temporal boundary for 

cumulative effects analysis includes Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) Management Zones III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake River Plain), and V 

(Northern Great Basin) (Figure 2), which is large enough to encompass large-ranging species 

such as mule deer. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on mule deer and sagebrush habitats would generally 

continue to be outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of vegetation and soils management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V 
49

from the management actions under Alternative A, which would be largely beneficial for mule 

deer, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Depending upon site-specific management, beneficial or adverse impacts of grazing on mule 

deer or sagebrush habitat would continue. Grazing practices can benefit habitat and mule deer by 

reducing fuel load, protecting intact sagebrush habitat and increasing habitat extent and 

continuity. However, grazing at inappropriate intensity, season, or location may alter or degrade 

sagebrush ecosystems or meadow/wetland/spring/stream habitat In addition, grazing can 

negatively impact mule deer through competition for forage or disturbance or temporary 

displacement, particularly during movement or trailing operations. Depending on the type, 

structural range improvements such as fences can present potential movement barriers. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing 

plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain ecological 

conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining healthy, 

productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Riparian habitats would be 

managed to achieve standards. Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife 

and range objectives, and would include building or modifying fences to permit passage of 

wildlife and reduce the chance of bird strikes, use of off-site water facilities, and in some cases 

modification or removal or improvements not meeting resource needs. Modifications may 

involve moving troughs, adding or changing wildlife escape ramps, or ensuring water is 

available on the ground for a various different wildlife species. Although not directly created to 

protect mule deer, these approaches would protect and enhance mule deer habitat by reducing the 

likelihood of the types of impacts described above. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue 

to be managed through existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing 

plans followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, 

which include maintaining healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and 

animals. Wild horses and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management section below) and healthy populations of 

wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, 

livestock use, and other multiple uses. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing and wild horse and burro management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V 
50

from the management actions under Alternative A, which would be largely neutral for mule deer, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fire is particularly problematic in sagebrush systems because it kills sagebrush plants and, in 

some cases, re-burns before sagebrush has a chance to re-establish. Without fire, cheatgrass 

dominance can exclude sagebrush seedlings from establishing. With fire, areas can be converted 

to annual grasslands. Another factor affecting fire in some sagebrush sites is the encroachment of 

pinyon and juniper trees from higher elevations into sagebrush habitats. Under suitable 

conditions, wildfires that start in pinyon and juniper stands can move into Wyoming big 

sagebrush stands. In the absence of cheatgrass, Wyoming sagebrush sites can take 150 years to 

recover. Where cheatgrass is present, fire can open the site to invasion of annual grasses 

described above. The cheatgrass fire cycle causes sagebrush habitat loss and degradation on an 

annual basis. Currently, due to the extent of the threat, there are no management actions that can 

effectively alter this trend. Facilitation of the spread of cheatgrass and the likelihood of ignition 

through BLM and Forest Service-authorized programs is further discussed in the Lands and 

Realty Management, Energy and Locatable Minerals Development and Travel, Transportation 

and Recreation sections. 

Alternative A would continue to manage fire suppression and fuels management under current 

direction. Policies would not prioritize protection or restoration of mature sagebrush habitat. 

Under Alternative A, wildfires would likely continue to increase in size and frequency in 

sagebrush habitat and that habitat would subsequently continue to be degraded or lost. Sagebrush 

habitat could be removed or degraded because of the use of heavy equipment or hand tools. 

Disturbance from equipment associated with suppression could negatively impact behaviors and 

/or changes in mule deer movement patterns could occur due to areas devoid of vegetation. In 

addition, suppression may initially result in higher rates of juniper encroachment in some areas, 

eliminating forage for mule deer while increasing cover. Over time, conifer encroachment could 

culminate in heavy fuel loadings that can contribute to larger-scale wildfire events that eliminate 

forage in adjacent areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current wildfire suppression operations and fuels management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. The limitation or prohibition of the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush habitats, as 

well as, the sagebrush protection emphasis during wildland fire operations would not be 

instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D, E and F. Under Alternative A, the direct and 

indirect effects, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

and the likelihood of increasing future fires from annual weed invasions and predicted climate 

change, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from 

wildfire in Management Zones III, IV and V. 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Please refer to the Alternative A effects of Wild Horse and Burro Management for Grater SageGrouse. The general effects to mule deer would be similar except that, in addition, wild horses 

and burros could compete with large ungulates, such as mule deer, for water at spring sources.. 
51

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories; Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of wild horse and burro management on 

these lands, in the DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative 

cumulative actions” and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zone III, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management 

section below) and healthy populations of wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural 

ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. Within 

Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain 

ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining 

healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management and livestock grazing to mule deer in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative A, which 

would be largely neutral for mule deer, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush 

habitat. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, all energy and locatable minerals development and associated 

infrastructure, including power lines, roads, buildings, fences, wind turbines, solar panels, and 

others, would continue to be managed under current direction. As such, this alternative would be 

expected to cause the greatest amount of direct and indirect impacts on mule deer and their 

habitat including loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat by roads, pipelines and power 

lines, disturbance of foraging or other critical behaviors, or displacement from increased levels 

of noise, presence of roads/humans and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management under Alternative A would maintain the current 

acreage open to leasing of fluid minerals, without stipulations, and locatable mineral 

development, although areas closed to these activities under Alternative A include some existing 

ACEC designations, designated wilderness, and wilderness study areas. Current energy and 

minerals development activities would continue under Alternative A. The closure of areas to 

fluid minerals and other energy development and withdrawal of areas from mineral entry would 

not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Therefore, under Alternative A, 

the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development, in conjunction with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 
52

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from energy and locatable minerals development 

in Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to current 

disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or 

endangered species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest. This would reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion to 

agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove sagebrush habitat. Existing Land and 

Resource Management Plan direction would apply under Alternative A. There would be no 

changes to the current National Forest System infrastructure including power lines, wind 

turbines, communications towers, fences, or roads. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow 

construction, maintenance, and operation activities that could result in habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation of sagebrush winter range habitat or result in barriers to migration 

corridors. Construction and maintenance of infrastructure would continue to lead to higher shortterm concentrations of human noise and disturbance that could cause disruption of foraging, or 

other behaviors, or temporary displacement of individuals. These activities could also lead to 

new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most 

projects would be forced to mitigate or minimize impacts, this alternative would likely have the 

greatest impact on sagebrush habitat used by mule deer and seasonal migration routes. Vehicles 

traveling on associated roads would continue to pose a collision hazard to mule deer. Though 

most projects would be forced to mitigate or minimize impacts, this alternative would likely have 

the greatest impact on mule deer and their habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current lands and realty (i.e., infrastructure) management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D, or F. Therefore, under Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects of lands 

and realty management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat and 

disturbance to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. 

Under Alternative A, there would be no changes to the current National Forest System Roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management on these forests. There would be minimal seasonal 

restrictions on casual use and some of the areas within GRSG habitat would remain open to cross 

country travel. In general, the more acres and miles of routes that are designated in an area, the 

greater the likelihood of disturbance of wildlife and fragmentation of habitat. In addition, less 

restrictive travel conditions usually mean higher concentrations of human use adjacent to 

motorized routes. This can cause disruption or temporary displacement of mule deer. Impacts 

from roads may include habitat loss from road construction, noise disturbance from vehicles, and 
53

direct mortality from collisions with vehicles. Roads may also present barriers to migration 

corridors or seasonal habitats. This alternative has the highest potential to impact mule deer due 

to the lack of restrictions on activities that cause these effects. Therefore all direct and indirect 

effects on the species and its habitat would likely cause current trends to continue. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management would continue under Alternative A. The limitation of 

motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational SUAs that are neutral or 

beneficial to sage-grouse and other sagebrush-associated species such as mule deer, as well as 

limited opportunities for road construction and upgrading of current roads, would not be 

instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under Alternative A, the direct and 

indirect effects from travel, transportation and recreation management, in conjunction with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Alternative B 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, weed control efforts and pinyon-juniper encroachment would continue to 

be managed under current direction (see Alternative A). However, vegetation management 

conservation measures would benefit weed control efforts by prioritizing restoration efforts, 

including reducing invasive plants and, in turn, benefit mule deer habitat. BLM and Forest 

Service would require the use of native seeds and would design post-restoration management to 

ensure the long-term persistence of the restoration efforts, and would consider changes in climate 

when determining species for restoration. Invasive species would also be monitored and 

controlled after fuels treatments and at existing range improvements. Alternative B incorporates 

fewer invasive plant management measures in PGH compared to PPH. However, many of the 

same habitat restoration and vegetation management actions would be applied, including 

prioritizing the use of native seeds. Together, these measures would reduce impacts to mule deer 

from invasive plants described under Alternative A although the effects of the treatments would 

be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, current vegetation and soils 

management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, and biological control of 

invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the short-term negative impacts of 

these activities on mule deer and sagebrush habitats would continue to be outweighed by the 

long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and composition, 

decreased fire spread and intensity and, potentially, increased water availability. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat, under Alternative B would provide 

an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of vegetation and 

soils management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management 

actions under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined 
54

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase 

impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B would implement a number of beneficial management actions in PPH to 

incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into livestock grazing 

management. These include completion of Land Health Assessments, consideration of grazing 

methods and systems to reduce impacts on sagebrush habitat, consideration of retiring vacant 

allotments, improved management of riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing 

introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new water developments and structural 

range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, and fence removal, modification or 

marking. Several management actions to reduce impacts from livestock grazing on sage-grouse 

general habitat would be incorporated, including the potential to modify grazing systems to meet 

seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements and management to improve the conditions of riparian 

areas and wet meadows, which would benefit mule deer. Together these efforts would reduce the 

negative grazing-related impacts on mule deer described under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue 

to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would provide an added benefit to sagebrush 

habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro 

management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions 

under Alternatives B, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts 

to mule deer or their habitat.

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, suppression would be prioritized in PPH to protect mature sagebrush 

habitat. Suppression would be prioritized in PGH only where fires threaten PPH. Suppressionrelated juniper encroachment discussed under Alternative A could increase in some areas under 

Alternative B, eliminating sagebrush habitat and eventually resulting in heavy fuel loadings that 

could contribute to larger-scale wildfire events. 

Alternative B does not include any other specific management for wildland fire management in 

PGH. Fuels treatments would be designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining 
55

sagebrush cover, implementing fuel breaks, applying seasonal restrictions, protections for winter 

range, and requiring use of native seeds. Post-fuels treatments would be designed to ensure longterm persistence of seeded areas and native plants and maintain 15 percent canopy cover. Fuels 

treatments would also monitor and control for invasive species, and fuels management BMPs 

would incorporate invasive plant prevention measures. Invasive species monitoring and control 

measures would benefit mule deer by reducing or eliminating competition of invasive species 

with forage species. Overall, these conservation measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to 

sagebrush compared to Alternative A although the general effects of fire suppression and fuels 

treatments on mule deer would be similar to those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions under Alternative B, with respect to fire and fuels, would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, current 

wildfire suppression operations would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat during suppression activities and pre-suppression planning and staging 

for maximum protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be included. Fuels treatment 

activities would focus on protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V 

from the management actions under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for mule 

deer, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or their habitat. 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML on the same number of 

acres as Alternative A, with gathers prioritized based on PPH habitat and emergency 

environmental issues. Wild Horse Territory (WHT) Plans would incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives in PPH. Land health assessments to determine existing 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation within all Territories would be conducted. 

Implementation of any range improvements in PPH would follow the same guidance as 

identified for livestock grazing in this alternative including designing and locating new 

improvements only where they “conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through improved 

grazing management”. Design features could include treating invasive species associated with 

range improvements. Additional range improvements in PPH would specifically address the 

needs of GRSG. In comparison to Alternative A, Alternative B would prioritize GRSG habitat 

objectives in WHT Plans and base AML numbers on GRSG habitat needs which would also 

likely benefit sagebrush-associated species, such as mule deer, by reducing the types of wild 

horse and burro management-related impacts discussed under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 
56

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, wild horse and burro Territories 

would continue to be managed for Appropriate Management Level and livestock grazing would 

continue to be managed through existing grazing plans. However, additional emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would provide an added benefit to 

mule deer. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and 

burro management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV or V from the management actions 

under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts 

to mule deer or their habitat.

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this Alternative, PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing, and mineral material sales, and it would be proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry. In addition, mandatory BMPs would be applied as conditions of approval on fluid 

mineral leases. No surface occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals within 

PPH. A 3% disturbance cap to activities in PPH would be applied and numerous conservation 

measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from mineral exploration and development 

activities in PPH. These measures would reduce the impacts of energy development described 

under Alternative A on mule deer within PPH. 

Alternative B does not include specific management for fluid, saleable, locatable, and nonenergy 

leasable minerals in PGH or wind energy or solar energy development in PPH or PGH. As a 

result, current trends would continue and impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A. 

Although Alternative B does not directly address wind energy development or industrial solar 

development, its 3% threshold for anthropogenic disturbances (See Land Uses and Realty 

Management) would apply to energy development and would limit the extent of all types of 

energy development in PPH. These measures would reduce the impacts of energy development 

on mule deer described under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of sagebrush habitat, primarily 

within PPH, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under 

Alternative B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the current energy and locatable 

minerals management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing closures and proposing it for withdrawal 

would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of to mule deer in Management 

Zones III, IV and V from the management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when 
57

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer. 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, all PPH would be managed as exclusion areas and PGH would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new ROW and SUA projects and co-location of new ROWs or 

SUAs with existing infrastructure would occur in PPH and PGH. It would also include the 

following within PPH: co-location of new ROWs or SUAs with existing infrastructure; removal, 

burying, or modification of existing power lines; co-location of new facilities with existing 

facilities, where possible; use of existing roads, or realignments to access valid existing rights 

that are not yet developed or constructing new roads to the absolute minimum standard necessary 

if valid existing rights could not be accessed via existing roads; and a 3% threshold on 

anthropogenic disturbance (including, but not limited to, highways, roads, geothermal wells, 

wind turbines, and associated facilities) within PPH. 

In addition, Alternative B would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority sagegrouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate where 

suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved. This alternative would 

benefit mule deer by maximizing connectivity and minimizing loss, fragmentation, degradation 

and disturbance of sagebrush habitats within PPH by power lines, communication towers and 

roads. Mule deer and sagebrush habitat outside PPH would likely experience little change in 

direct or indirect effects. However, if the 3% development threshold ended up concentrating new 

infrastructure development outside PPH rather than just reducing it within PPH, the extent of 

impacts on mule deer and sagebrush habitat outside PPH could increase under Alternative B 

relative to Alternative A. Alternative B would reduce the likelihood of collisions addressed in 

Alternative A. These conservation measures make this alternative more protective of mule deer 

than Alternative A, although the general effects would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternatives B would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to 

GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion 

or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

lands and realty management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative 

B, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer. 

 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, motorized travel in PPH would be limited to designated roads, primitive 

roads, and trails. Only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse would be 

permitted in PPH and there would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH, with 

minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads. Although general impacts would 

be the same as Alternative A, Alternative B is more restrictive than Alternative A and it would 
58

likely reduce loss and fragmentation of mule deer habitat and disturbance to mule deer in PPH by 

minimizing human use and road construction or upgrades, and reduce the potential for 

automotive collisions with individual mule deer within PPH. However, if these measures ended 

up concentrating recreational use and additional roads outside PPH rather than just reducing it 

within PPH, the extent of impacts on mule deer outside PPH could increase under Alternative B 

relative to Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative B would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, some of the 

current travel, transportation and recreation management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to mule deer in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for 

mule deer, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer. 

Alternative C 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would maintain the direction described under Alternative A for weed control and 

pinyon-juniper encroachment and include additional provisions that would limit invasive weed 

spread in all occupied GRSG habitat. Vegetation management would benefit weed control 

efforts, by prioritizing restoration, including reducing invasive plants, in order to benefit sagegrouse habitats. In all cases, local native plant ecotype seeds and seedlings would be used. These 

policies would reduce the impacts of invasive plants on mule deer described under Alternative A 

and have similar impacts associated with treatment, but would include additional conservation 

measures specific to limiting the spread of invasive plants. In addition, grazing would be 

eliminated within all occupied sage-grouse habitat, eliminating the potential for invasive plant 

spread by livestock. This would generally make Alternative C more protective of mule deer and 

mule deer habitat than Alternatives A or B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on mule deer and sagebrush habitat would continue to 

be outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially increased water availability. 

However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative C 

would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the 

management actions under Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when 
59

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or their habitat. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, grazing would be eliminated within all occupied sage-grouse habitat 

reducing both the negative and positive grazing-related impacts on mule deer and sagebrush 

habitat discussed under Alternative A more so than any of the other alternatives. No new water 

developments or range improvements would be constructed in occupied habitat and only habitat 

treatments that benefit GRSG would be allowed; most GRSG habitat treatments would be 

expected to benefit mule deer habitat as well. Retirement of grazing would be allowed and fast 

tracked. Once grazing is eliminated, Alternative C could negatively impact mule deer by 

eliminating artificial water developments in higher-elevation allotments overlapping mule deer 

summer habitat that individuals have come to rely upon, but it could improve riparian conditions. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Under Alternative C, within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), livestock grazing would be eliminated 

within all occupied GRSG habitat, providing a net benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V 

from management under Alternative C, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush 

habitat. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it is more protective of mule deer habitat 

because prioritization of suppression would apply to All Occupied Habitat, it includes measures 

to manage vegetation for good or better ecological condition, and it focuses fuel breaks on areas 

of human habitation or significant disturbance. Some of the negative impacts of fire suppression 

on conifer encroachment and fire suppression and fuels treatments on mule deer discussed under 

Alternative A would be offset by the prioritization of restoration treatments described below for 

invasive plants. The general effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to 

those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions related to fire and fuels under Alternative C, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the 

cumulative effects described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove 

or fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML. However, AML 

establishment would be analyzed in conjunction with livestock numbers during grazing permit 

renewals. Combined with the removal of some fences during “active restoration” processes 

related to livestock grazing, horses and burros would be expected to range over a larger area than 
60

in Alternative A and would necessitate the need for increased gather schedules. The increase in 

access to riparian and upland habitats that are currently protected by fences, and expected 

temporary increases in horses and burros over AML, could reduce food and cover for mule deer, 

degrade riparian habitat or increase the potential for competition between wild horses and burros 

and large ungulates at spring sources. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative C, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for AML as under current management, however, there would be fewer restrictions on 

wild horse and burro movement than under Alternative A. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of wild horse and burro management under Alternative C, in conjunction with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would expand several of the protections under Alternative B to all occupied habitat 

as well as prohibit new exploration permits for unleased fluid minerals (also see Land Uses and 

Realty Management below). Like Alternative B, the conservation measures proposed under 

Alternative C would reduce the impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on mule 

deer described under Alternative A, but to a larger degree than any of the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions under Alternative C with regard to energy and 

locatable minerals development would increase protection of all occupied habitat, thereby 

benefitting mule deer. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the 

current energy and locatable minerals management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat by adding all occupied habitat to 

existing closures and proposing it for withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of fire to mule deer in Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under 

Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would have the most protective GRSG conservation measures with respect to mule 

deer and infrastructure. Alternative C would extend many of the Alternative B conservation 

measures to all occupied habitat and all occupied habitat would be managed as an exclusion area 

for new ROW projects. As a result, management under Alternative C would encourage 
61

consolidation of sage-grouse habitats, facilitating habitat conservation and management and 

reduce the impacts of infrastructure on mule deer described under Alternatives A and B in a 

wider area than Alternative B. Unlike Alternative B, which would permit wind energy siting in 

PPH provided a development disturbance threshold of 3% were not exceeded, Alternative C 

would not permit wind energy development siting in all occupied GRSG habitat. This would 

reduce the effects of wind energy on mule deer discussed under Alternative A more so than 

Alternative B. Like alternative B, Alternative C would aim to remove, bury, or modify existing 

power lines but would apply to all occupied GRSG habitat, having the potential to disturb more 

mule deer and sagebrush habitat during implementation and maintenance. This measure would 

protect larger areas of sagebrush habitat from degradation, fragmentation and has the potential to 

prevent or reduce disturbance to or displacement of mule deer over a larger area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternative C would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to 

GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion 

or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

lands and realty management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative 

C, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer or 

sagebrush habitat. 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it would apply to all occupied habitat and, 

therefore, protect a larger area of sagebrush habitat than Alternative B from the same types of 

general recreational impacts described in Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative C would increase 

protection of all occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, transportation and recreation 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V 

under Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts 

to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 
62

Alternative D 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D would treat sites within priority and general sage-grouse habitat that are dominated 

by invasive species through an IVM approach using fire, chemical, mechanical and biological 

methods based on site potential. Targeted grazing would be allowed to suppress cheatgrass or 

other vegetation that are hindering achieving sage-grouse objectives in priority and general 

habitat. Sheep, cattle, or goats may be used as long as the animals are intensely managed and 

removed when the utilization of desirable species reaches 35%. In perennial grass, invasive 

annual grass, and conifer-invaded cover types, sagebrush steppe would be restored with 

sagebrush seedings where feasible. 

Pinyon and juniper treatment in encroached sagebrush vegetation communities in priority habitat 

and general habitat would focus on enhancing, reestablishing, or maintaining habitat components 

(e.g. cover, security, food, etc.) in order to achieve habitat objectives. Phase II and III pinyon 

and/or juniper stands would be removed or reduced in biomass to meet fuel and sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and appropriate action would be taken to establish desired understory species 

composition, including seeding and invasive species treatments. Treatment methods that 

maintain sagebrush and shrub cover and composition would be used in areas with a sagebrush 

component. More so than Alternatives A, B or C, Alternative D has the potential to benefit mule 

deer habitat from more targeted pinyon and juniper removal. Possible short-term disturbancerelated impacts to mule deer from treatments would be the same under Alternative D as under 

Alternative A as would the general long-term benefits. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on mule deer and sagebrush habitats would continue to 

be outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially increased water availability. 

However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D 

would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the 

management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D, similar to Alternative B, would implement a number of beneficial management 

actions to incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into 

livestock grazing management: consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts 

on sage-grouse habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of 

riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, 

authorization of new water developments and structural range improvements only when 

beneficial to GRSG, the potential to modify grazing systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse 
63

habitat requirements and fence removal, modification or marking. The main difference is that 

Alternative D would apply these conservation measures to priority and general habitat rather 

than limiting them to PPH as Alternative B would and Alternative D would not require the 

completion of Land Health Assessments to determine if standards of range-land health are being 

met as Alternative B would. These measures would reduce potential for negative impacts from 

grazing on mule deer described under Alternative A probably more so than Alternative B but less 

so than Alternative C that would eliminate livestock grazing in all occupied habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse 

and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide 

an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing and wild horse and burro management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V 

from the management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for mule 

deer, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, in which suppression would be prioritized in PPH, but only in PGH where 

fires threaten PPH, Alternative D would prioritize suppression in priority and general sagegrouse habitat. In priority and general habitat, fuels treatments emphasizing maintaining, 

protecting, and expanding GRSG habitat would be designed and implemented and would include 

measures similar to Alternative B except they would apply to priority and general habitat rather 

than only PPH. These include generally enhancing or maintaining/retaining sagebrush canopy 

cover and community structure; applying appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

fuels treatments according to the type of sage-grouse seasonal habitats present; and requiring use 

of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. In addition, Alternative D would not allow fuels treatment projects to 

be implemented in priority and general habitat if it is determined the treatment would not be 

beneficial to GRSG or its habitat. It would identify opportunities for prescribed fire and require 

use of certified weed-free seeds. Alternative D would prioritize pre-suppression activities in 

sage-grouse habitats that are vulnerable to wildfire events and post-fire treatments in priority and 

general habitat to maximize benefits to greater sage-grouse. Overall, these conservation 

measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to sagebrush compared to Alternative A, although 

in general, the effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments on mule deer and sagebrush habitat 
64

would be similar to those of Alternative A. Prioritization of suppression and fuels treatments in 

priority and general habitat under Alternative D, rather than limiting them to PPH under 

Alternative B, would make Alternative D more protective of mule deer and sagebrush habitat, in 

the long term, than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative D, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects 

described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove or fragment 

sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, gathers would be prioritized in priority and general habitat as opposed to 

only PPH under Alternative B. Otherwise Alternative B is similar to management proposed in 

Alternative B in that wild horse and burro populations would be managed within established 

AML to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives for all WHTs within or containing priority or 

general habitat. Unlike Alternative B, adjustments to AML through the NEPA process would be 

considered in WHTs not meeting standards due to degradation that can be at least partially 

contributed to wild horse or burro populations; adjustments would be based on monitoring data 

and would seek to protect and enhance priority and general habitat and establish a thriving 

ecological balance. Alternative D would be expected to reduce the impacts of wild horses and 

burros on mule deer described under Alternative A over a larger area than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V, wild horse and burro Territories 

would be managed for Appropriate Management Level and livestock grazing would continue to 

be managed through existing grazing plans. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro 

management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions 

under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial mule deer, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts on 

mule deer or their habitat. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, a NSO stipulation, with no allowance for waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications, would be applied to un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in priority sage-grouse 
65

habitat and a NSO stipulation, with allowance for waivers, exception, or modifications, would be 

applied in un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in general sage-grouse habitat. Geophysical 

exploration that does not result in crushing of sagebrush vegetation or create new or additional 

surface disturbance would be allowed within priority and general sage-grouse habitat, but 

geophysical operations would be subject to timing and controlled surface use limitations. 

Proposed surface disturbance in unleased priority habitat must achieve no net unmitigated loss of 

priority habitat; seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling that prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities in winter habitat and during the lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing season would 

be applied in all priority sage-grouse habitat. Required Design Features (RDFs) would be applied 

as Conditions of Approval within priority and general sage-grouse habitat on existing fluid 

mineral leases. 

Similar to Alternative A, new plans of operation for authorized locatable minerals on forest 

service-administered lands would require the inclusion of measures to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to GRSG populations or their habitat. Priority and general habitat would be closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and prospecting. No new commercial mineral material sales 

would be allowed in priority and general habitat, but sales to meet Federal, Tribal, State, County 

and public needs would be allowed in general habitat; loss of habitat through disturbance in 

general habitat would be off-set through off-site mitigation. Alternative D would manage priority 

and general habitat as ROW exclusion areas for new large-scale wind and solar energy facilities 

(see Land Uses and Realty Management), whereas Alternative B would manage PPH as a new 

ROW exclusion area and PGH as a new ROW avoidance area. 

Although the conservation measures proposed under Alternative D would overall reduce the 

general impacts on mule deer associated with energy and locatable minerals development 

discussed under Alternative A, Alternative D would be less protective of mule deer habitat 

within PPH than Alternative B with respect to new fluid mineral leasing, because Alternative B 

would close PPH to new fluid mineral leasing. On the other hand, it would be more protective of 

mule deer habitat within PGH than Alternative B with respect to new fluid mineral leasing, 

because Alternative B does not include specific management for new or existing fluid minerals 

leasing in general habitat. Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B with respect to 

existing fluid mineral leases by requiring application of design features in priority habitat. Under 

Alternative D, both priority and general habitat would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral 

leasing and prospecting as opposed to only PPH under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III IV and V, some 

of the current management direction associated with energy and locatable minerals development 

would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush would be 

included. Alternative D is the same as Alternative A with respect to areas closed to entry, but 

adds NSO restrictions to all PPH and PGH without waiver, exception, or modification. NSO 

restrictions would apply to PGH with allowance for waivers, exceptions and modifications. 

Management under Alternatives D would maintain current acreage open to mineral development 
66

but add the application of best management practices and off-site mitigation. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development to mule deer in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the added management actions under Alternative D, 

which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer or 

sagebrush habitat (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

 

Like Alternative B, Alternative D would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority 

sage-grouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate 

where suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved, require colocation of new ROWs or SUAs associated with valid existing rights with existing development 

and, where appropriate, bury new and existing utility lines as mitigation unless not feasible. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would manage priority and general habitat as ROW 

exclusion areas for new large-scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities and 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, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net un-mitigated loss of 

priority or general habitat. In addition, ROW holders in priority and general habitat would be 

required to retro-fit existing power lines and other utility structure with perch-deterring devices 

during ROW renewal process. These conservation measures make this alternative more 

protective of mule deer and sagebrush habitat than Alternative A, although the general effects 

would be the same. It would be less protective than Alternatives B and C with respect to new 

siting of general ROWs and SUAs because priority habitat would be an avoidance area rather 

than an exclusion area. But it would be more protective of mule deer and sagebrush habitat with 

respect to large-scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities by excluding them in priority 

and general habitat altogether. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative D would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to 

GRSG would be included. Land uses and realty management activities would focus ROW 

exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of lands and realty management to mule deer in Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, 

which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer. 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Like Alternative B, Alternative D 
67

would limit motorized travel to designated routes, there would be limited opportunities for road 

construction with minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads, and only 

recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse would be permitted. Unlike 

Alternative B, Alternative D would extend these measures beyond PPH to include PGH. In 

addition, under Alternative D no new recreation facilities (including, but not limited to, 

campgrounds, day use areas, scenic pullouts, trailheads, etc.) would be constructed in priority 

and general habitat. Although general impacts would be the same as Alternative A, Alternative D 

is more restrictive than Alternative A or Alternative B. It would likely reduce habitat loss or 

fragmentation and disturbance to mule deer by minimizing human use and road construction or 

upgrades and reduce automotive collisions with individual mule deer. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative D would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat within PPH and PGH, thereby benefitting mule deeer rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, transportation and recreation 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V 

under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts 

to mule deer. 

Alternative E 

All management actions under Alternative E would correspond to areas identified on the SageGrouse Management Areas (SGMAs) Map contained in the “2012 Strategic Plan for the 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Nevada” (2012 Plan) produced by Nevada stakeholders 

at the request of the governor. The SGMAs include four categories - Occupied Habitat, Suitable 

Habitat, Potential Habitat, and Non Habitat areas - as defined in the 2012 Plan. The Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Council would further refine the habitat categories within the SGMAs and 

determine where the best possible habitat exists based on recommendations from the Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. All management Actions would be implemented through 

a coordinated effort among local, state and federal agencies, unless an agency is specifically 

noted. Alternative E would not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, but would seek to 

achieve conservation through a goal of “no net loss” in the Occupied, Suitable and Potential 

Habitat categories for activities that could be controlled, such as a planned disturbance or 

development. Management under Alternative E would be subject to an avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate approach, which would provide a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have 

fixed exclusion and avoidance land allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, landscape-level treatments in Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs) 

would be initiated to reverse the effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment and restore healthy, 
68

resilient sagebrush ecosystems. Plans to remove Phase I and Phase II encroachment and treat 

Phase III encroachment would be aggressively implemented to reduce the threat of severe 

conflagration and restore SGMAs where possible, especially in areas in close proximity to 

Occupied and Suitable Habitat. Temporary roads to access treatment areas would be allowed and 

constructed with minimum design standards to avoid and minimize impacts and removed and 

restored upon completion of treatment. Under Alternative E, the State of Nevada would continue 

to incentivize and assist in the development of bio-fuels and other commercial uses of pinyonjuniper resources and 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. Alternative E would provide for an increase in conifer encroachment management 

for sagebrush habitat compared to Alternative A, B or C. 

Under Alternative E, invasive plants would be managed through a combination of surveys, 

biological control, educational activities, native planting and reseeding of previously treated sites 

in areas susceptible to invasion, and weed-free gravel and forage certifications and inspections. 

SGMAs would be managed to prevent invasive species and to suppress and restore areas with 

existing infestations. Existing areas of invasive vegetative that pose a threat to SGMAs would be 

treated through the use of herbicides, fungicides or bacteria to control cheatgrass and 

medusahead infestations. All burned areas within SGMAs would be reviewed and evaluated in a 

timely manner to ascertain the reclamation potential for reestablishing Sage-Grouse habitat, 

enhancing ecosystem resiliency, and controlling invasive weed species. The effects under 

Alternative E would be similar to those under Alternative D although temporary road 

construction could increase disturbance effects to mule deer. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on mule deer and sagebrush habitats would continue to 

be outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially increased water availability. 

However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative E 

would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the 

management actions under Alternative E, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat.

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would manage grazing permits to maintain or enhance SGMAs. It would utilize 

livestock grazing, when appropriate, as a management tool, to improve Sage-Grouse habitat 

quantity, quality or to reduce wildfire threats which could benefit mule deer as well. Alternative 

E would expand the promotion of proper livestock grazing practices that promote the health of 

perennial grass communities in order to suppress the establishment of cheatgrass. Riparian areas 

would be managed to current agency standards. Within riparian areas, Alternative E would 

promote grazing within acceptable limits and development of additional infrastructure (e.g., 
69

fences and troughs) in order to facilitate this action. In comparison with Alternative A, 

management under Alternative E would probably provide less protection to mule deer and 

sagebrush habitat. In general, fewer overall sagebrush-specific habitat enhancement or 

maintenance actions would occur under this alternative and impacts to riparian structure would 

be expected to be greater due to more areas being available for livestock use. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

there would be fewer restrictions on livestock grazing than under Alternative A. In addition, 

riparian impacts would be expected to be greater due to more areas being available for livestock 

use and fewer overall GRSG specific habitat enhancement/maintenance actions would occur. 

Wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level as under 

current management. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing, in 

conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, could result in the 

increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV 

and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would utilize a very different approach to fire and fuels management. Under 

Alternative E, emphasis would be on sagebrush habitat protection and restoration within the 

SGMAs. With respect to hazardous fuels treatments, this alternative sets a goal of supporting 

incentives for developing a beneficial use for biomass. Wildland fires in SGMAs would be 

managed 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. Additional 

emphasis under Alternative E integrates the prepositioning of suppression resources and 

preventative actions similar to Alternative D. Prepositioning and preventative actions would 

increase the likelihood of successful fire management actions with response to wildfire. Fuels 

reduction treatments would be similar to Alternative B, with added emphasis on coordination of 

state and local agencies and individual landowners. While the general short-term impacts fire and 

fuels conservation measures on mule deer would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A, the long-term beneficial effects of the measures on mule deer would be similar to 

those of Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative E, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove or fragment sagebrush habitat 
70

past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS).

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Management under Alternative E would maintain wild horses at AML in WHTs to avoid and 

minimize impacts on Sage-Grouse Management Areas, evaluate conflicts with WHT 

designations in Sage-Grouse Management Areas, modify Land and Resource Management Plans 

to avoid negative impacts on GRSG and, if necessary, resolve conflicts between the Wild and 

Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the Endangered Species Act. Wild horse and burro 

management under Alternative E would be similar to Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to mule 

deer are expected to be similar to that of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative E, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level as under current management. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management to mule deer in Management Zones III, 

IV and V from the management actions under Alternative E, which would be largely neutral for 

mule deer, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Alternative E management strategy would be to avoid conflicts with GRSG habitat by siting 

new minerals and energy facilities and activities outside of habitat wherever possible. Projects 

that have an approved BLM notice, plan of operation, right-of-way, or drilling plan would be 

exempt from any new mitigation requirements above and beyond what has already been 

stipulated in the projects’ approvals. Exploration projects would be designed for mineral access 

and the betterment of GRSG habitat. Roads and other ancillary features that impact GRSG 

habitat would be designed to avoid where feasible and otherwise minimize and mitigate impacts 

in the short and long term. New linear features would be sited in existing corridors or, at a 

minimum, co-located with existing linear features in SGMAs. Energy developers would be 

required to work closely with state and federal agency experts to determine important GRSG 

nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats and avoid those areas, and energy development or 

infrastructure features would be restricted within a 0.6 mile (1 km) radius around seeps, springs 

and wet meadows within identified brood rearing habitats wherever possible. Alternative E does 

not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, leaving all management subject to an avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate approach, which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that 

have fixed exclusion and avoidance land allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. Under 

Alternative E, there would be the possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals 

development than under Alternative A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to 

sagebrush habitat would not be ruled out. Therefore, the general impacts of energy and locatable 

minerals development on mule deer discussed under Alternative A would have the potential to 

increase under Alternative E. 
71

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer 

to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), there would be no fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, as under 

Alternatives B, C, D or F, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

approach, which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion 

and avoidance land allocations based on habitat designations. In addition, there would be the 

possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals development than under Alternative 

A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to GRSG habitat would not be ruled out. 

Therefore, under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals 

development, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, no areas would be subject to exclusion or avoidance, but habitat 

disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in Occupied and Suitable Habitat would be 

limited to not more than five percent per year, and in Potential Habitat to not more than twenty 

percent per year, per SGMA, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results. On federal 

lands in Nevada with pre-approved activities, no new mitigation would take place beyond 

previously approved in Plans of Development, right of ways, or drilling plans. General guidance 

would be to avoid when possible, minimize adverse effects as practicable, and mitigate adverse 

effects in Occupied or Suitable Habitat. Whenever possible, this alternative would locate 

facilities in non-habitat areas, site new linear features in existing corridors or co-locate them with 

other existing features and engage in reclamation and weed control efforts. This alternative 

provides fewer measures when compared to Alternatives A, B, C, D or F to reduce the general 

impacts of land uses and realty management described under Alternative A to mule deer and 

sagebrush habitats. Therefore, Alternative E would not be as protective of mule deer and 

sagebrush habitat as any of the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative E would not include 

specific exclusion or avoidance areas but would limit total disturbance within Occupied and 

Suitable Habitats and implement an avoid, minimize, mitigate approach, as discussed above. 

This would provide a lower level of certainty for sagebrush habitat protection under Alternative 

E than under alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance areas based on habitat 

designations and could lead to greater habitat fragmentation under Alternative E. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects land uses and realty management under Alternative E, in conjunction 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss 

and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 
72

Under Alternative E, travel, transportation and recreation management would essentially remain 

the same as it currently is under Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to mule deer and sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative E are expected to be similar to those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management as it exists under Alternative A would continue under 

Alternative E. The limitation of motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational 

SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road 

construction and upgrading of current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects from travel, 

transportation and recreation management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing 

sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Alternative F 

Vegetation and Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F includes a conservation measure specifically directed at 

invasive plants that would develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring 

sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants. Like Alternative B, Alternative F would manage 

pinyon-juniper encroachment under current direction (see Alternative A). In addition, GRSG 

vegetation management conservation measures would benefit weed and conifer control efforts by 

prioritizing restoration efforts, including reducing invasive plants, and monitoring and 

controlling invasive species after fuels treatments and at existing new range improvements in all 

occupied GRSG habitat (PPH and PGH as opposed to only PPH under Alternative B). Together, 

these measures would result in a net benefit to sagebrush habitat and, therefore, mule deer by 

reducing impacts from invasive plants and pinyon-juniper encroachment on sagebrush habitat, as 

described under Alternative A, more so than Alternative B although the effects of the treatments 

would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on mule deer and sagebrush habitats would continue to 

be outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially increased water availability. 

However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative F 

would provide an added benefit to mule deer. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the 

management actions under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 
73

Livestock Grazing – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative F would include beneficial management actions similar to those of Alternative B 

except they would apply in all GRSG habitats. These include completion of Land Health 

Assessments, consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts on sage-grouse 

habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of riparian areas and 

wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new 

water developments and structural range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, and 

fence removal, modification or marking. Together these efforts would reduce the impacts from 

grazing on mule deer described under Alternative A to a larger degree than Alternative B and 

expand the beneficial impacts discussed under Alternative B over a larger area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans Wild horse and 

burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative F would provide an added 

benefit to mule deer. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse 

and burro management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management 

actions under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase 

impacts to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

 Fire and Fuels – Direct and Indirect Effects 

The types of fire and fuels related impacts of Alternative F on mule deer would be similar to 

those discussed for Alternative B; however because Alternative F expands most GRSG 

conservation elements to all occupied habitat rather than limiting them to PPH, the area over 

which those impacts, both beneficial and negative, could occur would be larger. Elements of 

Alternative F that differ from those of Alternative B, and would be the most likely to result in 

differences in the extent of direct and indirect beneficial and negative impacts on mule deer and 

sagebrush habitat between the two alternatives, include the following: (1) prioritizing 

suppression in all occupied habitat (similar to Alternative C), compared to only PPH; (2) 

excluding livestock grazing from burned areas in GRSG occupied habitat until woody and 

herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives; and (3) applying fuels management 

treatment provisions (including post-fire revegetation and invasive species control) to all 

occupied habitat rather than limiting them to PPH. 
74

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative of management actions under Alternative F, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove or fragment sagebrush habitat 

past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS).

