Appendix L

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Evaluation Report

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS L-1

APPENDIX L

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

EVALUATION REPORT

This appendix contains the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation 

Report prepared by the BLM Nevada State Office in July 2013.
Appendix L. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

L-2 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

EVALUATION REPORT

RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE EVALUATIONS

FOR AREAS NOMINATED AS AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE AND ITS HABITAT

PREPARED BY THE NEVADA STATE OFFICE

JULY 2013

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Nevada State Office

1340 Financial Blvd

Reno, NV 89502

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

2. DEFINITION OF AN AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ............................. 2

3. CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS FOR ACEC DESIGNATION...................................................... 2

3.1 Relevance Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 2

3.2 Importance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 2

4. THE ACEC EVALUATION PROCESS ................................................................................. 3

4.1 Identification / Nomination ............................................................................................................ 3

4.2 Evaluation of Nominations for Relevance and Importance .................................................... 3

4.3 Consideration of Proposed ACECs............................................................................................. 3

4.4 Comment on Proposed ACECs.................................................................................................... 3

4.5 Designation ......................................................................................................................................... 3

5. ACEC EVALUATION ......................................................................................................... 4

5.1 Relevance Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 5

5.2 Importance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6

6. RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE EVALUATION OF ACEC NOMINATIONS...................... 10

FIGURES Page 

5-1 Northeast California-Nevada Sub-regional Plan Amendment ACEC Process.................................. 9

6-1 Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern........................................................................ 28

6-2 Alternative C: Areas of Environmental Concern.................................................................................. 29

6-3 Alternative F: Areas of Environmental Concern................................................................................... 30

TABLES Page 

5-1 Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern .............................................................................. 8

6-1 Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance....................................... 11
ii Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC area of critical environmental concern

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EIS environmental impact statement 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

GIS Geographic Information System

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife

PMU Population Management Unit

RMP resource management plan

ROD record of decision

SRPA Sub-regional Plan Amendment

US United States

WSA wilderness study area
July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 1

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

EVALUATION REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

In December 2011, the United States (US) Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) initiated the official public scoping period to prepare 

multiple resource management plan amendments and revisions on a sub-regional 

basis to address Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) conservation across its entire 

range west-wide via publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (FR 

Vol. 76, Number 237, page 77008-77011) (December 9, 2011). As part of the 

Notice of Intent, the public, stakeholders, and agencies were invited to 

nominate areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) within the planning 

sub-regions.

The BLM is required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, as amended (FLPMA), to do land use planning under Title II. Sec. 202 

(c)(3) requires the BLM to give priority to the designation and protection of 

ACECs as part of the land use planning process. Among various land use plan 

decisions to be addressed in the sub-regional plan amendments for the Great 

Basin Region, the BLM will address administrative designations such as ACECs. 

To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet both the relevance and 

importance criteria listed under 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a)(1)(2). Nominations may 

come from BLM staff, other agencies, or members of the public. In addition to 

new nominations, the BLM also evaluates any past nominations received that 

have not previously been considered in a planning process. Nominations that 

have been received that have gone through land use planning and had decisions 

made on them will not be re-evaluated in this effort. To date, the Nevada State 

Office has received a total of 82 nominations for the Northeast CaliforniaNevada Sub-Region.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

2 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013

2. DEFINITION OF AN AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

BLM regulations (43 CFR part 1601.0-5(a)) define an ACEC as an area “within 

the public lands where special management attention is required (when such 

areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect 

and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, 

fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect 

life and safety from natural hazards. The identification of a potential ACEC shall 

not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of public 

lands.”

3. CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS FOR ACEC DESIGNATION

To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance 

criteria listed in the regulations and require special management. As part of the 

sub-regional planning effort, a BLM interdisciplinary team reviewed all ACEC 

nominations to determine if they met the ACEC criteria to be considered 

proposed ACECs. The two elements of ACEC criteria are listed below.

3.1 RELEVANCE CRITERIA

Does the area contain one or more of the following:

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value?