 Wild Horse and Burro Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Wild horse and burro management under Alternative F would be similar to that proposed under 

Alternative B except all conservation measures, but the measure prioritizing gathers in PPH, 

would extend to all occupied GRSG habitat. Therefore, the beneficial impacts on mule deer 

under Alternative F would be the same as those under Alternative B except they would apply to 

all occupied GRSG habitat making Alternative F more protective of mule deer and mule deer

habitat than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Refer to Alternative B. Cumulative effects would be the same. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Energy and locatable minerals development is similar to proposed management under 

Alternative B. Under Alternative F, siting of wind energy development would be prevented in 

PPH; PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable mineral leasing, and 

mineral material sales; it would be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry; no new surface 

occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals and a 3% disturbance cap would 

be applied. Numerous conservation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from 

mineral exploration and development activities in PPH. Like Alternative B, Alternative F does 

not include specific management for locatable, or saleable or nonenergy minerals in PGH. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F directly addresses wind energy and fluid minerals 

development outside of PPH: wind energy would be sited at least five miles from active sagegrouse leks and at least four miles from the perimeter of sage-grouse winter habitat and areas 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks would be closed to new fluid minerals leasing. 

Alternative F, although similar to Alternative B, would reduce the impacts of energy 

development on mule deer and mule deer habitat, as described under Alternative A, more so than 

Alternative B because it addresses siting of wind energy and fluid minerals leasing outside of 

PPH more thoroughly than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of sagebrush habitat, primarily 

within PPH, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under 

Alternatives B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the current energy and locatable 

minerals management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing closures and proposing it for withdrawal 
75

would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals 

development to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions 

under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts 

to mule deer or sagebrush habitat. 

 Land Uses and Realty Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Land uses and realty management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that 

under Alternative B. Please refer to Alternative B. The effects on mule deer and sagebrush 

habitat would be the same.

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative F would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting mule deer rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to 

GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion 

or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

lands and realty management to mule deer in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative 

F, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to mule deer or 

their habitat. 

 

 Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management – Direct and Indirect Effects 

With respect to travel, transportation and recreation, Alternative F is similar to Alternative B: 

within PPH, only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to GRSG would be permitted, 

there would be limited opportunities for new route construction and upgrading of existing routes 

could only occur if they would not result in a new 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. In addition, Alternative F would expand the Alternative B measure restricting motorized 

travel to designated routes in PPH to include PGH, designated routes in sage-grouse priority 

habitat would be considered for closure, camping areas within 4 miles of active leks would 

seasonally be closed, permanent seasonal road or area closures to protect breeding, nesting and 

brood rearing sage-grouse would be implemented and new road construction would be prohibited 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks. Therefore, the general travel, transportation and 

recreation effects of Alternative F on mule deer would be the same as those for Alternatives A 

and B, although Alternative F would be more protective, particularly with respect to reducing 

disturbance to mule deer and protecting sagebrush habitat from degradation and introduction of 

invasive weeds, than Alternative B due to the additional measures. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative F would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat within PPH and, in some instances, PGH and PPH, thereby 
76

benefitting mule deer rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative F, within 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, 

transportation and recreation management direction would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to mule deer in Management 

Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for mule deer, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

substantially increase impacts to mule deer. 

VII. LITERATURE CITED 

Beever, E.A. and C.L. Aldridge. 2011. Influences of free-roaming equids on sagebrush 

ecosystems with a focus on sage grouse In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a 

Landscape Species and its Habitats, Studies in Avian Biology No. 38. U.C. (Berkeley) Press. 

Pages 273-290.

Berger, Joel. 1986. Wild horses of the Great Basin: social competition and population size. 

University of Chicago Press. 348 pages. 

Blomberg, E. J., J.S. Sedinger, M.T. Atamian, and D.V. Nonne. 2012. Characteristics of climate 

and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations. 

Ecosphere 3(6):55, 20pp. 

Braun, C. E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. W. Gashwiler, and M. H. Schroeder. 1976. 

Conservation committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities 

on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bull. 88:165-171. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished Report, Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, WY. 610pp. 

Connelly, J.W., C.A. Hagen, and M.A. Schroeder. 2011a. Characteristics and dynamics of 

greater sage-grouse populations. Pp. 53-68 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (eds). 

Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Connelly, J.W., E.T. Rinkes, and C.E. Braun. 2011b. Characteristics of greater sage-grouse 

habitats: a landscape species at micro and macro scales. Pp. 69-84 in S.T. Knick and 

J.W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape 
77

species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. 

Greater sage-grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. Pp. 293-382 

in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Humboldt National Forest. 2008. MIS & Range Suitability/Capability Analysis Humboldt NF 

Updated MIS Monitoring Report. Unpublished report. 

Miller, R.F. and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fire in juniper and pinyon woodlands: a 

descriptive analysis. Pages 15-30 In Galley, K.E.M. and T.P. Wilson (eds). Proceedings 

of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive 

species. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, 

and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station, 

Tallahassee, FL. 146pp. 

Miller, R.F., S.T. Knick, D.A. Pyke, C.W. Meinke, S.E. Hanser, M.J. Wisdom, and A.L. Hild. 

2011. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation. Pp. 

145-184 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitat. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Available online: 

http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/public_documents/Nevada_Wildlife/Mam

mals.pdf

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 

Sage Books Inc., Denver, CO. 344pp. 

Sage-grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December 21, 2011. 74 pp. 

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. 

Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, C. W. McCarthy, 

J. J. McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of 

sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106:363-373. 

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). 

28 pages In Poole, A. and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 425. The Birds 

of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 
78

Toiyabe National Forest. 2008. MIS & Range Suitability/Capability Analysis Updated MIS 

Monitoring Report For The Western and Central Regions of Toiyabe National Forest. 

Unpublished report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month 

findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened 

or endangered. Federal Register 75(55): 13910-14014. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 

2013.

USDA Forest Service. 1986a. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Humboldt National 

Forest. Elko, Nevada. 883 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986b. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Toiyabe National 

Forest. Sparks, Nevada. 408 pp. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M Rowland, L.H. and Suring. 2005. Habitat Threats in the Sagebrush 

Ecosystem: Methods of Regional Assessment and Applications in the Great Basin. 

Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS. 

Toiyabe National Forest. 2008. MIS & Range Suitability/Capability Analysis Updated MIS 

Monitoring Report For The Western and Central Regions of Toiyabe National Forest. 

Unpublished report. 
Draft 

U.S. Forest Service 

Wildlife and Sensitive Plant Specialists Report

for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Effort to Amend the 

Forest Plans in Nevada 

for the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Plans 

July 4, 2013 

Prepared by: 

Katherine Malengo, Wildlife Biologist 

kmalengo@fs.fed.us

831-385-5434

Kimberly O’Connor, Botanist 

kimberlyoconnor@fs.fed.us

702-515-5423

Chris Colt, Wildlife Biologist 

ccolt@fs.fed.us

208-236-1975
Table of Contents 

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 8

II. PROJECT HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 9

III. PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................... 10

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................... 10

Alternative A:............................................................................................................................ 10

Alternative B: ............................................................................................................................ 10

Alternative C: ............................................................................................................................ 11

Alternative D:............................................................................................................................ 11

Alternative E: ............................................................................................................................ 11

Alternative F: ............................................................................................................................ 12

V. ANALYSIS AREA ............................................................................................................... 12

VII. SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS ........................................................... 14

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES .................. 14

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES ............................................................................ 15

VII. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (Direct, Indirect and 

Cumulative)................................................................................................................................... 34

A. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ....................................................... 34

Life History ........................................................................................................................... 34

Habitat and Population Condition by Forest ......................................................................... 35

Threats by Forest................................................................................................................... 36

Alternative A - No Action......................................................................................................... 37

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 37

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 38

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 39

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 40

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 42

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 43

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 44

Alternative B ............................................................................................................................. 45

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 45

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 46

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 47

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 47
Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 48

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 49

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 50

Alternative C ............................................................................................................................. 51

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 51

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 51

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 52

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 52

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 53

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 53

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 54

Alternative D ............................................................................................................................. 55

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 55

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 56

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 56

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 57

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 58

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 59

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 60

Alternative E ............................................................................................................................. 61

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 61

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 62

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 63

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 64

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 64

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 65

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 66

Alternative F ............................................................................................................................. 67

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 67

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 67

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 68

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 68

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 69

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 70
Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 70

B. Sagebrush-Associated Species ....................................................................................... 71

Bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) ......................................................................................... 71

Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) .............................................................................. 72

Columbia spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) ....................................................................... 72

Townsend’s big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) ......................................................... 73

Alternative A - No Action......................................................................................................... 74

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 74

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 75

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 76

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 77

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 78

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 79

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 80

Alternative B ............................................................................................................................. 81

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 81

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 82

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 82

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 83

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 84

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 85

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 86

Alternative C ............................................................................................................................. 87

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 87

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 87

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 88

Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 88

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 89

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 90

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 90

Alternative D ............................................................................................................................. 91

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 91

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 92

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 93
Wild Horse and Burro Management ..................................................................................... 94

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development ...................................................................... 94

Land Uses and Realty Management ..................................................................................... 96

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management ............................................................ 97

Alternative E ............................................................................................................................. 97

Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................................. 98

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................. 99

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 100

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 100

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 101

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 102

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 103

Alternative F ........................................................................................................................... 103

Vegetation and Soils ........................................................................................................... 103

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................... 104

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 105

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 105

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 105

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 106

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 106

C. SENSITIVE PLANTS.................................................................................................. 107

Antennaria arcuata (Meadow pussytoes) ............................................................................ 107

Asclepias eastwoodiana (Eastwood milkweed) .................................................................. 108

Astragalus lentiginosus var. latus (Broad-pod freckled milkvetch) .................................... 108

Astragalus robbinsii var. occidentalis (Lamoille Canyon milkvetch) ................................ 109

Astragalus toquimanus (Toquima milkvetch) ..................................................................... 109

Astragalus uncialis (Currant milkvetch) ............................................................................. 110

Boechera falcatoria (Grouse Creek rockcress) ................................................................... 110

Botrychium ascendens (Upswept moonwort) ..................................................................... 110

Botrychium crenulatum (Dainty moonwort) ...................................................................... 111

Botrychium lineare (Slender moonwort) ............................................................................ 111

Botrychium tunux (Moosewort) ......................................................................................... 112

Epilobium nevadense (Nevada willowherb) ....................................................................... 113

Eriogonum douglasii var. elkoense (Sunflower Flat buckwheat) ....................................... 113
Eriogonum esmeraldense var. toiyabense (Toiyabe buckwheat) ........................................ 113

Eriogonum lewisii (Lewis's buckwheat) ............................................................................. 114

Jamesia tetrapetala (Basin jamesia) .................................................................................... 114

Lathyrus grimesii (Grimes lathyrus) ................................................................................... 115

Lewisia maguirei (Maguire lewisia) ................................................................................... 115

Penstemon concinnus (Elegant penstemon) ........................................................................ 115

Penstemon moriahensis (Mt. Moriah penstemon) .............................................................. 116

Penstemon pudicus (Bashful penstemon) ........................................................................... 116

Phacelia inconspicua (Inconspicuous phacelia) .................................................................. 117

Phacelia minutissima (Small-flower phacelia) ................................................................... 117

Polyctenium williamsiae (Williams combleaf) ................................................................... 117

Potentilla johnstonii (Sagebrush cinquefoil) ....................................................................... 118

Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. williamsiae (Railroad Valley globemallow) .......................... 118

Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa (Charleston ground daisy) ............................................ 119

Trifolium andinum var. podocephalum (Currant Summit clover) ...................................... 119

Trifolium leibergii (Leiberg’s clover) ................................................................................. 119

Trifolium macilentum var. rollinsii (Rollins clover) .......................................................... 120

Alternative A - No Action....................................................................................................... 120

Vegetation and Soils ........................................................................................................... 120

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................... 121

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 122

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 123

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 125

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 127

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 128

Alternative B ........................................................................................................................... 129

Vegetation and Soils ........................................................................................................... 129

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................... 130

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 131

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 132

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 133

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 134

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 135

Alternative C ........................................................................................................................... 136
Vegetation and Soils ........................................................................................................... 136

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................... 137

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 138

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 139

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 139

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 140

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 142

Alternative D ........................................................................................................................... 142

Vegetation and Soils ........................................................................................................... 142

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................... 143

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 144

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 146

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 147

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 148

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 149

Alternative E ........................................................................................................................... 150

Vegetation and Soils ........................................................................................................... 150

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................... 151

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 152

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 153

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 153

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 154

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 155

Alternative F ........................................................................................................................... 156

Vegetation and Soils ........................................................................................................... 156

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................... 157

Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 158

Wild Horse and Burro Management ................................................................................... 159

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development .................................................................... 159

Land Uses and Realty Management ................................................................................... 160

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management .......................................................... 161

IX. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 161
I. INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this report is to identify the likely effects of the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) 

Planning Decision for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on USDA Forest Service Region 4 

sensitive species. Sensitive species for Region 4 are listed on the Regional Forester’s sensitive 

species list and comprise plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish. Species listed as 

threatened or endangered by the USFWS are addressed in the biological assessment prepared for 

this project. 

This Wildlife and Sensitive Plant Specialists Report addresses sensitive species that meet the 

following criteria: 

1) Species that are known to occur on any of the National Forest system lands listed above 

based on confirmed sightings.

2) Species that may occur on any of the National Forest system lands listed above based on 

reliable unconfirmed sightings. 

3) Species that may occur on any of the National Forest system lands listed above based on 

the presence of potential habitat. 

Forest Service Policy - The USDA Forest Service has developed policy regarding the 

designation of plant and animal species (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670; Supplement 2600-

94-2). The Regional Forester's sensitive species list contains taxa only when they meet one or 

more of the following three criteria: 

1) The species is declining in numbers or occurrences and evidence indicates it could be 

proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or 

stop the downward trend. 

2) The species' habitat is declining and continued loss could result in population declines 

that lead to federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or 

stop the decline. 

3) The species' population or habitat is stable but limited. 

Forest Service Objectives- Under FSM 2672.41, the objectives for completing biological 

evaluations for proposed Forest Service programs or activities are: 

1) To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or 

desired non-native plant or contribute to animal species or trends toward Federal listing 

of any species listed as sensitive by USDA Forest Service Region 2. 

2) To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, actions of Federal 

agencies should not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed 

species. 

3) To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making process, 

and to enhance opportunities for mitigation. 

FSM 2670.22 #2 includes the following objective for sensitive species: “Maintain viable 

populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats 

distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System Lands.” FSM 2600, 

Section 2671.44 (Supplement 2600-94-2) provides direction on the review of actions and 
programs authorized, funded or implemented by the Forest Service relative to the requirements 

of the Endangered Species Act. 

II. PROJECT HISTORY 

Greater Sage-Grouse has emerged as a significant conservation concern over the last 10 years. 

The species is currently a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

inferring that listing is “warranted, but precluded due to higher priorities” because of two 

primary factors: (1) the large-scale loss and fragmentation of habitats across the species range; 

and (2) a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the conservation of the species. The 

primary threats to sage-grouse habitat are summarized in the listing decision. The two dominant 

threats are related to infrastructure associated with energy development in the eastern portion of 

the species range, and the conversion of sagebrush communities to annual grasslands associated 

resulting in large uncharacteristic wildfires in the western portion of the species range (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2010). 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately half of the Greater SageGrouse habitats, whereas the Forest Service (FS) manages approximately 8 percent of species 

habitat, with most of that occurring on national forests in the Intermountain Region. The Forest 

Service manages approximately 9 million acres of sage-brush habitats, of which about 7.5 

million acres occurring in the Intermountain Region. Most habitats on FS administered lands 

contribute to summer brood-rearing habitats, although some forests and grasslands do contribute 

important breeding nesting and winter habitat. 

In 2011 and 2012, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) submitted letters to the 

BLM and FS recommending that the agencies amend Land Use Plans to provide adequate 

regulatory mechanisms to conserve the species. Originally, this recommendation identified 10 

National Forests viewed as “high priority” to ensure appropriate regulatory mechanisms. 

Following scoping and discussion the FS added an additional 10 Forest Plans that would be 

considered for amendment. The FS is participating in several joint Environmental Impact 

Statements (EISs) with the BLM to develop Records of Decision that will be used as a basis for 

amending Land Use Plans, including Forest Plans. 

Since half of all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat occurs on BLM lands, the BLM is leading the 

effort to amend or revise land use plans, with the Forest Service as a cooperating agency. The 

purpose is to provide direction in land management plans that conserve and protect sage-grouse 

habitat and to provide assurances to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that adequate regulatory 

mechanisms are in place to ensure the conservation of the species. EISs will be completed for 

seven sage-grouse planning subregions: 1) eastern Montana and portions of North and South 

Dakota, 2) Idaho and southwest Montana, 3) Oregon, 4) Wyoming, 5) northwest Colorado, 6) 

Utah, and 7) Nevada and northern California. The FS is participating in six of these EISs 

(excluding Eastern Montana/Dakotas and some of the areas in Wyoming). The EISs will include 

joint agency signatures, but separate Records of Decision.” 

This Wildlife and Sensitive Plant Specialists Report is being prepared to address National Forest 

System-administered lands in support of the Nevada and northern California EIS. The 
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada is planning to amend their respective Land and 

Resource Management Plans for the Greater Sage-Grouse. 

III. PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the Land and Resource Management Plan amendments for the Greater SageGrouse is to identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance, 

and/or restore sage-grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to their 

habitat. The need to create this amendment arose when the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the 

Greater Sage-Grouse. The USFWS identified conservation measures within Forest Service Land 

and Resource Management Plans (as well as BLM Land Use Plans) as the principal regulatory 

mechanisms for habitat conservation. Therefore, the Land and Resource Management Plan 

amendments will focus on areas affected by threats to sage-grouse habitat identified by the 

USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision (USFWS 2010). 

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative A: 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Land and Resource Management Plans would not be 

amended. Current plans direction and prevailing conditions set forth in the plans for sage-grouse 

and sagebrush habitats would continue. The No Action Alternative highlights those decisions 

that can be shown to have a direct effect or link to conserving or restoring Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat or sagebrush vegetation communities that support Greater Sage-Grouse throughout its life 

cycle. 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. 

Alternative B: 

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

Conservation Measures [Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) Report 2011] were used 

to form BLM and Forest Service management direction under Alternative B. To ensure BLM 

and Forest Service management actions are effective and based on the best available science, the 

BLM’s National Policy Team created a National Technical Team in August 2011. The BLM’s 

objective for chartering this planning strategy effort was to develop new or revised regulatory 

mechanisms, through land use plans, to conserve and restore Greater Sage‐Grouse and its habitat 

on BLM-administered and National Forest System lands on a range‐wide basis over the long 

term. Conservation measures in the report are focused primarily on Greater Sage‐Grouse 

preliminary priority habitat (PPH) areas. PPH areas have the highest conservation value to 

maintaining or increasing sage‐grouse populations. See Chapter 2 of the DEIS for additional 

information. 
Alternative C: 

During scoping individuals and conservation groups had the opportunity to submit management 

direction recommendations for protection and conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitat. Western Watersheds Project (WWP) submitted a complete alternative proposal in their 

scoping comment letter. The recommendations by WWP, 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 Greater Sage-Grouse under Alternative C. 

Conservation measures in Alternative C are mostly focused on all occupied Greater Sage‐Grouse 

habitat areas: PPH and preliminary general habitat (PGH). Refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS for 

additional information. 

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 modifies the recommendations from the NTT Report to 

provide a balanced level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and 

services to meet ongoing programs and land uses. The goal of the agency developed alternative 

is to provide for no unmitigated loss to sage-grouse. No unmitigated loss is described as follows: 

Continued losses of sage-grouse 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 Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. See Chapter 2 of the 

DEIS for additional information. 

Alternative E: 

Alternative E is based on the State of Nevada’s Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Nevada 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. The goals, 

objectives, and actions under Alternative E reflect concurrent state-level planning efforts for the 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. Since state-level planning efforts focus on all 

lands within the state, regardless of ownership, certain actions under Alternative E would not be 

legally implementable on public lands unless these lands were incorporated into the federal 

decision. 

The Nevada State Plan identifies 15 sage-grouse management areas (SGMAs) located across the 

state (refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS). The Sage-Grouse Management Area map defines the 

overall area where the state would like resources to be managed to maintain and expand SageGrouse populations (refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS). The State of Nevada Sage-Grouse 

Management Area map is based on the best biological information and knowledge at this time, 

taking into account the 85 percent breeding bird density, Nevada Department of Wildlife’s 
(NDOW’s) Preliminary Priority and General Habitat maps, and areas of known resource 

conflicts. Refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS for additional information. 

Alternative F: 

Similar to Alternative C, Alternative F is based on recommendations submitted by individuals 

and conservation groups (including Wild Earth Guardians) for the protection and conservation of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. Alternative F includes similar goals, objectives, and actions 

as Alternative C, but with notable differences, particularly related to grazing, lands and realty, 

and minerals. Like Alternative C, conservation measures in Alternative F are mostly focused on 

all occupied Greater Sage‐Grouse habitat areas (PPH and PGH). See Chapter 2 of the DEIS for 

additional information. 

V. ANALYSIS AREA 

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

decisions during this planning effort. The planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of 

jurisdiction (Figure 1). For the EIS and LUP amendments, the planning area is the entire subregion. Lands addressed in the LUP amendments will be lands (including surface and split estate 

lands with BLM subsurface mineral rights) managed by the BLM and Forest Service in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats. Any decisions in the LUP amendments will apply only to BLM-or Forest 

Service-administered lands (Decision Area). The LUP amendments will be limited to making 

land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat. 

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest administers two forest LRMPs that will also be amended 

by this LUP amendment/EIS. Lands within the planning area include a mix of private, federal, 

and state lands. 

The planning area incorporates PPH and PGH (Figure 2). Though the planning area includes 

private lands, decisions in this amendment are made only for BLM-administered, and Forest 

Service-administered lands. Management direction and actions outlined in the EIS apply only to 

these BLM-and Forest Service-administered lands in the planning area and to federal mineral 

estate under BLM jurisdiction that may lie beneath other surface ownership. See Chapter 1 of the 

DEIS. This analysis focuses solely on National Forest-administered lands within the analysis 

area. 
Figure 1. Nevada and northeastern California EIS analysis area showing National Forest-administered lands 
Figure 2. Nevada and northeastern California analysis showing PPH, PGH and Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management zones 
VII. SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES 

A Biological Assessment (BA) will be prepared for the selected alternative developed for the 

Record of Decision and will be included with the FEIS developed for this project. The BA will 

conform to the legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA requires 

federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a) 

(2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment must be prepared for federal actions to 

evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species. The contents of the 

BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature of the federal action 

(50 CFR 402.12(f)). 

A BA is not included with this DEIS. This section of the Wildlife Specialist Report provides 

preliminary background information that will be utilized in the development of a BA, for the 

selected alternative, and also provides insight into the currently anticipated effects to threatened, 

endangered, proposed and candidate species. Species identified by the USFWS as ‘candidate’ 

species have no ESA protections but by USFS policy, they are designated as Regional Forester 

‘sensitive species’ and afforded special management attention by the US Forest Service. They 

are analyzed in the Biological Evaluation developed for the FEIS and are discussed in the 

sensitive species section of this specialist report, if they occur on the RNF. 

A list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate (TEPC) species was determined for 

this project in consultation with the USFWS. Close coordination with USFWS will continue 

throughout the project. Table 1 is the list of TEPC species likely to be included in the Biological 

Assessment prepared for the selected alternative. Overall it is generally assumed that 

implementation of any of the action alternatives that adds additional conservation measures for 

greater sage-grouse may also result in indirect positive outcome for other listed species 

associated with sage-grouse or sagebrush habitats, if they occur in the area where the 

conservation measures are applied. Negative consequences to other listed species are not 

envisioned as an outcome of selection of any of the alternatives. 

Table 1. Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species in the planning 

area. 

Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat 

in Planning Area

 Birds

Yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate Coccyzus americanus

Greater sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus Candidate
Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat 

in Planning Area

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Yes

Yuma clapper rail

Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered

 Fishs

Bull trout

Salvelinus confluentus Threatened

Lahontan cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Threatened

Warner sucker

Catostomus warnerensis Threatened

Cui-ui

Chasmistes cujus Endangered

Desert dace

Eremichthys acros Threatened Yes

Clover Valley speckled dace

Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus Endangered

Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish

Cyrpinodon nevadensis mionectes Endangered

Ash Meadows speckled dace

Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis Endangered

White River spinedace

Lepidomeda albivalis Endangered Yes

Warm Springs pupfish

Cyrpinodon nevadensis pectoralis Endangered

Hiko White River springfish

Crenichthys baileyi grandis Endangered Yes

 Insects

Carson wandering skipper

Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Endangered

 Reptiles and Amphibians

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris Candidate

Oregon spotted frog

Rana pretiosa Candidate

 Plants

Steamboat buckwheat

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae Endangered

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES 

The following sensitive species list is composed of plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, fish, and 

invertebrates. We conducted a review for Region 4 sensitive species occurring within the 

Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests that may overlap with the range of the GRSG or be 

affected by activities associated with the Planning EIS and subsequent Region 4 Plan 

Amendments for the Greater Sage-Grouse. Existing occurrence information, as well as known 

or potential habitat, was obtained from Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada 
Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO), Nevada Bat Working 

Group, Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP), and NatureServe (2010, 2013). 

Table 2 lists Forest Service sensitive species known or suspected to exist on the aforementioned 

national forests. Threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species are addressed 

separately in the biological assessment prepared for this project. All of the species in Table 2 

were considered in this analysis and compared to the five criteria listed below. The five criteria 

were used to identify species that would experience “no impact” from the implementation of the 

action alternatives and could therefore be eliminated from detailed analysis. These numerical 

categories below are referred to in Table 2: 

1 Analysis area is outside species’ range. 

2 Potential habitat for the species does not exist within greater sage-grouse habitat 

(sagebrush-steppe) or is outside the elevation range of the greater sage-grouse. 

3 The type or intensity of the activity in the proposed action is expected to have no 

impact/effect on these species or their habitat. 

4 Individual animals may be accidental, dispersing, migrating, happenstance, vagrant, 

nomadic or opportunistic visitors to the habitat(s) impacted by the proposal, but no 

affiliation or dependence upon these habitat(s) has been shown. 

5 The associated conservation design or mitigations eliminate any potential for impact to 

the species. 

Species in Table 2 are likely to occur within or near the analysis area, or with potential habitat in 

or near the analysis area that may be affected (negatively or positively, directly, indirectly and/or 

cumulatively) by implementation of an action alternative were it carried forward into Table 3, 

and a more detailed analysis of the project effects was subsequently conducted. 
Table 2. USDA Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species occurring or potentially occurring on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest that may be influenced by an action alternative and will be further analyzed in this document. 

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

USFS REGION 4 SENSITIVE SPECIES

 MAMMALS

Bighorn sheep (includes Rocky

Mountain bighorn sheep, 

California bighorn sheep and 

desert bighorn sheep)

Ovis Canadensis (includes O. c. 

canadensis, O. c., californiana, 

and O. c. nelson)

All subspecies rely on steep, high elevation habitats for spring 

and summer, including lambing. In winter, they move to lower 

elevations. Species also uses open areas of desert scrub, 

grasslands, shrub-steppe, cliffs, canyons, alpine, tundra, and 

barren landscapes. Migrates through Greater sage-grouse 

habitat.

Y Not excluded No impact

Pygmy rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis

Typically found in dense stands of big sagebrush growing in 

deep loose soils (4,500 to 7,450 feet) in desert, shrubland, 

chaparral, sagebrush communities

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

Found in various habitats from low elevation desert scrub to 

high-elevation coniferous forest habitats, including pinyonjuniper, sagebrush or riparian habitats. Closely associated 

with rocky cliffs. 

Y Not excluded

See detailed analysis 

below

North American wolverine

Gulo gulo (luscus)

Remote habitats within subalpine and montane forests N 2 No impact

Townsend's western big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii 

townsendii

Current Nevada records indicate this species is distributed 

between 210 – 3,500 m (mean = 1,720 m +/- 421 m) primarily 

in pinyon-juniper-mahogany, white fir, blackbrush, sagebrush, 

salt desert scrub, agricultural, and occasionally in urban 

habitats.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Sierra Nevada red fox

Vulpes vulpes necator

Restricted to Sierra Nevada. N 1 No impact

 BIRDS

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Found in coniferous forest and intermountain rivers and 

streams; nest in large trees near water, such as rivers, lakes, 

and coast shorelines, where they prey upon fish and 

waterfowl.

Y 4 No Impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Greater Sage-Grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus

Habitats used in Nevada include sagebrush, montane 

shrubland, wet meadow; agriculture, springs; montane 

riparian, aspen; and Great Basin Lowland Riparian with 

sagebrush species (esp. Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big 

sagebrush, and low sagebrush), flowering forbs, agricultural 

crops (particularly alfalfa), variety of montane shrubs, aspen, 

alder, willow

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

At present, peregrine falcons in Nevada are concentrated 

around the Lake Mead NRA, where they nest on earthen and 

rock cliffs surrounding the reservoir. Their current range is 

likely related to limited recovery rather than habitat 

availability. They are occasionally found in other areas further 

north.

Y 4 No Impact

Mountain quail

Oreortyx pictus

Not closely tied to any single habitat type, but instead tied to 

dense montane shrub and forb cover. Steep landscapes with 

intact coniferous forests, deciduous woodlands, and montane 

shrublands that exist in proximity to a stream represent ideal 

conditions. Patchy distribution. Overlaps with Greater sagegrouse in montane shrubland, but utilizes steeper terrain and 

different cover type (dense, tall shrubs vs. sagebrush) than 

GRSG.

Y 2, 3 No Impact

Flammulated owl

Otus flammeolus

Hardwood and mixed forests, and hardwood and mixed 

woodlands; dense oak and oak-pine woodlands, from 6,000 to 

10,000 feet. Typically nest in a variety of older conifer or 

aspen stands.

N 2 No Impact

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus

Restricted to the Carson Range of western Nevada, which is 

the eastern edge of their range. N 2 No impact

Three-toed woodpecker

Picoides tridactylus

Mature stands with bark beetles, disease, and heart rot and 

recent stand-replacing burns with

abundant wood-boring insects 

N 2 No impact

Great gray owl 

Strix nebulosa

Mature forests that provide suitable nesting sites and foraging 

areas (seedling forests, meadows, and open riparian habitats 

adjacent to meadows), and large-diameter

trees or snags

N 2 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

California Spotted Owl

Strix occidentalis occidentalis

Primarily on the east side of the Sierra Crest, plus a few in the 

Carson Range. They are associated with large contiguous 

tracts of old-growth or late-seral coniferous forest.

N 1 No impact

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

Typically inhabit late seral or old growth forests that have 

closed canopies (greater than 40 percent) and a relatively open 

understory. Goshawks are primarily nest in aspen (Populus 

tremuloides), but in Nevada, they sometimes nest in conifers. 

Goshawks use a wide variety of habitats for foraging.

N 2 No impact

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

Large blocks of riparian habitat with a dense understory of 

foliage. Their range is south of the range of the Greater sagegrouse.N 2 No impact

 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris

Highly aquatic; within vicinity of relatively cold, perennial 

water (streams, rivers, springs and small lakes) of both woods 

and meadows

Y 3

1 No impact

Yosemite toad

Bufo canorus

Occurs only in high Sierra Nevada, CA, wet mountain 

meadows and borders of forests from the vicinity of Grass 

Lake (Eldorado County) to south of Kaiser Pass and Evolution 

Lake (Fresno County), at elevations 1,460-3,630 meters 

(mostly above 2,740 meters) 

N 1 No impact

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Rana sierrae

East of the Sierra Nevada crest, R. sierrae occurs in the Glass 

Mountains just south of Mono Lake (Mono County) and along 

the east slope of the Sierra Nevada south to the type locality at 

Matlock Lake (Inyo County). Rana sierrae is now extirpated 

from NVand from large portions of the historical range in the 

Sierra Nevada of CA.

N 1 No impact

 FISH

 

1

 Subsequent review of the alternatives indicates that this species will experience no effects to its primary habitat or populations. None of the alternatives is 

expected to impact any of the identified limiting factor s for this species or its life requirements. Based on these factors, the Columbia spotted frog will not be 

analyzed in additional detail. 
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Bonneville cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus clarkii utah

Bonneville Basin in relatively cool, well-oxygenated water 

with clean, well-sorted gravels and minimal fine sediments. Y 3

2 No impact

 INSECTS

Spring Mountains acastus 

checkerspot

Chlosyne acastus robusta

Arid, relatively open areas within pinyon-juniper woodlands 

and conifer woodlands in patches of yellow rabbitbtrush, the 

species’ larval host plant, intermixed with big sagebrush, 

mountain mahogany, sulfur-flower buckwheat, and/or rubber 

rabbitbrush. 5,970-8,730 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1 No impact

Spring Mountains dark blue

Euphilotes ancilla purpura

Relatively open pinyon-juniper where scattered patches of 

sulfur-flower buckwheat, the species’ larval host plant, occur 

in association with blackbrush at lower elevations and big 

sagebrush and mountain mahogany at higher elevations. 

5,900-8,200 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1 No impact

Morand's checkerspot

Euphydryas anicia morandi

Meadows, avalanche chutes and revegetated burned areas 

composed of bristlecone pine, mixed conifer, and pinyonjuniper vegetation. 6,690-11,290 ft. Endemic to Spring 

Mountains.

N 1 No impact

Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly

Plebejus (=Icaricia) shasta 

charlestonensis

Open habitats on flat or moderately sloped ridges, hilltops, or 

meadows surrounded by bristlecone pine, white fir, or 

ponderosa pine forest. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1 No impact

 PLANTS

Angelica scabrida Charleston 

angelica

Moist calcareous-based substrates in montane coniferous 

forest communities and near springs on moist gravelly soils of 

washes, ephemeral streams, gullies, montane slopes and 

avalanche chutes. 4,040-9,350 ft. Endemic to Spring 

Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Antennaria arcuata

Meadow pussytoes

Seasonally moist areas in alkaline meadows, seeps, & springs, 

surrounded by silver sagebrush & grassland associations 

between 6,200 and 6,500 ft. Elko County NV. Also in ID and 

WY.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

 

2

 Subsequent review of the alternatives indicates that this species will experience no effects to its primary habitat or populations. None of the alternatives is 

expected to impact any of the identified limiting factor s for this species or its life requirements. Based on these factors, the Bonneville cutthroat trout will not be 

analyzed in additional detail. 
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Antennaria soliceps

Charleston pussytoes

Open carbonate scree, talus, gravel, and crevices in the 

subalpine conifer, lower alpine, and upper montane conifer 

zones. 8,660-11,650 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Arenaria kingii ssp. rosea

Rosy King's Sandwort

Wooded slopes and ridges and associated with pinyon-juniper, 

montane coniferous forest, and lower subalpine coniferous 

zones. 6,560-9,550 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1 No impact

Asclepias eastwoodiana

Eastwood milkweed

Mixed desert shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper in open 

areas frequently in small washes or other moistureaccumulating microsites. 3,000-7,080 ft. Nevada endemic 

documented from Esmeralda, Lander, Lincoln, and Nye 

Counties.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Astragalus aequalis

Clokey milkvetch

Pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, ponderosa pine on basic 

soils, including alkaline clay and sand, gypsum, calcareous 

alluvial gravels, and carbonate rock outcrops. 5,970-8,400 ft. 

Endemic to Spring Mountains

N 1 No impact

Astragalus johannis-howellii

Long Valley milkvetch

Sagebrush on sandy rhyolitic soils on flats and gentle slopes,

usually in swales of former or present hot springs. 6,700-8,400 

ft. NV distribution limited to Mineral County. Also in CA.

N 1 No impact

Astragalus lentiginosus var. latus

Broad-pod freckled milkvetch

Pinyon-juniper on gravelly or sandy calcareous soils, 

generally on moderate to steep slopes. 5,700 to 9,900 ft. NV 

endemic documented from Elko and White Pine Counties.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Astragalus oophorus var. 

clokeyanus

Lee Canyon milkvetch

Pinyon-juniper and mixed conifer communities on moist to 

dry soils, in openings of forests, shrublands, and woodlands. 

5,400-8,990 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1 No impact

Astragalus oophorus var. lavinii

Lavin's Egg milkvetch

Pinyon-juniper and sagebrush on relatively barren slopes, 

knolls, badlands, or outcrops, derived from volcanic ash or 

carbonate, usually on northeast to southeast aspects. 5,700 -

7,467 ft. In NV known only from Douglas, Lyon and Mineral 

Counties.

N 1 No impact

Astragalus remotus

Spring Mountain milkvetch

Low elevation juniper, creosote, scrub oak, serviceberry on 

rocky, gravelly, and/or sandy calcareous soils in washes and 

drainages or on hillsides or rocky ledges. 3,400-7,050 ft. 

Documented from Spring Mountains in Clark County NV and 

Belted Range and Pahute Mesa in southern Nye County.

N 1 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Astragalus robbinsii var. 

occidentalis

Lamoille Canyon milkvetch

Willow, aspen or shrubby cinquefoil communities in moist to 

seasonally dry sandy loam soils in seeps, riparian strips, 

stream banks, and high-elevation meadow margins. 6,050-

10,000 ft. Endemic to Ruby and east Humboldt Mountains in 

Elko County.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Astragalus toquimanus

Toquima milkvetch

Pinyon-juniper, sagebrush typically on gravelly hillsides with 

gentle slopes in basic or calcareous soils. 6,480-7,520 ft. NV 

endemic documented from Nye County.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Astragalus uncialis

Currant milkvetch

Desert shrub and sagebrush on knolls, gullied foothills, stony 

washes, saline flats, gently sloping hillsides, and alluvial fans 

in calcareous sandy-clay or gravelly alkaline soils. 4,800-

6,050 ft. In NV documented from Nye County. Also in UT.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Boechera (=Arabis) bodiensis

Bodie Hills rockcress

Pinyon-juniper, mountain sagebrush, subalpine, alpine on dry, 

open, rocky, high or north-facing slopes or exposed summits 

of granitic or rhyolitic material. 6,720-9,970 ft. In NV known 

only from western Mineral County.

N 1 No impact

Boechera (=Arabis) falcatoria

Grouse Creek rockcress

Exposed gravelly wind-swept passes with low sagebrush in 

mountain mahogany, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper 

associations. 6,600-9,000 ft. In NV, restricted to Ruby 

Mountains. Also documented from UT.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Boechera (=Arabis) nevadensis

Spring Mountains rockcress

Ledges and talus of limestone cliffs. 9,842-11,159 ft. 

Endemic to Spring Mountains. N 1, 2 No impact

Boechera (=Arabis) ophira

Ophir rockcress

Mountain sagebrush, subalpine conifer, and alpine zones in 

loamy soil pockets on exposed talus or scree or in rocky areas 

on south- to west-facing ridge lines and upper slopes. 9,960 to 

10,520 ft. Endemic to Toiyabe Range in Lander and Nye 

Counties.

Y 2 No impact

Boechera (=Arabis) rectissima

var. simulans

Washoe tall rockcress

Jeffrey Pine-Sierra Nevada White fir forests on dry, deep, 

sandy, granitic or andesitic soils on mostly gentle slopes of all 

aspects, in full or filtered sunlight of thinly littered openings. 

6,035-7,335 ft. Endemic to northern Carson Range.

N 1, 2 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Boechera (=Arabis) rigidissima

var. demota

Galena Creek rockcress

Fir, pine, and aspen communities on sandy to rocky soils or 

outcrops derived from granitic or volcanic materials often in 

drainage ways, near meadow edges or other moisture 

accumulating microsites. 7,020-10,020 ft. Endemic to 

northern Carson Range.

N 1, 2 No impact

Boechera (=Arabis) tiehmii

Tiehm rockcress

Alpine boulder and rock fields, soil pockets within talus 

slopes, and slopes of decomposed granite. Over 9,000 ft. In 

NV known only from Mt. Rose area in northern Carson 

Range.

N 1, 2 No impact

Botrychium ascendens

Upswept moonwort

Riparian areas, seeps, and springs primarily in open habitats, 

such as alpine meadows, avalanche meadows, and grassy 

roadsides. 8,136-11,646. in NV. In NV documented from 

Spring Mountains on HT. Also occurs at Cooney Lake on 

Bridgeport RD in CA. Distribution includes AK, CA, MN, 

MT, OR, WY, Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, 

Ontario, Quebec, and Yukon Territory.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Botrychium crenulatum

Dainty moonwort

Riparian areas, seeps, and springs in very moist sites with 

saturated soil and dense herbaceous vegetation. 8,136 to 

11,154 in NV. In NV documented from Jarbidge and Ruby 

Mountains RDs and SMNRA on HT. Also in AZ, CA, ID MT, 

OR, UT, WA, WY, British Columbia, and Alberta.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Botrychium lineare

Slender moonwort

Riparian areas, seeps, and springs in a variety of areas ranging 

from limestone cliffs and gravelly beaches to wet meadows 

and forest understory. 8,497-9,776 ft. in NV. In NV, 

documented from Spring Mountains. Also occurs in AK, CA, 

CO, SD, MT, UT, WA, WY, Yukon Territory, and historically 

in New Brunswick and Quebec.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Botrychium tunux

Moosewort

Riparian areas, seeps, and springs in disjunct areas, including 

low elevation coastal beaches and dunes in Alaska, welldrained rocky meadows in California, and sparsely vegetated 

alpine scree slopes in Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. 

9,186-9,842 ft. in NV. On HT documented from Spring 

Mountains and Bridgeport Ranger District.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Carex tiogana

Tioga pass sedge

Alpine on terraces next to lakes, meadows, and other mesic 

sites. 10,100-10,900 ft. Endemic to Sierra Nevada in CA. N 1, 2 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Cusickiella quadricostata

Bodie Hills draba

Great Basin scrub, including low sagebrush, grasslands, 

pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, on clay or rocky soils on 

flats and rolling hills. 6,000-8,500 ft. NV distribution limited 

to western Douglas, Lyon & Mineral Counties

N 1 No impact

Cymopterus goodrichii

Goodrich biscuitroot

Upper subalpine and lower alpine on moderate to steep scree 

and talus slopes of dark angular slate or limestone. 7,300-

11,100 ft. NV endemic documented from Lander, Nye, and 

Pershing Counties.

Y 2 No impact

Draba arida

Arid draba

Subalpine conifer and lower alpine in rock crevices, scree, 

snow-bank areas, rocky soils, loam, or forest litter on gentle to 

steep slopes of all aspects. Often with limber pine. 7,350-

11,100 ft. NV endemic documented from Lander and Nye 

Counties.

Y 2 No impact

Draba asterophora var. 

asterophora

Star draba

Subalpine conifer zone on granite rock crevices, talus, scree, 

rocky decomposed granite, or volcanic soils on steep slopes, 

mostly on north to east aspects. 8,000-10,200 ft. Endemic to 

Sierra Nevada.

N 1, 2 No impact

Draba brachystylis

Wasatch Draba

Montane coniferous forest and bristlecone pine communities 

in moist to damp rocky pockets and soils on drainage banks, 

steep drainage areas, and avalanche chutes where snowdrifts 

remain until late winter. 7,874-9,022 ft. in NV. In NV, 

restricted to Spring Mountains. Also in UT.

N 1, 2 No impact

Draba jaegeri

Jaeger draba

Subalpine conifer, lower alpine, and occasionally upper 

montane conifer zones, most often in the understory of 

bristlecone pine forest on dry carbonate scree, talus, crevices, 

and coarse rocky soils on ridges and steep north-facing slopes. 

8,370-11,650 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Draba oreibata var. serpentina

Serpentine draba

Lower alpine and upper subalpine conifer in dry quartizite 

cliff crevices, and on ledges, talus, and rocky slopes. 10,000-

11,926 ft. NV endemic documented from Lander and White 

Pine Counties.

Y 2 No impact

Draba paucifructa

Charleston draba

Alpine and bristlecone pine communities in moist places, on 

rock ledges, along avalanche chutes, and in seeps. 8,700-

11,300 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Draba pennellii

Pennell draba

Pinyon-juniper, subalpine, and alpine on crevices and ledges 

of carbonate or quartzite cliffs, outcrop faces, and ridges in the 

zones. 6,200 to 11,800 ft. Endemic to White Pine County.

Y 3

3 No impact

Epilobium nevadense

Nevada willowherb

Pinyon pine and ponderosa pine communities on limestone 

talus slopes and rock outcrops. 6,000-8,930 ft. in NV. 

Documented from Clark, Eureka, and Lincoln Counties NV. 

Also in UT.

Y Not excluded No impact

Ericameria compacta

(=Haplopappus compactus)

Spring Mountain goldenweed

Ponderosa pine, limber pine and bristlecone pine in sheltered 

areas on sparsely timbered slopes. 2,850-11,350 ft. Endemic to 

Spring and Sheep Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Erigeron cavernensis

Snake Mountain erigeron

Montane conifer and subalpine conifer zones on limestone 

cliffs, outcrops, crevices, and rubble often in limber pine and 

bristlecone pine communities. 6,890 to 11,155 ft. NV 

endemic documented from White Pine County.

Y 2 No impact

Eriogonum douglasii var. 

elkoense

Sunflower Flat buckwheat

Mixed grassland and sagebrush communities on sandy to 

gravelly flats and slopes. 6,200 to 6,900 ft. Narrow endemic to 

Sunflower Flat area in northwestern Elko County.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Eriogonum esmeraldense var. 

toiyabense

Toiyabe buckwheat

Pinyon-juniper, mountain sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and 

subalpine conifer on steep, loose slopes derived from rhyolitic 

or andesiteic volcanic materials, frequently on white ash 

deposits. 6,900 -10,500 ft. NV endemic documented from 

Eureka, Lander, and Nye Counties.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Eriogonum heermannii var. 

clokeyi

Clokey buckwheat

Creosote-bursage, shadcale, and blackbrush on carbonate 

outcrops, talus, scree, and gravelly washes and banks. 4,000-

6,000 ft. Documented only from Spring & Sheep Mtns in 

Clark County & DOE lands in southern Nye County.

N 1, 2 No impact

Eriogonum lewisii

Lewis's buckwheat

Mountain or low sagebrush on dry, exposed, shallow, 

relatively barren, undisturbed, rocky soils on convex ridge-line 

knolls and crests underlain by siliceous carbonate rocks, on 

flat to moderately steep slopes of all aspects. Clay hills at 

lower elevations. 6,470-9,720 ft. NV endemic documented 

from Elko and Eureka Counties.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

 

3

 Although Pennell draba occurs within sagebrush and pinyon-juniper vegetation, it occurs in crevices and ledges of carbonate or quartzite cliffs, outcrop faces, 

and ridges occurs on near vertical limestone cliffs and in talus at base of cliffs, which do not constitute greater sage grouse habitat. 
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Eriogonum robustum

Altered andesite buckwheat

Restricted to andesitic soils on barren ridges, knolls and steep 

slopes. 4,410-7,325 ft. NV narrow endemic documented from 

Storey County and southwestern Washoe County.

N 1 No impact

Glossopetalon clokeyi

Clokey greasebush

Pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, ponderosa pine, white fir, limber 

pine, and bristlecone pine communities on vertical and nearvertical limestone cliff faces and ledges. 6,594-9678 ft. 

Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1 No impact

Glossopetalon pungens var. 

glabra (=G.pungens)

Smooth dwarf greasebrush

Pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, and montane conifer on vertical 

crevices of limestone cliff faces and rocky slopes or outcrops. 

6,000-7,800 ft. Distribution limited to Clark Mtns CA and 

Spring & Sheep Mtns NV.

N 1 No impact

Ivesia aperta var. aperta

Sierra Valley ivesia

Yellow pine, mountain sagebrush, and mountain mahogany 

zones on vernally saturated sites, such as meadow flats and 

borders and ephemeral channels. NV populations are restricted 

to shallow, slow draining soils of volcanic origin. 6,460-7,300 

ft. in NV. Documented from Carson and Virginia Ranges and 

Peavine Mtn NV. Also in CA.

N 1 No impact

Ivesia aperta var. canina

Dog Valley ivesia

Yellow pine forest on vernally saturated sites, including 

meadow flats, borders of gently sloping openings, and 

ephemeral channels on soils with sandy loam and slightly 

acidic surface layer. 5,249-6,561 ft. Endemic to Dog Valley, 

CA.

N 1, 2 No impact

Ivesia cryptocaulis

Charleston ivesia

Subalpine bristlecone pine and alpine on moist to dry 

carbonate scree, talus, outcrops, and gravelly soils on steep 

slopes, ridges, and alpine flats. 10,890-11,915 ft. Endemic to 

Spring Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Ivesia jaegeri

Jaeger ivesia

Pinyon pine, ponderosa pine, bristlecone pine, mountain 

mahogany communities on limestone and sandstone cliffs and 

crevices. 5,200-11,060 ft. in NV. NV distribution limited to 

Spring Mountains. Also in CA.

N 1, 2 No impact

Ivesia sericoleuca

Plumas ivesia

Sagebrush scrub, yellow pine forest, freshwater wetlands, and 

wetland-riparian communities associated with seasonally wet 

meadows, meadow ecotones, terraces and toeslopes on 

primarily volcanic soils. 4,297-7,217 ft. Endemic to 

California.

N 1 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Ivesia webberi

Webber ivesia

Low sagebrush in full sun on gentle slopes (<15%) in sparsely 

vegetated areas. 4,000-5,950 ft. NV distribution limited to 

Peavine Mtn, Carson Range and Pine Nut Mtns.

N 1 No impact

Jamesia tetrapetala

Basin jamesia

Pinyon-juniper to subalpine in cracks and crevices of 

limestone outcrops and talus at cliff bases. 6,560-10,800 ft. 

Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties NV. Also in UT.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Lathyrus grimesii

Grimes lathyrus

Sagebrush, mountain shrub on dry, open, shallow, silty clay 

soils usually overlain by a thin scree of reddish to yellowish 

brown gravel, stone, and clay that form relatively barren 

patches on mostly steep slopes of all aspects with a sparse to 

moderately dense vegetation association. 6,000-8,300 ft. 

Endemic to Elko County, NV.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Lesquerella hitchcockii var. 

hitchcockii (=Physaria 

hitchcockii var. hitchcockii)

Hitchcock bladderpod

Pinyon-juniper to the subalpine conifer zones on dry, gravelly, 

carbonate soils, scree, talus, and outcrops on knolls, flats, and 

slopes. 7,000-11,710 ft. Documented in NV from Spring and 

Sheep Mountains. May also include occurrences on Table 

Cliff Plateau UT.

N 1, 2 No impact

Lewisia maguirei

Maguire lewisia

Pinyon-juniper on dry, sparsely vegetated carbonate scree or 

shallow gravelly-clay soils on steep slopes and ridgelines. 

7,360 to 8,280 ft. Endemic to Grant-Quinn Range in Nye 

County NV.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Meesia triquetra

Three-ranked hump-moss

Upper montane coniferous forest and subalpine coniferous 

forest in bogs, fens, meadows, and seeps. 4,250-9,700 ft. 

Distribution limited to Sierra Nevada bioregion.

N 1, 2 No impact

Orthotrichum shevockii

Shevock rockmoss

Joshua tree woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland, and Jeffrey 

pine forest on underhangs or in crevices of granitic rock in 

filtered light. 3,600-5,250 ft. Endemic to Eastern to Central 

Sierra Nevada and Western edge of Nevada in the Carson 

Range.

N 1 No impact

Orthotrichum spjutii

Spjut’s brittle-moss

Lower montane coniferous forest, pinyon and juniper 

woodland, subalpine coniferous forest, upper montane 

coniferous forest in shaded areas near stream beds and in 

canyons on deciduous trees and rarely on shaded rocks. 6,890-

8,500 ft. Endemic to CA.

N 1 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Penstemon arenarius

Dune penstemon

Desert shrub on deep, loose sandy soils of valley bottoms, 

aeolian deposits, and dune skirts, often in alkaline areas, 

sometimes on road banks and other recovering disturbances. 

3,920-5,960 ft. NV endemic documented from Churchill, 

Mineral, and Nye Counties.

N 2 No impact

Penstemon concinnus

Elegant penstemon

Pinyon-juniper woodlands in gravelly, alluvial soils. 5,925 to 

7,700 ft. Lincoln and White Pine Counties NV. Also in UT. Y Not excluded See detailed analysis below

Penstemon leiophyllus var. keckii

Charleston beardtongue

Limber pine, bristlecone pine, and aspen in unvegetated 

gravelly areas or open meadows at or near timberline. 2,980-

11,480 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1 No impact

Penstemon moriahensis

Mt. Moriah penstemon

Subalpine, mountain mahogany, ponderosa pine, and upper 

pinyon-juniper on open, gravelly and/or silty carbonate soils in 

drainages, on gentle slopes, and on road banks or other 

recovering disturbances with enhanced runoff. 7,100 to 

10,800 ft. NV endemic documented from White Pine County.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Penstemon pudicus

Bashful penstemon

Mountain sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and pinyon juniper 

in crevices, soil pockets, and coarse rocky soils of felsic 

volcanic outcrops, boulder piles, steep protected slopes, and 

drainage bottoms. 7,500-9,000 ft. NV endemic documented 

from Nye County.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Penstemon rhizomatosus

Rhizome beardtongue

Subalpine conifer in crevices of cliffs and outcrops, or silty 

loam soil pockets in talus or scree of carbonate rocks on steep 

slopes. 10,000-11,250 ft. Narrow endemic within White Pine 

County.

Y 2 No impact

Penstemon rubicundus

Wassuk beardtongue

Desert scrub, sagebrush, pinyon-juniper on open, rocky to 

gravelly soils on perched tufa shores, steep decomposed 

granite slopes, rocky drainage bottoms, and recovering 

disturbances with enhanced runoff. 4,200-6,850 ft. NV 

endemic with distribution limited to Douglas, Mineral and 

Esmeralda Counties.

N 1 No impact

Penstemon thompsoniae ssp. 

jaegeri

Jaeger beardtongue

Pinyon-juniper to the subalpine conifer zones on gravelly 

limestone banks, hillsides, knolls, or slopes, in drainages, and 

under conifers. 5,577-11,060 ft. Endemic to Spring and Sheep 

Mountains.

N 1 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Phacelia inconspicua

Inconspicuous phacelia

Mountain big sagebrush in small clearings on deep, 

undisturbed soils with high organic content on steep concave 

north to northeast facing slopes where moisture and snow 

accumulate. 5,000-8,280 ft. in NV. In NV known only from 

northern Humboldt Range, Pershing County. Also in ID.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Phacelia minutissima

Small-flower phacelia

Riparian areas in vernally saturated, summer-drying, sparsely 

vegetated, partially shaded to fully exposed areas of bare soil 

and mud banks in meadows, at perimeters of corn lily, muleears, and/or aspen, and on ephemeral stream banks. 6,240-

8,900 ft. in NV. Elko and Eureka Counties NV. Also in ID 

and WA.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below.

Phacelia monoensis

Mono phacelia

Pinyon-juniper, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush on 

alkaline, barren or sparsely vegetated shrink-swell clays. 

6,000-9,000 ft. NV distribution limited to Esmeralda, Lyon 

and Mineral Counties.

N 1 No impact

Whitebark pine 

Pinus albicaulis

Subalpine on dry, rocky sites, ledges, and cliff faces often with 

white pine, limber pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir. 6,800-

10,750 in NV.

Y 2 No impact

Plagiobothrys glomeratus

Altered andesite popcorn flower

Sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, and montane conifer zones. 

Restricted to altered andesite soils. 4,860-6,650 ft. Western 

NV endemic documented from Storey and southwestern 

Washoe Counties.

N 1 No impact

Poa abbreviata ssp. marshii

Marsh's bluegrass

Alpine in soil pocks in scree, talus, boulder, rock fields, and 

loose quartzite. 11,600-12,600 ft. Documented from White 

Pine County NV. Also in CA and ID.

Y 2 No impact

Polemonium chartaceum

White Mountain skypilot

Alpine boulder and rock fields and subalpine coniferous forest 

on rocky, serpentine, granitic, or volcanic soils. 5,900-13,700 

ft. In NV documented only from White Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Polyctenium williamsiae

Williams combleaf

Pinyon-juniper and sagebrush on relatively barren sandy to 

sandy-clay or mud margins and bottoms of non-alkaline 

seasonal lakes perched over volcanic bedrock. 5,670-8,930 ft. 

Doucumented from Douglas, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, and 

Washoe Counties NV. Also in CA and OR.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Potentilla johnstonii

Sagebrush cinquefoil

Pinyon-juniper and sagebrush. 7,600 ft. Endemic to Quinn 

Canyon Range in Nye County. Y Not excluded See detailed analysis below
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Primula capillaris

Ruby Mountain primrose

Subalpine meadow openings in the subalpine conifer zone on 

moist, seasonally saturated, slowly creeping, dark brown loam 

or sandy loam soils derived from glacial till, generally on 

steep north to northeast aspects. 8,500-10,000 ft. Endemic to 

the Ruby Mountains.

N 2 No impact

Primula cusickiana var. 

nevadensis (=P. nevadensis)

Nevada primrose

Subalpine conifer and lower alpine zones in limestone rock 

outcrops, crevices, talus, scree, and gravelly soils or soil 

pockets often on north to east aspects or in lee ward snowaccumulation areas sometimes in litter of bristlecone pine, 

meadows, or riparian areas. 10,200-11,590 ft. NV endemic 

documented from Nye and White Pine Counties.

Y 2 No impact

Senecio pattersonensis

Mono ragwort

Alpine on talus slopes and gravelly ridges at and above 

timberline and in alpine fell-fields. 9,500-12,200 ft. Endemic 

to CA.

N 1, 2 No impact

Silene clokeyi

Clokey silene

Dry to moist carbonate scree, talus, and loose rocky soils on 

ridges, flats, and steep slopes. 9,940-11,580 ft. Endemic to 

Spring Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Silene nachlingerae

Nachlinger silene

Subalpine conifer on rocky limestone knolls and ridges or at 

the bases of steep slopes or cliffs. 7,160-11,250 ft. NV 

endemic documented from Elko, Nye, and White Pine 

Counties NV. 

Y 2 No impact

Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. 

williamsiae

Railroad Valley globemallow

Desert shrub and sagebrush restricted to sevy dolomite 

calcareous soil. 4,770 to 5,310. Nye County NV. Also in UT. Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Sphaeromeria compacta

Low sphaeromeria

Lower alpine and upper subalpine conifer zones along ridges 

and slopes on carbonate scree, talus, outcrops, and rocky 

fellfields. 9,680-11,810 ft. Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact

Streptanthus oliganthus

Masonic Mountain jewelflower

Pinyon-juniper, sagebrush-grass, and Jeffery pine zones on 

rocky slopes or talus, on flat areas, in ravines, and in canyon 

bottoms in sandy or gravelly soil of decayed granite or 

decomposing volcanic rock. 6,400-10,000 ft. NV distribution 

limited to Esmeralda, Lyon and Mineral Counties. Also in CA.

N 1 No impact

Synthyris ranunculina

Charleston kittentails

Bristlecone pine and limber pine along moist cliff bands 

bordering avalanche chutes and drainages. 8,760-12,073 ft. 

Endemic to Spring Mountains.

N 1, 2 No impact
SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Tonestus (=Haplopappus) alpinus

Alpine goldenweed

Mountain mahogany, subalpine conifer, and lower alpine in 

crevices, rubble, and adjacent rocky soils of rock outcrops, 

often on northerly or protected aspects. 8,900-11,810 ft. NV 

endemic documented from Lander and Nye Counties.

Y 2 No impact

Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa

Charleston ground daisy

From upper shadscale/mixed shrub to lower subalpine conifer 

zones on ridges, slopes, saddles, and washes in open places 

away from shrubs. 5,200-11,060 ft. Documented from Spring 

and Sheep Mountains in Clark County and Sunnyside in Nye 

County.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Trifolium andinum var. 

podocephalum

Currant Summit clover

Pinyon-juniper zone in crevices of volcanic or limestone rock. 

6,900-7,400 ft. Endemic to White Pine and Egan Ranges in 

Lincoln and Nye Counties.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Trifolium leibergii

Leiberg’s clover

Sagebrush to pinyon-juniper mainly on dry, shallow, relatively 

barren gravel soils of crumbling volcanic outcrops, bare shale 

crests, talus slopes, and reddish ash flow tuft. 6,560 to 7,800 

ft. in NV. In NV documented from Elko County. Also in OR.

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Trifolium macilentum var. 

rollinsii

Rollins clover

Mountain sagebrush, subalpine conifer, and lower alpine on 

dry to moist gravelly soils in concave, leeward, or otherwise 

moisture-accumulating areas on steep to moderate slopes. 

8,800 to 10,580 ft. Endemic to Toiyabe Range, NV. 

Y Not excluded See detailed analysis 

below

Viola charlestonensis

Charleston violet

Pinyon pine, Utah juniper, ponderosa pine and aspen on 

limestone hills, slopes, and dry washes. 6,500-9,800 ft. In NV 

known only from Spring Mountains. Also in AZ & UT.

N 1 No impact

Viola lithion

Lithion violet

Subalpine to alpine zone in seasonally wet crevices and along 

narrow ledges of steep carbonate or quartzite outcrops in 

shaded northeast-facing avalanche chutes and cirque 

headwalls. 7,840-10,480 ft. in NV. Elko, Nye and White Pine 

Counties NV. Also in UT.

N 2 No impact
Table 3. Species analyzed in detail because they may be affected by one of the action 

alternatives. 

Species Habitat affinity Species Group

Mammals

Bighorn sheep

Ovis canadensis

GRA, SHR, S Sagebrush-associated species

Pygmy rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis

S Sagebrush-associated species

Columbia spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

PJ, RIP, S Sagebrush-associated species

Townsend’s western big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

GRA, PP, RIP, S Sagebrush-associated species

Birds

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus

GRA,MS, PJ, PP, 

SHR, S

Sagebrush-associated species

Plants

Antennaria arcuata

Meadow pussytoes

M & SP in S & 

GRA

Plants

Asclepias eastwoodiana

Eastwood milkweed

DS, S, PJ Plants

Astragalus lentiginosus var. latus

Broad-pod freckled milkvetch

PJ Plants

Astragalus robbinsii var. 

occidentalis

Lamoille Canyon milkvetch

RIP, M Plants

Astragalus toquimanus

Toquima milkvetch

PJ, S Plants

Astragalus uncialis

Currant milkvetch

DS, S Plants

Boechera falcatoria

Grouse Creek rockcress

S, MM Plants

Botrychium ascendens

Upswept moonwort

RIP, SP,M Plants

Botrychium crenulatum

Dainty moonwort

RIP, SP Plants

Botrychium lineare

Slender moonwort

RIP, SP, M Plants
Species Habitat affinity Species Group

Botrychium tunux

Moosewort

RIP, SP, M Plants

Epilobium nevadense

Nevada willowherb

PP, PN Plants

Eriogonum douglasii var. 

elkoense

Sunflower flat buckwheat

GRA, S Plants

Eriogonum esmeraldense var. 

toiyabense

Toiyabe buckwheat

PJ, S, MM, C Plants

Eriogonum lewisii

Lewis's buckwheat

S Plants

Jamesia tetrapetala

Basin jamesia

PJ & SA Plants

Lathyrus grimesii

Grimes lathyrus

S, MS Plants

Lewisia maguirei

Maguire lewisia

PJ Plants

Penstemon concinnus

Elegant penstemon

PJ Plants

Penstemon moriahensis

Mt. Moriah penstemon

SA, MM, PP, PJ Plants

Penstemon pudicus

Bashful penstemon

S, MM, PJ Plants

Phacelia inconspicua

Inconspicuous phacelia

S Plants

Phacelia minutissima

Small-flower phacelia

RIP Plants

Polyctenium williamsiae

Williams combleaf

PJ, S Plants

Potentilla johnstonii

Sagebrush cinquefoil

PJ, S Plants

Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. 

williamsiae

Railroad Valley globemallow

DS, S Plants

Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa

Charleston ground daisy

SHR, C Plants
Species Habitat affinity Species Group

Trifolium andinum var. 

podocephalum

Currant Summit clover

PJ Plants

Trifolium leibergii

Leiberg’s clover

S, PJ Plants

Trifolium macilentum var. 

rollinsii

Rollins clover

S, C, A Plants

Key: A = Alpine; C = Coniferous forest; DS = Desert shrub; GRA = Grassland; M = 

Meadows (wet or dry), fens; MM = Mountain mahogany; MS = Mountain shrub; PJ 

= Pinyon-Juniper; PN = Pinyon pine; PP = Ponderosa pine; RIP = Riparian; SHR = 

Shrubland; S = Sagebrush; SA = Subalpine; SP = Seeps, springs, swales 

VII. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (Direct, Indirect 

and Cumulative) 

A. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Life History 

Sage-grouse depend on a variety of semiarid shrub-grassland (shrub steppe) habitats throughout 

their life cycle, and are considered obligate users of sagebrush (e.g., Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

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

tridentata (basin big sagebrush)) (Patterson 1952; Braun et al. 1976; Connelly et al. 2000; 

Connelly et al. 2004; Miller et al. 2011). Sage-grouse also use other sagebrush species (which 

can be locally important) such as A. arbuscula (low sagebrush), A. nova (black sagebrush), A. 

frigida (fringed sagebrush), and A. cana (silver sagebrush) (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 

2004). Sage-grouse distribution is strongly correlated with the distribution of sagebrush habitats 

(Schroeder et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2011b). Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity (loyalty to 

a particular area) to seasonal habitats (i.e., breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering areas) 

(Connelly et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2011a). Adult sage-grouse rarely switch from these habitats 

once they have been selected, limiting their ability to respond to changes in their local 

environments (Schroeder et al. 1999). (Life history section was copied from the USFWS FINAL 

COT report – Feb. 2013). 

Based on GIS analysis of the EIS planning area, the following table describes the number of 

acres of GRSG PPH and PGH on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the percentage of 

the Forest considered occupied habitat. 
FORESTNAME

Forest 

Acres PPH PGH

Total 

Occupied

% of 

Forest

Humboldt-Toiyabe 4,661,100 1,183,600 539,900 1,723,500 37%

* NV acres had to be rounded to nearest 100 acres due to boundary sliver polygons between 

FS boundaries (developed for SG EIS) and EDW District data boundaries.

Habitat conditions and population information were largely taken from the USFWS FINAL COT 

report – Feb. 2013. 

Habitat and Population Condition 

The Humboldt-Toiyabe (H-T) National Forests are unique in that there are 7 ranger districts that 

contain sage-grouse habitat that are spread out over a very large area in the central and southern 

portion of the Great Basin in Nevada. All of the ranger districts that comprise the H-T are found 

within two grouse populations: Great Basin core and Quinn Canyon. 

The Nevada portion of this population contains the largest number of sage-grouse in this 

population delineation. Suitable habitats are somewhat uncharacteristic of sage-grouse habitats 

because use areas are disjunct, but connected. This is due to the “basin and range” topography 

that is characteristic of this region. Lower elevation valley bottoms often are dominated by 

playas and salt desert shrub vegetation, but transcend quickly into sagebrush dominated benches, 

which often comprises the breeding and winter habitat. Moving up in elevation, pinyon-juniper 

woodlands dominate the mid-elevation and gives way to little sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush 

and mountain shrub communities used by sage-grouse as nesting and brood rearing habitat in the 

higher elevations (> 2,200 m). There are a total of 1,183,600 acres of PPH and 539,900 acres of 

PGH on the H-T. 

The effects analysis on Greater Sage-Grouse for the EIS relies heavily on a metric derived from 

buffering lek locations (Doherty et al. 2011) as a proxy to spatially delineate nesting habitat, and 

provides a quantitative measure of the percentage of the population potentially impacted within 

the planning area (see EIS Ch. 4 Greater Sage-Grouse section). Using this methodology, 

management decisions on the H-T have the potential to impact 23% of the GRSG population 

within the planning area based on a weighted model of leks on or within 4 miles of Forest 

Service lands. 

This population metric is correlated to nesting habitat and is derived by assigning to individual 

leks their contribution to Greater Sage-Grouse populations at the population/subpopulation scale 

(see Section 3.2.1 and Section 4.3.1) and at the sub-region scale. The metric provides for 

inferences toward population effects from each resource allocation expressed as a percentage of 

population at the two scales. The analysis conducted in the EIS regarding this population metric 

was done on BLM and FS lands. When looking only at FS lands, the pattern of the percentage of 
the population potentially impacted under each alternative is consistent with the EIS analysis, 

however, it is smaller since there is less habitat on FS lands. 

Garton et al. (2011) determined that the population has declined by 19 percent from the period 

1965-69 through 2000-2007 and that average rates of population change were <1.0 for three of 

the eight analysis periods from 1965-2007. In addition, Garton et al. (2011) determined that this 

population has a two percent chance of declining below 200 males within the next 30 years and a 

78 percent chance of declining below 200 males within 100 years (by 2107). 

The Quinn Canyon population is a very small and isolated population located in southeastern 

Nevada. There were not enough data for Garton et al. (2011) to conduct an analysis on 

population trends or persistence. Two to three leks have been identified in this area, but there is 

very little information associated with these sites and most of this information is anecdotal. 

Habitat within this area has been compromised by pinyon-juniper encroachment. Very little 

sagebrush exists within this population. Overall this is a high risk population. 

Threats 

Threats to sage-grouse on and around the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF include, but are not limited to 

fragmentation and loss of habitat, primarily from fire, wind and solar energy development, 

grazing, and recreation. In addition some of the historic habitat available to sage-grouse within 

this population has transitioned to pinyon-juniper woodlands. Miller and Tausch (2001) 

estimated that the area of pinyon-juniper woodlands has increased approximately 10-fold 

throughout the western United States since the late 1800s. Additionally, Wisdom et al. (2005) 

determined that 35 percent of the sagebrush area in the eastern Great Basin is at high risk to 

future displacement by pinyon-juniper woodlands and that mountain big sagebrush appeared to 

be most at risk, which could have meaningful impacts to sage-grouse brood rearing habitats 

within the upper elevations of mountain ranges within this region. In addition to this threat, much 

of the Great Basin is also susceptible to sagebrush displacement by cheatgrass. The most at risk 

vegetative community in this region is Wyoming basin big sagebrush (Wisdom et al. 2005) 

located predominately within the lower elevation benches of mountain ranges. In some areas, 

this condition has already been realized and the future risk for existing sagebrush habitats is 

moderate to high. This threatens both breeding and winter habitats for sage-grouse. For example, 

in a study conducted within this region (in Eureka County, NV), Blomberg et al. (2012) 

determined that sage-grouse leks that were not impacted by exotic grasslands experienced 

recruitment levels that were six times greater than those impacted by exotic grasslands. 

Additionally, this study found that drought is a major contributor to reduced recruitment and low 

population growth within the Southern Great Basin. Other threats such as mining and 

infrastructure have the potential to affect this sage-grouse population due to mine expansions, as 

well as new mines and the infrastructure associated with them. Existing mining claims are 

virtually ubiquitous throughout the Southern Great Basin PAC. Overall, sage-grouse in the 

Southern Great Basin in Nevada are potentially at-risk. 
Alternative A - No Action 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

In parts of the sub-region, invasive species such as cheatgrass or native species such as pinyon or 

juniper have replaced desirable dominant species. Invasive plants are thought to alter plant 

community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may 

competitively exclude native plant populations. Cheatgrass competes with native grasses and 

forbs that are important components of Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat. Invasive species 

cause direct degradation of sagebrush habitats resulting in effects on local GRSG populations by 

affecting forage, cover quality and composition, increased wildfire frequency and intensity (see 

Fire and Fuels discussion below), with the potential to cause complete avoidance. As discussed 

below in Fire and Fuels, the encroachment of pinyon and juniper from higher elevations into 

sagebrush habitats can have a negative impact on GRSG habitat. Expansion of conifer 

woodlands also threatens GRSG populations because they do not provide suitable habitat and 

trees displace shrubs, grasses and forbs, required for GRSG through competition for resources. 

Juniper expansion is also associated with increased bare ground and the potential for erosion, as 

well as an increase in perch sites for raptors and raptor predation threats. 

To reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the extent of current infestations, 

integrated weed management techniques, including mechanical, manual, chemical, and 

biological control are utilized. Implementation of the above policies and plans would improve 

vegetation management by decreasing invasive species, provide for native vegetation 

establishment in sagebrush habitat, reduce the risk of wildfire, and restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems and repair lands damaged by fire. Mechanical juniper and pinyon pine treatments 

would result in short-term disturbances of soils and sagebrush due to heavy equipment, skid 

trails and temporary roads. Mechanical and manual treatments would also increase noise, 

vehicular traffic and human presence. However, once the site potential is restored there would be 

an increase in forage, cover quality and composition, reduction in predator perches, decrease in 

fire spread and intensity and a potential increase in water availability. 

Cumulative Effects 

The baseline date for the cumulative impacts analysis for Greater Sage-Grouse is 2012. The 

temporal scope of this analysis is a 20-year planning horizon; land use planning documents are 

generally evaluated on a 5-year cycle. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects analysis for 

Greater Sage-Grouse includes Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

Management Zones III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake River Plain), and V (Northern Great 

Basin) which comprise Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in the state of Nevada. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the short-
term negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts, including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils 

management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management 

actions under Alternative A, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation, water and nutrient availability by consuming or 

altering vegetation, redistributing nutrients and plant seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and 

disrupting microbial composition (Connelly et al. 2004, ch.7). At unsustainable levels of grazing, 

negative impacts to GRSG can include loss of vegetative cover, reduced water infiltration rates, 

decreased plant litter, increased bare ground, reduced nutrient cycling, decreased water quality, 

increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG. Properly 

managed grazing, however, may protect GRSG habitat by reducing fuel loads. Structural range 

improvements such as fences represent potential movement barriers (especially woven-wire 

fences), predator perches or travel corridors, and are a potential cause of direct mortality to 

GRSG. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing 

plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain ecological 

conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining healthy, 

productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Riparian habitats would be 

managed to achieve standards. Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife 

and range objectives, and would include building or modifying fences to permit passage of 

wildlife and reduce the chance of bird strikes, use of off-site water facilities, and in some cases 

modification or removal or improvements not meeting resource needs. Modifications may 

involve moving troughs, adding or changing wildlife escape ramps, or ensuring water is 

available on the ground for a various different wildlife species. Although not directly created to 

protect GRSG, these approaches would protect and enhance GRSG habitat by reducing the 

likelihood of surface disturbance in sensitive areas and ensuring brood rearing habitat is 

available to GRSG. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 
Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue 

to be managed through existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing 

plans followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, 

which include maintaining healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and 

animals. Wild horses and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management section below) and healthy populations of 

wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, 

livestock use, and other multiple uses. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, 

IV and V from the management actions under Alternative A, which would be largely neutral for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fire is particularly problematic in sagebrush systems because it kills sagebrush plants and, in 

some cases, re-burns before sagebrush has a chance to re-establish. Fire is a primary threat to 

GRSG populations where increasing exotic annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass, are resulting in 

sagebrush loss and degradation. Without fire, cheatgrass dominance can exclude sagebrush 

seedlings from establishing. With fire, areas can be converted to annual grasslands. Without 

shrubs and a diversity of grasses and forbs, such annual grasslands will not support GRSG and 

populations could be displaced. In degraded GRSG habitats where cheatgrass is dominant under 

the sagebrush canopy, the habitat may be adequate winter habitat or provide adequate cover for 

nesting. However, these areas may lack the understory forb diversity and insect abundance 

necessary for brood-rearing and could result in lower chick survival. As GRSG habitats become 

smaller and less connected to adjacent GRSG populations, they become increasingly susceptible 

to stochastic events, local extirpation and genetically isolation that can cause inbreeding 

depression. 

Another factor affecting fire in some sagebrush sites is the encroachment of pinyon and juniper 

trees from higher elevations into sagebrush habitats. Under suitable conditions, wildfires that 

start in pinyon and juniper stands can move into Wyoming big sagebrush stands. In the absence 

of cheatgrass, Wyoming sagebrush sites can take 150 years to recover. Where cheatgrass is 

present, fire can open the site to invasion of annual grasses described above. 

The cheatgrass fire cycle causes GRSG habitat loss and degradation on an annual basis. 

Currently, due to the extent of the threat, there are no management actions that can effectively 
alter this trend. Facilitation of the spread of cheatgrass and the likelihood of ignition through 

BLM and Forest Service-authorized programs is further discussed in the Lands and Realty 

Management, Energy and Locatable Minerals Development and Travel, Transportation and 

Recreation sections. 

Alternative A would continue to manage fire suppression and fuels management under current 

direction. Policies would not prioritize protection or restoration of mature sagebrush habitat. 

Under Alternative A, wildfires would likely continue to increase in size and frequency in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats and those habitats would subsequently continue to be degraded or lost. 

Small and heavily disturbed populations with dominance of invasive annual grass understory 

would be particularly susceptible to these impacts. Additionally, there may be some direct and 

indirect effects to individual Greater Sage-Grouse from direct morality or disturbance due to fire 

suppression or fuels treatment activities. Increased human activity and noise associated with 

wildland fire suppression or fuels treatments in areas occupied by sage-grouse can disrupt 

nesting, breeding, or foraging behavior. Important habitats can be removed or degraded because 

of the use of heavy equipment or hand tools. Other potential impacts may include injuring or 

killing eggs/chicks, or causing changes in species movement patterns due to areas devoid of 

vegetation. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current wildfire suppression operations and fuels management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. The limitation or prohibition of the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush habitats 

and the sagebrush protection emphasis during wildland fire operations would not be instituted as 

they would be in Alternatives B, C, D, E and F. Under Alternative A, the direct and indirect 

effects, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and the 

likelihood of increasing future fires from annual weed invasions and predicted climate change, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from wildfire 

in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

While not as widespread as livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management is still a major 

land use across the sagebrush biome. Equid grazing results in a reduction of shrub cover and 

more fragmented shrub canopies, which can negatively affect GRSG habitat (Beever and 

Aldridge 2011). Additionally, sites grazed by free-roaming equids have a greater abundance of 

annual invasive grasses, reduced native plant diversity and reduced grass density (Beever and 

Aldridge 2011). Effects of wild equids on habitats may also be more pronounced during periods 

of drought or vegetation stress (NTT 2011, pg 18). 

Fences associated with wild horse and burro management represent potential movement barriers, 

predator perches or travel corridors, and are a potential cause of direct mortality to GRSG. In 

addition to the impacts of fencing on GRSG, The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 
Act of 1971 requires that water must also be available yearlong in horse management areas. This 

often leads to riparian areas receiving yearlong use by horses or riparian areas being modified 

with additional fencing and troughs in order to accommodate yearlong horse use. The range 

improvements would result in increased potential perch sites, less water available on the ground, 

and possibly have negative effects to riparian habitat depending on how each facility is 

constructed. According to Berger (1986), one measure of habitat quality for horses is the 

presence of meadows. Horse bands that spent more time foraging in meadows had higher 

reproductive success and meadows received the highest use in proportion to their availability. At 

levels higher than Appropriate Management Level (AML), impacts can lead to loss of vegetative 

cover, decreased water quality, increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat quality for 

wildlife, including Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Within the Sub-region, all Forest Service districts manage for wild horses and/or burros within 

established Territories. Under current direction, overall direction is to manage for healthy 

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

to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. All Forest Service Territories are managed for 

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, 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 Alternative A, there are no GRSG goals, objectives, or management 

actions specifically identified within the management framework for the Wild Horse and Burro 

program. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of wild horse and burro management on 

these lands, in the DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative 

cumulative actions” and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zone III, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management 

section below) and healthy populations of wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural 

ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. Within 

Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain 
ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining 

healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management and livestock grazing to Greater SageGrouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative A, 

which would be largely neutral for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater 

Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Minerals development within the sub-region consists of locatable mineral resources at various 

scales. Mining is primarily for gold, silver, and copper and is largely absent from the basaltcapped areas of northwestern Nevada. Leasable minerals include mineral material sales such as 

sand and gravel for road maintenance, and limited additional commodities such as potash. Oil 

and gas is in limited production occurring only in the far southeastern sub-region. Oil and gas 

leasing occurs over a much larger footprint in western Nevada and additional production is 

projected as new technologies expand recovery potential. Development of locatable and leasable 

mineral resources typically requires significant infrastructure and human activity for 

construction, operation, and maintenance. 

Within the sub-region, most public lands are open to oil and gas leasing, saleable mineral 

material development, and solar development, although specific closures of areas to leasing such 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) or crucial or essential wildlife habitat exist 

throughout the sub-region. Lands within the sub-region are generally open to mineral location. 

There are specific locatable mineral withdrawals for particular rights of way, designated 

wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern and other administrative needs, none 

specific to protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. All locatable mineral activities are managed 

under the regulations at 43 CFR 3800 through approval of a Plan of Operations. Mitigation of 

effects to GRSG and its habitat are identified through the NEPA process approving plans of 

operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals are to provide opportunities to develop the 

resource while preventing undue or unnecessary degradation of public lands. Within the subregion, most areas of public land would remain open for wind development. 