2. A fish and wildlife resource?

3. A natural process or system?

4. A natural hazard?

3.2 IMPORTANCE CRITERIA

Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have 

substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following:

1. Is it more than locally significant, especially compared with similar 

resources, systems, processes, or hazards within the region or 

nation?

2. Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, 

threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

3. Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy 

national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA?

4. Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare?

5. Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or 

property?
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 3

4. THE ACEC EVALUATION PROCESS

There are several steps in the identification and evaluation of ACECs (see 

Figure 5-1, NECA-NV Sub-regional Plan Amendment ACEC Process, page 9).

These steps include nomination of areas that may meet the relevance and 

importance criteria, evaluation of the nominated areas, and consideration of 

proposed ACECs in various alternative scenarios. The effects of proposed 

alternatives including proposed ACECs are analyzed in the Draft Sub-regional 

Plan Amendment (SRPA)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which is subject 

to a 90-day public review and comment period. After the close of the 90-day 

public comment period, public comments are reviewed and adjustments to the 

proposed SRPA and proposed ACECs are made and included in the Final 

SRPA/EIS. Designation of ACECs occurs in the record of decision (ROD) 

approving the SRPA. 

4.1 IDENTIFICATION / NOMINATION

ACECs can be nominated at any time but can only be designated through land 

use plans. Nominations were solicited from the public during the public scoping 

process. 

4.2 EVALUATION OF NOMINATIONS FOR RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE

Nominations were evaluated to determine whether they meet the relevance 

and importance criteria. The relevance and importance criteria are detailed in 

the “Evaluation Process” section of this report.

4.3 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ACECS

Proposed ACECs are considered as SRPA alternatives are developed. Each 

ACEC is proposed for designation in at least one management alternative. The 

need for special management and the resulting effects from applying such 

management are assessed in the EIS. The Agency Preferred Alternative identifies 

which ACECs are proposed for designation.

4.4 COMMENT ON PROPOSED ACECS

A notice of any areas proposed for ACEC designation is published in the Federal 

Register along with a Notice of Availability of the Draft SRPA/EIS requesting 

public comment. Comments received on the Draft SRPA/EIS will be considered 

in the preparation of the Final SRPA/EIS. After a 30-day protest period, a ROD 

is prepared and the plan is approved along with applicable ACECs (see below 

designation section). 

4.5 DESIGNATION

An ACEC is proposed for designation if the area requires special management. 

Special management is defined as management outside of standard or routine 

practices, and usually includes more detail than other prescriptions contained 

within the plan. If analysis determines that special management is required, the 

area is recommended for designation of an ACEC. Designation of ACECs 

occurs when the ROD is signed approving the SRPA.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

4 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013

5. ACEC EVALUATION

The BLM is responsible for evaluating a nominated area to determine if it meets 

the relevance/importance criteria and requires special management. The SRPA 

evaluation team was comprised of an interdisciplinary team composed of 

specialists and managers representing different resource backgrounds and 

agencies. The team evaluated nominations provided by the public, state agencies, 

and BLM staff. The evaluation considered all current nominations. The SRPA 

ACEC evaluation team was comprised of the following specialists:

Name Position and Office

BLM

Marguerite Adams

Brian Amme

Sandy Gregory 

Emily Jennings

Arlene Kosic

Dave Mermejo

Sue Noggles

Paul Podborny

Doug Siple

Joe Tague

Leisa Wesch

Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Nevada State Office

Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Nevada State Office

Fuels Lead, Nevada State Office

Natural Resources Supervisor, Eagle Lake Field Office

Wildlife, Alturas Field Office

GIS, Nevada State Office

Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Eagle Lake Field 

Office

Supv. RMS, Elko District Office

Mining Engineer, Nevada State Office

Nevada State Office

GIS Specialist Nevada State Office

Forest Service

David Reis Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Contractors

Holly Prohaska

Marcia Rickey

Paul Roush

Randy Sharp

Project Manager, Environmental Management and Planning 

Solutions, Inc.

GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc.

Contractor, Nevada State Office

Contractor, Forest Service

The evaluation team analyzed 82 nominations for ACECs (see Figure 6-1, 

Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern). 