Under Alternative A, all energy and locatable minerals development and associated 

infrastructure, including power lines, roads, buildings, fences, wind turbines, solar panels, and 

others, would continue to be managed under current direction. As such, this alternative would be 

expected to cause the greatest amount of direct and indirect impacts on GRSG and their habitat 

including habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation by roads, pipelines and power lines, higher 

levels of noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and a larger number of anthropogenic 

structures in an otherwise open landscape that could result in abandonment of leks, decreased 

attendance at the leks that do persist, lower nest initiation, poor nest success, decreased yearling 
survival, and avoidance of energy infrastructure and ancillary facilities in important wintering 

habitat. Please also refer to the Land Uses and Realty Management section below. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management under Alternative A would maintain the current 

acreage open to leasing of fluid minerals, without stipulations, and locatable mineral 

development, although areas closed to these activities under Alternative A include some existing 

ACEC designations, designated wilderness, and wilderness study areas. Current energy and 

minerals development activities would continue under Alternative A. The closure of areas to 

fluid minerals and other energy development and withdrawal of areas from mineral entry would 

not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Therefore, under Alternative A, 

the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development, in conjunction with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from energy and locatable minerals development 

in Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to current 

disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or 

endangered species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest. Although land tenure adjustments or withdrawals made in GRSG 

habitat could reduce the habitat available to sustain GRSG populations, unless provisions were 

made to ensure that GRSG conservation remained a priority under the new land management 

regime, land tenure adjustments would likely include retention of areas with GRSG, and would 

thus retain occupied habitats under BLM or FS management. This would reduce the likelihood of 

habitat conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove sagebrush 

habitat. 

Existing land use plans direction would apply under Alternative A. There would be no changes 

to the current National Forest System infrastructure including power lines, wind turbines, solar 

panels, communications towers, fences, or roads. Although mitigation is typically developed 

under the NEPA process and most right of way and surface developments are subject to limited 

operation periods or other stipulations in local GRSG conservation strategies, permitted right-ofways (ROWs) or special use authorities (SUAs) would continue to allow construction, 

maintenance, and operation activities that could result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or 

degradation of GRSG habitat or result in barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats. 

Construction, maintenance, and use of infrastructure and ancillary facilities would continue to 
lead to higher short-term concentrations of human noise and disturbance that could cause 

disruption of nesting activities, abandonment of young or temporary displacement; these could 

also facilitate establishment and spread of cheatgrass and other invasive weeds (see discussion 

on Vegetation and Soils) and an increase in edge habitat. Existing and new power lines, wind 

turbines, solar panels, communications towers, fences, and vehicles traveling on associated roads 

would continue to pose a collision hazard to GRSG or to provide potential perching and/or 

nesting habitat for avian predators that could result in declines in lek attendance or nest success. 

Though most projects would be forced to mitigate or minimize impacts, this alternative would 

likely have the greatest impact on the GRSG and its habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current lands and realty (i.e., infrastructure) management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D, or F. Therefore, under Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects of lands 

and realty management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat and 

disturbance to GRSG in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Under Alternative A, there would be 

no changes to the current National Forest System Roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management on these forests. There would be minimal seasonal restrictions on casual use and 

some of the areas within GRSG habitat would remain open to cross country travel. In general, 

the more acres and miles of routes that are designated in an area, the greater the likelihood of 

habitat fragmentation and introduction of invasive plants within GRSG habitat and disturbance 

on GRSG. In addition, less restrictive travel conditions usually mean higher concentrations of 

human use adjacent to motorized routes. This can cause disruption of nesting activities, 

abandonment of young and temporary displacement. Impacts from roads may include habitat 

loss from road construction, noise disturbance from vehicles, and direct mortality from collisions 

with vehicles. Roads may also present barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats. 

Although the majority of cross country travel for big game retrieval would occur outside of the 

GRSG lekking and breeding season limiting the potential for OHV-related disturbance impacts 

to GRSG, OHV use in these areas would still have the potential to fragment and introduce weeds 

into GRSG habitat. This alternative has the highest potential to impact GRSG due to the lack of 

restrictions on activities that cause these effects. Therefore all direct and indirect effects on the 

species and its habitat would likely cause current trends to continue. 
Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management would continue under Alternative A. The limitation of 

motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational SUAs that are neutral or 

beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road construction and upgrading of 

current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under 

Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects from travel, transportation and recreation 

management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Alternative B 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, weed control efforts and pinyon-juniper encroachment would continue to 

be managed under current direction (see Alternative A). However, GRSG vegetation 

management conservation measures included in Alternative B would benefit weed and conifer 

control efforts by prioritizing restoration efforts, including reducing invasive plants in PPH, in 

order to benefit GRSG habitats. BLM and Forest Service would require the use of native seeds 

and would design post-restoration management to ensure the long-term persistence of the 

restoration efforts, and would consider changes in climate when determining species for 

restoration. Invasive species would also be monitored and controlled after fuels treatments and at 

existing and new range improvements in PPH. Alternative B incorporates fewer invasive plant 

management measures in PGH compared to PPH. However, many of the same habitat restoration 

and vegetation management actions would be applied, including prioritizing the use of native 

seeds. Together, these measures would reduce impacts from invasive plants and pinyon-juniper 

encroachment on GRSG habitat described under Alternative A although the effects of the 

treatments would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat, under Alternative B would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 
Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative B, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B would implement a number of beneficial management actions in PPH to 

incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into livestock grazing 

management. These include completion of Land Health Assessments, consideration of grazing 

methods and systems to reduce impacts on sage-grouse habitat, consideration of retiring vacant 

allotments, improved management of riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing 

introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new water developments and structural 

range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, BMPs for West Nile Virus, and fence 

removal, modification or marking. Several management actions to reduce impacts from livestock 

grazing on sage-grouse general habitat would be incorporated, including the potential to modify 

grazing systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements and management to improve 

the conditions of riparian areas and wet meadows. Together these efforts would reduce the 

impacts from grazing on GRSG described under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse 

and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would provide 

an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing 

and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and 

V from the management actions under Alternatives B, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 
Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, suppression would be prioritized in PPH to protect mature sagebrush 

habitat. Suppression would be prioritized in PGH only where fires threaten PPH. Alternative B 

does not include any other specific management for wildland fire management in PGH. Fuels 

treatments would be designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining sagebrush cover, 

implementing fuel breaks, applying seasonal restrictions, protections for winter range, and 

requiring use of native seeds. Post-fuels treatments in PPH would be designed to ensure longterm persistence of seeded areas and native plants and maintain 15 percent canopy cover. Fuels 

treatments in PPH would also monitor and control for invasive species, and fuels management 

BMPs would incorporate invasive plant prevention measures. Overall, these conservation 

measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to sagebrush compared to Alternative A though, in 

general, the effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of 

Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions under Alternative B with regard to fire would increase protection of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), current wildfire suppression operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat during suppression 

activities and pre-suppression planning and staging for maximum protection of Greater SageGrouse habitat would be included. Fuels treatment activities would focus on protecting Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire to 

Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under 

Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML on the same number of 

acres as Alternative A, with gathers prioritized based on PPH habitat and emergency 

environmental issues. Wild Horse Territory (WHT) Plans would incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives in PPH. Land health assessments to determine existing 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation within all Territories would be conducted. 

Implementation of any range improvements in PPH would follow the same guidance as 

identified for livestock grazing in this alternative including designing and locating new 

improvements only where they “conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through improved 

grazing management”. Design features could include treating invasive species associated with 

range improvements. Additional range improvements in PPH would specifically address the 
needs of GRSG. In comparison to Alternative A, Alternative B would prioritize GRSG habitat 

objectives in WHT Plans and base AML numbers on GRSG habitat needs. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

wild horse and burro Territories would continue to be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level and livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans. 

However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B 

would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

livestock grazing and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV or V from the management actions under Alternative B, which would be largely 

beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this Alternative, PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing, and mineral material sales, and it would be proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry. In addition, mandatory BMPs would be applied as conditions of approval on fluid 

mineral leases. No surface occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals within 

PPH. A 3% disturbance cap to activities in PPH would be applied and numerous conservation 

measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from mineral exploration and development 

activities in PPH. These measures would reduce the impacts of energy development on GRSG 

and GRSG PPH described under Alternative A. 

Alternative B does not include specific management for fluid, saleable, locatable, and nonenergy 

leasable minerals in PGH or wind energy or solar energy development in PPH or PGH. As a 

result, current trends would continue and impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A. 

Although Alternative B does not directly address wind energy development or industrial solar 

development, its 3% threshold for anthropogenic disturbances (See Land Uses and Realty 

Management) would apply to energy development and would limit the extent of all types of 

energy development in PPH. 
Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, 

primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the 

current energy and locatable minerals management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing 

closures and proposing it for withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management 

actions associated with energy and locatable minerals development under Alternative B, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, all PPH would be managed as exclusion areas and PGH would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new ROW and SUA projects and co-location of new ROWs or 

SUAs with existing infrastructure would occur in PPH and PGH. It would also include the 

following within PPH: co-location of new ROWs or SUAs with existing infrastructure; removal, 

burying, or modification of existing power lines; co-location of new facilities with existing 

facilities, where possible; use of existing roads, or realignments to access valid existing rights 

that are not yet developed or constructing new roads to the absolute minimum standard necessary 

if valid existing rights could not be accessed via existing roads; and a 3% threshold on 

anthropogenic disturbance (including, but not limited to, highways, roads, geothermal wells, 

wind turbines, and associated facilities) within PPH. 

In addition, Alternative B would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority sagegrouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate where 

suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved. This alternative would 

benefit GRSG by maximizing connectivity and minimizing loss, fragmentation, degradation and 

disturbance of sagebrush habitats within PPH by power lines, communication towers and roads. 

GRSG and GRSG habitat outside PPH would likely experience little change in direct or indirect 

effects. However, if the 3% development threshold ended up concentrating new infrastructure 

development outside PPH rather than just reducing it within PPH, the extent of impacts on 

GRSG and GRSG habitat outside PPH could increase under Alternative B relative to Alternative 

A. Alternative B would reduce the likelihood of collisions addressed in Alternative A. These 
conservation measures make this alternative more protective than Alternative A, although the 

general effects would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternatives B would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus 

ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones 

III, IV and V under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, motorized travel in PPH would be limited to designated roads, primitive 

roads, and trails at a minimum. Only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sagegrouse would be permitted in PPH and there would be limited opportunities for road construction 

in PPH, with minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads. Although general 

impacts would be the same as Alternative A, Alternative B is more restrictive than Alternative A 

and it would reduce loss, fragmentation and disturbance to GRSG leks and nesting habitat by 

limiting motorized travel to designated routes, minimizing human use and road construction or 

upgrades and reducing automotive collisions with individual birds. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative B would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater 

Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within 

Management Zones III, IV and V, some of the current travel, transportation and recreation 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV 

and V under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 
Alternative C 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would maintain the direction described under Alternative A for weed control and 

pinyon-juniper encroachment and include additional provisions that would limit invasive weed 

spread in all occupied GRSG habitat. Vegetation management would benefit weed control 

efforts, by prioritizing restoration, including reducing invasive plants, in order to benefit sagegrouse habitats. In all cases, local native plant ecotype seeds and seedlings would be used. These 

policies would reduce impacts from invasive plants described under Alternative A and have 

similar impacts associated with treatment, but would include additional conservation measures 

specific to limiting the spread of invasive plants. In addition, grazing would be eliminated 

within all occupied sage-grouse habitat, eliminating the potential for invasive plant spread by 

livestock. This would make Alternative C more protective of GRSG and GRSG habitat than 

Alternatives A or B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative C would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative C, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, grazing would be eliminated within all occupied sage-grouse habitat (PPH 

and PGH) reducing both the negative and positive grazing-related impacts on GRSG and GRSG 

habitat discussed under Alternative A more so than any of the other alternatives. No new water 

developments or range improvements would be constructed in occupied habitat and only habitat 

treatments that benefit GRSG would be allowed. Retirement of grazing would be allowed and 

fast tracked. 
Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Under Alternative C, within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), livestock grazing would be eliminated 

within all occupied GRSG habitat, providing a net benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of livestock grazing to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV 

and V from management under Alternative C, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it is more protective of GRSG and GRSG 

habitat because prioritization of suppression would apply to PGH in addition to PPH (i.e., All 

Occupied Habitat), it includes measures to manage vegetation for good or better ecological 

condition, and it focuses fuel breaks on areas of human habitation or significant disturbance. 

The general effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of 

Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions related to fire and fuels under Alternative C, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the 

cumulative effects described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the 

existing population trend, or remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold 

within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML. However, AML 

establishment would be analyzed in conjunction with livestock numbers during grazing permit 

renewals. Combined with the removal of some fences during “active restoration” processes 

related to livestock grazing, horses and burros would be expected to range over a larger area than 

in Alternative A and would necessitate the need for increased gather schedules. The increase in 

access to riparian and upland habitats that are currently protected by fences, and expected 

temporary increases in horses and burros over AML, could over time reduce food and cover for 

GRSG and change water holding capacities of riparian brood rearing sites compared to 

Alternative A, although needs of GRSG would be fully considered as part of the AML 

establishment process. 
Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative C, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for AML as under current management, however, there would be fewer restrictions on 

wild horse and burro movement than under Alternative A. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of wild horse and burro management under Alternative C, in conjunction with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would expand several of the protections under Alternative B to all occupied habitat 

as well as prohibit new exploration permits for unleased fluid minerals (also see Land Uses and 

Realty Management below). Like Alternative B, the conservation measures proposed under 

Alternative C would reduce the impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on GRSG 

described under Alternative A, but to a larger degree than any of the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions under Alternative C with regard to energy and 

locatable minerals development would increase protection of all occupied habitat, thereby 

benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative 

C, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the current energy and locatable minerals 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat by adding all occupied habitat to existing closures and proposing it for 

withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire to Greater SageGrouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative C, 

which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for GRSG. Alternative C would extend 

many of the Alternative B conservation measures to all occupied habitat and all occupied habitat 
would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. As a result, management under 

Alternative C would encourage consolidation of sage-grouse habitats, facilitating habitat 

conservation and management and reduce the impacts of infrastructure on GRSG described 

under Alternatives A and B in a wider area than Alternative B. 

Unlike Alternative B, which would permit wind energy siting in PPH provided a development 

disturbance threshold of 3% were not exceeded, Alternative C would not permit wind energy 

development siting in all occupied GRSG habitat. This would reduce the effects of wind energy 

on GRSG as discussed under Alternative A more so than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternative C would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus 

ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones 

III, IV and V under Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it would apply to all occupied habitat and, 

therefore, protect a larger area of GRSG habitat than Alternative B from the same types of 

general recreational impacts described in Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative C would increase 

protection of all occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse 

rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, 

IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, transportation and 

recreation management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV 

and V under Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 
Alternative D 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D would treat sites within priority and general sage-grouse habitat that are dominated 

by invasive species through an IVM approach using fire, chemical, mechanical and biological 

methods based on site potential. Targeted grazing would be allowed to suppress cheatgrass or 

other vegetation that are hindering achieving sage-grouse objectives in priority and general 

habitat. Sheep, cattle, or goats may be used as long as the animals are intensely managed and 

removed when the utilization of desirable species reaches 35%. In perennial grass, invasive 

annual grass, and conifer-invaded cover types, sagebrush steppe would be restored with 

sagebrush seedings where feasible. 

Pinyon and juniper treatment in encroached sagebrush vegetation communities in priority habitat 

and general habitat would focus on enhancing, reestablishing, or maintaining habitat components 

(e.g. cover, security, food, etc.) in order to achieve habitat objectives. Phase II and III pinyon 

and/or juniper stands would be removed or reduced in biomass to meet fuel and sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and appropriate action would be taken to establish desired understory species 

composition, including seeding and invasive species treatments. Treatment methods that 

maintain sagebrush and shrub cover and composition would be used in areas with a sagebrush 

component. 

Alternative D would be more protective of GRSG habitat than Alternative B because it contains 

several conservation measures specifically targeted to invasive species infestations and pinyonjuniper encroachment and it would apply them over a larger area (within priority and general 

habitat) than Alternative B (only PPH). 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative D would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative D, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 
Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D, similar to Alternative B, would implement a number of beneficial management 

actions to incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into 

livestock grazing management: consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts 

on sage-grouse habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of 

riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, 

authorization of new water developments and structural range improvements only when 

beneficial to GRSG, the potential to modify grazing systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse 

habitat requirements and fence removal, modification or marking. The main difference is that 

Alternative D would apply these conservation measures to priority and general habitat rather 

than limiting them to PPH as Alternative B would and Alternative D would not require the 

completion of Land Health Assessments to determine if standards of range-land health are being 

met as Alternative B would. These measures would reduce the negative impacts from grazing on 

GRSG described under Alternative A probably more so than Alternative B but less so than 

Alternative C that would eliminate livestock grazing in all occupied habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse 

and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide 

an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing 

and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and 

V from the management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, in which suppression would be prioritized in PPH, but only in PGH where 

fires threaten PPH, Alternative D would prioritize suppression in priority and general sage-
grouse habitat. In priority and general habitat, fuels treatments emphasizing maintaining, 

protecting, and expanding GRSG habitat would be designed and implemented and would include 

measures similar to Alternative B except they would apply to priority and general habitat rather 

than only PPH. These include generally enhancing or maintaining/retaining sagebrush canopy 

cover and community structure; applying appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

fuels treatments according to the type of sage-grouse seasonal habitats present; and requiring use 

of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. In addition, Alternative D would not allow fuels treatment projects to 

be implemented in priority and general habitat if it is determined the treatment would not be 

beneficial to GRSG or its habitat. It would identify opportunities for prescribed fire and require 

use of certified weed-free seeds. Alternative D would prioritize pre-suppression activities in 

sage-grouse habitats that are vulnerable to wildfire events and post-fire treatments in priority and 

general habitat to maximize benefits to greater sage-grouse. Overall, these conservation 

measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to sagebrush compared to Alternative A, although 

in general, the effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of 

Alternative A. Prioritization of suppression and fuels treatments in priority and general habitat 

under Alternative D, rather than limiting them to PPH under Alternative B, would make 

Alternative D more protective of GRSG and GRSG habitat, in the long term, than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative D, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects 

described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the existing population 

trend, or remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, gathers would be prioritized in priority and general habitat as opposed to 

only PPH under Alternative B. Otherwise Alternative B is similar to management proposed in 

Alternative B in that wild horse and burro populations would be managed within established 

AML to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives for all WHTs within or containing priority or 

general habitat. Unlike Alternative B, adjustments to AML through the NEPA process would be 

considered in WHTs not meeting standards due to degradation that can be at least partially 

contributed to wild horse or burro populations; adjustments would be based on monitoring data 

and would seek to protect and enhance priority and general habitat and establish a thriving 

ecological balance. Alternative D would be expected to reduce the impacts of wild horses and 

burros on GRSG described under Alternative A over a larger area than Alternative B. 
Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level and 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide 

an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing 

and wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and 

V from the management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not substantially increase impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, a NSO stipulation, with no allowance for waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications, would be applied to un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in priority sage-grouse 

habitat and a NSO stipulation, with allowance for waivers, exception, or modifications, would be 

applied in un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in general sage-grouse habitat. Geophysical 

exploration that does not result in crushing of sagebrush vegetation or create new or additional 

surface disturbance would be allowed within priority and general sage-grouse habitat, but 

geophysical operations would be subject to timing and controlled surface use limitations. 

Proposed surface disturbance in unleased priority habitat must achieve no net unmitigated loss of 

priority habitat; seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling that prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities in winter habitat and during the lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing season would 

be applied in all priority sage-grouse habitat. Required Design Features (RDFs) would be applied 

as Conditions of Approval within priority and general sage-grouse habitat on existing fluid 

mineral leases. 

Similar to Alternative A, new plans of operation for authorized locatable minerals on forest 

service-administered lands would require the inclusion of measures to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to GRSG populations or their habitat. Priority and general habitat would be closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and prospecting. No new commercial mineral material sales 

would be allowed in priority and general habitat, but sales to meet Federal, Tribal, State, County 
and public needs would be allowed in general habitat; loss of habitat through disturbance in 

general habitat would be off-set through off-site mitigation. Alternative D would manage priority 

and general habitat as ROW exclusion areas for new large-scale wind and solar energy facilities 

(see Land Uses and Realty Management), whereas Alternative B would manage PPH as a new 

ROW exclusion area and PGH as a new ROW avoidance area. 

Although the conservation measures proposed under Alternative D would overall reduce the 

general impacts on GRSG associated with energy and locatable minerals development discussed 

under Alternative A, Alternative D would be less protective of PPH than Alternative B with 

respect to new fluid mineral leasing, because Alternative B would close PPH to new fluid 

mineral leasing. On the other hand, it would be more protective of PGH than Alternative B with 

respect to new fluid mineral leasing, because Alternative B does not include specific 

management for new or existing fluid minerals leasing in general habitat. Alternative D would be 

similar to Alternative B with respect to existing fluid mineral leases by requiring application of 

design features in priority habitat. Under Alternative D, both priority and general habitat would 

be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing and prospecting as opposed to only PPH under 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III IV and V, some 

of the current management direction associated with energy and locatable minerals development 

would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush would be 

included. Alternative D is the same as Alternative A with respect to areas closed to entry, but 

adds NSO restrictions to all PPH and PGH without waiver, exception, or modification. NSO 

restrictions would apply to PGH with allowance for waivers, exceptions and modifications. 

Management under Alternatives D would maintain current acreage open to mineral development 

but add the application of best management practices and off-site mitigation. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development to Greater Sage-Grouse 

in Management Zones III, IV and V from the added management actions under Alternative D, 

which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Like Alternative B, Alternative D would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority 

sage-grouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate 

where suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved, require co-
location of new ROWs or SUAs associated with valid existing rights with existing development, 

and, where appropriate, bury new and existing utility lines as mitigation unless not feasible. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would manage priority and general habitat as ROW 

exclusion areas for new large-scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities and 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, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net un-mitigated loss of 

priority or general habitat. In addition, ROW holders in priority and general habitat would be 

required to retro-fit existing power lines and other utility structure with perch-deterring devices 

during ROW renewal process. These conservation measures make this alternative more 

protective than Alternative A, although the general effects would be the same. It would be less 

protective than Alternatives B and C with respect to new siting of general ROWs and SUAs 

because priority habitat would be an avoidance area rather than an exclusion area. But it would 

be more protective with respect to large-scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities by 

excluding them in priority and general habitat altogether. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative D would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Land uses and realty management activities would 

focus ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for Greater SageGrouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Like Alternative B, Alternative D 

would limit motorized travel to designated routes, there would be limited opportunities for road 

construction with minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads, and only 

recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse would be permitted. Unlike 

Alternative B, Alternative D would extend these measures beyond PPH to include PGH. In 

addition, under Alternative D no new recreation facilities (including, but not limited to, 

campgrounds, day use areas, scenic pullouts, trailheads, etc.) would be constructed in priority 
and general habitat. Although general impacts would be the same as Alternative A, Alternative D 

is more restrictive than Alternative A or Alternative B. It would likely reduce loss, fragmentation 

and disturbance to GRSG leks and nesting habitat by minimizing human use and road 

construction or upgrades and reducing automotive collisions with individual birds. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative D would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within PPH and PGH, thereby benefitting Greater 

Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative D, within 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, 

transportation and recreation management direction would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Alternative E 

All management actions under Alternative E would correspond to areas identified on the SageGrouse Management Areas (SGMAs) Map contained in the “2012 Strategic Plan for the 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Nevada” (2012 Plan) produced by Nevada stakeholders 

at the request of the governor. The SGMAs include four categories - Occupied Habitat, Suitable 

Habitat, Potential Habitat, and Non Habitat areas - as defined in the 2012 Plan. The Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Council would further refine the habitat categories within the SGMAs and 

determine where the best possible habitat exists based on recommendations from the Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. All management Actions would be implemented through 

a coordinated effort among local, state and federal agencies, unless an agency is specifically 

noted. Alternative E would not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, but would seek to 

achieve conservation through a goal of “no net loss” in the Occupied, Suitable and Potential 

Habitat categories for activities that could be controlled, such as a planned disturbance or 

development. Management under Alternative E would be subject to an avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate approach, which would provide a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have 

fixed exclusion and avoidance land allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, landscape-level treatments in Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs) 

would be initiated to reverse the effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment and restore healthy, 

resilient sagebrush ecosystems. Plans to remove Phase I and Phase II encroachment and treat 
Phase III encroachment would be aggressively implemented to reduce the threat of severe 

conflagration and restore SGMAs where possible, especially in areas in close proximity to 

Occupied and Suitable Habitat. Temporary roads to access treatment areas would be allowed and 

constructed with minimum design standards to avoid and minimize impacts and removed and 

restored upon completion of treatment. Under Alternative E, the State of Nevada would continue 

to incentivize and assist in the development of bio-fuels and other commercial uses of pinyonjuniper resources and 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. Alternative E would provide for an increase in conifer encroachment efforts for 

GRSG habitat compared to Alternative A and addresses it more specifically than Alternatives B 

or C. 

Under Alternative E, invasive plants would be managed through a combination of surveys, 

biological control, educational activities, native planting and reseeding of previously treated sites 

in areas susceptible to invasion, and weed-free gravel and forage certifications and inspections. 

SGMAs would be managed to prevent invasive species and to suppress and restore areas with 

existing infestations. Existing areas of invasive vegetative that pose a threat to SGMAs would be 

treated through the use of herbicides, fungicides or bacteria to control cheatgrass and 

medusahead infestations. All burned areas within SGMAs would be reviewed and evaluated in a 

timely manner to ascertain the reclamation potential for reestablishing Sage-Grouse habitat, 

enhancing ecosystem resiliency, and controlling invasive weed species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative E would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative E, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would manage grazing permits to maintain or enhance SGMAs. It would utilize 

livestock grazing, when appropriate, as a management tool, to improve Sage-Grouse habitat 
quantity, quality or to reduce wildfire threats. Alternative E would expand the promotion of 

proper livestock grazing practices that promote the health of perennial grass communities in 

order to suppress the establishment of cheatgrass. Riparian areas would be managed to current 

agency standards. Within riparian areas, Alternative E would promote grazing within acceptable 

limits and development of additional infrastructure (e.g., fences and troughs) in order to facilitate 

this action. In comparison with Alternative A, management under Alternative E would provide 

less protection to GRSG and their habitats. There are fewer conservation measures associated 

with this alternative including no management actions associated with direct impacts on GRSG 

or lek or nesting habitat (refer to Alternative A). Riparian impacts would be expected to be 

greater due to more areas being available for livestock use and fewer overall GRSG specific 

habitat enhancement/maintenance actions would occur under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

there would be fewer restrictions on livestock grazing than under Alternative A, including no 

management actions associated with direct impacts on GRSG or leks or nesting habitat. In 

addition, riparian impacts would be expected to be greater due to more areas being available for 

livestock use and fewer overall GRSG specific habitat enhancement/maintenance actions would 

occur. Wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level 

as under current management. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, could 

result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would utilize a unique approach to fire and fuels management. Under Alternative 

E, emphasis would be on sagebrush habitat protection and restoration within the State of Nevada 

Sage-Grouse Management Areas. With respect to hazardous fuels treatments, this alternative sets 

a goal of supporting incentives for developing a beneficial use for biomass. Wildland fires in 

SGMAs would be managed 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. Additional emphasis under Alternative E integrates the prepositioning of 

suppression resources and preventative actions similar to Alternative D. Prepositioning and 

preventative actions would increase the likelihood of successful fire management actions with 

response to wildfire. Fuels reduction treatments would be similar to Alternative B, with added 

emphasis on coordination of state and local agencies and individual landowners. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative E, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the existing population trend, or 

remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, 

IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Management under Alternative E would maintain wild horses at AML in WHTs to avoid and 

minimize impacts on Sage-Grouse Management Areas, evaluate conflicts with WHT 

designations in Sage-Grouse Management Areas, modify Land Use Plans and Resource 

Management Plans to avoid negative impacts on GRSG and, if necessary, resolve conflicts 

between the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the Endangered Species Act. Wild 

horse and burro management under Alternative E would be similar to Alternative A. Therefore, 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse are expected to be similar. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative E, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level as under current management. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative E, which would be largely 

neutral for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Alternative E management strategy would be to avoid conflicts with GRSG habitat by siting 

new minerals and energy facilities and activities outside of habitat wherever possible. Projects 

that have an approved BLM notice, plan of operation, right-of-way, or drilling plan would be 

exempt from any new mitigation requirements above and beyond what has already been 
stipulated in the projects’ approvals. Exploration projects would be designed for mineral access 

and the betterment of GRSG habitat. Roads and other ancillary features that impact GRSG 

habitat would be designed to avoid where feasible and otherwise minimize and mitigate impacts 

in the short and long term. New linear features would be sited in existing corridors or, at a 

minimum, co-located with existing linear features in SGMAs. Measures to deter raptor perching 

and raven nesting on elevated structures would be applied to energy development projects. 

Energy developers would be required to work closely with state and federal agency experts to 

determine important GRSG nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats and avoid those areas, and 

energy development or infrastructure features would be restricted within a 0.6 mile (1 km) radius 

around seeps, springs and wet meadows within identified brood rearing habitats wherever 

possible. As previously stated, Alternative E does not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance 

areas, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate approach, which 

provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance land 

allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. Under Alternative E, there would be the 

possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals development than under Alternative 

A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to GRSG habitat would not be ruled out, 

but the amount is not quantifiable. Therefore, the general impacts of energy and locatable 

minerals development on GRSG discussed under Alternative A would have the potential to 

increase under Alternative E. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer 

to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), there would be no fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, as under 

Alternatives B, C, D or F, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

approach, which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion 

and avoidance land allocations based on habitat designations. In addition, there would be the 

possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals development than under Alternative 

A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to GRSG habitat would not be ruled out. 

Therefore, under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals 

development, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, no areas would be subject to exclusion or avoidance, but habitat 

disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in Occupied and Suitable Habitat would be 

limited to not more than five percent per year, and in Potential Habitat to not more than twenty 
percent per year, per SGMA, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results. On federal 

lands in Nevada with pre-approved activities, no new mitigation would take place beyond 

previously approved in Plans of Development, right of ways, or drilling plans. General guidance 

would be to avoid when possible, minimize adverse effects as practicable, and mitigate adverse 

effects in Occupied or Suitable Habitat. Whenever possible, this alternative would locate 

facilities in non-habitat areas, site new linear features in existing corridors or co-locate them with 

other existing features and engage in reclamation and weed control efforts. This alternative 

provides fewer measures when compared to Alternatives A, B, C, D or F to reduce the general 

impacts of land uses and realty management described under Alternative A to GRSG and 

sagebrush habitats. Therefore, Alternative E would not be as protective of GRSG as any of the 

other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative E would not include 

specific exclusion or avoidance areas but would limit total disturbance within Occupied and 

Suitable Habitats and implement an avoid, minimize, mitigate approach, as discussed above. 

This would provide a lower level of certainty for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat protection under 

Alternative E than under alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance areas based on 

habitat designations and could lead to greater habitat fragmentation under Alternative E. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects land uses and realty management under Alternative E, 

in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the 

increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV 

or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, travel, transportation and recreation management would essentially remain 

the same as it currently is under Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse under 

Alternative E are expected to be similar to those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management as it exists under Alternative A would continue under 

Alternative E. The limitation of motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational 

SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road 

construction and upgrading of current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects from travel, 

transportation and recreation management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing 

sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 
Alternative F 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F includes a conservation measure specifically directed at 

invasive plants that would develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring 

sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants. Like Alternative B, Alternative F would manage 

pinyon-juniper encroachment under current direction (see Alternative A). In addition, GRSG 

vegetation management conservation measures would benefit weed and conifer control efforts by 

prioritizing restoration efforts, including reducing invasive plants, and monitoring and 

controlling invasive species after fuels treatments and at existing new range improvements in all 

occupied GRSG habitat (PPH and PGH as opposed to only PPH under Alternative B). Together, 

these measures would reduce impacts from invasive plants and pinyon-juniper encroachment on 

GRSG habitat, as described under Alternative A, more so than Alternative B although the effects 

of the treatments would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on GRSG and GRSG habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative F would provide an added benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative F, which 

would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater SageGrouse.

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative F would include beneficial management actions similar to those of Alternative B 

except they would apply in all GRSG habitats. These include completion of Land Health 

Assessments, consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts on sage-grouse 

habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of riparian areas and 

wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new 

water developments and structural range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, BMPs 

for West Nile Virus, and fence removal, modification or marking.. Together these efforts would 

reduce the impacts from grazing on GRSG described under Alternative A. 
Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans Wild horse and 

burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative F would provide an added 

benefit to GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild 

horse and burro management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from 

the management actions under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fire and fuels management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that under 

Alternative B. Please refer to Alternative B. The impacts on GRSG would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative of management actions under Alternative F, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial, change the existing population trend, or 

remove and fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, 

IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Wild horse and burro management under Alternative F would be similar to that proposed under 

Alternative B except all conservation measures, but the measure prioritizing gathers in PPH, 

would extend to all occupied GRSG habitat. Therefore, the beneficial impacts on GRSG under 

Alternative F would be the same as those under Alternative B except they would apply to all 

occupied GRSG habitat making Alternative F more protective of GRSG and GRSG habitat than 

Alternative B. 
Cumulative Effects 

Refer to Alternative B. Cumulative effects would be the same. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Energy and locatable minerals development is similar to proposed management under 

Alternative B. Under Alternative F siting of wind energy development would be prevented in 

PPH; PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable mineral leasing, and 

mineral material sales; it would be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry; no new surface 

occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals and a 3% disturbance cap would 

be applied. Numerous conservation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from 

mineral exploration and development activities in PPH. Like Alternative B, Alternative F does 

not include specific management for locatable, or saleable or nonenergy minerals in PGH. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F directly addresses wind energy and fluid minerals 

development outside of PPH: wind energy would be sited at least five miles from active sagegrouse leks and at least four miles from the perimeter of sage-grouse winter habitat and areas 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks would be closed to new fluid minerals leasing. 

Alternative F, although similar to Alternative B, would reduce the impacts of energy 

development on GRSG and GRSG habitat, as described under Alternative A, more so than 

Alternative B because it addresses siting of wind energy and fluid minerals leasing outside of 

PPH more thoroughly than alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, 

primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternatives B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the 

current energy and locatable minerals management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing 

closures and proposing it for withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of energy and locatable minerals development to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management 

Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative B, which would be largely 

beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 
Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Land uses and realty management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that 

under Alternative B. Please refer to Alternative B. The effects would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative F would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing 

disturbance to GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus 

ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of lands and realty management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones 

III, IV and V under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

With respect to travel, transportation and recreation, Alternative F is similar to Alternative B: 

within PPH, only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to GRSG would be permitted, 

there would be limited opportunities for new route construction and upgrading of existing routes 

could only occur if they would not result in a new 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. In addition, Alternative F would expand the Alternative B measure restricting motorized 

travel to designated routes in PPH to include PGH, designated routes in sage-grouse priority 

habitat would be considered for closure, camping areas within 4 miles of active leks would 

seasonally be closed, permanent seasonal road or area closures to protect breeding, nesting and 

brood rearing sage-grouse would be implemented and new road construction would be prohibited 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks. Although the general recreational effects of Alternative 

F would be the same as those for Alternatives A and B, Alternative F would be more protective 

of GRSG and GRSG habitat, particularly with respect to reducing disturbance to GRSG and 

protecting sagebrush habitat from degradation and introduction of invasive weeds, than 

Alternative B due to the additional measures. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative F would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within PPH and, in some instances, PGH and PPH, 
thereby benefitting Greater Sage-Grouse rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under 

Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of 

the current travel, transportation and recreation management direction would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to Greater SageGrouse in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely 

beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

B. Sagebrush-Associated Species 

Bighorn sheep, pygmy rabbit, Columbia spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat have been 

grouped as Sagebrush-associated Species (SAS) for this analysis due to the similar habitats they 

occupy and the programmatic nature and landscape scale of this analysis. Though each of the 

species may not be completely dependent upon sagebrush for every life history stage, they are all 

strongly associated with sagebrush habitats. The landscape scale effects of the proposed 

conservation measures for each program area within each alternative will be analyzed generally 

and collectively for this group of species. 

Bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) 

Distribution 

The analysis area is outside of the range of the desert bighorn sheep, but within the range of the 

California and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. California bighorn sheep in Nevada are located 

primarily in the northwestern part of the state, mainly in Washoe and Humboldt counties, as well 

as in portions of western Elko, northern Lander, and Eureka counties. The state contains an 

estimated 1,800 animals (NDOW 2009). Although there are occasional sightings of individual 

juvenile male California bighorn sheep on the Jarbridge and Mountain City Ranger Districts of 

the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, viable populations are restricted to the Santa Rosa 

Mountain Ranger District in the Northern Mountains Ecounit where they overlap the range of the 

Greater sage grouse. Within Nevada, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep occur within the Badlands, 

and on Forest Service and other lands in the East Humboldt Range, and Ruby Mountains (Ruby 

Mountains ecounit) of Elko County, and in the northern portion of the Snake Range (Eastern 

Mountains ecounit), White Pine County (NDOW 2008). 

Habitat Association and Threats 

Bighorn sheep occur in mesic to xeric, alpine to desert grasslands or shrub‐steppe in mountains, 

foothills, or river canyons. Escape terrain (cliffs, talus slopes, etc.) is an important feature. Dense 

forests and chaparral that restrict vision are avoided. Bighorn sheep diets are diverse and 

variable. They are primarily grazers of grass and forbs, but diet can also include significant 

amounts of shrubs. Their diet changes seasonally. Populations other than those in low deserts 
typically migrate between an alpine or montane summer range and a lower elevation winter 

range. 

The primary threats for bighorn sheep is disease transmission from domestic livestock (permitted 

and private land inholdings) and predation by mountain lions. Competition from livestock, 

wildhorses and burros, and other large ungulates for water at spring sources, predation by 

mountain lion, energy development, such as oil, gas, and wind development, off-highway vehicle 

activity could disrupt bighorn sheep use of some habitat (NDOW 2005). 

Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) 

Distribution 

In Nevada, the pygmy rabbit ranges primarily in the central and northern part of the state, 

corresponding to sagebrush distribution (NDOW 2005). There are records of pygmy rabbit on 

Santa Rosa and Mountain City Ranger Districts of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, along 

with the lower elevations of the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Mountains. Currently, the 

Santa Rosa District contains the largest population on the Forest. Extensive pygmy rabbit 

surveys on the Jarbidge Ranger District in 2009 found no suitable habitat due to the 

preponderance of volcanic, rocky soils. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Typically found in dense stands of big sagebrush growing in deep loose soils (4,500 to 7,450 

feet) in desert, shrubland, chaparral, sagebrush communities. Burrows measure three inches in 

diameter and may have three or more entrances. Big sagebrush is the primary food source; 

however, grasses and forbs are eaten in mid- to late-summer. 

The primary cause for population declines is due to the loss, alteration, and fragmentation of 

sagebrush-steppe habitat because of factors such as increased fire frequency, extent, and severity, 

encroachment of habitat by invasive plant species, and vegetation treatments that remove 

sagebrush (NatureServe 2012, IDFG 2005). Fragmentation of sagebrush communities also poses 

a threat to populations of pygmy rabbits because dispersal potential is limited (NatureServe 

2012). 

Columbia spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) 

Distribution 

This species is known to occur from central Mexico, north to southern British Columbia, and 

east to Texas, Known from only twelve localities in Nevada, but distribution is scattered 

throughout Nevada. Distribution is patchy and linked to availability of cliff roosting habitat. 

Currently, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has no sighting information for Columbia 

spotted bats within the Northeastern Zone (Santa Rosa, Jarbridge, Mountain City, and Ruby 

Mountain Ranger Districts). 
Habitat Associations and Threats (Bradley et al. 2006) 

Found in various habitats from low elevation desert scrub to high-elevation coniferous forest 

habitats, including pinyon-juniper, sagebrush or riparian habitats. Closely associated with rocky 

cliffs. Current Nevada records indicate this species is distributed between 540 – 2,130 m (mean 

= 1,447m +/- 569m). Hibernates but periodically arouses to actively forage and drink in the 

winter. Characteristics of winter hibernacula in Nevada are completely unkown and poorly 

understood throughout the species range. Day roosts primarily in crevices in cliff faces. Diet 

includes a variety of insects but primarily consists of moths. In desert settings, foraging occurs 

in canyons, in the open, or over riparian vegetation. 

The spotted bat is sensitive to human disturbance during roosting. Conservation and 

management issues include recreational climbing, water impoundments, grazing/meadow 

management, and mining and quarry operations. 

Townsend’s big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Distribution 

Found throughout the state of Nevada from low desert to high mountain habitats. Distribution is 

strongly correlated with the availability of caves and abandoned mines (Bradley et al. 2006). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats have been observed across the Northeast Zone (Santa Rosa, 

Jarbridge, Mountain City, and Ruby Mountain Ranger Districts) of the Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Townsend’s big-eared bat is highly associated with caves and mines and found primarily in rural 

settings from deserts to lower, mid- to high-elevation mixed coniferous-deciduous forest. 