Two nomination evaluation meetings were held. The first meeting was held on 

May 16, 2012, at the Nevada State Office. The second meeting was held August 

15 and 16, 2012, at the Nevada State Office. All nominations were reviewed in 

each meeting. The first meeting was held to determine if relevance and 

importance criteria were met. The second meeting was held to develop a spatial 

component to where these relevant and important values were believed to exist 

within the state regardless of land ownership. The evaluation process was 

conducted through the use of geographic information systems (GIS) tools 

projected on a screen for the team to review. All the ACEC nominations 

received were encompassed within Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) 

Population Management Units (PMUs). Each PMU has been mapped by NDOW 

into five habitat categories (March 2012). 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 5

For interim management and planning purposes, in March 2012 the BLM 

adopted the NDOW Categories 1 and 2 to as preliminary priority habitat 

(PPH), the most important and irreplaceable habitat for GRSG. The BLM used 

NDOW Category 3 to represent preliminary general habitat (PGH). 

The ACEC interdisciplinary team agreed that relevance criterion 2, a fish or 

wildlife resource is present was met for the GRSG. In general, habitat that was 

considered NDOW Category 1 and 2 were considered to meet importance 

criterion 2 that it does have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change. In addition, on a more regional basis, importance 

criterion 1 is also met for areas considered to be important strongholds for the 

species. No other relevance or importance criteria were deemed to be met.

The analyses of the ACEC criteria as identified in BLM Manual 1613.1 

Characteristics of ACECs are summarized below:

5.1 RELEVANCE CRITERIA

An area meets the “relevance” criterion if it contains one or more of the 

following: 

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not 

limited to rare or sensitive archeological resources and religious or 

cultural resources important to Native Americans). 

No. Although historic, cultural and scenic values occur widespread 

on public lands, the nominations did not highlight any such values as 

part of the nomination for GRSG habitat. A general reference to the 

presence of various resource values without specifying why the 

values are significant in the context of an ACEC does not provide 

rationale for meeting this criterion. 

2. A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened species, or habitat essential for 

maintaining species diversity). 

Yes. The sensitive wildlife resource and essential habitat for GRSG

is present within the areas nominated as ACECs.

3. A natural process or system (including but not limited to 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or 

relic plants or plant communities which are terrestrial, aquatic, or 

riparian; or rare geological features) 

No. Although natural systems and processes occur on public lands, 

the sagebrush vegetation community and the various habitat 

requirements of GRSG across its range are not comprised of plant 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

6 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013

species or communities as described in this criterion and were not 

highlighted as comprising a natural system.

4. A natural hazard (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, 

dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or 

dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action may meet the 

relevance criteria if it is determined through the resource 

management planning process that it has become part of the natural 

process? 

No. The public lands nominated as ACECs do not constitute a 

natural hazard as described in this criterion.

5.2 IMPORTANCE CRITERIA

The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above has substantial 

significance or value in order to satisfy the “importance” criteria. This generally 

means that the value, resource, system, process, or hazard is characterized by 

one or more of the following:

1. Has more than locally significant qualities which give it special 

worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, 

especially compared to any similar resource.

Yes. Although concerns are based on a broad range of threats that 

vary in scope and intensity across the range of the species regarding 

habitat fragmentation and disturbances, there are recognized 

“strongholds” for GRSG habitat and populations that exhibit on a 

regional or range-wide basis, composition and integrity of habitat 

and condition as well as strength of populations that are sustainable 

over the long-term. These qualities give these areas a sense of 

special worth and cause for concern. 

2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change.

Yes. The areas nominated as ACECs have the following qualities 

described under this criterion: fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, and 

vulnerable to adverse change. The resource on a range-wide basis is 

not rare, exemplary, unique, or endangered or threatened (i.e. listed 

species).

3. Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy 

national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA. 