Current Nevada records indicate this species is distributed between 210 – 3,500 m (mean = 1,720 

m +/- 421 m) primarily in pinyon-juniper-mahogany, white fir, blackbrush, sagebrush, salt desert 

scrub, agricultural, and occasionally in urban habitats (Bradley et al. 2006). 

Telemetry studies in northern Nevada have revealed over 95% of foraging activity to be 

concentrated in open forest habitats of pinyon, juniper, mahogany, white fir, aspen and 

cottonwood (Bradley 2000a in Bradley et al. 2006). 

Primary threats consist of disturbance and destruction of roost sites. Other threats and 

conservation issues include recreational caving, closure of mines for reclamation, renewed 

mining, repeated surveys during hibernation and maternity seasons, water impoundments, loss of 

building roosts and bridge replacement. 
Alternative A - No Action 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

As previously discussed for GRSG, invasive species such as cheatgrass or native species such as 

pinyon or juniper have replaced desirable dominant species in parts of the sub-region. Invasive 

plants are thought to alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient 

cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude native plant populations. Cheatgrass 

competes with native grasses and forbs in sagebrush habitat. Invasive species cause direct 

degradation of sagebrush habitats including cover quality and composition, increased wildfire 

frequency and intensity (see Fire and Fuels discussion below) and are a particular threat to SAS 

species such as pygmy rabbit. As discussed below in Fire and Fuels, the encroachment of pinyon 

and juniper from higher elevations into sagebrush habitats can have a negative impact on 

sagebrush habitat. Although expansion of conifer woodlands threatens SAS species, such as 

pygmy rabbit, because they do not provide suitable habitat and trees displace shrubs, grasses and 

forbs, increase bare ground and the potential for erosion, and increase perch sites for raptors and 

raptor predation threats, pinyon and juniper woodland can provide structure for SAS species, 

such as bats, for nesting and roosting. 

To reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the extent of current infestations, 

integrated weed management techniques, including mechanical, manual, chemical, and 

biological control are utilized. Implementation of the above policies and plans would improve 

vegetation management by decreasing invasive species, provide for native vegetation 

establishment in sagebrush habitat, reduce the risk of wildfire, and restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems and repair lands damaged by fire. Mechanical juniper and pinyon pine treatments 

would result in short-term disturbances of soils and sagebrush due to heavy equipment, skid 

trails and temporary roads and remove habitat that could be utilized by SAS species such as bats. 

Although Townsend’s big-eared bats tend to be associated with mines and caves, and Columbia 

spotted bats with crevices in cliff faces, much remains unknown about the roosting and 

hibernating habits of these species and conifer removal could eliminate a portion of this type of 

habitat or injure or kill individual bats that may be utilizing individual trees for these purposes. 

Mechanical and manual treatments would also increase noise, vehicular traffic and human 

presence. However, once the site potential is restored there would be an increase in forage, cover 

quality and composition and reduction in predator perches benefitting SAS species such as the 

pygmy rabbit. In addition, there would be a decrease in fire spread and intensity and a potential 

increase in water availability. 

Cumulative Effects 

Temporal and spatial boundaries used in the cumulative effects analysis for SAS are the same as 

those for Greater Sage-Grouse. The baseline date for the cumulative impacts analysis is 2012. 

The temporal scope of this analysis is a 20-year planning horizon; land use planning documents 
are generally evaluated on a 5-year cycle. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects analysis 

for SAS includes Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management 

Zones III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake River Plain), and V (Northern Great Basin), which 

is large enough to encompass larger-ranging species, such as bighorn sheep. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on SAS and SAS habitats would generally continue to 

be outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts, including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils 

management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under 

Alternative A, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Depending upon site-specific management, beneficial or adverse impacts of grazing on SAS or 

their habitat would continue. Grazing practices can benefit SAS by reducing fuel load, protecting 

intact sagebrush habitat and increasing habitat extent and continuity. However, grazing at 

inappropriate intensity, season, or location may alter or degrade sagebrush ecosystems, or reduce 

cover and structure that could reduce the suitability of reproductive or foraging habitat. Grazing 

can degrade meadow/wetland/spring/stream habitat crucial riparian-dependent SAS such as bats. 

In addition, it can negatively impact SAS species, such as pygmy rabbits, through competition 

for forbs, soil compaction affecting burrows, disturbance of reproductive, foraging, or other 

critical behaviors, or temporary displacement, particularly during movement or trailing 

operations. Structural range improvements such as fences represent potential movement barriers 

or predator perches. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing 

plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain ecological 

conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining healthy, 

productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Riparian habitats would be 

managed to achieve standards. Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife 

and range objectives, and would include building or modifying fences to permit passage of 

wildlife and reduce the chance of bird strikes, use of off-site water facilities, and in some cases 

modification or removal or improvements not meeting resource needs. Modifications may 

involve moving troughs, adding or changing wildlife escape ramps, or ensuring water is 

available on the ground for a various different wildlife species. Although not directly created to 
protect SAS, these approaches would protect and enhance SAS habitat by reducing the likelihood 

of the types of impacts described above. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue 

to be managed through existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing 

plans followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, 

which include maintaining healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and 

animals. Wild horses and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management section below) and healthy populations of 

wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, 

livestock use, and other multiple uses. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing and wild horse and burro management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from 

the management actions under Alternative A, which would be largely neutral for SAS, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to SAS. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fire is particularly problematic in sagebrush systems because it kills sagebrush plants and, in 

some cases, re-burns before sagebrush has a chance to re-establish. Without fire, cheatgrass 

dominance can exclude sagebrush seedlings from establishing. With fire, areas can be converted 

to annual grasslands. Another factor affecting fire in some sagebrush sites is the encroachment of 

pinyon and juniper trees from higher elevations into sagebrush habitats. Under suitable 

conditions, wildfires that start in pinyon and juniper stands can move into Wyoming big 

sagebrush stands. In the absence of cheatgrass, Wyoming sagebrush sites can take 150 years to 

recover. Where cheatgrass is present, fire can open the site to invasion of annual grasses 

described above. The cheatgrass fire cycle causes sagebrush habitat loss and degradation on an 

annual basis. Currently, due to the extent of the threat, there are no management actions that can 

effectively alter this trend. Facilitation of the spread of cheatgrass and the likelihood of ignition 

through BLM and Forest Service-authorized programs is further discussed in the Lands and 
Realty Management, Energy and Locatable Minerals Development and Travel, Transportation 

and Recreation sections. 

Alternative A would continue to manage fire suppression and fuels management under current 

direction. Policies would not prioritize protection or restoration of mature sagebrush habitat. 

Under Alternative A, wildfires would likely continue to increase in size and frequency in 

sagebrush habitat and that habitat would subsequently continue to be degraded or lost. 

Additionally, there could be some direct and indirect effects to individuals of SAS, particularly 

bats that may be roosting in pinyon or juniper, from direct morality or disturbance due to fire 

suppression or fuels treatment activities. Increased human activity and noise associated with 

wildland fire suppression or fuels treatments can disrupt nesting, breeding, or foraging behavior. 

Sagebrush habitat can be removed or degraded because of the use of heavy equipment or hand 

tools. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current wildfire suppression operations and fuels management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. The limitation or prohibition of the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush habitats, as 

well as, the sagebrush protection emphasis during wildland fire operations would not be 

instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D, E and F. Under Alternative A, the direct and 

indirect effects, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

and the likelihood of increasing future fires from annual weed invasions and predicted climate 

change, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from 

wildfire in Management Zones III, IV and V. 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

While not as widespread as livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management is still a major 

land use across the sagebrush biome. Equid grazing results in a reduction of shrub cover and 

more fragmented shrub canopies (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Additionally, sites grazed by freeroaming equids have a greater abundance of annual invasive grasses, reduced native plant 

diversity and reduced grass density (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Effects of wild equids on 

habitats may also be more pronounced during periods of drought or vegetation stress (NTT 2011, 

pg 18). The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 requires that water must 

also be available yearlong in horse management areas. This often leads to riparian areas 

receiving yearlong use by horses or riparian areas being modified with additional fencing and 

troughs in order to accommodate yearlong horse use. Fences associated with wild horse and 

burro management represent potential movement barriers or predator perches for SAS species. 

Range improvements have the potential to increase perch sites, reduce water availability, and 

possibly negatively impact riparian habitat which could negatively impact pygmy rabbits or bats. 

According to Berger (1986), one measure of habitat quality for horses is the presence of 

meadows. Horse bands that spent more time foraging in meadows had higher reproductive 
success and meadows received the highest use in proportion to their availability. At levels higher 

than Appropriate Management Level (AML), impacts can lead to loss of vegetative cover, 

decreased water quality, increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat quality for wildlife. 

In addition, wild horses and burros can compete with bighorn sheep for water at spring sources.

Within the Sub-region, all Forest Service districts manage for wild horses and/or burros within 

established Territories. Under current direction, overall direction is to manage for healthy 

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

to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. All Forest Service Territories are managed for 

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, and budget. Gathers are also conducted in 

emergency situations when the health of the population is at risk for lack of forage or water. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories; Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of wild horse and burro management on 

these lands, in the DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative 

cumulative actions” and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative A, within Management Zone III, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management 

section below) and healthy populations of wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural 

ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. Within 

Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain 

ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining 

healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management and livestock grazing to SAS in 

Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative A, which 

would be largely neutral for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, all energy and locatable minerals development and associated 

infrastructure, including power lines, roads, buildings, fences, wind turbines, solar panels, and 

others, would continue to be managed under current direction. As such, this alternative would be 
expected to cause the greatest amount of direct and indirect impacts on SAS and their habitat 

including habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation by roads, pipelines and power lines , 

disturbance of reproductive, foraging, or other critical behaviors, or displacement from increased 

levels of noise, presence of roads/humans and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open 

landscape. Turbines associated with wind energy development would pose a greater collision 

hazard to bat species than under alternatives that would limit wind energy development. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management under Alternative A would maintain the current 

acreage open to leasing of fluid minerals, without stipulations, and locatable mineral 

development, although areas closed to these activities under Alternative A include some existing 

ACEC designations, designated wilderness, and wilderness study areas. Current energy and 

minerals development activities would continue under Alternative A. The closure of areas to 

fluid minerals and other energy development and withdrawal of areas from mineral entry would 

not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Therefore, under Alternative A, 

the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development, in conjunction with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from energy and locatable minerals development 

in Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to current 

disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or 

endangered species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest. This would reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion to 

agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove sagebrush habitat. Existing land use 

plans direction would apply under Alternative A. There would be no changes to the current 

National Forest System infrastructure including power lines, wind turbines, communications 

towers, fences, or roads. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, 

and operation activities that could result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation of 

sagebrush habitat or result in barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats. Construction 

and maintenance of infrastructure would continue to lead to higher short-term concentrations of 

human noise and disturbance that could cause disruption of reproductive, foraging, or other 

behaviors, abandonment of young, or temporary displacement of individuals. These activities 

could also lead to new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. 

Existing and new power lines, wind turbines, communications towers, fences, and vehicles 

traveling on associated roads would continue to pose a collision hazard to SAS or to provide 
potential perching and/or nesting habitat for avian predators. Though most projects would be 

forced to mitigate or minimize impacts, this alternative would likely have the greatest impact on 

SAS and their habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current lands and realty (i.e., infrastructure) management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D, or F. Therefore, under Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects of lands 

and realty management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat and 

disturbance to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. 

Under Alternative A, there would be no changes to the current National Forest System Roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management on these forests. There would be minimal seasonal 

restrictions on casual use and some of the areas within GRSG habitat would remain open to cross 

country travel. In general, the more acres and miles of routes that are designated in an area, the 

greater the likelihood of habitat fragmentation and introduction of invasive plants within 

sagebrush habitat and disturbance on SAS. In addition, less restrictive travel conditions usually 

mean higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes. This can cause disruption 

of breeding activities, abandonment of young, and temporary displacement. Impacts from roads 

may include habitat loss from road construction, noise disturbance from vehicles, and direct 

mortality from collisions with vehicles. Roads may also present barriers to migration corridors or 

seasonal habitats. Although the majority of cross country travel for big game retrieval would 

occur outside of the breeding season for SAS limiting the potential for OHV-related disturbance 

impacts to SAS, OHV use in these areas would still have the potential to fragment and introduce 

weeds into sagebrush habitat. This alternative has the highest potential to impact SAS due to the 

lack of restrictions on activities that cause these effects. Therefore all direct and indirect effects 

on the species and its habitat would likely cause current trends to continue. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management would continue under Alternative A. The limitation of 

motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational SUAs that are neutral or 

beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road construction and upgrading of 
current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under 

Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects from travel, transportation and recreation 

management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Alternative B 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, weed control efforts and pinyon-juniper encroachment would continue to 

be managed under current direction (see Alternative A). However, vegetation management 

conservation measures would benefit weed control efforts by prioritizing restoration efforts, 

including reducing invasive plants and, in turn, benefit SAS species, such as pygmy rabbit, 

negatively impacted by invasive species. BLM and Forest Service would require the use of 

native seeds and would design post-restoration management to ensure the long-term persistence 

of the restoration efforts, and would consider changes in climate when determining species for 

restoration. Invasive species would also be monitored and controlled after fuels treatments and at 

existing range improvements. Alternative B incorporates fewer invasive plant management 

measures in PGH compared to PPH. However, many of the same habitat restoration and 

vegetation management actions would be applied, including prioritizing the use of native seeds. 

Together, these measures would reduce impacts to SAS from invasive plants described under 

Alternative A although the effects of the treatments would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, current vegetation and soils 

management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, and biological control of 

invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the short-term negative impacts of 

these activities on SAS and SAS habitats would continue to be outweighed by the long-term 

beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and composition, reduced predator 

perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and, potentially, increased water availability. 

However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat, under Alternative B 

would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from the 

management actions under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 
Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B would implement a number of beneficial management actions in PPH to 

incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into livestock grazing 

management. These include completion of Land Health Assessments, consideration of grazing 

methods and systems to reduce impacts on sagebrush habitat, consideration of retiring vacant 

allotments, improved management of riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing 

introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new water developments and structural 

range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, BMPs for West Nile Virus, and fence 

removal, modification or marking. Several management actions to reduce impacts from livestock 

grazing on sage-grouse general habitat would be incorporated, including the potential to modify 

grazing systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements and management to improve 

the conditions of riparian areas and wet meadows, which would benefit sagebrush-associated bat 

species in particular. Together these efforts would reduce the negative grazing-related impacts on 

SAS described under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue 

to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would provide an added benefit to SAS habitat. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro 

management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under 

Alternatives B, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

SAS or their habitat. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, suppression would be prioritized in PPH to protect mature sagebrush 

habitat. Suppression would be prioritized in PGH only where fires threaten PPH. Suppressionrelated juniper encroachment discussed under Alternative A could increase in some areas under 
Alternative B, eliminating habitat for SAS, such as the pygmy rabbit, and eventually resulting in 

heavy fuel loadings that could contribute to larger-scale wildfire events that have a particularly 

negative effect on the pygmy rabbit. However, suppression could benefit SAS, such as bats, by 

protecting juniper and pinyon that may be used as roosts or hibernacula. 

Alternative B does not include any other specific management for wildland fire management in 

PGH. Fuels treatments would be designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining 

sagebrush cover, implementing fuel breaks, applying seasonal restrictions, protections for winter 

range, and requiring use of native seeds. Post-fuels treatments would be designed to ensure longterm persistence of seeded areas and native plants and maintain 15 percent canopy cover. Fuels 

treatments would also monitor and control for invasive species, and fuels management BMPs 

would incorporate invasive plant prevention measures. These measures would benefit SAS 

species negatively impacted by invasive species, such as pygmy rabbit, by eliminating 

competition with or exclusion of forage species. Overall, these conservation measures would 

reduce the threat of wildfire to sagebrush compared to Alternative A although the general effects 

of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions under Alternative B, with respect to fire and fuels, would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting SAS rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, 

current wildfire suppression operations would continue, however, additional emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush habitat during suppression activities and pre-suppression planning 

and staging for maximum protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be included. Fuels 

treatment activities would focus on protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within 

PPH. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V 

from the management actions under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to SAS or their habitat. 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML on the same number of 

acres as Alternative A, with gathers prioritized based on PPH habitat and emergency 

environmental issues. Wild Horse Territory (WHT) Plans would incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives in PPH. Land health assessments to determine existing 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation within all Territories would be conducted. 

Implementation of any range improvements in PPH would follow the same guidance as 

identified for livestock grazing in this alternative including designing and locating new 

improvements only where they “conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through improved 

grazing management”. Design features could include treating invasive species associated with 
range improvements. Additional range improvements in PPH would specifically address the 

needs of GRSG. In comparison to Alternative A, Alternative B would prioritize GRSG habitat 

objectives in WHT Plans and base AML numbers on GRSG habitat needs which would also 

likely benefit sagebrush-associated species by reducing the types of wild horse and burro 

management-related impacts discussed under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, wild horse and burro Territories 

would continue to be managed for Appropriate Management Level and livestock grazing would 

continue to be managed through existing grazing plans. However, additional emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would provide an added benefit to 

sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse 

and burro management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV or V from the management actions 

under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

SAS or their habitat. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this Alternative, PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing, and mineral material sales, and it would be proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry. In addition, mandatory BMPs would be applied as conditions of approval on fluid 

mineral leases. No surface occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals within 

PPH. A 3% disturbance cap to activities in PPH would be applied and numerous conservation 

measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from mineral exploration and development 

activities in PPH. These measures would reduce the impacts of energy development described 

under Alternative A on SAS within PPH. 

Alternative B does not include specific management for fluid, saleable, locatable, and nonenergy 

leasable minerals in PGH or wind energy or solar energy development in PPH or PGH. As a 

result, current trends would continue and impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A. 

Although Alternative B does not directly address wind energy development or industrial solar 

development, its 3% threshold for anthropogenic disturbances (See Land Uses and Realty 
Management) would apply to energy development and would limit the extent of all types of 

energy development in PPH. These measures would reduce the impacts of energy development 

on SAS described under Alternative A, although turbines associated with wind energy 

development would pose a greater collision hazard to bat species than under alternatives that 

would limit wind energy development through avoidance or exclusion. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of sagebrush habitat, primarily 

within PPH, thereby benefitting SAS rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under 

Alternative B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the current energy and locatable 

minerals management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing closures and proposing it for withdrawal 

would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of to SAS in Management Zones III, 

IV and V from the management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase 

impacts to SAS. 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, all PPH would be managed as exclusion areas and PGH would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new ROW and SUA projects and co-location of new ROWs or 

SUAs with existing infrastructure would occur in PPH and PGH. It would also include the 

following within PPH: co-location of new ROWs or SUAs with existing infrastructure; removal, 

burying, or modification of existing power lines; co-location of new facilities with existing 

facilities, where possible; use of existing roads, or realignments to access valid existing rights 

that are not yet developed or constructing new roads to the absolute minimum standard necessary 

if valid existing rights could not be accessed via existing roads; and a 3% threshold on 

anthropogenic disturbance (including, but not limited to, highways, roads, geothermal wells, 

wind turbines, and associated facilities) within PPH. 

In addition, Alternative B would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority sagegrouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate where 

suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved. This alternative would 

benefit SAS by maximizing connectivity and minimizing loss, fragmentation, degradation and 

disturbance of sagebrush habitats within PPH by power lines, communication towers and roads. 

SAS and SAS habitat outside PPH would likely experience little change in direct or indirect 
effects. However, if the 3% development threshold ended up concentrating new infrastructure 

development outside PPH rather than just reducing it within PPH, the extent of impacts on SAS 

and SAS habitat outside PPH could increase under Alternative B relative to Alternative A. 

Alternative B would reduce the likelihood of collisions addressed in Alternative A. These 

conservation measures make this alternative more protective of SAS than Alternative A, 

although the general effects would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternatives B would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting SAS rather than removing or fragmenting 

habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to GRSG would be 

included. Lands and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion or avoidance 

areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of lands and realty 

management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative B, which would be 

largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to SAS. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, motorized travel in PPH would be limited to designated roads, primitive 

roads, and trails. Only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse would be 

permitted in PPH and there would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH, with 

minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads. Although general impacts would 

be the same as Alternative A, Alternative B is more restrictive than Alternative A and it would 

likely reduce loss and fragmentation of SAS habitat and disturbance to SAS in PPH by 

minimizing human use and road construction or upgrades, and reduce the potential for 

automotive collisions with individuals of SAS species within PPH. However, if these measures 

ended up concentrating recreational use and additional roads outside PPH rather than just 

reducing it within PPH, the extent of impacts on SAS outside PPH could increase under 

Alternative B relative to Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative B would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, primarily within PPH, thereby benefitting SAS rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, within Management Zones III, IV and V, 

some of the current travel, transportation and recreation management direction would continue, 

however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. 
Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to 

SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial 

for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

not substantially increase impacts to SAS. 

Alternative C 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would maintain the direction described under Alternative A for weed control and 

pinyon-juniper encroachment and include additional provisions that would limit invasive weed 

spread in all occupied GRSG habitat. Vegetation management would benefit weed control 

efforts, by prioritizing restoration, including reducing invasive plants, in order to benefit sagegrouse habitats. In all cases, local native plant ecotype seeds and seedlings would be used. These 

policies would reduce the impacts of invasive plants on SAS described under Alternative A and 

have similar impacts associated with treatment, but would include additional conservation 

measures specific to limiting the spread of invasive plants. In addition, grazing would be 

eliminated within all occupied sage-grouse habitat, eliminating the potential for invasive plant 

spread by livestock. This would generally make Alternative C more protective of SAS and SAS 

habitat than Alternatives A or B.

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on SAS and sagebrush habitat would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative C would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to SAS in Management Zones III, 

IV and V from the management actions under Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial 

for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

not substantially increase impacts to SAS or their habitat. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, grazing would be eliminated within all occupied sage-grouse habitat 

reducing both the negative and positive grazing-related impacts on SAS and SAS habitat 

discussed under Alternative A more so than any of the other alternatives. No new water 

developments or range improvements would be constructed in occupied habitat and only habitat 
treatments that benefit GRSG would be allowed; most habitat treatments would be expected to 

benefit SAS as well. Retirement of grazing would be allowed and fast tracked. Alternative C 

could negatively impact SAS species by eliminating artificial water developments that some of 

these species have come to rely upon once grazing is eliminated, but it could improve riparian 

conditions. It would eliminate the potential for disease transmission from domestic livestock to 

bighorn sheep or the potential for competition between livestock and bighorn sheep at spring 

sources within all occupied habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Under Alternative C, within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), livestock grazing would be eliminated 

within all occupied GRSG habitat, providing a net benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from 

management under Alternative C, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it is more protective of SAS and SAS habitat 

because prioritization of suppression would apply to All Occupied Habitat, it includes measures 

to manage vegetation for good or better ecological condition, and it focuses fuel breaks on areas 

of human habitation or significant disturbance. Some of the negative impacts of fire suppression 

on conifer encroachment and fire suppression and fuels treatments on SAS discussed under 

Alternative A would be offset by the prioritization of restoration treatments described below for 

invasive plants. The general effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to 

those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions related to fire and fuels under Alternative C, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the 

cumulative effects described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove 

or fragment sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML. However, AML 

establishment would be analyzed in conjunction with livestock numbers during grazing permit 

renewals. Combined with the removal of some fences during “active restoration” processes 
related to livestock grazing, horses and burros would be expected to range over a larger area than 

in Alternative A and would necessitate the need for increased gather schedules. The increase in 

access to riparian and upland habitats that are currently protected by fences, and expected 

temporary increases in horses and burros over AML, could reduce food and cover for SAS, 

degrade riparian habitat important to bat species or increase the potential for competition 

between wild horses and burros and bighorn sheep at spring sources. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative C, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for AML as under current management, however, there would be fewer restrictions on 

wild horse and burro movement than under Alternative A. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of wild horse and burro management under Alternative C, in conjunction with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and 

fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would expand several of the protections under Alternative B to all occupied habitat 

as well as prohibit new exploration permits for unleased fluid minerals (also see Land Uses and 

Realty Management below). Like Alternative B, the conservation measures proposed under 

Alternative C would reduce the impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on SAS 

described under Alternative A, but to a larger degree than any of the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions under Alternative C with regard to energy and 

locatable minerals development would increase protection of all occupied habitat, thereby 

benefitting SAS. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the current 

energy and locatable minerals management direction would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat by adding all occupied habitat to existing 

closures and proposing it for withdrawal would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of fire to SAS Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under Alternative C, 

which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or SAS habitat. 
Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would have the most protective GRSG conservation measures with respect to SAS 

and infrastructure. Alternative C would extend many of the Alternative B conservation measures 

to all occupied habitat and all occupied habitat would be managed as an exclusion area for new 

ROW projects. As a result, management under Alternative C would encourage consolidation of 

sage-grouse habitats, facilitating habitat conservation and management and reduce the impacts of 

infrastructure on SAS described under Alternatives A and B in a wider area than Alternative B. 

Unlike Alternative B, which would permit wind energy siting in PPH provided a development 

disturbance threshold of 3% were not exceeded, Alternative C would not permit wind energy 

development siting in all occupied GRSG habitat. This would reduce the effects of wind energy 

on SAS discussed under Alternative A more so than Alternative B. Like alternative B, 

Alternative C would aim to remove, bury, or modify existing power lines but would apply to all 

occupied GRSG habitat, having the potential to disturb more SAS and habitat in the short term 

but, perhaps, having a greater likelihood of reducing the potential for collisions with aerial 

species in the long term. This alternative would be expected to have the least negative impacts 

and most positive impacts to wildlife species whose ranges overlap with all occupied GRSG 

habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternative C would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting SAS rather than removing or 

fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to 

GRSG would be included. Lands and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion 

or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

lands and realty management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative C, 

which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or SAS habitat. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that it would apply to all occupied habitat and, 

therefore, protect a larger area of SAS habitat than Alternative B from the same types of general 

recreational impacts described in Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative C would increase 
protection of all occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, thereby benefitting SAS rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative C, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, transportation and recreation 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V under 

Alternative C, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or 

sagebrush habitat. 

Alternative D 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D would treat sites within priority and general sage-grouse habitat that are dominated 

by invasive species through an IVM approach using fire, chemical, mechanical and biological 

methods based on site potential. Targeted grazing would be allowed to suppress cheatgrass or 

other vegetation that are hindering achieving sage-grouse objectives in priority and general 

habitat. Sheep, cattle, or goats may be used as long as the animals are intensely managed and 

removed when the utilization of desirable species reaches 35%. In perennial grass, invasive 

annual grass, and conifer-invaded cover types, sagebrush steppe would be restored with 

sagebrush seedings where feasible. 

Pinyon and juniper treatment in encroached sagebrush vegetation communities in priority habitat 

and general habitat would focus on enhancing, reestablishing, or maintaining habitat components 

(e.g. cover, security, food, etc.) in order to achieve habitat objectives. Phase II and III pinyon 

and/or juniper stands would be removed or reduced in biomass to meet fuel and sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and appropriate action would be taken to establish desired understory species 

composition, including seeding and invasive species treatments. Treatment methods that 

maintain sagebrush and shrub cover and composition would be used in areas with a sagebrush 

component. More so than Alternatives A, B or C, Alternative D has the potential to negatively 

impact bat species, through roost/hibernacula removal or injury or death, from more targeted 

pinyon and juniper removal. Although species negatively impacted by conifer encroachment, 

such as pygmy rabbit, would likely benefit more so than under Alternatives A, B or C. Use of 

domestic sheep for targeted grazing has the potential to negatively impact bighorn sheep through 

disease transmission. Short-term disturbance-related impacts to SAS from treatments would be 

the same under Alternative D as under Alternative A as would the general long-term benefits. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the short-
term negative impacts of these activities on SAS and SAS habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative D would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to SAS in Management Zones III, 

IV and V from the management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial 

for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

not substantially increase impacts to SAS or SAS habitat. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D, similar to Alternative B, would implement a number of beneficial management 

actions to incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into 

livestock grazing management: consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts 

on sage-grouse habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of 

riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, 

authorization of new water developments and structural range improvements only when 

beneficial to GRSG, the potential to modify grazing systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse 

habitat requirements and fence removal, modification or marking. The main difference is that 

Alternative D would apply these conservation measures to priority and general habitat rather 

than limiting them to PPH as Alternative B would and Alternative D would not require the 

completion of Land Health Assessments to determine if standards of range-land health are being 

met as Alternative B would. These measures would reduce potential for negative impacts from 

grazing on SAS described under Alternative A probably more so than Alternative B but less so 

than Alternative C that would eliminate livestock grazing in all occupied habitat. Alternative D 

would benefit riparian-dependent SAS, such as Columbia spotted bat, by improving riparian 

conditions. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans and wild horse 
and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, 

additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide 

an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing and wild horse and burro management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from 

the management actions under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, in which suppression would be prioritized in PPH, but only in PGH where 

fires threaten PPH, Alternative D would prioritize suppression in priority and general sagegrouse habitat. In priority and general habitat, fuels treatments emphasizing maintaining, 

protecting, and expanding GRSG habitat would be designed and implemented and would include 

measures similar to Alternative B except they would apply to priority and general habitat rather 

than only PPH. These include generally enhancing or maintaining/retaining sagebrush canopy 

cover and community structure; applying appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

fuels treatments according to the type of sage-grouse seasonal habitats present; and requiring use 

of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. In addition, Alternative D would not allow fuels treatment projects to 

be implemented in priority and general habitat if it is determined the treatment would not be 

beneficial to GRSG or its habitat. It would identify opportunities for prescribed fire and require 

use of certified weed-free seeds. Alternative D would prioritize pre-suppression activities in 

sage-grouse habitats that are vulnerable to wildfire events and post-fire treatments in priority and 

general habitat to maximize benefits to greater sage-grouse. Overall, these conservation 

measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to sagebrush compared to Alternative A, although 

in general, the effects of fire suppression and fuels treatments would be similar to those of 

Alternative A. Prioritization of suppression and fuels treatments in priority and general habitat 

under Alternative D, rather than limiting them to PPH under Alternative B, would make 

Alternative D more protective of SAS and sagebrush habitat, in the long term, than Alternative 

B.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative D, when combined with the 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects 

described in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove or fragment 

sagebrush habitat past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 
Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, gathers would be prioritized in priority and general habitat as opposed to 

only PPH under Alternative B. Otherwise Alternative B is similar to management proposed in 

Alternative B in that wild horse and burro populations would be managed within established 

AML to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives for all WHTs within or containing priority or 

general habitat. Unlike Alternative B, adjustments to AML through the NEPA process would be 

considered in WHTs not meeting standards due to degradation that can be at least partially 

contributed to wild horse or burro populations; adjustments would be based on monitoring data 

and would seek to protect and enhance priority and general habitat and establish a thriving 

ecological balance. Alternative D would be expected to reduce the impacts of wild horses and 

burros on SAS described under Alternative A over a larger area than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, in the 

DEIS it is only considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only 

for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V, wild horse and burro Territories 

would be managed for Appropriate Management Level and livestock grazing would continue to 

be managed through existing grazing plans. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro 

management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under 

Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial SAS, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts on SAS or their 

habitat. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, a NSO stipulation, with no allowance for waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications, would be applied to un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in priority sage-grouse 

habitat and a NSO stipulation, with allowance for waivers, exception, or modifications, would be 

applied in un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in general sage-grouse habitat. Geophysical 

exploration that does not result in crushing of sagebrush vegetation or create new or additional 

surface disturbance would be allowed within priority and general sage-grouse habitat, but 
geophysical operations would be subject to timing and controlled surface use limitations. 

Proposed surface disturbance in unleased priority habitat must achieve no net unmitigated loss of 

priority habitat; seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling that prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities in winter habitat and during the lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing season would 

be applied in all priority sage-grouse habitat. Required Design Features (RDFs) would be applied 

as Conditions of Approval within priority and general sage-grouse habitat on existing fluid 

mineral leases. 

Similar to Alternative A, new plans of operation for authorized locatable minerals on forest 

service-administered lands would require the inclusion of measures to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to GRSG populations or their habitat. Priority and general habitat would be closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and prospecting. No new commercial mineral material sales 

would be allowed in priority and general habitat, but sales to meet Federal, Tribal, State, County 

and public needs would be allowed in general habitat; loss of habitat through disturbance in 

general habitat would be off-set through off-site mitigation. Alternative D would manage priority 

and general habitat as ROW exclusion areas for new large-scale wind and solar energy facilities 

(see Land Uses and Realty Management), whereas Alternative B would manage PPH as a new 

ROW exclusion area and PGH as a new ROW avoidance area. 

Although the conservation measures proposed under Alternative D would overall reduce the 

general impacts on SAS associated with energy and locatable minerals development discussed 

under Alternative A, Alternative D would be less protective of PPH than Alternative B with 

respect to new fluid mineral leasing, because Alternative B would close PPH to new fluid 

mineral leasing. On the other hand, it would be more protective of PGH than Alternative B with 

respect to new fluid mineral leasing, because Alternative B does not include specific 

management for new or existing fluid minerals leasing in general habitat. Alternative D would be 

similar to Alternative B with respect to existing fluid mineral leases by requiring application of 

design features in priority habitat. Under Alternative D, both priority and general habitat would 

be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing and prospecting as opposed to only PPH under 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III IV and V, some 

of the current management direction associated with energy and locatable minerals development 

would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush would be 

included. Alternative D is the same as Alternative A with respect to areas closed to entry, but 

adds NSO restrictions to all PPH and PGH without waiver, exception, or modification. NSO 

restrictions would apply to PGH with allowance for waivers, exceptions and modifications. 

Management under Alternatives D would maintain current acreage open to mineral development 
but add the application of best management practices and off-site mitigation. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development to SAS in Management 

Zones III, IV and V from the added management actions under Alternative D, which would be 

largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Like Alternative B, Alternative D would contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority 

sage-grouse habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate 

where suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved, require colocation of new ROWs or SUAs associated with valid existing rights with existing development 

and, where appropriate, bury new and existing utility lines as mitigation unless not feasible. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would manage priority and general habitat as ROW 

exclusion areas for new large-scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities and 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, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net un-mitigated loss of 

priority or general habitat. In addition, ROW holders in priority and general habitat would be 

required to retro-fit existing power lines and other utility structure with perch-deterring devices 

during ROW renewal process. These conservation measures make this alternative more 

protective of SAS than Alternative A, although the general effects would be the same. It would 

be less protective than Alternatives B and C with respect to new siting of general ROWs and 

SUAs because priority habitat would be an avoidance area rather than an exclusion area. But it 

would be more protective to SAS with respect to large-scale commercial wind and solar energy 

facilities by excluding them in priority and general habitat altogether. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative D would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting SAS rather than removing or fragmenting 

habitat. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to GRSG would be 

included. Land uses and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion or avoidance 

areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of lands and realty 

management to SAS in Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely 

beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not substantially increase impacts to SAS. 
Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Like Alternative B, Alternative D 

would limit motorized travel to designated routes, there would be limited opportunities for road 

construction with minimum standards applied and no upgrading of current roads, and only 

recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse would be permitted. Unlike 

Alternative B, Alternative D would extend these measures beyond PPH to include PGH. In 

addition, under Alternative D no new recreation facilities (including, but not limited to, 

campgrounds, day use areas, scenic pullouts, trailheads, etc.) would be constructed in priority 

and general habitat. Although general impacts would be the same as Alternative A, Alternative D 

is more restrictive than Alternative A or Alternative B. It would likely reduce habitat loss or 

fragmentation and disturbance to SAS species by minimizing human use and road construction 

or upgrades and reduce automotive collisions with individuals of SAS. It could also limit access 

to caves or rock outcrops, thereby benefitting SAS bat species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative D would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat within PPH and PGH, thereby benefitting SAS rather than 

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative D, within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, transportation and recreation 

management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of travel, 

transportation and recreation management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V under 

Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase impacts to SAS. 

Alternative E 

All management actions under Alternative E would correspond to areas identified on the SageGrouse Management Areas (SGMAs) Map contained in the “2012 Strategic Plan for the 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Nevada” (2012 Plan) produced by Nevada stakeholders 

at the request of the governor. The SGMAs include four categories - Occupied Habitat, Suitable 

Habitat, Potential Habitat, and Non Habitat areas - as defined in the 2012 Plan. The Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Council would further refine the habitat categories within the SGMAs and 

determine where the best possible habitat exists based on recommendations from the Nevada 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. All management Actions would be implemented through 

a coordinated effort among local, state and federal agencies, unless an agency is specifically 
noted. Alternative E would not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, but would seek to 

achieve conservation through a goal of “no net loss” in the Occupied, Suitable and Potential 

Habitat categories for activities that could be controlled, such as a planned disturbance or 

development. Management under Alternative E would be subject to an avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate approach, which would provide a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have 

fixed exclusion and avoidance land allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, landscape-level treatments in Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs) 

would be initiated to reverse the effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment and restore healthy, 

resilient sagebrush ecosystems. Plans to remove Phase I and Phase II encroachment and treat 

Phase III encroachment would be aggressively implemented to reduce the threat of severe 

conflagration and restore SGMAs where possible, especially in areas in close proximity to 

Occupied and Suitable Habitat. Temporary roads to access treatment areas would be allowed and 

constructed with minimum design standards to avoid and minimize impacts and removed and 

restored upon completion of treatment. Under Alternative E, the State of Nevada would continue 

to incentivize and assist in the development of bio-fuels and other commercial uses of pinyonjuniper resources and 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. Alternative E would provide for an increase in conifer encroachment management 

for sagebrush habitat compared to Alternative A, B or C. 

Under Alternative E, invasive plants would be managed through a combination of surveys, 

biological control, educational activities, native planting and reseeding of previously treated sites 

in areas susceptible to invasion, and weed-free gravel and forage certifications and inspections. 

SGMAs would be managed to prevent invasive species and to suppress and restore areas with 

existing infestations. Existing areas of invasive vegetative that pose a threat to SGMAs would be 

treated through the use of herbicides, fungicides or bacteria to control cheatgrass and 

medusahead infestations. All burned areas within SGMAs would be reviewed and evaluated in a 

timely manner to ascertain the reclamation potential for reestablishing Sage-Grouse habitat, 

enhancing ecosystem resiliency, and controlling invasive weed species. The effects under 

Alternative E would be similar to those under Alternative D. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on SAS and SAS habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 

composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 
increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative E would provide an added benefit to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to SAS in Management Zones III, 

IV and V from the management actions under Alternative E, which would be largely beneficial 

for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

not substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would manage grazing permits to maintain or enhance SGMAs. It would utilize 

livestock grazing, when appropriate, as a management tool, to improve Sage-Grouse habitat 

quantity, quality or to reduce wildfire threats which could benefit SAS as well. Alternative E 

would expand the promotion of proper livestock grazing practices that promote the health of 

perennial grass communities in order to suppress the establishment of cheatgrass. Riparian areas 

would be managed to current agency standards. Within riparian areas, Alternative E would 

promote grazing within acceptable limits and development of additional infrastructure (e.g., 

fences and troughs) in order to facilitate this action. In comparison with Alternative A, 

management under Alternative E would provide less protection to SAS and their habitats. In 

general, there are fewer conservation measures associated with this alternative. Impacts to 

riparian structure that could negatively impact sagebrush-associated bat species would be 

expected to be greater due to more areas being available for livestock use. Bighorn sheep could 

be subject to increased competition at spring sources and, depending upon the type of livestock 

authorized, disease transmission. Fewer overall sagebrush-specific habitat enhancement or 

maintenance actions would occur under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

there would be fewer restrictions on livestock grazing than under Alternative A. In addition, 

riparian impacts would be expected to be greater due to more areas being available for livestock 

use and fewer overall GRSG specific habitat enhancement/maintenance actions would occur. 

Wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level as under 

current management. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing, in 
conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, could result in the 

increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV 

and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would utilize a unique approach to fire and fuels management. Under Alternative 

E, emphasis would be on sagebrush habitat protection and restoration within the SGMAs. With 

respect to hazardous fuels treatments, this alternative sets a goal of supporting incentives for 

developing a beneficial use for biomass. Wildland fires in SGMAs would be managed 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. Additional emphasis under 

Alternative E integrates the prepositioning of suppression resources and preventative actions 

similar to Alternative D. Prepositioning and preventative actions would increase the likelihood of 

successful fire management actions with response to wildfire. Fuels reduction treatments would 

be similar to Alternative B, with added emphasis on coordination of state and local agencies and 

individual landowners. While the general short-term impacts fire and fuels conservation 

measures on SAS would be the same as those described under Alternative A, the long-term 

beneficial effects of the measures on SAS would be similar to those of Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternative E, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove or fragment sagebrush habitat 

past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Management under Alternative E would maintain wild horses at AML in WHTs to avoid and 

minimize impacts on Sage-Grouse Management Areas, evaluate conflicts with WHT 

designations in Sage-Grouse Management Areas, modify Land Use Plans and Resource 

Management Plans to avoid negative impacts on GRSG and, if necessary, resolve conflicts 

between the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the Endangered Species Act. Wild 

horse and burro management under Alternative E would be similar to Alternative A. Therefore, 

impacts to SAS are expected to be similar to that of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 
BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative E, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level as under current management. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV 

and V from the management actions under Alternative E, which would be largely neutral for 

SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Alternative E management strategy would be to avoid conflicts with GRSG habitat by siting 

new minerals and energy facilities and activities outside of habitat wherever possible. Projects 

that have an approved BLM notice, plan of operation, right-of-way, or drilling plan would be 

exempt from any new mitigation requirements above and beyond what has already been 

stipulated in the projects’ approvals. Exploration projects would be designed for mineral access 

and the betterment of GRSG habitat. Roads and other ancillary features that impact GRSG 

habitat would be designed to avoid where feasible and otherwise minimize and mitigate impacts 

in the short and long term. New linear features would be sited in existing corridors or, at a 

minimum, co-located with existing linear features in SGMAs. Measures to deter raptor perching 

and raven nesting on elevated structures would be applied to energy development projects. 

Energy developers would be required to work closely with state and federal agency experts to 

determine important GRSG nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats and avoid those areas, and 

energy development or infrastructure features would be restricted within a 0.6 mile (1 km) radius 

around seeps, springs and wet meadows within identified brood rearing habitats wherever 

possible. In addition, Alternative E would aggressively engage in reclamation efforts as projects 

are completed. Renewed mining could disturb or destroy existing Townsend’s big-eared bat 

roosts while prioritization of reclamation of previously defunct mines could negatively impact 

Townsend’s big eared bats by trapping individuals or eliminating roost habitat if reclamation is 

improperly implemented. As previously stated, Alternative E does not provide fixed exclusion or 

avoidance areas, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate approach, 

which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion and 

avoidance land allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. Under Alternative E, there 

would be the possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals development than under 

Alternative A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to sagebrush habitat would not 

be ruled out. Therefore, the general impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on 

SAS discussed under Alternative A would have the potential to increase under Alternative E. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 
occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative E, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer 

to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), there would be no fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, as under 

Alternatives B, C, D or F, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

approach, which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion 

and avoidance land allocations based on habitat designations. In addition, there would be the 

possibility for more land use for both energy and minerals development than under Alternative 

A, because construction of projects within or adjacent to GRSG habitat would not be ruled out. 

Therefore, under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals 

development, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, no areas would be subject to exclusion or avoidance, but habitat 

disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in Occupied and Suitable Habitat would be 

limited to not more than five percent per year, and in Potential Habitat to not more than twenty 

percent per year, per SGMA, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results. On federal 

lands in Nevada with pre-approved activities, no new mitigation would take place beyond 

previously approved in Plans of Development, right of ways, or drilling plans. General guidance 

would be to avoid when possible, minimize adverse effects as practicable, and mitigate adverse 

effects in Occupied or Suitable Habitat. Whenever possible, this alternative would locate 

facilities in non-habitat areas, site new linear features in existing corridors or co-locate them with 

other existing features and engage in reclamation and weed control efforts. This alternative 

provides fewer measures when compared to Alternatives A, B, C, D or F to reduce the general 

impacts of land uses and realty management described under Alternative A to SAS and 

sagebrush habitats. Therefore, Alternative E would not be as protective of SAS habitat as any of 

the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative E would not include 

specific exclusion or avoidance areas but would limit total disturbance within Occupied and 

Suitable Habitats and implement an avoid, minimize, mitigate approach, as discussed above. 

This would provide a lower level of certainty for sagebrush habitat protection under Alternative 

E than under alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance areas based on habitat 

designations and could lead to greater habitat fragmentation under Alternative E. Therefore, the 

direct and indirect effects land uses and realty management under Alternative E, in conjunction 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss 

and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 
Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, travel, transportation and recreation management would essentially remain 

the same as it currently is under Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to SAS under Alternative E 

are expected to be similar to those of Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation and recreation management as it exists under Alternative A would continue under 

Alternative E. The limitation of motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational 

SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road 

construction and upgrading of current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in 

Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects from travel, 

transportation and recreation management, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, may result in the increased loss and fragmentation of the existing 

sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Alternative F 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F includes a conservation measure specifically directed at 

invasive plants that would develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring 

sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants. Like Alternative B, Alternative F would manage 

pinyon-juniper encroachment under current direction (see Alternative A). In addition, GRSG 

vegetation management conservation measures would benefit weed and conifer control efforts by 

prioritizing restoration efforts, including reducing invasive plants, and monitoring and 

controlling invasive species after fuels treatments and at existing new range improvements in all 

occupied GRSG habitat (PPH and PGH as opposed to only PPH under Alternative B). Together, 

these measures would result in a net benefit to sagebrush habitat by reducing impacts from 

invasive plants and pinyon-juniper encroachment on sagebrush habitat, as described under 

Alternative A, more so than Alternative B although the effects of the treatments would be the 

same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on SAS and sagebrush habitats would continue to be 

outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts including increased forage, cover quality and 
composition, reduced predator perches, decreased fire spread and intensity and potentially 

increased water availability. However, additional emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat under Alternative F would provide an added benefit to SAS. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of vegetation and soils management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V 

from the management actions under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative F would include beneficial management actions similar to those of Alternative B 

except they would apply in all GRSG habitats. These include completion of Land Health 

Assessments, consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts on sage-grouse 

habitat, consideration of retiring vacant allotments, improved management of riparian areas and 

wet meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new 

water developments and structural range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, BMPs 

for West Nile Virus, and fence removal, modification or marking. Together these efforts would 

reduce the impacts from grazing on SAS described under Alternative A to a larger degree than 

Alternative B and expand the beneficial impacts discussed under Alternative B over a larger 

area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, in the DEIS it is only 

considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” and only for 

Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories which have the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), 

livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans Wild horse and 

burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. However, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative F would provide an added 

benefit to SAS. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and 

burro management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions 

under Alternative F, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to 

SAS or sagebrush habitat. 
Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Fire and fuels management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that under 

Alternative B. Please refer to Alternative B. The impacts on SAS would be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative of management actions under Alternative F, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar to the cumulative effects described 

in Alternative B, and are not expected to be substantial or remove or fragment sagebrush habitat 

past a critical threshold within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Wild horse and burro management under Alternative F would be similar to that proposed under 

Alternative B except all conservation measures, but the measure prioritizing gathers in PPH, 

would extend to all occupied GRSG habitat. Therefore, the beneficial impacts on SAS under 

Alternative F would be the same as those under Alternative B except they would apply to all 

occupied GRSG habitat making Alternative F more protective of SAS and SAS habitat than 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Refer to Alternative B. Cumulative effects would be the same. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Energy and locatable minerals development is similar to proposed management under 

Alternative B. Under Alternative F siting of wind energy development would be prevented in 

PPH; PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable mineral leasing, and 

mineral material sales; it would be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry; no new surface 

occupancy (NSO) would be stipulated for leased fluid minerals and a 3% disturbance cap would 

be applied. Numerous conservation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from 

mineral exploration and development activities in PPH. Like Alternative B, Alternative F does 

not include specific management for locatable, or saleable or nonenergy minerals in PGH. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative F directly addresses wind energy and fluid minerals 

development outside of PPH: wind energy would be sited at least five miles from active sagegrouse leks and at least four miles from the perimeter of sage-grouse winter habitat and areas 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks would be closed to new fluid minerals leasing. 

Alternative F, although similar to Alternative B, would reduce the impacts of energy 

development on SAS and SAS habitat, as described under Alternative A, more so than 
Alternative B because it addresses siting of wind energy and fluid minerals leasing outside of 

PPH more thoroughly than Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management actions associated with energy and locatable minerals 

development under Alternative B would increase protection of sagebrush habitat, primarily 

within PPH, thereby benefitting SAS rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under 

Alternatives B, within Management Zones III and IV, some of the current energy and locatable 

minerals management direction would continue, however, additional emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing closures and proposing it for withdrawal 

would be included. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals 

development to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions under 

Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or 

sagebrush habitat. 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Land uses and realty management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that 

under Alternative B. Please refer to Alternative B. The effects on SAS and their habitat would 

be the same. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative F would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat, thereby benefitting SAS rather than removing or fragmenting 

habitat. Under Alternative F, within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS), some of the current land and realty operations would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat and preventing disturbance to GRSG would be 

included. Lands and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion or avoidance 

areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of lands and realty 

management to SAS in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative F, which would be 

largely beneficial for SAS, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would not substantially increase impacts to SAS or their habitat. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

With respect to travel, transportation and recreation, Alternative F is similar to Alternative B: 

within PPH, only recreational SUAs that are neutral or beneficial to GRSG would be permitted, 
there would be limited opportunities for new route construction and upgrading of existing routes 

could only occur if they would not result in a new 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. In addition, Alternative F would expand the Alternative B measure restricting motorized 

travel to designated routes in PPH to include PGH, designated routes in sage-grouse priority 

habitat would be considered for closure, camping areas within 4 miles of active leks would 

seasonally be closed, permanent seasonal road or area closures to protect breeding, nesting and 

brood rearing sage-grouse would be implemented and new road construction would be prohibited 

within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks. Therefore, the general travel, transportation and 

recreation effects of Alternative F on SAS would be the same as those for Alternatives A and B, 

although Alternative F would be more protective, particularly with respect to reducing 

disturbance to SAS and protecting sagebrush habitat from degradation and introduction of 

invasive weeds, than Alternative B due to the additional measures. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” addressed 

in the DEIS and only for Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Management actions 

associated with travel, transportation and recreation under Alternative F would increase 

protection of sagebrush habitat within PPH and, in some instances, PGH and PPH, thereby 

benefitting SAS rather than removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative F, within 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), some of the current travel, 

transportation and recreation management direction would continue, however, additional 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of travel, transportation and recreation management to SAS in Management 

Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D, which would be largely beneficial for SAS, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not 

substantially increase impacts to SAS or sagebrush habitat. 

C. SENSITIVE PLANTS 

Forest sensitive plants have been grouped for this analysis due to the similar types of impacts 

they could experience and the programmatic nature and landscape scale of this analysis. The 

landscape scale effects of the proposed conservation measures for each program area within each 

alternative will be analyzed generally and collectively for this group of species. For each 

species, the NatureServe Ranking is provided in the Status section to provide additional context 

for the global and state rarity of the species. For a thorough discussion of NatureServe rankings, 

please refer to the NatureServe web site (NatureServe 2013). 

Antennaria arcuata (Meadow pussytoes) 

Status 

Meadow pussytoes is considered globally imperiled (G2) and critically imperiled (S1) in 

Nevada. Meadow pussytoes was considered for federal listing under the Endangered Species 
Act from 1975 to 1996, but based on the absence of significant downward trends and survey 

work completed in Wyoming, where most populations are known, Meadow pussytoes was not 

recommended for listing. 

Distribution 

Meadow pussytoes occurs primarily in Wyoming, with small numbers of disjunct occurrences in 

Nevada and Idaho. In Nevada, documented occurrences are restricted to Elko County. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Meadow pussytoes is a stoloniferous, short-lived perennial forb in the sunflower family. The 

species typically flowers in July and August. Meadow pussytoes occurs in sagebrush and 

grassland associations within seasonally dry portions of moist alkaline meadows, seeps, and 

springs at elevations of 6,200-6,500 ft. (Morefiled 2001). Data from Wyoming occurrences 

indicate that meadow pussytoes occurs on soils that are neutral to basic with high concentrations 

of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and organic content and low concentrations of selenium (Heidel 

2013). Threats to meadow pussytoes include overgrazing by livestock in late summer, alteration 

of hydrology, road construction and maintenance, competition with invasive non-native plants, 

and mineral exploration and development. 

Asclepias eastwoodiana (Eastwood milkweed) 

Status

Eastwood milkweed is considered imperiled globally and in Nevada. 

Distribution 

Eastwood milkweed is endemic to Nevada, where it occurs in Esmeralda, Lander, Lincoln, and 

Nye Counties. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Eastwood milkweed is a low-growing perennial forb that typically flowers in May and June. The 

species occurs within mixed desert shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper woodlands in open 

areas, frequently in small washes or other moisture-accumulating microsites (Morefield 2001). 

The approximate elevation range of Eastwood milkweed is 3,000-7,080 ft. Threats to Eastwood 

milkweed include trampling by livestock and habitat loss due to mining and road construction 

(Morefield 2001). 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. latus (Broad-pod freckled milkvetch) 

Status 

Broad-pod freckled milkvetch is considered imperiled globally (T2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Broad-pod freckled milkvetch is a Nevada endemic found in Elko and White Pine Counties, 

Nevada. 
Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Broad-pod freckled milkvetch is a perennial forb in the pea family. The subspecies occurs within 

pinyon-juniper woodlands on gravelly or sandy calcareous soils, generally on moderate to steep 

slopes, at elevations of 5,700-9,900 ft. (Morefield 2001). Threats to Broad-pod freckled 

milkvetch include livestock grazing, recreation, road development and maintenance, mining, and 

invasive species. 

Astragalus robbinsii var. occidentalis (Lamoille Canyon milkvetch) 

Status 

Lamoille Canyon milkvetch is considered imperiled to vulnerable globally (T2T3) and in Nevada 

(S2S3). 

Distribution 

Lamoille Canyon milkvetch is a Nevada endemic that occurs in Elko County in the Ruby and 

east Humboldt Mountains. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Lamoille Canyon milkvetch is a perennial forb in the pea family that typically flowers from late 

June to August. The subspecies occurs in willow, aspen or shrubby cinquefoil communities in 

seeps, riparian strips, and high-elevation meadow margins on moist to seasonally dry sandy loam 

soils (Morefield 2001). The approximate elevation range of Lamoille Canyon milkvetch is 

6,050-10,000 ft. Threats to Lamoille Canyon milkvetch include recreation use and development, 

livestock grazing, road construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration and development 

(Morefield 2001). 

Astragalus toquimanus (Toquima milkvetch) 

Status 

Toquima milkvetch is considered imperiled globally (G2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Toquima milkvetch is a Nevada endemic documented from the Monitor and Toquima Ranges in 

Nye County. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

A member of the pea family, Toquima milkvetch is a perennial forb that typically flowers in 

May and June. The species occurs within pinyon-juniper and sagebrush vegetation, typically on 

gravelly hillsides with gentle slopes in areas of basic or calcareous soils, and is often found 

growing underneath sagebrush plants. The documented elevation range of Toquima milkvetch is 

6,480-7,520 ft. (Morefield 2001). Threats to the species include livestock grazing, mining 

activity, and road construction and maintenance. 
Astragalus uncialis (Currant milkvetch) 

Status 

Currant milkvetch is considered globally imperiled (G2) and critically imperiled in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Currant milkvetch is documented from Millard County, Utah, and Nye County, Nevada. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

A member of the pea family, Currant milkvetch is a long-lived low perennial forb that grows in 

dense tufts and flowers from early May to mid-June. The species occurs in desert shrub and 

sagebrush vegetation on knolls, gullied foothills, stony washes, saline flats, gently sloping 

hillsides, and alluvial fans in calcareous sandy-clay or gravelly alkaline soils. Currant milkvetch 

is documented from an elevation range of approximately 4,800-6,050 ft. in Nevada (Morefield 

2001). Threats to Currant milkvetch include livestock grazing, mining activity, and off road 

vehicle use. 

Boechera falcatoria (Grouse Creek rockcress) 

Status 

Grouse Creek rockcress is considered critically imperiled to imperiled globally (G1G2) and 

critically imperiled in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Grouse Creek rockcress occurs in Utah and Nevada. In Nevada, the species is apparently 

restricted to the southern Ruby Mountains. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Grouse Creek rockcress is a perennial forb in the mustard family. The species occurs on exposed 

gravelly wind-swept passes with low sagebrush in mountain mahogany, sagebrush, and pinyonjuniper associations at elevations of 6,600-9,000 ft. Livestock grazing has been identified as a 

potential threat to this species. 

Botrychium ascendens (Upswept moonwort) 

Status 

Upswept moonwort is considered globally vulnerable (G3) and critically imperiled in Nevada 

(S1). 

Distribution 

Upswept moonwort is widely distributed throughout the western United States and Canada but is 

locally rare across its range. The species is documented from Alaska, California, Minnesota, 

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Ontario, 
Quebec, and Yukon Territory. On the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF, the species is documented from 

the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area in Nevada and Cooney Lake on the Bridgeport 

RD in California. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Upswept moonwort is a diminutive (6-10 cm.) perennial fern. Across its range, the species 

occurs in diverse habitats, including riparian areas, seeps, springs, alpine meadows, avalanche 

meadows, grassy roadsides, and shrublands. As with other moonworts, upswetp moonwort 

exists underground in the gametophyte stage for much of its life cycle and may not emerge every 

year, making surveys unreliable. In Nevada, upswept moonwort is documented at elevations of 

approximately 8,136-11,646. Although specific threats have not been identified for upswept 

moonwort in Nevada, populations are small and isolated, making them particularly vulnerable to 

stochastic natural phenomena. 

Botrychium crenulatum (Dainty moonwort) 

Status 

Dainty moonwort is considered globally vulnerable (G3) and critically imperiled in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Dainty moonwort is widely distributed throughout the western United States and Canada but is 

locally rare across its range. Dainty moonwort is documented from Arizona, California, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, British Columbia, and Alberta. On the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe NF, dainty moonwort is documented from the Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area, and the Jarbidge and Ruby Mountains RDs in Nevada and the Bridgeport RD in 

California. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Dainty moonwort is a small (6-16 cm) perennial fern that occurs in diverse habitats, including 

stream bottoms, seeps, marsh edges, wet swales, alpine meadows, and grassy roadsides, often on 

soils of reprecipitated calcium. Dainty moonwort is the most hydrophyllic of the moonworts and 

typically grows in saturated soils. In Nevada, fronds of dainty moonwort emerge in the spring, 

typically become fertile in late spring, and die in the fall. As with other moonworts, dainty 

moonwort exists underground in the gametophyte stage for much of its life cycle and may not 

emerge every year, making surveys unreliable. In Nevada, dainty moonwort is documented at 

elevations of approximately 8,136-11,154 ft. Because populations of dainty moonwort are small 

and highly disjunct, they are particularly vulnerable to stochastic natural phenomena. 

Botrychium lineare (Slender moonwort) 

Status 

Slender moonwort is considered globally imperiled (G2) and its status has not been assessed in 

Nevada (SNR). 
Distribution 

Slender moonwort is widely distributed throughout the western United States and Canada but is 

locally rare across its range. In the United States, the species is documented from Alaska, 

California, Colorado, South Dakota, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and in Canada 

it is documented from Yukon Territory and historically from New Brunswick and Quebec. In 

Nevada, slender moonwort is documented from the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Slender moonwort is a small (6-18cm) perennial fern that occupies highly varied habitats across 

its range, including moist to dry meadows, bogs, swamps, roadside ditches, dry fields, and 

forests in a variety of areas ranging from limestone cliffs and gravelly beaches to forest 

understory. Slender moonwort is among the least frequently encountered moonworts. As with 

other Botrychium species, slender moonwort exists underground in the gametophyte stage for 

much of its life cycle and may not emerge every year, making surveys unreliable. Most 

occurrences are montane at 4,900-9,800 ft., but the species occupies elevation from sea level to 

10,000 ft. In Nevada, slender moonwort is documented from 8,497-9,776 ft. Threats to slender 

moonwort include road maintenance, non-native invasive species, and overgrazing by livestock. 

Because populations of slender moonwort are small and highly disjunct, they also are vulnerable 

to stochastic natural phenomena. 

Botrychium tunux (Moosewort) 

Status 

Moosewort is considered vulnerable globally (G3) and critically imperiled in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Moosewort is broadly distributed across the western United States and Canada but is locally rare 

in some states in which it occurs. Moosewort is documented from Alaska, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, and Yukon Territory. On the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF, 

moosewort is documented from the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area in Nevada and 

the Bridgeport RD in California. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Moosewort is a small (6-12 cm.) perennial fern. Across its range, the species occurs in diverse 

habitats, including low elevation coastal beaches and dunes in Alaska, well-drained rocky 

meadows in California, and sparsely vegetated alpine scree slopes in Montana, Wyoming and 

Colorado. In Nevada, the species is associated with seeps, and springs at 9,186-9,842 ft. On the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe NF, moosewort is documented from Spring Mountains in Nevada and the 

Bridgeport Ranger District in California. As with other moonworts, peculiar moonwort exists 

underground in the gametophyte stage for much of its life cycle and may not emerge every year, 

making surveys unreliable. Threats to moosewort include all-terrain vehicle use, grazing by wild 

horses, and debris avalanches. Small and highly disjunct populations of moosewort (such as 
those that occur on the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF) also are vulnerable to stochastic natural 

phenomena. 

Epilobium nevadense (Nevada willowherb) 

Status 

Nevada willowherb is imperiled globally (G2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Nevada willowherb occurs in Nevada and Utah. In Nevada, the species is documented from 

Clark, Eureka, and Lincoln Counties. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

A member of the evening primrose family, Nevada willowherb is a perennial subshrub that 

typically flowers from July through August. The species occurs within pinyon pine and 

ponderosa pine communities on limestone talus slopes and rock outcrops at an elevation range of 

6,000-8,930 ft. in NV (Morefield 2001). Threats to Nevada willowherb include road 

construction, mineral exploration and extraction, and recreation. 

Eriogonum douglasii var. elkoense (Sunflower Flat buckwheat) 

Status 

Sunflower Flat buckwheat is considered critically imperiled globally (T1) and in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Sunflower Flat buckwheat is known only from the Sunflower Flats area northeast of Wild Horse 

State Park in Elko County, Nevada 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Sunflower Flat buckwheat is a perennial forb that typically flowers between May and July. 

Sunflower Flat buckwheat occurs within mixed grassland and sagebrush communities on sandy 

to gravelly flats and slopes at elevations of 6,200-6900 ft. Identified threats to Sunflower Flat 

buckwheat include grazing and trampling by livestock and wildlife, competition from invasive 

weeds, road maintenance, fuel treatments, recreation, and mining activities. 

Eriogonum esmeraldense var. toiyabense (Toiyabe buckwheat) 

Status 

Toiyabe buckwheat is considered imperiled globally (T2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Toiyabe buckwheat is endemic to Nevada. The variety is documented from the Toiyabe, 

Toquima, and Monitor ranges in Nye County, where it can be locally common, and from the 

Shoshone and Independent mountains in Lander and Elko Counties, respectively, where it is 

locally infrequent. 
Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Toiyabe buckwheat is an annual forb that typically flowers between June and September. 

Toiyabe buckwheat occurs in saltbush, sagebrush, and mountain mahogany communities, and in 

pinyon-juniper and montane conifer woodlands on sandy to gravelly flats and slopes at 

elevations of 6,900-10,500 ft. Primary threats have not been assessed for this species. 

Eriogonum lewisii (Lewis's buckwheat) 

Status 

Lewis’s buckwheat is considered imperiled to vulnerable globally (G2G3) and in Nevada 

(S2S3). 

Distribution 

Lewis’s buckwheat is a Nevada endemic documented from north-central Elko County and 

northern Eureka County in the Bull Run, Independence, Tuscarora and Jarbidge Mountains. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Lewis’s buckwheat is a small, long-lived perennial that flowers from June to July and sets seed 

between early June and the end of August. The species occurs within low sagebrush (Artemisia 

arbuscula) and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) vegetation on dry, exposed, shallow, soils on 

convex ridge-line knolls and crests on flat to moderately steep slopes of all aspects (Morefield 

2001). The approximate elevation range of Lewis’s buckwheat is 6,470-9,720 ft. Threats to 

Lewis’s buckwheat include mineral exploration and development, development and maintenance 

of roads and electronic sites, off-road vehicle travel, trampling by livestock, fire, and fire 

suppression activities (Morefield 2001). 

Jamesia tetrapetala (Basin jamesia) 

Status 

Basin jamesia is considered imperiled globally (G2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Within Nevada, Basin jamesia is documented from Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties, in 

the Highland, Snake, and Grant Ranges. The species also is documented from the House Range 

in Millard County, Utah. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats

Basin jamesia is a perennial shrub in the hydrangea family. Although specific habitat information 

is not available for Nevada (Morefield 2001), in Utah the species occurs with chokecherry, 

mountain mahogany, jointfir (Ephedra spp.), and sagebrush in crevices in limestone cliffs at 

6,560-10,800 ft. Threats to basin jamesia include mining. 
Lathyrus grimesii (Grimes lathyrus) 

Status 

Grimes lathyrus is considered imperiled globally (G2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Grimes lathyrus is documented only from a small portion of the northern Independence Range 

and southern Bull Run Mountains of north-central Elko County, Nevada. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Grimes lathyrus is a perennial forb in the pea family. The species occurs within sparse to 

moderate vegetation consisting of antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentate), rubber rabbitbrush 

(Ericameria nauseosa), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), basin 

wildrye (Leymus cinereus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and occasionally leafy spurge 

(Euphorbia esula), and Leiberg’s clover (Trifolium leibergii). Within this habitat, Grimes 

lathyrus occurs on mostly steep slopes of all aspects at 6,000-8,300 ft. elevation (Morefield 

2001). Threats to Grimes lathyrus include livestock grazing, mineral exploration and 

development, slope destabilization and erosion caused by roads and other disturbances, road 

maintenance, concentrated trampling by livestock or feral horses, fire, competition with invasive 

non-native plants, and declines in insect pollinator populations (NatureServe 2013). 

Lewisia maguirei (Maguire lewisia) 

Status 

Maguire lewisia is considered critically imperiled globally (G1) and in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Maguire lewisia is a Nevada endemic whose distribution is apparently restricted to the Quinn 

Canyon and Grant Ranges in eastern Nye County, Nevada. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Maguire lewisia is a perennial forb in the purslane family. The species occurs within the pinyonjuniper zone in association with desert frasera (Frasera albomarginata), Torrey’s milkvetch 

(Astragalus calycosus), stemless four-nerve daisy (Hymenoxys acaulis), Nevada onion (Allium 

nevadense), and rock goldenrod (Petradoria pumila) on dry, sparsely vegetated carbonate scree 

or shallow gravelly-clay soils on steep slopes and ridgelines of all aspects at elevations of 7,360-

8,280 ft. (Morefield 2001). Primary threats to Maguire lewisia include horticultural collection, 

mineral exploration and climate change (NatureServe 2013). 

Penstemon concinnus (Elegant penstemon) 

Status 

Elegan penstemon is considered vulnerable globally (G3) and imperiled in Nevada (S2). 
Distribution 

Elegant penstemon is documented from Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada, and from 

Beaver, Iron, and Millard Counties, Utah. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Elegant penstemon is a perennial subshrub in the plantain family. The species occurs within 

pinyon-juniper woodlands on alluvial, calcareous, and igneous gravels between 5,925 and 7,700 

ft. (Franklin 1999). Threats to elegant penstemon include livestock grazing, recreational 

activities, road maintenance, and mining. 

Penstemon moriahensis (Mt. Moriah penstemon) 

Status 

Mt. Moriah penstemon is considered critically imperiled to imperiled globally (G1G2) and in 

Nevada (S1S). 

Distribution 

Mt. Moriah penstemon is endemic to White Pine County, Nevada. The species occurs mainly in 

the northern Snake Range near Mount Moriah, with one outlying site documented in the Kern 

Range and one in the White Pine Range. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Mt. Moriah penstemon is a perennial forb in the plantain family. The species occurs in the 

subalpine conifer, subalpine sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and upper pinyon-juniper zones at 

elevations of 7,100-10,800 ft. on open, gravelly and/or silty carbonate soils in drainages, on 

gentle slopes, and on road banks or other recovering disturbances with enhanced runoff 

(Morefield 2001). Mining has been identified as a potential threat to Mt. Moriah penstemon. 

Penstemon pudicus (Bashful penstemon) 

Status 

Bashful penstemon is considered critically imperiled globally (G1) and in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Bashful penstemon is a Nevada endemic that is documented from the Kawich Range in Nye 

County, Nevada, where fewer than 1000 individuals are thought to occur (NatureServe 2013). 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Bashful penstemon is a perennial forb in the plantain family. The species occurs within the 

subalpine sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and upper pinyon-juniper zones at elevations of 

7,500-9,000 ft. in crevices, soil pockets, and coarse rocky soils of felsic volcanic outcrops, 

boulder piles, steep protected slopes, and drainage bottoms, mostly on north and east aspects 

(Morefield 2001). Specific threats have not been identified for this species. 
Phacelia inconspicua (Inconspicuous phacelia) 

Status 

Inconspicuous phacelia is considered imperiled globally (G2) and critically imperiled in Nevada 

(S1). 

Distribution 

Inconspicuous phacelia is documented from six sites in Idaho and one in the West Humboldt 

Mountains of Nevada (NatureServe 2013). 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Inconspicuous phacelia is an annual forb in the waterleaf family. The species occurs in small 

clearings within shrublands dominated by mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

vaseyana) on relatively deep, undisturbed, highly organic soils on concave slopes where snow 

drifts persist well into spring (Morefield 2001). Inconspicuous phacelia is documented from 

elevations of 5,000-8,280 ft. Threats to inconspicuous phacelia in Nevada include mineral 

exploration and development, fire suppression and catastrophic wildfire, competition from 

invasive weeds, and concentrated trampling by livestock and feral horses (Morefield 2001). 

Phacelia minutissima (Small-flower phacelia) 

Status 

Least phacelia is an R4 sensitive species that is considered globally vulnerable (G3) and 

imperiled in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Least phacelia is a regional endemic that is documented from Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, and 

Washington. Within Nevada, the species is documented from Elko and Eureka Counties. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Least phacelia is an annual forb in the waterleaf family. Within Nevada, the species occurs in 

the following habitats: within sagebrush swales; along the high water lines of creek beds; around 

springs; at the perimeter of corn lily (Veratrum californicum), mule ears (Wyethia amplexicaulis) 

and/or aspen stands; and in vernally saturated summer drying mud banks in meadows 

(Morefield 2001). The elevation range of least phacelia is approximately 6,240-8,900 ft. Threats 

to least phacelia include mining activities, recreation, construction and maintenance of trails and 

roads, off road vehicle use, water development, competition from non-native species, herbicide 

application, and domestic livestock grazing. 

Polyctenium williamsiae (Williams combleaf) 

Status 

Williams combleaf is considered imperiled globally (G2) and in Nevada (S2). 
Distribution 

Williams combleaf occurs in California, Oregon, and Nevada. Within Nevada, the species is 

documented from Douglas, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, and Washoe Counties. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Williams combleaf is a perennial forb in the mustard family. In Nevada, the species is aquatic or 

wetland dependent and occurs in the sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, and mountain sagebrush zones 

on relatively barren sandy to sandy-clay or mud margins and bottoms of non-alkaline seasonal 

lakes perched over volcanic bedrock (Morefield 2001). Williams combleaf is documented from 

elevations of 5,670-8,930 ft. Threats to Williams combleaf include grazing by livestock, feral 

horses, and wildlife, water diversions and developments, and off-road vehicle use (NatureServe 

2013). 

Potentilla johnstonii (Sagebrush cinquefoil) 

Status 

Sagebrush cinquefoil is considered critically imperiled globally (G1) and in Nevada (S1) 

Distribution 

Sagebrush cinquefoil is documented from a single location near a frequently traveled National 

Forest road on Cherry Creek Summit in the Quinn Canyon Range in Nye County, Nevada 

(NatureServe 2013). 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Sagebrush cinquefoil is a perennial forb in the rose family. The species occurs in pinyon-juniper 

vegetation with a sagebrush understory at an elevation of 7,600 ft. Although documented threats 

have not been identified for this species, because plants in the known location occur along a road 

within a dispersed camping site, potential threats to sagebrush cinquefoil include the following: 

trampling and crushing from dispersed camping; competition from invasive species that may be 

transported to the area on vehicles, equipment, footwear, or clothing; and road maintenance. 

Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. williamsiae (Railroad Valley globemallow) 

Status 

Railroad Valley globemallow is considered imperiled globally (G2T2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Railroad Valley globemallow is endemic to Nye County, Nevada. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Railroad Valley globemallow is a perennial subshrub in the mallow family. The species occurs 

on shallow, gravelly soils of alluvial fans or valley fill and is documented from an elevation 

range of 4,770- 5,310 ft. (Holmgren etal 2005). Threats to Railroad Valley globemallow include 

changes in land use, industrial expansion, and mineral exploration and development or leasing. 
Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa (Charleston ground daisy) 

Status 

Charleston ground daisy is considered vulnerable globally (G4T3) and in Nevada (S3). 

Distribution 

Charleston ground daisy is a Nevada endemic that is documented from Clark and Nye Counties. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Charleston ground daisy is a perennial forb in the sunflower family. The species occurs in the 

lower sagebrush and upper shadscale/mixed-shrub zones on knolls of calcareous silty deposits 

and in the montane conifer, pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, and lower subalpine conifer 

zones in open, sparsely vegetated calcareous areas (Morefield 2001). Charleston ground daisy is 

documented from an elevation range of 5,200-11,060 ft. Recreational use has been identified as 

a primary threat to the species. 

Trifolium andinum var. podocephalum (Currant Summit clover) 

Status 

Currant Summit clover is considered imperiled globally (G3T1) and in Nevada (S1). 

Distribution 

Currant Summit clover is endemic to the White Pine and Egan Ranges in Lincoln and Nye 

Counties, Nevada. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

A member of the pea family, Currant Summit clover is a long-lived perennial forb that occurs in 

the pinyon-juniper zone on volcanic or carbonate rock at elevations of 6,900-7,400 ft. (Barneby 

1989). An assessment of primary threats is not available for this species. 

Trifolium leibergii (Leiberg’s clover) 

Status 

Leiberg’s clover is considered imperiled globally (G2) and in Nevada (S2). 

Distribution 

Leiberg’s clover is documented from the Independence and Jarbidge Mountains in Elko County, 

Nevada, and from Oregon. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Leiberg’s clover is a perennial forb in the pea family. The species occurs in little sagebrush 

(Artemisia arbuscula) vegetation at elevations of 6,560-7,800 ft. on relatively barren gravel soils 

of crumbling volcanic outcrops, mainly on flat steep areas with northeast to southeast to 

southwest aspects (Morefield 2001). Threats to Leiberg’s clover include off-highway vehicle 

use, cattle trampling and trailing through habitat, mineral exploration, and reduction or loss of 

native pollinators. 
Trifolium macilentum var. rollinsii (Rollins clover) 

Status 

Rollins clover is considered vulnerable to imperiled globally (G2G3) and in Nevada (G2G3). 

Distribution 

Rollins clover is endemic to the Toiyabe Range in Nevada. 

Habitat Associations/Natural History and Threats 

Rollins clover is a perennial forb in the pea family. The species occurs in mountain sagebrush, 

subalpine conifer, and lower alpine vegetation on concave, leeward, or otherwise moistureaccumulating areas on steep to moderate slopes of all aspects at elevations of 8,800 to 10,580 ft. 

(Morefield 2001). An assessment of primary threats is not available for this species. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Invasive non-native plants have been identified as a significant threat to more than one-fourth of 

the plant species in Table 3. Under Alternative A, land use and management would continue in 

compliance with existing land use plans, and the introduction, spread, and treatment of invasive 

non-native plants would be expected to follow current trends. New infestations would be 

expected to be highest along roads and in areas of heaviest use or ground disturbance (such as in 

campgrounds, energy development sites, and areas of concentrated recreation). Sensitive plants 

would continue to be impacted through direct competition with invasive species for water, light, 

and nutrients, and by alteration of fire frequency and severity. Invasive species treatments would 

reduce these impacts, but the scale of invasive species infestations in the analysis area and the 

difficulty effectively eradicating them are such that impacts on sensitive plants from invasive 

species infestations could not be completely avoided. Treatment of invasive species using 

herbicide could impact sensitive plant species that occur in treatment areas. Species most 

susceptible to herbicide impacts would be those that grow in disturbed areas, such as roadsides. 

Currently, least phacelia is the only plant species in Table 3 for which herbicide use has been 

identified as a primary threat. 

Under Alternative A, conifer encroachment into sagebrush would be expected to follow existing 

trends. Conifer encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems is common and widespread in the 

Intermountain West. Sagebrush vegetation types susceptible to encroachment include Wyoming 

sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush. The encroachment of pinyon and 

juniper trees into sagebrush types located within their thermal zones is well documented. 

Douglas fir trees are known to encroach into high elevation sagebrush types. Increasing tree 

cover in sagebrush communities reduces or eliminates sagebrush and reduces the herbaceous 

understory. Conifer encroachment into sagebrush and other shrub types that would be expected 
to continue under Alternative A would likely result in a loss of individuals or occurrences of 

sensitive plants found in the affected sagebrush types. 

National Forests have implemented and continue to implement vegetation treatments that curtail 

conifer encroachment into vegetation communities, including sagebrush. Treatments include but 

are not limited to prescribed fire, lop-and-scatter, and mechanical methods (such as mastication). 

These actions often coincide with Forest Service land use plans that contain objectives to 

maintain, restore, and/or improve sagebrush and other valued plant communities. Under 

Alternative A, impacts on sensitive plant species from treatments that involved prescribed fire 

and impacts on sensitive plant species from other vegetation treatments that involved hand or 

mechanical methods would be as described below for Fire and Fuels. 

Although energy development has not been specifically identified as a primary threat to the plant 

species in Table 3, impacts could occur to any species that occurs within areas of conifer 

encroachment. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative A, current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, 

manual, chemical, and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would 

continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), and the longterm beneficial impacts of improved habitat conditions would continue to outweigh the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on sensitive plants. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of vegetation and soils management on sensitive plants in Management Zones III, IV and 

V from the management actions under Alternative A when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue under current management with no 

expected change in AUMs, season-of-use, or other terms, conditions, or directives delineated 

within grazing permits or AMPs, although administrative actions may be implemented on a caseby-case basis to attain desired rangeland conditions. Desired rangeland conditions would be 

managed according to existing standards and guidelines designed to maintain healthy, 

sustainable rangeland resources and allow for the recovery of degraded rangelands. 

Effects of grazing on sensitive plants include the following: trampling, which can result in direct 

mortality of individuals and loss of entire occurrences; herbivory, which can result in direct 

mortality or reduced vitality and reproduction of individuals; alteration of habitat through soil 

compaction, which can reduce water infiltration and change hydrology and may render areas less 

suitable or unsuitable for sensitive plants; and increased competition for light, nutrients and 
water through introduction or spread of non-native invasive species, which may reduce sensitive 

plant species abundance or result in the loss of occurrences. 

The nature and extent of impacts of livestock grazing on individuals, populations, and habitat 

quality of sensitive plants depend on the palatability of the species, the grazing and trampling 

tolerance of the species, grazing intensity, timing of grazing, forage preferences of ungulates, 

soil conditions, and hydrology. Livestock grazing has been identified as a primary threat to more 

than half the sensitive plant species in table 3, including meadow pussytoes, Eastwood 

milkweed, broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Lamoille Canyon milkvetch, Toquima milkvetch, 

Currant milkvetch, Grouse Creek rockcress, slender moonwort, moosewort, Sunflower Flat 

buckwheat, Lewis’s buckwheat, Grimes lathyrus, elegant penstemon, inconspicuous phacelia, 

small-flower phacelia, Williams combleaf, and Leiberg’s clover. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, the DEIS considers it only 

a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” within Management Zone V and 

does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Portions of Management 

Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro 

HMAs and Territories, which could compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be managed in Management Zones III, 

IV and V through existing grazing plans, and methods and guidelines from the existing plans 

would be followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland 

Health, which include maintaining healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants 

and animals. Wild horses and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management section below) and healthy populations of 

wild horses and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, 

livestock use, and other multiple uses. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock 

grazing and wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants in Management Zones III, IV 

and V when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Wildfire, prescribed burns, and fuels management would continue to follow current direction 

under Alternative A, which would impose fewer restrictions on these actions than the other 

alternatives. Prescribed burns and other fuels treatments involving vegetation thinning or 

removal (such as lop-and-scatter or mastication) could occur within a variety of vegetation types, 

including sagebrush. Associated impacts on plant species could include direct mortality to 
individuals as a result of fire or crushing by equipment or cut vegetation. Fire-adapted plant 

species and plant species that favor early successional habitats could benefit. However, species 

dependent on mature sagebrush could be negatively affected by fire and associated changes in 

vegetation. Additional impacts on sensitive plant species could result from the direct and indirect 

effects of fire suppression. The creation of fire lines could result in direct mortality to individual 

plants or negative impacts associated with alteration of their habitat through soil disturbance, 

alteration of hydrology, and promotion of the establishment or spread of invasive non-native 

species. The application of fire retardant can negatively impact some plant species by killing 

entire plants, burning shoots and leaves, and reducing germination rates (Bell et al. 2005). Fire 

retardant also can have fertilizing effects and promote the spread of invasive non-native species 

(Bell et al. 2005). Longer term impacts on plant species could occur from fire suppression. Fire 

suppression may initially result in higher rates of pinyon-juniper encroachment in some areas. In 

the initial stages of encroachment (Phase I), fuel loadings remain consistent with the sagebrush 

understory. As pinyon-juniper encroachment advances (Phases II and III) and the understory 

begins to thin, the depleted understory causes the stands to become resistant to wildfire and 

further alters fire return intervals. During years of high fire danger, the resulting heavy fuel 

loadings in these stands can contribute to larger-scale wildfire events and confound control 

efforts due to extreme fire behavior. Such high-severity fires can negatively impact native plant 

species by promoting the establishment of exotics (Hunter et al. 2006). 

Although impacts from fire and fuels management could occur to any of the sensitive plants in 

table 3, those for which fire has been identified as a major potential threat include Lewis’s 

buckwheat, Grimes lathyrus, inconspicuous phacelia, and Williams combleaf. Fuels 

management has been identified as a potential major threat to Sunflower Flat buckwheat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current wildfire suppression operations and fuels management activities would continue under 

Alternative A. The limitation or prohibition of the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush habitats 

and the sagebrush protection emphasis during wildland fire operations would not be instituted as 

they would be in Alternatives B, C, D, E and F. Under Alternative A, the direct and indirect 

effects in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and the 

likelihood of increasing future fires from annual weed invasions and predicted climate change 

may increase loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat from wildfire in 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), which could contribute to 

negative cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

While not as widespread as livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management is still a major 

land use across the sagebrush biome. Horse impacts are somewhat different than cattle impacts. 

Horses consume more forage and remove a greater proportion of the plants they consume than 
cattle or sheep, which hinders the recovery of vegetation (Menard et al. 2002). Grazing by wild 

horses and burros reduces shrub cover and creates more fragmented shrub canopies, which can 

negatively affect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Additionally, sites 

grazed by free-roaming wild horses and burros have a greater abundance of annual invasive 

grasses, reduced native plant diversity and reduced grass density (Beever and Aldridge 2011), 

(COT 2013, pg 46). Effects of wild horses and burros on habitats may be more pronounced 

during periods of drought or vegetation stress (NTT 2011, pg 18). 

Water must be available yearlong in horse management areas (The Wild and Free-Roaming 

Horses and Burros Act of 1971). As a result, riparian areas are often used year round by wild 

horses and burros and these areas are frequently modified with additional fencing and troughs in 

order to accommodate year round use. Such range improvements decrease the amount of water 

available within natural drainages and may negatively affect riparian habitat. According to 

Berger (1986), one measure of habitat quality for horses is the presence of meadows. Horse 

bands that spent more time foraging in meadows had higher reproductive success and meadows 

received the highest use in proportion to their availability. 

Within the Sub-region, all Forest Service districts manage for wild horses and/or burros within 

established Territories. Under current direction, overall direction is to manage for healthy 

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

to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. All Forest Service Territories 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. Loss of 

vegetation cover, decreased water quality, increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat 

quality can result when AMLs are exceeded. Priorities for gathering horses to maintain AML are 

based on population inventories, gather schedules, and budget. Gathers also are 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. 

Alternative A does not include any GRSG goals, objectives, or management actions that 

specifically relate to the Wild Horse and Burro Program. Though the magnitude and spatial 

distribution of potential impacts of wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants are 

different than those expected from livestock grazing, the types of impacts are similar and include 

the following: trampling, which can result in direct mortality of individuals and loss of entire 

occurrences; herbivory, which can result in direct mortality or reduced vitality and reproduction 

of individuals; alteration of habitat through soil compaction, which can reduce water infiltration 

and change hydrology and may render areas less suitable or unsuitable for sensitive plants; and 

increased competition for light, nutrients and water through introduction or spread of non-native 

invasive species, which may reduce sensitive plant species abundance or result in the loss of 

occurrences. 
Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones 

and has the potential to compound the effects of wild horse and burro management on these 

lands, the DEIS considers wild horse and burro management only a “lesser threat” with respect 

to “relative cumulative actions” within Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat 

elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative A, wild horse and burro Territories within Management Zone III, would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level (refer to Wild Horse and Burro Management 

section below) and healthy populations of wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural 

ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. Within 

Management Zones III, IV and V, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain 

ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining 

healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management and livestock grazing on sensitive 

plants in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative A when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative 

impacts on sensitive plants. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Minerals development within the sub-region consists of locatable mineral resources at various 

scales. Mining is primarily for gold, silver, and copper and is largely absent from the basaltcapped areas of northwestern Nevada. Leasable minerals include mineral material sales such as 

sand and gravel for road maintenance, and limited additional commodities such as potash. Oil 

and gas is in limited production occurring only in the far southeastern sub-region. Oil and gas 

leasing occurs over a much larger footprint in western Nevada and additional production is 

projected as new technologies expand recovery potential. Development of locatable and leasable 

mineral resources typically requires significant infrastructure and human activity for 

construction, operation, and maintenance. 

Within the sub-region, most public lands are open to oil and gas leasing, saleable mineral 

material development, and solar development, although specific closures of areas to leasing such 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) or crucial or essential wildlife habitat exist 

throughout the sub-region. Lands within the sub-region are generally open to mineral location. 

There are specific locatable mineral withdrawals for particular rights of way, designated 
wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern and other administrative needs, none 

specific to protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. All locatable mineral activities are managed 

under the regulations at 43 CFR 3800 through approval of a Plan of Operations. Mitigation of 

effects to GRSG and its habitat are identified through the NEPA process approving plans of 

operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals are to provide opportunities to develop the 

resource while preventing undue or unnecessary degradation of public lands. Within the subregion, most areas of public land would remain open for wind development. 

Under Alternative A, all energy and locatable minerals development and associated 

infrastructure, including power lines, roads, buildings, fences, wind turbines, solar panels, and 

others, would continue to be managed under current direction. As such, this alternative would be 

expected to cause the greatest amount of direct and indirect impacts on sensitive plant species 

and their habitats. Impacts on sensitive plants from energy development would be similar to 

those for infrastructure development and maintenance discussed under Land Uses and Realty 

Management below, and could include direct mortality of individual plants or occurrences, loss 

of habitat within the disturbance footprint of new infrastructure, and reduction or loss of 

pollinators. Impacts on sensitive plants also could result from temporary ground disturbance 

(including the construction of temporary access routes, the establishment of laydown areas, 

vegetation clearing, etc.), which could alter vegetation assemblages, compact soils, alter 

hydrology, alter sunlight penetration, impact pollinators, and promote the establishment and 

spread of invasive non-native plants. Energy development would comply with land use plans and 

environmental laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

which would result in the implementation of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on 

sensitive plants, as appropriate. Although conifer encroachment has not been specifically 

identified as a primary threat to any of the species in table 3, impacts could occur to any species 

that occurs within areas developed for energy. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III, but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Management under Alternative A would maintain the current 

acreage open to leasing of fluid minerals, without stipulations, and locatable mineral 

development, although areas closed to these activities under Alternative A include some existing 

ACEC designations, designated wilderness, and wilderness study areas. Current energy and 

minerals development activities would continue under Alternative A. The closure of areas to 

fluid minerals and other energy development and withdrawal of areas from mineral entry would 

not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Therefore, under Alternative A, 

the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development in conjunction with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may increase loss and fragmentation 
of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS) and contribute to negative cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal, exchange, 

and acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, 

high quality riparian habitat, and plant and animal populations or natural communities of high 

interest. Although land tenure adjustments or withdrawals made in GRSG habitat could reduce 

the habitat available to sustain GRSG populations, unless provisions were made to ensure that 

GRSG conservation remained a priority under the new land management regime, land tenure 

adjustments would likely include retention of areas with GRSG, and would thus retain occupied 

habitats under BLM or FS management. This would reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion 

to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove sagebrush habitat. 

Direction under existing land use plans would continue to apply under Alternative A. No 

changes would occur to the current National Forest System infrastructure, including power lines, 

wind turbines, solar panels, communications towers, fences, or roads. Although mitigation is 

typically developed under the NEPA process and most right of way and surface developments 

are subject to limited operation periods or other stipulations in local GRSG conservation 

strategies, permitted right-of-ways (ROWs) or special use authorities (SUAs) would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that could result in habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation of GRSG habitat or result in barriers to migration corridors or 

seasonal habitats. Construction, maintenance, and use of infrastructure and ancillary facilities 

would continue to lead to higher short-term concentrations of disturbance in GRSG habitat. 

Impacts on sensitive plants could result from construction and maintenance of infrastructure, 

such as power lines, communication towers, fences, and roads. Within the footprint of 

permanent impacts, effects on sensitive plants could include direct mortality of individual plants 

or occurrences, loss of habitat, and reduction or loss of pollinators. Impacts on sensitive plants 

also could result from temporary ground disturbance associated with the construction of 

temporary access routes, the establishment of laydown areas, and vegetation clearing, which 

could alter vegetation assemblages, compact soils, alter hydrology, alter sunlight penetration, 

impact pollinators, and promote the establishment and spread of invasive non-native plants. 

Construction and maintenance of infrastructure would comply with land use plans and 

environmental laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

which would result in the implementation of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on 

sensitive plants, as appropriate. 

Sensitive plants in table 3 for which infrastructure development and/or maintenance, particularly 

road construction and/or maintenance, has been identified as a primary threat include meadow 

pussytoes, Eastwood milkweed, broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Lamoille Canyon milkvetch, 
Toquima milkvetch, slender moonwort, Nevada willowherb, Sunflower Flat buckwheat, Lewis’s 

buckwheat, Grimes lathyrus, elegant penstemon, small-flower phacelia, and sagebrush 

cinquefoil. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current lands and realty management activities would continue under Alternative A. ROW 

exclusion or avoidance areas would not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D, or 

F. Therefore, under Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects of lands and realty management, 

in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may increase loss 

and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS) and contribute to negative cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Under Alternative A, there would be 

no changes to the current National Forest System Roads or transportation plans on the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 

Recreation encompasses a wide range of activities, most of which involve some form of overland 

travel (motorized or non-motorized) and/or use of roads and/or trails. Under Alternative A, 

recreation would continue to be managed according to current direction. Current recreation 

activities would continue within GRSG habitat, and some of the areas within GRSG habitat 

would remain open to cross country motorized vehicle use. 

In general, the more acres and miles of routes that are designated in an area, the greater the 

likelihood of habitat fragmentation and introduction of invasive plants within GRSG habitat. In 

addition, less restrictive travel conditions usually result in higher concentrations of human use 

adjacent to motorized routes. Impacts onsensitive plants from travel, transportation, and 

recreation management that would be expected under Alternative A include the following: direct 

mortality from trampling or crushing; reduced vitality and interference with reproduction from 

dust generation; habitat degradation associated with soil compaction and changes in hydrology; 

and reduction in abundance or loss of occurrences from the spread of invasive non-native 

species. Impacts on sensitive plants from development of infrastructure to support concentrated 

recreation activities would be as discussed for infrastructure under Land Uses and Realty 

Management above. Expansion or development of infrastructure to support recreation would 

follow existing direction and would comply with land use plans and environmental laws and 

regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which would result in the 

implementation of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on sensitive plants, as 

appropriate. 
Of the sensitive plant species in table 3, recreation has been identified as a primary threat to 

broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Lamoille Canyon milkvetch, Currant milkvetch, moosewort, 

Nevada willowherb, Sunflower Flat buckwheat, Lewis’s buckwheat, elegant penstemon, smallflower phacelia, Williams combleaf, sagebrush cinquefoil, Charleston ground daisy, and 

Leiberg’s clover. Of these species, off-road vehicle use has been identified as a primary threat to 

Currant milkvetch, moosewort, Lewis’s buckwheat, small-flower phacelia, Williams combleaf, 

and Leiberg’s clover. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation is considered a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” in the 

DEIS only within Management Zone V (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Current travel, 

transportation, and recreation management would continue under Alternative A. The limitation 

of motorized travel to existing routes and permitting of recreational SUAs that are neutral or 

beneficial to sage-grouse, as well as limited opportunities for road construction and upgrading of 

current roads, would not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under 

Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects from travel, transportation and recreation 

management in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may 

increase loss and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV 

and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) and contribute to negative cumulative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Alternative B 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, invasive non-native plant species control efforts would follow current 

direction, and the types of direct and indirect impacts expected to sensitive plants would be the 

same as those discussed under Alternative A. However, vegetation management conservation 

measures under Alternative B would prioritize restoration efforts, including treatment of invasive 

non-native plants, in GRSG habitats, which would be expected to provide a long term benefit to 

sensitive plants that occur in those habitats. Short term impacts of invasive plant treatments and 

other restoration actions, particularly those that involve mechanized equipment or the use of 

herbicides, could negatively impact individual sensitive plants (for example, by crushing or 

herbicide drift). Such impacts would be expected to be minimal as project level environmental 

review would be done and appropriate avoidance or minimization measures would be 

incorporated. 

Under Alternative B, the use of native seed would be favored in restoration efforts, though nonnative seed could be used under certain circumstances. Current FS policy (FSM 2070.3) already 

restricts the use of non-native seed in restoration and prohibits the use of invasive species, so the 

impact of the native seed emphasis for restoration in Alternative B is unlikely to result in any 

additional benefit to sensitive plant species over Alternative A. Monitoring and invasive species 
control after fuels treatments and at existing range improvements incorporated into Alternative B 

could benefit sensitive plant species by minimizing habitat degradation caused by invasive 

species. Overall, Alternative B would be likely to reduce impacts of invasive non-native plants 

on sensitive plants relative to Alternative A. 

Like Alternative A, Alternative B would not directly address conifer encroachment. The types of 

impacts of conifer encroachment and associated management actions on sensitive plants under 

Alternative B would be expected to be the same as those under Alternative A; however, the 

conservation measures described above and the fuels treatments described in Fire and Fuels 

would likely reduce the magnitude of the negative impacts of conifer encroachment on sensitive 

plants and provide a long-term benefit to species that depend on healthy sagebrush habitats. 

Impacts associated with managing conifer encroachment under Alternative B would be expected 

to increase relative to Alternative A and could negatively impact sensitive plants that are 

restricted to conifer habitats. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative B, current vegetation and soils management treatments within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) (including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper) would continue, and the longterm beneficial impacts of improved habitat conditions would continue to outweigh the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on sensitive plants. However, additional measures to 

conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would provide further long-term 

benefits to sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management on sensitive plants in Management Zones III, IV and V under 

Alternative B when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B would incorporate sage grouse habitat objectives and sage grouse management 

considerations into livestock grazing management in PPH. Actions would include completion of 

range condition assessments, consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts on 

sage grouse habitat, modification of grazing systems to meet seasonal sage grouse habitat 

requirements, improved management of riparian areas and wet meadows, evaluation of existing 

introduced perennial grass seedings, authorization of new water developments and structural 

range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG, incorporation of BMPs for West Nile Virus, 

and fence removal, modification or marking. Although the types of impacts on sensitive plants 

would be expected to be the same as under Alternatives A and B, the level and extent of negative 

impacts would be expected to be reduced in Alternative B. Sensitive plants that occur in PPH 

would likely benefit from improving habitat conditions in uplands, riparian areas, meadows, and 

other wetlands. Almost one-fourth of the sensitive plant species in table 3 occur in riparian 
areas, meadows, seeps, springs, and other wetland areas, which tend to be used more intensively 

by livestock than upland areas. Because of these factors and the focus of Alternative B on 

improving riparian, meadow, and other wetland habitat, sensitive wetland plant species may 

benefit from Alternative B more than upland species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, the DEIS considers it a 

“lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” within Management Zone V and 

does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Portions of Management 

Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro 

HMAs and Territories, which could compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands. 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative B, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing 

plans and wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Additional 

measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would further minimize 

negative impacts on sensitive plants that occurred within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative B when combined with past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, fire suppression would be prioritized in PPH to protect mature sagebrush 

habitat. Suppression would be prioritized in PGH only where fires threatened PPH. Alternative B 

does not include any other specific wildland fire management actions in PGH. Under 

Alternative B, fuels treatments would be designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by 

maintaining sagebrush cover, carefully evaluating the need for fuel breaks against additional 

sagebrush losses, applying seasonal restrictions for implementing management treatments, 

limiting fuels treatments in winter range, and emphasizing the use of native seed in restoration. 

Post-fuels treatments in PPH would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded areas 

and native plants and maintain 15 percent canopy cover. Fuels treatments in PPH would 

including monitoring and control of invasive non-native plants species, and fuels management 

BMPs in PPH would incorporate invasive plant prevention measures. 

The types of impacts on sensitive plants associated with fire and fuels under Alternative B would 

be similar to those under Alternative A; however the extent of those impacts and their 

distribution across the landscape would change. Under Alternative B, sensitive plant species 
requiring mature sagebrush would be expected to benefit from fire and fuels activities, and 

sagebrush species that require early successional sagebrush and those that are fire adapted or fire 

dependent may experience a reduction in suitable habitat over time. With its emphasis on 

minimizing fire in mature sagebrush, impacts on sensitive plants from suppression would be 

higher under Alternative B than under Alternative A. Because reseeding efforts would prioritize 

use of native seed in PPH over other areas in years of short seed supplies, sensitive plants in 

areas outside PPH could be more susceptible to habitat degradation from wildfire if limited seed 

availability reduced revegetation success outside PPH. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative B, management actions associated with fire and fuels would increase 

protection of GRSG habitat, primarily within PPH. Under Alternative B, current wildfire 

suppression operations within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) 

would continue, however, additional emphasis would be placed on protecting existing sagebrush 

habitat during suppression activities, pre-suppression planning, and staging. Fuels treatment 

activities would focus on protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire and fuels management on GRSG habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative B, which would be largely beneficial to 

GRSG habitat and the sensitive plants that occur within it, when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, wild horses and burros would be managed at established Appropriate 

Management Levels (AMLs) on the same number of acres as under Alternative A, and gathers 

would be prioritized in PPH unless needed in other areas to address catastrophic environmental 

issues. Wild Horse Territory Plans (WHT) Plans would incorporate GRSG habitat objectives. 

Implementation of any range improvements would follow the same guidance identified for 

livestock grazing in this alternative, including designing and locating new improvements only 

where they conserve, enhance, or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat through improved grazing 

management. Design features could include developing or modifying waters to mitigate for West 

Nile virus, removing or modifying fences to reduce the chance of bird strikes, and monitoring 

and treating invasive species associated with range improvements. In comparison to Alternative 

A, Alternative B would prioritize GRSG habitat objectives in WHT Plans and base AML 

numbers on GRSG habitat needs. 

Although the types of impacts on sensitive plants would be expected to be the same under 

Alternatives A and B, the level and extent of negative impacts would be expected to be reduced 

under Alternative B. Sensitive plants that occur in PPH would likely benefit from prioritized 
gathers in PPH, the incorporation of GRSG habitat objectives in WHT Plans, and guidance for 

implementing range improvements. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones 

and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, the DEIS 

considers it a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” only within 

Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative B, wild horse and burro Territories would continue to be managed for 

Appropriate Management Level and livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Additional measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative B would reduce 

overall negative impacts on sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative B when combined with past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B addresses energy development directly through its inclusion of provisions for fluid 

energy development. Actions within Alternative B relevant to the analysis of impacts on 

sensitive plants include the following: closing PPH to fluid mineral leasing with possible 

exceptions; allowing geophysical operations in PPH only to obtain information about areas 

outside and adjacent to PPH; requiring exploratory operations within PPH to be done using 

helicopter-portable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal timing restrictions and/or 

other restrictions that may apply; in PPH prohibiting new surface occupancy on federal leases; 

for existing leases entirely within PPH, applying NSO buffers around leks, and if the entire lease 

falls within this buffer, limiting disturbances within sections to the 3% threshold; applying BMPs 

to limit the impact of operations on PPH; and applying BMPs to improve reclamation standards 

and successfully restore PPH. All of these actions would be likely to reduce the level of impacts 

of fluid mineral development on sensitive plants relative to Alternative A. 

Although Alternative B does not directly address wind energy development or industrial solar 

development, its 3% threshold for anthropogenic disturbances would apply to energy 

development and would limit the extent of all types of energy development in PPH. Impacts on 
sensitive plants would be as discussed below for infrastructure under Land Uses and Realty 

Management. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III, but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative B, some of the current energy and locatable 

minerals management direction would continue within Management Zones III and IV, however, 

additional measures would conserve existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing 

closures and proposing it for withdrawal. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects on sensitive 

plants in GRSG habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions 

associated with energy and locatable minerals development under Alternative B, which would 

minimize negative impacts to sensitive plants in GRSG habitat, when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative 

impacts on sensitive plants. 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, all PPH would be managed as exclusion areas, PGH would be managed as 

an avoidance area for new ROW and SUA projects, and co-location of new ROWs or SUAs with 

existing infrastructure would occur in PPH and PGH. Alternative B also would entail the 

following within PPH: co-location of new ROWs or SUAs with existing infrastructure; removal, 

burying, or modification of existing power lines; co-location of new facilities with existing 

facilities, where possible; use of existing roads, or realignments to access valid existing rights 

that are not yet developed, or constructing new roads to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary if valid existing rights could not be accessed via existing roads; and the establishment 

of a 3% threshold on anthropogenic disturbance (including, but not limited to, highways, roads, 

geothermal wells, wind turbines, and associated facilities). In addition, Alternative B would 

contain provisions to retain public ownership of priority sage-grouse habitat and to acquire state 

and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate where suitable conservation actions for 

GRSG could not otherwise be achieved. 

Alternative B would benefit sensitive plants within PPH and PGH by maximizing habitat 

connectivity and minimizing habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation and disturbance. Under 

Alternative B, infrastructure related impacts on sensitive plant species could include direct 

mortality, loss or degradation of habitat, and loss or reduction of pollinators. Although the types 

of infrastructure related impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A, the 3% threshold 

that Alternative B would place on anthropogenic disturbance within PPH would likely reduce the 

extent of those impacts in PPH. As a result, limitations on disturbances could benefit individuals 

and occurrences of sensitive plants within PPH. Sensitive plants outside PPH would likely 
experience little change in direct or indirect effects. However, if the 3% development threshold 

ended up concentrating new infrastructure development outside PPH rather than just reducing it 

within PPH, the extent of impacts on sensitive plants outside PPH could increase under 

Alternative B relative to Alternative A. The proposal under Alternative B to potentially bury 

some existing power lines that cross PPH could impact sensitive plant species through direct 

mortality and/or degradation of habitat; however, because such actions would undergo site 

specific environmental review, including NEPA, measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

impacts on sensitive plants would be incorporated, as appropriate. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternative B would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and provide an overall benefit to sensitive plants that 

occur within it. Under Alternative B, some of the current land and realty operations would 

continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), however, 

additional measures would conserve existing sagebrush habitat. Lands and realty management 

activities would focus ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of lands and realty management on sensitive plants in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative B, which would provide an overall benefit to 

sensitive plants in GRSG habitat, when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, motorized travel in PPH would be limited to designated roads, primitive 

roads, and trails at a minimum. Only Recreation Special Use Authorizations (RSUAs) that were 

neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse would be permitted in PPH. In addition, opportunities for 

road construction in PPH would be limited, minimum standards would be applied, existing roads 

in PPH could not be upgraded, and cross country driving would be prohibited in PPH. Although 

the types of impacts on sensitive plants would be similar under Alternatives A and B, the degree 

and extent of impacts within PPH would be reduced under Alternative B. The types of impacts 

that would be expected to decrease would include direct mortality from crushing or trampling 

individuals, negative impacts associated with dust generation, habitat degradation associated 

with soil compaction and changes in hydrology, and negative impacts associated with spread of 

invasive non-native species. 

Cumulative Effects 

The DEIS considers recreation only a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative 

actions” within Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 

of the DEIS). Management actions associated with travel, transportation and recreation under 

Alternative B would increase protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, primarily within PPH, 

and minimize the negative impacts of recreation and travel management on sensitive plants that 
occur within those areas. Under Alternative B, some of the current travel, transportation and 

recreation management direction would continue within Management Zones III, IV and V, 

however, additional measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Because 

Alternative B would minimize the negative impacts of travel, transportation, and recreation 

management on sensitive plant species in Management Zones III, IV and V, when combined 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions this alternative would not 

substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plant species. 

Alternative C 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, invasive non-native plant control efforts would follow current direction, 

and the types of direct and indirect impacts expected to sensitive plants would be the same as 

those discussed under Alternative A. Like Alternative B, vegetation management conservation 

measures under Alternative C would prioritize restoration efforts, including treatment of invasive 

non-native plants, in GRSG habitats, which would be expected to provide a long-term benefit to 

sensitive plants that occur in those habitats. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative C would extend 

this focus beyond PPH to all occupied GRSG habitat. As a result, sensitive plants outside PPH 

but within occupied GRSG could experience a long-term benefit under Alternative C that they 

would not under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, short-term impacts of invasive plant 

treatments and other restoration actions, particularly those that involve mechanized equipment or 

the use of herbicides, could negatively impact individual sensitive plants (for example, by 

crushing or herbicide drift). Such impacts would be expected to be minimal as project level 

environmental review would be done and appropriate avoidance or minimization measures 

would be incorporated. The use of native seed would be favored in restoration under Alternative 

C, as it would be under Alternative B. Current FS policy (FSM 2070.3) already restricts the use 

of non-native seed in restoration and prohibits the use of invasive species, so the impact of the 

native seed emphasis for restoration in Alternative C is unlikely to result in a measurable 

additional benefit to sensitive plant species over Alternatives A or B. Monitoring and invasive 

species control after fuels treatments under Alternative C could benefit sensitive plant species by 

minimizing habitat degradation caused by invasive species. Overall, Alternative C would be 

likely to reduce impacts of invasive non-native plants on sensitive plants relative to Alternative 

A and may provide a marginal benefit over Alternative B. 

Like Alternatives A and B, Alternative C does not directly address conifer encroachment. The 

types of impacts of conifer encroachment and associated management actions on sensitive plants 

under Alternative C would be expected to be the same as those under Alternative A; however, 

the conservation measures described above for invasive plants and the fuels treatments described 

below in Fire and Fuels would likely reduce the magnitude of the impacts of conifer 

encroachment on sensitive plants relative to Alternative A. Because those measures generally 
would apply throughout occupied GRSG under Alternative C whereas they would be limited to 

PPH under Alternative B, Alternative C could provide an additional reduction in the magnitude 

of impacts on sensitive plants from conifer encroachment relative to Alternative B. Because 

conifer encroachment measures would be applied over a larger area under Alternative C, 

negative impacts to sensitive plants from encroachment management discussed under Alternative 

A would be expected to be higher under Alternative C than under Alternatives A or B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative C, current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, 

manual, chemical, and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would 

continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), and the longterm beneficial impacts of improved habitat conditions would continue to outweigh the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on sensitive plants. However, additional emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative C would provide an additional long-term 

benefit to sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management on sensitive plants in Management Zones III, IV and V under 

Alternative C when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C would prohibit grazing in all occupied GRSG habitat and remove all livestock 

water troughs, pipelines, and wells from occupied GRSG habitat. Sensitive plants that occur in 

occupied GRSG habitat could benefit from improving habitat conditions in uplands, riparian 

areas, meadows, and other wetlands by the elimination of negative impacts discussed under 

Livestock Grazing for Alternative A. Sensitive species in table 3 for which livestock grazing 

was identified as a major threat might be expected to benefit most from Alternative C. These 

species include meadow pussytoes, Eastwood milkweed, broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Lamoille 

Canyon milkvetch, Toquima milkvetch, Currant milkvetch, Grouse Creek rockcress, slender 

moonwort, moosewort, Sunflower Flat buckwheat, Lewis’s buckwheat, Grimes lathyrus, elegant 

penstemon, inconspicuous phacelia, small-flower phacelia, Williams combleaf, and Leiberg’s 

clover. Of these species, almost 30% (meadow pussytoes, Lamoille Canyon milkvetch, slender 

moonwort, moosewort, and small-flower phacelia) occur in, meadows, seeps, springs, and other 

wetland areas, which tend to be used more intensively by livestock than upland areas. As a 

result, the greatest benefit to sensitive plants from the elimination of grazing in occupied GRSG 

habitat may be to meadow pussytoes, Lamoille Canyon milkvetch, slender moonwort, 

moosewort, and small-flower phacelia. 

Total elimination of grazing from occupied GRSG habitat may result in additional indirect 

impacts on occupied GRSG habitats, surrounding areas, and the sensitive plants that occupy 

them. Moderate grazing reduces herbaceous fuel loads on sagebrush steppe rangelands and is 
considered likely to reduce the probability and severity of wildfires and the continuity and size of 

burned areas (Davies et al. 2010). Thus the elimination of grazing could benefit fire adapted, fire 

dependent, and early successional sensitive plants that occur in currently grazed occupied GRSG 

habitats and adjacent areas. For sensitive plants that are not fire tolerant and/or require mature 

sagebrush habitat, negative impacts associated with the elimination of grazing could occur from 

wildfire in occupied sagebrush habitats and adjacent areas. The types of beneficial and negative 

impacts on sensitive plants would be as described under Fire and Fuels for Alternative A, though 

their extent and distribution across the landscape would likely differ. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, the DEIS considers it only 

a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” within Management Zone V and 

does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Under Alternative C, 

livestock grazing within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) 

would be eliminated within all occupied GRSG habitat, providing a net benefit to sensitive 

species that occur there. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on 

sensitive plant species in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative C when combined 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase 

negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The types of fire and fuels related impacts of Alternative C on sensitive plants would be similar 

to those discussed for Alternative B; however because Alternative C expands most GRSG 

conservation elements to all occupied habitat rather than limiting them to PPH, the area over 

which those impacts could occur would be larger. Elements of Alternative C that would be the 

most likely change the extent of direct and indirect beneficial and negative impacts on sensitive 

plants relative to Alternative B include prioritizing suppression in all occupied habitat rather than 

limiting it to PPH and applying fuels management treatment provisions (including post-fire 

revegetation and invasive species control) to all occupied GRSG habitat rather than limiting 

them to PPH. Additional fire and fuels related impacts on sensitive plant species could result 

from the increased fire risk associated with the elimination of grazing. Those impacts are 

discussed above under Livestock Grazing. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of management actions related to fire and fuels under Alternative C when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be similar to 

those described for Alternative B and would not be expected to substantially increase negative 

impacts on sensitive plants within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS). 
Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative C, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML. However, AML 

establishment would be analyzed in conjunction with livestock numbers during grazing permit 

renewals. Combined with the removal of some fences during active restoration processes related 

to livestock grazing, horses and burros would be expected to range over a larger area than under 

Alternative A and would necessitate the need for increased gather schedules. 

The types of impacts of wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants under Alternative 

C would be expected to be the same as under Alternatives A and B; however their magnitude and 

spatial distribution would differ. The increase in access to riparian and upland habitats that are 

currently protected by fences, expected temporary increases in horses and burros over AML, and 

anticipated changes in water holding capacities of riparian areas under Alternative C could 

increase impacts to sensitive plants relative to Alternatives A and B through the following: 

increased trampling, which can result in direct mortality of individuals and loss of entire 

occurrences; increased herbivory, which can result in direct mortality or reduced vitality and 

reproduction of individuals; alteration of habitat through soil compaction, which can reduce 

water infiltration and change hydrology and may render areas less suitable or unsuitable for 

sensitive plants; and increased competition for light, nutrients and water through introduction or 

spread of non-native invasive species, which may reduce sensitive plant species abundance or 

result in the loss of occurrences. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative C, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for AML as under current management, however, there would be fewer restrictions on 

wild horse and burro movement than under Alternative A. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of wild horse and burro management under Alternative C in conjunction with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may increase loss and fragmentation of the 

existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) 

and contribute to negative cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The types of impacts on sensitive plants from energy development under Alternative C would be 

the same as described above under Alternatives A and B, though their magnitude and spatial 

distribution would differ. Alternative C would extend some of Alternative B’s provisions to all 

occupied GRSG habitat rather than limiting them to PPH. Actions within Alternative C relevant 
to the analysis of impacts on sensitive plants include the following: closing occupied GRSG 

habitat to fluid mineral leasing, with possible exceptions; allowing geophysical operations in 

occupied GRSG habitat only to obtain information about areas outside and adjacent to PPH; 

requiring exploratory operations within occupied GRSG habitat to be done using helicopterportable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal timing restrictions and/or other 

applicable restrictions; in occupied GRSG habitat prohibiting new surface occupancy on federal 

leases; and for existing leases entirely within occupied GRSG habitat, applying NSO buffers 

around leks, and if the entire lease falls within this buffer, limiting disturbances within sections 

to the 3% threshold. All of these actions would be likely to reduce the level of impacts of fluid 

mineral development on sensitive plants relative to Alternative A. Since these actions would 

apply to all occupied GRSG habitat rather than just PPH, they also could reduce the level of 

impacts of fluid mineral development on sensitive plants relative to Alternative B. 

Unlike Alternative B, Alternative C directly addresses solar energy development by prohibiting 

it in occupied GRSG habitat and requiring it to be sited at least five miles from active sage 

grouse leks. These actions could reduce negative impacts associated with energy development 

on sensitive plants that occur in occupied GRSG habitat relative to Alternative A. They also 

could reduce negative impacts associated with energy development in occupied GRSG outside 

PPH relative to Alternative B. 

In addition to provisions in Alternative C that specifically address energy development, the3% 

threshold for anthropogenic disturbances would limit the extent of all types of energy 

development in occupied GRSG habitat. Impacts on sensitive plants would be as discussed 

above for infrastructure under Land Uses and Realty Management for Alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III, but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative C, some of the current energy and locatable 

minerals management direction would continue within Management Zones III and IV, however, 

additional measures would conserve existing sagebrush habitat by adding all occupied habitat to 

existing closures and proposing it for withdrawal. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

energy and locatable minerals development on sensitive plants in Management Zones III, IV and 

V under Alternative C when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants (refer to Chapter 5 

of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

As with Alternative A, impacts from land uses and realty management on sensitive plant species 

under Alternative C could include direct mortality, loss or degradation of habitat, and loss or 
reduction of pollinators. The extent of these impacts would be expected to be less overall than 

under Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C, new transmission corridors, new ROWs for 

corridors, and new communication towers would be prohibited in occupied GRSG habitat and 

would be sited outside occupied GRSG habitat and bundled with existing corridors to the 

maximum extent possible. As for Alternative B, the proposal under Alternative C to potentially 

bury some existing power lines in occupied GRSG habitat could impact sensitive plant species 

through direct mortality and/or degradation of habitat. Because the undergrounding of power 

lines could occur within a larger area than under Alternative B, which focuses on PPH, more 

sensitive plant species or occurrences could be impacted. However, such impacts would be 

minimized or avoided because the burial of power lines would undergo site specific 

environmental review, including NEPA, and conservation measures or design features would be 

applied for sensitive plants. 

In addition to the above measures, which focus on specific types of infrastructure, Alternative C 

is similar to Alternative B in placing a 3% threshold on anthropogenic disturbance. However, 

Alternative C would apply that threshold throughout occupied GRSG habitat rather than limiting 

it to PPH, as Alternative B would. Although under Alternative C the types of infrastructure 

related impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A, the 3% threshold that Alternative 

C would place on anthropogenic disturbance within GRSG habitat would likely reduce the extent 

of those impacts in those areas. As a result, limitations on disturbances could benefit individuals 

and occurrences of sensitive plants within occupied GRSG habitat. Sensitive plants outside 

occupied GRSG habitat would likely experience little change in direct or indirect effects. 

However, if the 3% development threshold ended up concentrating new infrastructure 

development outside occupied GRSG habitat rather than just reducing it within such habitat, the 

extent of impacts on sensitive plants outside occupied GRSG habitat could increase under 

Alternative C relative to Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with lands and realty under Alternative C would increase 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and provide an overall long-term benefit to the 

sensitive plants that occur there. Under Alternative C, some of the current land and realty 

operations would continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS), however, measures would be added to conserve existing sagebrush habitat. Lands and 

realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in Greater SageGrouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of lands and realty management on 

sensitive plants in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative C, which would provide 

an overall benefit to sensitive plants in GRSG habitat, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 
Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C would allow Recreation Special Use Authorizations 

(RSUAs) that were neutral or beneficial to GRSG, but Alternative C would extend this provision 

to all occupied habitat rather than restricting it to PPH. Opportunities for road construction in 

occupied GRSG habitat would be limited, minimum standards would be applied, existing roads 

could not be upgraded, and cross country driving would be prohibited in occupied GRSG habitat. 

Although the types of impacts on sensitive plants would be similar under Alternatives A, B, and 

C, the degree and extent of impacts within occupied GRSG habitat would be reduced under 

Alternative C relative to Alternative A. The degree and extent of impacts within occupied 

GRSG habitat outside PPH would be reduced under Alternative C relative to Alternative B. The 

types of impacts that would be expected to decrease would include direct mortality from 

crushing or trampling individuals, negative impacts associated with dust generation, habitat 

degradation associated with soil compaction and changes in hydrology, and negative impacts 

associated with spread of invasive non-native species. 

Cumulative Effects 

The DEIS considers recreation only a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative 

actions” within Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 

of the DEIS). Management actions associated with travel, transportation and recreation under 

Alternative C would increase protection of all occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, which 

would provide an overall long-term benefit to sensitive plants that occur there. Under Alternative 

C, some of the current travel, transportation and recreation management direction would 

continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), however, 

measures would be added to conserve existing sagebrush habitat. Because Alternative C would 

minimize the negative impacts of travel, transportation, and recreation management on sensitive 

plant species in Management Zones III, IV and V, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, this alternative would not substantially increase negative 

impacts on sensitive plant species. 

Alternative D 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D would treat sites within priority and general sage-grouse habitat that are dominated 

by invasive species through an Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) approach using fire, 

chemical, mechanical, and biological methods based on site potential. Targeted grazing would be 

allowed to suppress cheatgrass or other vegetation hindering the achievement of sage-grouse 

objectives in priority and general habitat. Sheep, cattle, or goats could be used as long as the 

animals were intensely managed and removed when the utilization of desirable species reached 
35%. Where feasible, sagebrush steppe would be restored in perennial grass, invasive annual 

grass, and conifer-invaded cover types. 

Pinyon and juniper treatment in encroached sagebrush vegetation communities in priority habitat 

and general habitat would focus on enhancing, reestablishing, or maintaining habitat components 

(e.g. cover, security, food, etc.) in order to achieve habitat objectives. Phase II and III pinyon 

and/or juniper stands would be removed or reduced in biomass to meet fuel and sage-grouse 

habitat objectives, and appropriate action would be taken to establish desired understory species 

composition, including seeding and invasive species treatments. Treatment methods that 

maintained sagebrush and shrub cover and composition would be used in areas with a sagebrush 

component. 

Alternative D would be more protective of GRSG habitat than Alternative B because it would 

include several conservation measures specifically targeted to invasive species infestations and 

pinyon-juniper encroachment and it would apply them over a larger area (within priority and 

general habitat) than Alternative B (only PPH). Under Alternative D, the types of impacts of 

vegetation and soils management on sensitive plants would be similar to those described under 

Alternative A; however, the conservation measures described above would likely reduce the 

magnitude of negative impacts on sensitive plants and provide a long-term benefit to species that 

depend on healthy sagebrush habitats. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative D, current vegetation and soils management treatments within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would continue, and the longterm beneficial impacts of improved habitat conditions would continue to outweigh the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on sensitive plants. However, additional measures to 

conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would provide further long-term 

benefits to sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of 

vegetation and soils management on sensitive plants in Management Zones III, IV and V under 

Alternative D when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would implement beneficial management actions to 

incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into livestock grazing 

management. Actions that would be particularly relevant to assessing potential positive and 

negative impacts on sensitive plants include the following: consideration of grazing methods 

and systems to reduce impacts on sage-grouse habitat; consideration of retiring vacant 

allotments; improvement in the management of riparian areas and wet meadows; evaluation of 

existing introduced perennial grass seedings; authorization of new water developments and 
structural range improvements only when beneficial to GRSG; potential modification of grazing 

systems to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements; and fence removal, modification or 

marking. The main difference between Alternatives B and D is that Alternative D would apply 

these conservation measures to priority and general habitat rather than limiting them to PPH as 

Alternative D would not require the completion of Land Health Assessments to determine if 

standards of range-land health were being met. 