No. Although conservation of GRSG is of current national concern 

to the agency due to the warranted but precluded status in regard 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 7

to listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

initiation of the GRSG planning strategy, the agency has been 

emphasizing GRSG conservation since the late 1990s. In 2005, the 

BLM issued WO-IM-2005-024 directing that GRSG conservation 

measures be included in all resource management plans within the 

range of the species by 2015. At the time, there existed no 

secretarial or executive orders or public laws identifying GRSG as a 

national priority for protection beyond management of the species 

habitat which falls within the purview of implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act and FLPMA.

4. Has qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare.

No. Qualities regarding safety and public welfare are not present 

within the areas nominated as ACECs for GRSG habitat. 

5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property.

No. Areas nominated as ACECs for GRSG habitat do not pose a 

significant threat to human life and safety or to property.

The interdisciplinary team then reviewed each nominated ACEC by NDOW 

PMU across Nevada for presence or absence of GRSG habitat. The evaluation 

was conducted by PMU rather than by exact nominated ACEC because there 

were several overlapping nominations with various boundaries. Several factors 

were considered in determining if an area met the relevance and importance 

criteria. The non-exhaustive list of factors includes but is not limited to: 

• Category 1 and 2 habitat (BLM PPH)

• Potential for connectivity habitat

• Presence/absence of active leks (2007 – 2010 data)

• # of birds counted on leks (2007 – 2010 data) 

• Local telemetry data

• Land tenure (inholdings)

• Nesting habitat 

• Core breeding habitat

• Local migratory characteristics

• Fire history

• Degraded/transitional habitat

• Artificial habitat (agriculture)

• Degraded habitat through urban and urban interface influences
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

8 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013

The team found there were large acreages within PMUs that did not contain 

Category 1 or 2 habitat and some PMUs had no record of being occupied by 

GRSG or active leks. For each PMU identified to contain at least Category 1 

habitat, the above factors were considered and documented in a matrix table 

that identified the PMU, the ACEC nominator, the criteria met, and threats to 

the habitat. See Table 5-1, Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

within Population Management Units, and Figures 6-2 and 6-3, Alternative C: 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Alternative F: Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern for a summary of areas evaluated and determined to 

meet relevance and importance criteria. These areas will be carried forward for 

analysis in the SRPA/EIS. Details can be found in Table 6-1, Population 

Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance. Also see Figure 6-

1, Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

Table 5-1 

Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Proposed ACEC Acres1 Proposed ACEC Acres1

Alternative C2 Alternative C2

Black Rock 132,400 O’Neil Basin 665,600 

Buffalo/Skedaddle 1,033,000 Pine Forest 46,700 

Butte/Buck/White Pine 1,031,000 Reese River 351,400 

Clan Alpine 70,900 Ruby Valley 292,000 

Cortez 127,300 Santa Rosa 601,600 

Desatoya 170,800 Schell/Antelope 296,000 

Desert 557,100 Shoshone 239,100 

East Valley 160,300 Snake 319,700 

Fish Creek 50,600 South Fork 223,500 

Gollaher 597,700 Spring/Snake Valley 130,500 

Islands 112,600 Steptoe/Cave 184,500 

Lincoln 280,200 Three Bar 417,500 

Lone Willow 298,300 Toiyabe 640,900 

Massacre 987,700 Tuscarora 442,000 

Monitor 582,300 Virginia 53,500 

North Fork 827,900 Vya 324,500 

Alternative F3 Alternative F3

Bates Mountain 384,200 Monitor Valley 253,300

Cortez Range 164,800 Reese River 109,600

Fish Creek Mountains 70,100 Roberts Mountain 100,900

Little Fish Lake Valley 122,700 Telegraph Mountain 14,100

Monitor 564,700

1Acres include National Forest System lands where the proposed ACEC overlaps National 

Forest System lands

2Proposed ACECs for Alternative C were nominated and evaluated by PMU

3Proposed ACECs for Alternative F were individual nominations (i.e., not PMU nominations) 

although they were evaluated when the PMU was evaluated (Alternative C)
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 9 

Figure 5-1 Northeast California-Nevada Sub-regional Plan Amendment ACEC Process

ACEC nominations are solicited from public 

or BLM staff

ACEC nominations compiled over past years 

BLM Resource Specialists evaluate the internally and externally generated ACEC nominations for relevance and 

importance. A draft ACEC report is developed.

Evaluations reviewed by BLM managers. The ACEC evaluation forms 

are signed by the Assistant Field Manager with concurrence of the Field 

Manager for those meeting relevance and importance criteria.

Cooperating Agencies and Resource Advisory Council Subgroup

review ACEC evaluations, as requested

The nominated ACEC meets the

criteria for relevance and importance. 

The final ACEC report is completed.

The nominated ACEC does not meet the criteria 

of relevance and importance. It is dropped from 

further consideration. This should be 

documented in the RMP/EIS. The person who 

nominated the ACEC is notified.

The ACEC is considered in the RMP for designation.

It is determined that special

management attention is required 

to protect the important and 

relevant values in relationship to 

the BLM preferred alternative in 

the Land Use Plan (RMP).

It is determined that special 

management attention is not

required to protect the important 

and relevant values in relationship 

to the BLM preferred alternative 

in the Land Use Plan (RMP).

Management prescriptions

identified in the RMP to protect the 

important and relevant values.

Dropped from further 

consideration as an ACEC

ACEC designated.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

10 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013

6. RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE EVALUATION OF ACEC NOMINATIONS

Table 6-1, Nominated ACECs Carried Forward for Analysis, lists the ACECs 

that were evaluated and found to meet the relevance and importance criteria. 

All ACECs were assessed for GRSG population and habitat values, and it was 

determined that all ACECs met relevance criteria #2 (unique population) and 

importance criteria #2 (irreplaceable habitat). Note that acres in this table 

represent the full PMU(s). All ACECs were assessed for GRSG population and 

habitat values.

In some cases, a portion of the PMU or PMUs were not carried forward for 

analysis in the alternatives because it was determined that the area did not meet 

the relevant and importance criteria. Rationale is provided in the table.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 11 

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU 

Battle 

Name

Mountain

Proposed

Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, 

and 9 Others

population. Is in the middle 

of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire.

Black Rock Vya Sheldon 

Massacre 

BuffaloSkedaddle 

Black Rock 

Pine Forest

WWP 2,147,742 Yes Wildfire; Conifer 

Encroachment; 

Invasive Species; 

Grazing/Wild Horse 

Population over 

AML; Infrastructure

High Includes large areas of 

Category 1 and 2 habitats

and some Category 3. The 

Sheldon area is outside BLM 

and Forest Service

administration.

Bodie Hills Bi-State WWP 4,527,963 Outside of planning area

BuffaloSkedaddleUnit 

Lake 

1 Horse 

Tunnison

Eagle Lake 

Field Office

72,770 Yes Infrastructure/ 

ROW; Conifer 

Encroachment; 

Wildfire; Invasive 

Species 

High 25 percent Overlap into 

Tunnison Wilderness Study 

Area (WSA); Adjacent to 

Eagle Lake Basin ACEC

Unit 

Lake 

1A Horse 

Tunnison

Eagle Lake 

Field Office

12,462 Yes Infrastructure/ 

ROW; Conifer 

Encroachment; 

Wildfire; Invasive 

High 25 percent Overlap into 

Tunnison WSA; Adjacent 

Eagle Lake Basin ACEC

to 

Species

Unit 2 Chalk 

Bluff/Shaffer

Eagle Lake 

Field Office

52,603 Yes Wildfire; Invasive 

Species; Agriculture

High Leks on private lands high 

priority for acquisition. Deep 

Creek high priority for 

restoration.

Unit 2A Chalk 

Bluff/Shaffer

Eagle Lake 

Field Office

32,409 Yes Wildfire; Invasive 

Species; Agriculture

High Leks on private lands high 

priority for acquisition. Deep 

Creek high priority for 

restoration.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

12 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

PMU Name Proposed

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major Threats2 Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

Unit 3 Shinn/ 

Rush Creek

Eagle Lake 

Field Office

87,103 Yes Wildfire; 

Infrastructure/ 

ROW; Grazing/ 

Wild Horse 

Population over 

AML; Infrastructure

High 30 percent in Five Springs 

WSA; Spring sites on private 

land high priority for BLM 

acquisition.

Unit 4 Dry 

Valley/

Skedaddle

Eagle Lake 

Field Office

98,621 Yes Wildfire; Invasive 

Species; Grazing/ 

Livestock and Wild 

Horses

Medium 90 percent in Skedaddle and 

Dry Valley Rim WSAs; Very 

high density of GRSG.

Vya Sheldon 

Massacre 

BuffaloSkedaddle 

Black Rock 

Pine Forest

WWP 2,147,742 Yes Wildfire; Conifer 

Encroachment; 

Invasive Species; 

Grazing/Wild Horse 

Population over 

AML; Infrastructure

High Includes large areas of 

Category 1 and 2 habitats

and some Category 3. The 

Sheldon area is outside BLM 

and Forest Service

administration.

Butte/Buck/ 

White Pine

Butte/Buck/ 

White Pine

WWP 2,815,873 Yes Hard Rock mining; 

Infrastructure; 

Grazing/Wild Horse 

Population over 

AML; Conifer 

Encroachment

High Correlates with the NDOW 

Telegraph Mountain 

nomination. Large areas of 

the PMU do not contain 

relevance and importance 

values or essential 

importance habitat. NDOW 

Category 1 and 2 seem to 

capture the irreplaceable and 

important habitat covered by 

the active leks.

Telegraph 

Mountain

NDOW 19,769 Yes Hard Rock mining; 

Infrastructure; 

Grazing/Wild Horse 

Population over 

AML; Conifer 

Encroachment

High Correlates with the WWP 

Butte/Buck/ White Pine 

nomination. Large areas of 

the PMU do not contain 

relevance and importance 

values or essential 

importance habitat. NDOW 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 13 

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name Proposed

Category 1 and 2 seem to 

capture the irreplaceable and 

important habitat covered by 

the active leks.

Clan Alpine Stillwater, WWP 1,258,067 Yes Conifer High Indicates occupied habitat 

Clan Alpine, Encroachment; and the potential to enhance 

Desatoya Wildfire; Grazing; 

Invasive Species

habitat and reduce 

fragmentation.

Cortez Shoshone, 

Cortez, Three 

WWP 2,895,660 Yes Hard Rock Mining; 

Wildfire; Grazing; 

High South end of PMU only; 

nomination aligns with the 

Bar, Diamond Invasive Species. NDOW Cortez nomination.

Cortez Range NDOW 161,100 Yes Hard Rock Mining; 

Wildfire; Grazing; 

High Nomination closely aligns 

with South end of WWP 

Invasive Species. Cortez nomination.

Desatoya Stillwater, 

Clan Alpine, 

WWP 1,258,067 Yes Conifer 

Encroachment; 

High Indicates occupied habitat 

and the potential to enhance 

Desatoya Wildfire; Grazing; 

Invasive Species

habitat and reduce 

fragmentation. 

Desert Santa Rosa, 

Desert, Eden 

WWP 2,142,580 Yes Wildfire; 

Species 

Invasive High Includes Categories 1, 2, and

3 that need to be analyzed to 

Valley identify potential corridors 

to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. Eden Valley 

PMU does not meet 

Relevance or Importance 

Desert Bi-State WWP 4,527,963 Outside of planning area.

Creek/Flales 

Diamond Shoshone, WWP 2,895,660 No Doesn't meet relevance and 

Cortez, Three importance on its own. 

Bar, Diamond Habitat is tied more to the 

Butte/Buck and Bald area.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU 

East 

Name

Range

Proposed

Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

East Valley East Valley, WWP 2,827,390 Yes Conifer Invasion; High Large areas of the PMU do 

Schell- Infrastructure; not contain relevance and 

Antelope Grazing/Wild Horse importance values or 

Population over essential importance habitat. 

AML NDOW Category 1 and 2 

seem to capture the 

irreplaceable and important 

habitat covered by the active 

leks.

Eden Valley Santa Rosa, WWP 2,142,580 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Includes Categories 1, 2, and

Desert, Eden Species; 3 that need to be analyzed to 

Valley identify potential corridors 

to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. Eden Valley 

PMU does not meet 

Relevance or Importance 

Eugenes Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

14 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

PMU Name Proposed

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

Fish Creek Limbo 

Nightingale, 

and 9 Others

WWP 1,323,776 Yes Fire; Conifer 

Encroachment; 

Invasive Species

High Correlates with NDOW Fish 

Creek Mountain nomination. 

Contains some viable habitat 

that should be analyzed to 

identify potential habitat 

protection.

Fish Creek 

Mountains

NDOW 68,181 Yes Fire; Conifer 

Encroachment; 

Invasive Species

High NDOW Fish Creek 

Mountain nomination 

correlates with the WWP 

Limbo, Nightingale and 9 

Others nomination: Fish 

Creek - Contains some 

viable habitat that should be 

analyzed to identify potential 

habitat protection. 

Gollaher Gollaher, 

Snake

WWP 1,482,827 Yes Wildfire; Invasive 

Species; 

Infrastructure; 

Grazing

High Includes mostly categories 1 

and 2 with small inclusion of 

Category 3. May need to be 

analyzed to identify potential 

corridors to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

Humboldt Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, 

and 9 Others

population. Is in the middle 

of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Islands Islands, O’Neil 

Basin

WWP 1,284,839 Yes Wildfire; Invasive 

Species; Grazing; 

Infrastructure

Includes mostly categories 1 

and 2 with small inclusion of 

Category 3. May need to be 

analyzed to identify potential 

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 15 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name Proposed

corridors to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

Kawich Kawich WWP 267,107 No Lacks Habitat and population

Limbo Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Lincoln Steptoe-Cave, WWP 3,371,534 Yes Conifer Invasion; High Large areas of the PMU do 

Lincoln, Infrastructure; not contain relevance and 

Spring-Snake Grazing/Wild Horse importance values or 

Valley Population over 

AML; Wildfire

essential importance habitat. 

NDOW Category 1 and 2 

seem to capture the 

irreplaceable and important 

habitat covered by the active 

leks. 

Lone Willow Lone Willow WWP 480,121 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Includes mostly categories 1 

Species; Grazing and 2 with small inclusion of 

Category 3 within Category 

2. May need to be analyzed 

to identify potential 

corridors to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

Majuba 1 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

16 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name Proposed

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Majuba 2 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Majuba 3 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Majuba 4 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Majuba 5 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 17 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

PMU Name Proposed Meets 1 Proposed 2 Vulnerability ACEC Nominator Relevance and Major Threats Comments Acres to Change Name Importance?

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Massacre Vya Sheldon WWP 2,147,742 Yes Wildfire; Conifer High Includes large areas of 

Massacre Encroachment; Category 1 and 2 habitats

Buffalo- Invasive Species; and some Category 3. The 

Skedaddle Grazing/Wild Horse Sheldon area is outside BLM 

Black Rock Population over and Forest Service

Pine Forest AML; Infrastructure administration.

Wall Canyon Surprise Field 199,251 Yes Wildfire; Medium High density of GRSG.

Office Infrastructure; 

Invasive Species; 

Grazing

Monitor Toiyabe, WWP 5,699,520 Yes Conifer High Correlation between WWP, 

Reese River, Encroachment; CBD, and NDOW 

Monitor Grazing nominations. One of the 

largest unfragmented habitat 

areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

Monitor Valley NDOW 247,007 Yes Conifer High Correlation between WWP, 

Encroachment; CBD, and NDOW 

Grazing nominations. One of the 

largest unfragmented habitat 

areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

18 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name Proposed

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

Monitor CBD 550,682 Yes Conifer High Correlation between WWP, 

Encroachment; CBD, and NDOW 

Grazing nominations. One of the 

largest unfragmented habitat 

areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

Little Fish Lake NDOW 57,039 Yes Conifer High Correlation between WWP, 

Valley Encroachment; CBD, and NDOW 

Grazing nominations. One of the 

largest unfragmented habitat 

areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

Mount Grant Bi-State WWP 4,527,963 Outside of planning area

Nightingale Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 19 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

Proposed

wildfire. 

PMU Name

North Fork Tuscarora, WWP 3,220,492 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Includes Categories 1, 2, and

North Fork Species; Grazing; 3 that need to be analyzed to 

Infrastructure; Hard identify potential corridors 

Rock Mining to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

O’Neil Basin Islands, O’Neil WWP 1,284,839 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Includes mostly categories 1 

Basin Species; Grazing; and 2 with small inclusion of 

Infrastructure Category 3. May need to be 

analyzed to identify potential 

corridors to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

Pahrah Virginia-Pahrah WWP 356,213 No Does not meet the relevance 

or importance. It is affected 

by human development, 

wildfire, and poor habitat 

conditions. Issues were 

discussed by the State Local 

PMU Working Group.

Pine Forest Vya Sheldon WWP 2,147,742 Yes Wildfire; Conifer High Includes large areas of 

Massacre Encroachment; Category 1 and 2 habitats

Buffalo- Invasive Species; and some Category 3. The 

Skedaddle Grazing/Wild Horse Sheldon area is outside BLM 

Black Rock Population over and Forest Service

Pine Forest AML; Infrastructure administration.

Pine Nut Bi-State WWP 4,527,963 Outside of planning area

Quinn Quinn WWP 1,985,719 No Although there are 5 leks, 

NDOW has determined that 

the habitat is unoccupied.

Marginal Habitat is 

unoccupied, Status of the 

Leks is unknown

20 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name

Reese River

Proposed

Reese River NDOW 92,009 Yes Infrastructure; High Correlation between WWP, 

Conifer CBD, and NDOW 

Encroachment nominations. One of the 

largest unfragmented habitat 

areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

Toiyabe, WWP 5,699,520 Yes Infrastructure; High Correlation between WWP, 

Reese River, Conifer CBD, and NDOW 

Monitor Encroachment nominations. One of the 

largest unfragmented habitat 

areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

Ruby Valley South Fork, 

Ruby Valley

WWP 2,783,681 Yes Wildfire; Conifer

Encroachment; 

High PMU supports a significant 

population of birds in limited 

Invasive Species; habitat.

Grazing/Mule deer; 

Human Uses

Ruby Valley; Spruce Elko District 420,210 Deferred due to on-going 

Butte/Buck/ Mountain Office plan amendment in the area 

White Pine; 

East Valley

for Wild Horse Sanctuary.

Sahwave 1 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 21 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

PMU Name Proposed Meets 1 Proposed 2 Vulnerability ACEC Nominator Relevance and Major Threats Comments Acres to Change Name Importance?

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Sahwave 2 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

Santa Rosa Santa Rosa, WWP 2,142,580 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Includes Categories 1, 2, and

Desert, Eden Species 3 that need to be analyzed to 

Valley identify potential corridors 

to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. Eden Valley 

PMU does not meet 

Relevance or Importance 

Schell/ Antelope East Valley, WWP 2,827,390 Yes Conifer Invasion; High Large areas of the PMU do 

Schell- Infrastructure; not contain relevance or

Antelope Grazing/Wild Horse importance values or 

Population over essential importance habitat. 

AML NDOW Category 1 and 2 

seem to capture the 

irreplaceable and important 

habitat covered by the active 

leks. 

Sheldon Vya Sheldon WWP 2,147,742 Yes Wildfire; Conifer High Includes large areas of 

Massacre Encroachment; Category 1 and 2 habitats

Buffalo- Invasive Species; and some Category 3. The 

22 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

PMU Name Proposed Meets 1 Proposed 2 Vulnerability ACEC Nominator Relevance and Major Threats Comments Acres to Change Name Importance?

Skedaddle Grazing/Wild Horse Sheldon area is outside BLM 