Although the types of impacts on sensitive plants would be expected to be the same as under 

Alternatives A and B, the level and extent of negative impacts would be expected to be reduced 

under Alternative D relative to Alternative A and reduced slightly relative to Alternative B. 

Sensitive plants that occur in PPH and PGH would likely benefit from improving habitat 

conditions in uplands, riparian areas, meadows, and other wetlands. Almost one-fourth of the 

sensitive plant species in table 3 occur in riparian areas, meadows, seeps, springs, and other 

wetland areas, which tend to be used more intensively by livestock than upland areas. Because 

of these factors and the focus of Alternative D on improving riparian, meadow, and other 

wetland habitat, sensitive wetland plant species may benefit from Alternative D more than 

upland species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, the DEIS considers it only 

a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” in for Management Zone V and 

does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Portions of Management 

Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro 

HMAs and Territories, which has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on 

these lands. Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not 

contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) 

and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative D, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing 

plans and wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate Management 

Level within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Additional 

measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would further minimize 

negative impacts on sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Unlike Alternative B, which would prioritize suppression in PPH but only in PGH where fires 

threatened PPH, Alternative D would prioritize suppression in priority and general sage-grouse 
habitat. In priority and general habitat, fuels treatments would be similar to those under 

Alternative B and would emphasize maintaining, protecting, and expanding GRSG habitat. 

Specifically, measures under Alternative D would include generally enhancing or maintaining 

sagebrush canopy cover and community structure to match expected potential for the ecological 

site consistent with sage grouse habitat objectives and requiring the use of native seeds in 

different types of restoration efforts. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would apply these 

measures to priority and general habitat rather than limiting them to PPH. In addition, 

Alternative D would prohibit fuels treatment in priority and general habitat if it were determined 

the treatment would not be beneficial to GRSG or its habitat and identify opportunities for the 

use of prescribed fire. Alternative D also would prioritize pre-suppression activities in sagegrouse habitats vulnerable to wildfire and prescribe actions important for their protection, 

implement post-fire treatments in priority and general habitat to maximize benefits to greater 

sage-grouse, and establish fuel breaks inside and outside of priority habitat to prevent large scale 

loss of habitat. Overall, these conservation measures would reduce the threat of wildfire to 

sagebrush compared to Alternative A. 

The types of impacts on sensitive plants associated with fire and fuels under Alternative D would 

be similar to those under Alternative A; however the extent of those impacts and their 

distribution across the landscape would change. Under Alternative D, sensitive plant species 

requiring mature sagebrush would be expected to benefit from fire and fuels activities, and 

sagebrush species that require early successional sagebrush and those that are fire adapted or fire 

dependent may experience a reduction in suitable habitat over time. With its emphasis on 

minimizing fire in mature sagebrush, impacts on sensitive plants from suppression would be 

higher under Alternative D than under Alternative A. Because reseeding efforts would prioritize 

use of native seed in PPH and PGH over other areas in years of short seed supplies, sensitive 

plants outside these areas could be more susceptible to habitat degradation from wildfire if 

limited seed availability reduced revegetation success outside PPH and PGH. Because 

Alternative D would expand some sagebrush conservation measures to include all occupied 

GRSG habitat rather than limiting them to PPH, Alternative D would be expected to increase 

beneficial impacts to sensitive plants that depend on mature sagebrush habitat and increase 

negative impacts to sensitive plants that are fire adapted or fire dependent and/or require early 

successional sagebrush habitat. Alternative D also would be expected to increase negative 

impacts associated with suppression and fuels management relative to Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of fire and fuels management under Alternative D when combined with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be similar to those described 

for Alternative B and would not be expected to substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants within Management Zones III, IV and V. (Please refer to Fire and Fuels under 

Alternative B above and Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 
Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative D would prioritize wild horse and burro gathers in priority and general habitat as 

opposed rather than prioritizing them only PPH, as Alternative B would. Otherwise, Alternative 

B is similar to management proposed in Alternative B in that wild horse and burro populations 

would be managed within established AML to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives for all WHTs 

within or containing priority or general habitat. Unlike Alternative B, adjustments to AML 

through the NEPA process would be considered in WHTs not meeting standards due to 

degradation that could be at least partially contributed to wild horse or burro populations; 

adjustments would be based on monitoring data and would seek to protect and enhance priority 

and general habitat and establish a thriving ecological balance. Alternative D would be expected 

to reduce the impacts of wild horses and burros on GRSG habitat described under Alternative A 

over a larger area than Alternative B. 

Although the types of impacts on sensitive plants would be expected to be the same under 

Alternative D as they would be under Alternatives A and B, the level and extent of negative 

impacts would be expected to be reduced under Alternative D. Sensitive plants that occur in 

PPH and PGH would likely benefit from prioritized gathers in these areas and from other 

conservation measures that would be applied to these areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management 

zones, and has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands, the 

DEIS considers it only a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” in 

Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Under Alternative D, wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for Appropriate 

Management Level and livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing 

grazing plans within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Additional measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative D would reduce 

overall negative impacts on sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 
Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative D, a NSO stipulation, with no allowance for waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications, would be applied to un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in PPH and a NSO 

stipulation, with allowance for waivers, exception, or modifications, would be applied in unleased federal fluid mineral estate in PGH. Geophysical exploration that did not entail crushing 

of sagebrush vegetation or creating new or additional surface disturbance would be allowed 

within priority and general sage-grouse habitat, but geophysical operations would be subject to 

timing and controlled surface use limitations. Proposed surface disturbance in unleased priority 

habitat would have to achieve no net unmitigated loss of priority habitat. Required Design 

Features (RDFs) would be applied as Conditions of Approval within priority and general sagegrouse habitat on existing fluid mineral leases. 

Similar to Alternative A, new plans of operation for authorized locatable minerals on forest 

service-administered lands would require the inclusion of measures to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to GRSG habitat. Priority and general habitat would be closed to non-energy leasable 

mineral leasing and prospecting. No new commercial mineral material sales would be allowed in 

priority or general habitat, but sales to meet Federal, Tribal, State, County and public needs 

would be allowed in general habitat. Loss of habitat through would be off-set through off-site 

mitigation. Alternative D would manage priority and general habitat as ROW exclusion areas for 

new large-scale wind and solar energy facilities (see Land Uses and Realty Management), 

whereas Alternative B would manage PPH as a new ROW exclusion area and PGH as a new 

ROW avoidance area. 

Alternative D would be less protective of PPH than Alternative B with respect to new fluid 

mineral leasing because Alternative B would close PPH to new fluid mineral leasing. On the 

other hand, it would be more protective of PGH than Alternative B with respect to new fluid 

mineral leasing because Alternative B would not include specific management for new or 

existing fluid minerals leasing in general habitat. Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B 

with respect to existing fluid mineral leases by requiring application of design features in priority 

habitat. Under Alternative D, both priority and general habitat would be closed to non-energy 

leasable mineral leasing and prospecting as opposed to only PPH under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, the types of impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on 

sensitive plants would be similar to those described under Alternative A, but their magnitude and 

spatial distribution would differ. Because of its inclusion of GRSG habitat conservation 

measures, Alternative D would be expected to reduce negative impacts of energy and locatable 

minerals development on sensitive plants relative to Alternative A. Sensitive plant impacts 

associated with energy and locatable minerals development under Alternative D are harder to 

assess relative to Alternative B because each alternative includes some measures that are more 

protective than the other in different areas and under different circumstances; however, overall 
differences in sensitive plant impacts between the two alternatives are likely to be minor because 

any ground disturbing activity would be subject to project-level NEPA, which would incorporate 

appropriate avoidance, minimization, and/or avoidance measures for sensitive plants. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III, but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative D, some of the current management direction 

associated with energy and locatable minerals development would continue within Management 

Zones III, IV, and V, however, additional measures would conserve existing sagebrush. 

Alternative D would be the same as Alternative A with respect to areas closed to entry, but 

would add NSO restrictions to all PPH and PGH without waiver, exception, or modification. 

NSO restrictions would apply to PGH with allowance for waivers, exceptions and modifications. 

Management under Alternatives D would maintain current acreage open to mineral development 

but add the application of best management practices and off-site mitigation. Collectively, these 

measures would minimize negative impacts on sensitive plants in GRSG habitat. The direct and 

indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development on sensitive plants in Management 

Zones III, IV and V from the added management actions under Alternative D when combined 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase 

negative impacts on sensitive plants (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Like Alternative B, Alternative D would include provisions to retain public ownership of priority 

GRSG habitat and to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate where 

suitable conservation actions for GRSG could not otherwise be achieved, require co-location of 

new ROWs or SUAs associated with valid existing rights with existing development, and, where 

appropriate, bury new and existing utility lines as mitigation unless. Unlike Alternative B, 

Alternative D would manage priority and general habitat as ROW exclusion areas for new largescale commercial wind and solar energy facilities and ROW avoidance areas for all other ROWs 

or SUAs. Development within avoidance areas could occur if the development incorporated 

appropriate RDFs in design and construction (e.g. noise, tall structure, seasonal restrictions, etc.) 

and development resulted in no net un-mitigated loss of priority or general habitat. In addition, 

ROW holders in priority and general habitat would be required to retro-fit existing power lines 

and other utility structure with perch-deterring devices during ROW renewal process. These 

conservation measures would make this alternative more protective than Alternative A, although 

the general effects and types of impacts on sensitive plants would be the same. Alternative D 

would be less protective than Alternatives B and C with respect to new siting of general ROWs 

and SUAs because priority habitat would be an avoidance area rather than an exclusion area. As 

a result, negative impacts to sensitive plants within these avoidance areas could be greater under 
Alternative D than under Alternatives B and C. However, Alternative D would be more 

protective than Alternatives B and C with respect to large-scale commercial wind and solar 

energy facilities because Alternative D would exclude such facilities in priority and general 

habitat altogether. This exclusion would likely reduce negative impacts on sensitive plants in 

PPH and PGH under Alternative D relative to Alternatives B and C. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty management under Alternative D 

would increase conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Under Alternative D, some of the 

current land and realty operations would continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer 

to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), however, additional measures would conserve existing sagebrush 

habitat and thereby minimize long-term negative impacts on sensitive plants that occur there. 

Land uses and realty management activities would focus ROW exclusion or avoidance areas in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of lands and realty 

management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative D 

when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not 

substantially increase impacts on sensitive plants. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under current management, travel on most Forest Service-administered lands is limited to 

designated roads, although off road motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of roads is 

authorized on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, with some restrictions. Like Alternative B, Alternative D 

would limit motorized travel to designated routes, limit opportunities for road construction and 

apply minimum standards, prohibit the upgrading of current roads, and permit only recreational 

SUAs that were neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would 

extend these measures beyond PPH to include PGH. In addition, under Alternative D no new 

recreation facilities (including, but not limited to, campgrounds, day use areas, scenic pullouts, 

trailheads, etc.) would be constructed in priority or general habitat. Although general impacts 

would be the same as Alternative A, Alternative D would be more restrictive than Alternative A 

or Alternative B. It would likely reduce loss, fragmentation and disturbance of GRSG habitat by 

minimizing human use and road construction or upgrades. 

Although the types of impacts of travel, transportation, and recreation management on sensitive 

plants would be expected to be the same under Alternative D as under Alternatives A and B, the 

level and extent of negative impacts would be expected to be reduced under Alternative D 

because conservation measures would be applied throughout GRSG habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

The DEIS considers recreation only a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative 

actions” within Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 
of the DEIS). Management actions associated with travel, transportation and recreation under 

Alternative D would increase conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within PPH and PGH, 

and thereby minimize potential negative impacts on sensitive plants that occur within those 

habitat areas. Under Alternative D, some of the current travel, transportation and recreation 

management direction would continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 

5 of the DEIS), however, additional measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat would be 

included. Because Alternative D would minimize the negative impacts of travel, transportation, 

and recreation management on sensitive plant species in Management Zones III, IV and V, when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions this alternative would 

not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plant species. 

Alternative E 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, invasive plants would be managed through a combination of surveys, 

biological control, educational activities, native planting and reseeding of previously treated sites 

in areas susceptible to invasion, and weed-free gravel and forage certifications and inspections. 

SGMAs would be managed to prevent invasive species and to suppress and restore areas with 

existing infestations. Existing areas of invasive vegetative that pose a threat to SGMAs would be 

treated through the use of herbicides, fungicides, or bacteria to control cheatgrass and 

medusahead infestations. All burned areas within SGMAs would be reviewed and evaluated in a 

timely manner to ascertain the reclamation potential for reestablishing Sage-Grouse habitat, 

enhancing ecosystem resiliency, and controlling invasive weed species. 

Under Alternative E, landscape-level treatments in Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs) 

would be initiated to reverse the effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment and restore healthy, 

resilient sagebrush ecosystems. Plans to remove Phase I and Phase II encroachment and treat 

Phase III encroachment would be aggressively implemented to reduce the threat of severe 

conflagration and restore SGMAs where possible, especially in areas in close proximity to 

Occupied and Suitable Habitat. Temporary roads to access treatment areas would be allowed and 

constructed with minimum design standards to avoid and minimize impacts and removed and 

restored upon completion of treatment. Under Alternative E, the State of Nevada would continue 

to incentivize and assist in the development of bio-fuels and other commercial uses of pinyonjuniper resources and 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. Alternative E would provide for an increase in conifer encroachment efforts for 

GRSG habitat compared to Alternative A and addresses it more specifically than Alternatives B 

or C. 

The types of impacts of vegetation and soils management on sensitive plants species would be 

similar to those described under Alternative A; however, the magnitude and spatial distribution 
of those impacts would differ. Because Alternative E includes more intensive invasive plant 

control efforts in GRSG habitat than Alternative A, sensitive plants that occur in healthy GRSG 

impacts would likely experience a long-term benefit from Alternative E. Treatment activities 

could have negative impacts on sensitive plant species that occur in treatment areas, as described 

under Alternative A, and the magnitude of these impacts on species that occur within GRSG 

habitat would be expected to increase under Alternative E relative to Alternative. Because 

conifer encroachment would be managed more aggressively under Alternative E than under 

Alternatives A or B, Alternative E would likely reduce the magnitude of the negative impacts on 

sensitive plants associated with conifer encroachment and provide a long-term benefit to species 

that depend on healthy sagebrush habitats relative to these other alternatives. Impacts associated 

with managing conifer encroachment under Alternative E would be expected to increase relative 

to Alternatives A and B and could negatively impact sensitive plants that are restricted to conifer 

habitats. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative E, current vegetation and soils management treatments, including mechanical, 

manual, chemical, and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper, would 

continue within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), and the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on sensitive plants within GRSG habitats would 

continue to be outweighed by the long-term beneficial impacts of improved habitat conditions. 

Additional measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative E would provide a 

further net benefit to sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect 

effects of vegetation and soils management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV 

and V from the management actions under Alternative E when combined with the past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would manage grazing permits to maintain or enhance SGMAs. It would utilize 

livestock grazing, when appropriate as a management tool, to improve Sage-Grouse habitat 

quantity, quality or to reduce wildfire threats. Alternative E would expand the promotion of 

proper livestock grazing practices that promote the health of perennial grass communities in 

order to suppress the establishment of cheatgrass. Riparian areas would be managed to current 

agency standards. Within riparian areas, Alternative E would promote grazing within acceptable 

limits and development of additional infrastructure (e.g., fences and troughs) in order to facilitate 

this action. 

Under Alternative E, the types of impacts on sensitive plants from livestock grazing would be 

expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative A. However, in comparison with 

Alternative A, management under Alternative E could increase the level of impacts to sensitive 
plant species within riparian areas because of its promotion of riparian grazing. Although newly 

grazed riparian areas would be managed to current standards, such management would minimize 

but not eliminate potential impacts on sensitive plants. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, the DEIS considers it only 

a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” in Management Zone V and does 

not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Portions of Management Zone III 

(89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and 

Territories, which has the potential to compound the effects of livestock grazing on these lands; 

Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse 

and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent 

of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Alternative E would impose fewer management limitations on livestock grazing within 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) than Alternative A and would 

promote grazing in riparian areas. Wild horse and burro Territories would be managed for 

Appropriate Management Level as under current management. Under Alternative E, the direct 

and indirect effects of livestock grazing in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions could increase fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) and contribute to negative 

cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, fire and fuels management would emphasize sagebrush habitat protection 

and restoration within the State of Nevada Sage-Grouse Management Areas. With respect to 

hazardous fuels treatments, this alternative would set a goal of supporting incentives for 

developing a beneficial use for biomass. Wildland fires in SGMAs would be managed 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. Additional emphasis under 

Alternative E would integrate the prepositioning of suppression resources and preventative 

actions similar to Alternative D. Prepositioning and preventive actions would increase the 

likelihood of successful fire management actions with response to wildfire. Fuels reduction 

treatments would be similar to those under Alternative B, with added emphasis on coordination 

of state and local agencies and individual landowners. 

Under Alternative E, the types of impacts of fire and fuels management on sensitive plants would 

be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, though their magnitude and spatial distribution 

would be expected to differ as a result of the management actions designed to conserve GRSG 

habitat. Positive and negative impacts of these actions on sensitive plants that occur within 
GRSG habitat and adjacent areas within which preventive actions and suppression may occur 

would be expected to increase relative to Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of fire and fuels management actions under Alternative E when combined 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be similar those described 

for Alternative B and would not be expected to substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants within Management Zones III, IV and V. (Please refer to Fire and Fuels under 

Alternative B above and Chapter 5 of the DEIS). 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, wild horse and burro management would be similar to that under 

Alternative A, though Alternative E would include additional management measures to benefit 

the GRSG. Alternative E would maintain wild horses at AML in WHTs to avoid and minimize 

impacts on Sage-Grouse Management Areas, evaluate conflicts with WHT designations in SageGrouse Management Areas, modify Land Use Plans and Resource Management Plans to avoid 

negative impacts on GRSG and, if necessary, resolve conflicts between the Wild and Free 

Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

The types of impacts of wild horse and burro management under Alternative E on sensitive 

plants would be similar to those discussed for Alternative A; however Alternative E would likely 

improve conditions for sensitive plants that occur within GRSG habitat slightly relative to 

Alternative A by reducing the direct and indirect negative impacts of wild horses and burros and 

improving GRSG habitat conditions. 

Cumulative Effects 

Portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within 

wild horse and burro HMAs and Territories. Forest Service-administered lands within 

Management zones IV and V do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of 

BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); 

see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. Under Alternative E, wild horse and burro Territories would be 

managed for Appropriate Management Level as under current management. Therefore, the direct 

and indirect effects of wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants in Management 

Zones III, IV and V under Alternative E when combined with the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E would minimize conflicts with GRSG habitat by siting new minerals and energy 

facilities and activities outside habitat wherever possible. Projects with an approved BLM notice, 

plan of operation, right-of-way, or drilling plan would be exempt from any new mitigation 
requirements above and beyond what has already been stipulated in project approvals. 

Exploration projects would be designed for mineral access and the betterment of GRSG habitat. 

Roads and other ancillary features that impact GRSG habitat would be designed to avoid where 

feasible and otherwise minimize and mitigate impacts in the short and long term. New linear 

features would be sited in existing corridors or, at a minimum, co-located with existing linear 

features in SGMAs. Energy developers would be required to work closely with state and federal 

agency experts to determine important GRSG nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats and 

avoid those areas, and energy development or infrastructure features would be restricted within a 

0.6 mile (1 km) radius around seeps, springs and wet meadows within identified brood rearing 

habitats wherever possible. As previously stated, Alternative E would not provide fixed 

exclusion or avoidance areas, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate approach, which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed 

exclusion and avoidance land allocations based on PPH and PGH designations. 

Under Alternative E, the types of impacts on sensitive plants from energy and locatable minerals 

development would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. However, the magnitude 

of such impacts under Alternative E could be greater because projects with an approved BLM 

notice, plan of operation, right-of-way, or drilling plan would be explicitly exempt from new 

mitigation requirements, which could provide for greater conservation of GRSG habitats, 

whereas such project would not necessarily be exempt under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III, but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Unlike Alternatives B, C, D, or F, Alternative E would not 

incorporate any defined exclusion or avoidance areas within Management Zones III, IV and V 

(refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Alternative E would leave all management subject to an avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate approach, which would provide a lower level of habitat conservation 

certainty than Alternatives with defined exclusion or avoidance areas. Therefore, under 

Alternative E, the direct and indirect effects of energy and locatable minerals development in 

conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may increase loss 

and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS) and contribute to negative cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, no areas would be subject to exclusion or avoidance, but habitat 

disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in Occupied and Suitable Habitat would be 

limited to not more than five percent per year, and in Potential Habitat to not more than twenty 

percent per year, per SGMA, unless habitat treatments showed credible positive results. On 
federal lands in Nevada with pre-approved activities, no new mitigation would take place beyond 

previously approved in Plans of Development, right of ways, or drilling plans. General guidance 

would be to avoid when possible, minimize adverse effects as practicable, and mitigate adverse 

effects in Occupied or Suitable Habitat. Whenever possible, this alternative would locate 

facilities in non-habitat areas, site new linear features in existing corridors or co-locate them with 

other existing features and engage in reclamation and weed control efforts. This alternative 

provides few conservation measures when compared to Alternative A to reduce direct or indirect 

impacts to GRSG and GRSG habitats. As a result, the types, level, and spatial distribution of 

impacts on sensitive plants from land uses and realty management under Alternative E would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Management actions associated with land uses and realty under Alternative E would not include 

specific exclusion or avoidance areas but would limit total disturbance within Occupied and 

Suitable Habitats and implement an avoid, minimize, mitigate approach, as discussed above. 

This would provide a lower level of certainty for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation 

under Alternative E than under alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance areas based 

on habitat designations and could lead to greater habitat fragmentation under Alternative E. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects land uses and realty management under Alternative E in 

conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may increase loss 

and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV or V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS) and contribute to negative cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative E, travel, transportation and recreation management would essentially remain 

the same as it currently is under Alternative A. Therefore, the types, level, and spatial 

distribution of impacts on sensitive plants from travel, transportation, and recreation 

management under Alternative E would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

The DEIS considers recreation only a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative 

actions” in Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the 

DEIS). Current travel, transportation and recreation management as it exists under Alternative A 

would continue under Alternative E. The limitation of motorized travel to existing routes and 

permitting of recreational SUAs that would be neutral or beneficial to sensitive plants within 

GRSG habitat, as well as limited opportunities for road construction and upgrading of current 

roads, would not be instituted as they would be in Alternatives B, C, D and F. Under Alternative 

E, the direct and indirect effects from travel, transportation and recreation management in 

conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may increase loss 
and fragmentation of the existing sagebrush habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS) and contribute to negative cumulative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Alternative F 

Vegetation and Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Like Alternative B, Alternative F generally would follow existing direction for invasive species 

control. However, Alternative F would include the following additional measures: (1) monitor 

and control invasive vegetation in treated, burned, or restored sagebrush steppe; (2) restrict 

activities in GRSG habitat that facilitate the spread of invasive plants; (3) in GRSG habitat, 

ensure that soil cover and native herbaceous plants are at their ecological potential to help protect 

against invasive plants; and (4) develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring 

sagebrush steppe invaded by non-native plants. Like Alternative B, vegetation management 

under Alternative F would prioritize restoration of GRSG habitats, which would be expected to 

provide a long-term benefit to sensitive plants that occur in those habitats. Under Alternative F, 

short-term impacts of invasive plant treatments and other restoration actions, particularly those 

that involve mechanized equipment or the use of herbicides, could negatively impact individual 

sensitive plants (for example, by crushing or herbicide drift). Such impacts would be expected to 

be minimal as project level environmental review would be done and appropriate avoidance or 

minimization measures would be incorporated. 

Under Alternative F, the use of native seed would be required for reseeding of closed roads, 

primitive roads, and trails. The use of native seed would be favored in other types of restoration 

under Alternative F, as it would be under Alternative B. Current FS policy (FSM 2070.3) 

already restricts the use of non-native seed in restoration and prohibits the use of invasive 

species, so the impact of the native seed emphasis for restoration in Alternative F is unlikely to 

result in a measurable additional benefit to sensitive plant species over Alternatives A or B. 

Monitoring and invasive species control after fuels treatments and at existing range 

improvements incorporated into Alternative F could benefit sensitive plant species by 

minimizing habitat degradation caused by invasive species. Overall, Alternative F would be 

likely to reduce impacts of invasive non-native plants on sensitive plants relative to Alternative 

A and may provide a marginal benefit over Alternative B. 

Like Alternatives A and B, Alternative F does not directly address conifer encroachment. The 

types of impacts of conifer encroachment on sensitive plants under Alternative F would be 

expected to be the same as those under Alternative A. Although the types of impacts would be 

the same, the conservation measures described above for invasive plants and the fuels treatments 

described below in Fire and Fuels would likely reduce the magnitude of the impacts on sensitive 

plants associated with conifer encroachment relative to Alternative A and could provide an 

additional reduction in the magnitude of impacts on sensitive plants from conifer encroachment 

relative to Alternative B. 
Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative F, current vegetation and soils management treatments within Management 

Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS) (including mechanical, manual, chemical, 

and biological control of invasive plants and pinyon and juniper) would continue, and the longterm beneficial impacts of improved habitat conditions would continue to outweigh the shortterm negative impacts of these activities on sensitive plants. Additional measures to conserve 

existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative F would provide a further net benefit to sensitive 

plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of vegetation and soils 

management to Greater Sage-Grouse in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management 

actions under Alternative F when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on sensitive plants. 

Livestock Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Like Alternative B, Alternative F would incorporate sage grouse habitat objectives and sage 

grouse management considerations into livestock grazing management, but Alternative F would 

extend those to all occupied habitat rather than limiting them to PPH. Actions that would be 

expected to directly or indirectly impact sensitive plants include completion of range condition 

assessments, consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce impacts on occupied 

GRSG habitat, modification of grazing systems in occupied GRSG habitat to meet seasonal sage 

grouse habitat requirements, improved management of riparian areas and wet meadows in 

occupied GRSG habitat, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings in occupied 

GRSG habitat, prohibiting new water developments in occupied GRSG, avoiding new structural 

range improvements in occupied GRSG habitat unless studies show they benefit GRSG, 

incorporation of BMPs for West Nile Virus, and fence removal. Additional actions in Alternative 

F that entail more than an extension of Alternative B actions to all occupied habitat include 

excluding livestock grazing from burned areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve GRSG 

habitat objectives, closing the entire allotment if burned GRSG habitat cannot be fenced from 

unburned habitat, and increasing monitoring of vegetation treatments. 

The types of impacts on sensitive plants from livestock grazing management under Alternative F 

would be expected to be the same as under Alternatives A, B, and F. Overall, the level and 

extent of negative impacts would be expected to be reduced in Alternative F. Sensitive plants 

that occur in occupied GRSG would likely benefit from improving habitat conditions in uplands, 

riparian areas, meadows, and other wetlands. Almost one-quarter of the sensitive plant species 

in table 3 occur in riparian areas, meadows, seeps, springs, and other wetland areas, which tend 

to be used more intensively by livestock than upland areas. Because of these factors and the 

focus of Alternative F on improving riparian, meadow, and other wetland habitat throughout 

occupied GRSG habitat, sensitive wetland plant species may benefit from Alternative B more 

than upland species. 
Cumulative Effects 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout all management zones, the DEIS considers it only 

a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative actions” for Management Zone V and does 

not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of the DEIS). In addition, portions of 

Management Zone III (89 percent of BLM land/8 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse 

and burro HMAs and Territories, which has the potential to compound the effects of livestock 

grazing on these lands. Forest Service-administered lands within Management zones IV and V 

do not contain wild horse and burro Territories [IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest 

Service) and V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service); see Chapter 5 of the DEIS]. 

Under Alternative F, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing 

plans within Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), and wild horse 

and burro territories would be managed for Appropriate Management Level. Additional 

measures to conserve existing sagebrush habitat under Alternative F would further minimize 

potential negative impacts on sensitive plants within GRSG habitat. Therefore, the direct and 

indirect effects of livestock grazing and wild horse and burro management on sensitive plants in 

Management Zones III, IV and V under Alternative F when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants. 

Fire and Fuels 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Because fire and fuels management under Alternative F would be essentially the same as under 

Alternative B, the types of fire and fuels related impacts of Alternative F on sensitive plants 

would be the same as those discussed above for Alternative B. Under Alternative F, sensitive 

plant species requiring mature sagebrush would be expected to benefit from fire and fuels 

activities, and sagebrush species that require early successional sagebrush and those that are fire 

adapted or fire dependent may experience a reduction in suitable habitat over time. With its 

emphasis on minimizing fire in mature sagebrush, impacts on sensitive plants from suppression 

would be higher under Alternative F than under Alternative A. Because reseeding efforts would 

prioritize use of native seed in GRSG habitat over other areas in years of short seed supplies, 

sensitive plants in areas outside GRSG habitat could be more susceptible to habitat degradation 

from wildfire if limited seed availability reduced revegetation success outside GRSG habitat. 

Elements of Alternative F that differ from those of Alternative B and could lead to differences in 

the extent of direct and indirect beneficial and negative impacts on sensitive plants between the 

two alternatives include the following: (1) excluding livestock grazing from burned areas in 

GRSG occupied habitat until woody and herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives; 

and (2) applying fuels management provisions (including post-fire revegetation and invasive 

species control) to all occupied habitat rather than limiting them to PPH. These differences 

would decrease the negative effects of fire and fuels management on sensitive plants in burned 
areas and increase the impacts on sensitive plants in treatment areas. As discussed in the 

previous paragraph, impacts to sensitive plants in treatment areas could be positive or negative, 

depending on their habitat requirements. Overall, the difference in impacts on sensitive plants 

between Alternatives B and F would likely be negligible because the differences between fire 

and fuels management under the two alternatives would be minimal. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of fire and fuels management actions under Alternative F when combined 

with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B and would not be expected to substantially increase negative impacts 

on sensitive plants within Management Zones III, IV and V. (Please refer to Fire and Fuels under 

Alternative B and above Chapter 5 of the DEIS.) 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Wild horse and burro management under Alternative F would be similar to that proposed under 

Alternative B, although Alternative F would extend some management provisions to all GRSG 

habitat rather than limiting them to priority habitat. Specific provisions that would be expanded 

to all habitat under Alternative F include: (1) amending herd management area and herd area 

plans within all GRSG habitat to incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives; and (2) addressing 

the direct and indirect effects on sage-grouse populations and habitat when conducting NEPA 

analysis for free-roaming horse and burro management activities, water developments, or other 

range developments for free-roaming horses in sage-grouse habitat. 

Because wild horse and burro management under Alternative F would be very similar to that 

under Alternative B, the types of impacts to sensitive plants would be the same as discussed 

above for Alternative B. However, the expansion of some management measures that would 

promote habitat conservation to all GRSG habitat under Alternative F may provide a marginal 

benefit to sensitive plants that occur in GRSG habitat but outside PPH relative to Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of wild horse and burro management actions under Alternative F when 

combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be similar to 

those described for Alternative B and would not be expected to substantially increase negative 

impacts on sensitive plants within Management Zones III, IV and V. (Please refer to Wild Horse 

and Burro Management under Alternative B above and Chapter 5 of the DEIS.) 

Energy and Locatable Minerals Development 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative F, energy and locatable minerals development would be similar to proposed 

management under Alternative B. Under Alternative F the following also would apply: siting of 

wind energy development would be prevented in PPH; PPH would be closed to new fluid 
mineral leasing, nonenergy leasable mineral leasing, and mineral material sales; PPH would be 

proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry; no new surface occupancy (NSO) would be 

stipulated for leased fluid minerals; and a 3% disturbance cap would be applied to PPH. 

Numerous conservation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts from mineral 

exploration and development activities in PPH. Like Alternative B, Alternative F does would not 

include specific management for locatable, or saleable or nonenergy minerals in PGH. Unlike 

Alternative B, Alternative F directly addresses wind energy and fluid minerals development 

outside of PPH: wind energy would be sited at least five miles from active sage-grouse leks and 

at least four miles from the perimeter of sage-grouse winter habitat, and areas within 4 miles of 

active sage-grouse leks would be closed to new fluid minerals leasing. 

Under Alternative F, the types of impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on 

sensitive plants would be similar to those described for Alternative A, though their magnitude 

and spatial distribution would differ. With its conservation measures in PPH, Alternative F 

would likely decrease negative impacts on sensitive plants relative to Alternative A. Because 

Alternative F is similar to Alternative B but also addresses wind energy and fluid minerals 

leasing outside PPH more thoroughly that Alternative B, Alternative F would likely reduce 

negative impacts of energy and locatable minerals development on sensitive plants relative to 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Energy development is currently a minor threat present only in Management Zone III, but 

geothermal energy development potential is high throughout Management Zone IV (refer to 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS). Mining is common across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and 

occurs at a variety of scales. Under Alternative F, some of the current energy and locatable 

minerals management direction would continue within Management Zones III and IV, however, 

additional measures would conserve existing sagebrush habitat by adding all PPH to existing 

closures and proposing it for withdrawal. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects on sensitive 

plants in GRSG habitat in Management Zones III, IV and V from the management actions 

associated with energy and locatable minerals under Alternative F when combined with the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not substantially increase negative 

impacts on sensitive plants. 

Land Uses and Realty Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Land uses and realty management under Alternative F would essentially be the same as that 

under Alternative B, so associated impacts on sensitive plants would be as described for 

Alternative B above. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of land uses and realty actions under Alternative F when combined with 

the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be similar to those described 
for Alternative B and would not be expected to substantially increase negative impacts on 

sensitive plants within Management Zones III, IV and V. (Please refer to Land Uses and Realty 

Management under Alternative B above Chapter 5 of the DEIS.) 

Travel, Transportation and Recreation Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

With respect to travel, transportation and recreation, Alternative F is similar to Alternative B: 

within PPH, only recreational SUAs that were neutral or beneficial to GRSG would be 

permitted; opportunities for new route construction would be limited, and upgrading of existing 

routes generally could occur only if they would not result in a new route category (road, 

primitive road, or trail) or capacity. In addition, Alternative F would expand the Alternative B 

measure restricting motorized travel to designated routes in PPH to include PGH, designated 

routes in sage-grouse priority habitat would be considered for closure, camping areas within 4 

miles of active leks would be closed seasonally, road or area closures to protect breeding, nesting 

and brood rearing sage-grouse would be implemented permanently or seasonally, and new road 

construction would be prohibited within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks. 

Although the types of impacts of travel, transportation, and recreation management on sensitive 

plants would be expected to be the same under Alternative F as under Alternatives A and B, the 

level and extent of negative impacts would be expected to be reduced under Alternative F 

because it would incorporate additional measures to conserve GRSG habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

The DEIS considers recreation only a “lesser threat” with respect to “relative cumulative 

actions” for Management Zone V and does not consider it a threat elsewhere (see Chapter 5 of 

the DEIS). Management actions associated with travel, transportation and recreation under 

Alternative F would increase conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within PPH and, in 

some instances, PGH and PPH, and minimize the negative impacts of recreation and travel 

management on sensitive plants that occur in those areas. Under Alternative F, some of the 

current travel, transportation and recreation management direction would continue within 

Management Zones III, IV and V (refer to Chapter 5 of the DEIS), however, additional measures 

to conserve existing sagebrush habitat would be included. Because Alternative F would 

minimize the negative impacts of travel, transportation, and recreation management on sensitive 

plant species in Management Zones III, IV and V, when combined with the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, this alternative would not substantially increase negative 

impacts on sensitive plant species. 

IX. LITERATURE CITED 
Baker, M. F., Eng, R. L., Gashwiler, J. S., Schroeder M. H., and Braun, C. E. 1976. Conservation 

committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated 

avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171.

Barneby, R. C. 1989. Fabales. Pages 1-279 in: A. Cronquist, A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, 

J. L. Reveal, and P. K. Holmgren. Intermountain flora vol. 3, part B. Bronx: The New 

York Botanical Garden. 

Beever, E.A. and C.L. Aldridge. 2011. Influences of free-roaming equids on sagebrush 

ecosystems with a focus on sage grouse In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats, Studies in Avian Biology No. 38. 

U.C. (Berkeley) Press. Pages 273-290.

Bell, T., K. Tolhurst, and M. Wouters. 2005. Effects of the fire retardant Phos-Chek on 

vegetation in eastern Australian heathlands. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

14:199-211. 

Berger, Joel. 1986. Wild horses of the Great Basin: social competition and population size. 

University of Chicago Press. 348 pages. 

Blomberg, E. J., J.S. Sedinger, M.T. Atamian, and D.V. Nonne. 2012. Characteristics of climate 

and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations. 

Ecosphere 3(6):55, 20pp. 

Bradley, P.V., M.J. O’Farrell, J.A. Williams, and J.E. Newmard. Editors. 2006. The Revised 

Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pp. 

Braun, C. E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. W. Gashwiler, and M. H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation 

committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated 

avifauna. Wilson Bull. 88:165-171. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished Report, Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, WY. 610pp. 

Connelly, J.W., C.A. Hagen, and M.A. Schroeder. 2011a. Characteristics and dynamics of 

greater sage-grouse populations. Pp. 53-68 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (eds). 

Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Connelly, J.W., E.T. Rinkes, and C.E. Braun. 2011b. Characteristics of greater sage-grouse 

habitats: a landscape species at micro and macro scales. Pp. 69-84 in S.T. Knick and J.W. 
Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species 

and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA. 

Franklin, M.A. 1999. Field survey of Tunnel Spring beard-tongue (Penstemon concinnus Keck): 

Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices Beaver, Iron and Millard Counties, Utah. Final 

Report for 1996 Challenge Cost Share Project with Utah Department of Natural 

Resources and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 12 pgs + Appendices. 

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. 

Greater sage-grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. Pp. 293-382 in 

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Heidel, B. 2013. Status of Antennaria arcuata (Meadow pussytoes) in Sublette County, 

Wyoming. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management - Pinedale and Rock Springs Field 

Offices by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 47 pp. 

Holmgren, N.H., P.K.Holmgren and A.A. Cronquist. 2005. Intermountain Flora, New York, 

NY: The New York Botanical Garden, Vol.2 Part B, pgs.24-27. 

Hunter, M.E., P.N. Omi, E.J. Martinson, and G.W. Chong. 2006. Establishment of non-native 

plant species after wildfires: effects of fuel treatments, abiotic and biotic factors, and 

post-fire grass seeding treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 15:271-281. 

Menard, C., P. Duncan, G. Fleurance, J. Georges and M. Lila. 2002. Comparative foraging and 

nutrition of horses and cattle in European wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:120-

133.

Miller, R.F. and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fire in juniper and pinyon woodlands: a 

descriptive analysis. Pages 15-30 In Galley, K.E.M. and T.P. Wilson (eds). Proceedings 

of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive 

species. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, 

and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station, 

Tallahassee, FL. 146pp. 

Miller, R.F., S.T. Knick, D.A. Pyke, C.W. Meinke, S.E. Hanser, M.J. Wisdom, and A.L. Hild. 

2011. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation. Pp. 

145-184 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitat. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 
Morefield, J. D. (Editor). 2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas Maps and Fact Sheets. Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Carson City: 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program, compiled for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon and Reno, Nevada. 

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2010. Brachylagus 

idahoensis - Pygmy Rabbit. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

Natureserve. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: June 2013) 

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2012a. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. bighorn sheep – Ovis 

Canadensis. Available online: 

http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/public_documents/Nevada_Wildli

fe/Mammals.pdf 

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2012b. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Pygmy rabbit – 

Brachylagus idahoensis. Available online: 

http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/public_documents/Nevada_Wildli

fe/Mammals.pdf 

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2013. Nevada Department of Wildlife 2008-2009 big game 

status. 125 p. + appendices. 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Team. 2004. Greater sage-grouse conservation plan for Nevada and 

eastern California, first edition – June 30, 2004. 108 pp. 

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 

Sage Books Inc., Denver, CO. 344pp. 

Sage-grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December 21, 2011. 74 pp. 

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. 

Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, C. W. McCarthy, 

J. J. McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of 

sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106:363-373. 

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). 

28 pages In Poole, A. and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 425. The Birds 

of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 75(55): 13910-14014. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Denver, CO. February 2013. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M Rowland, L.H. and Suring. 2005. Habitat Threats in the Sagebrush 

Ecosystem: Methods of Regional Assessment and Applications in the Great Basin. 

Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS.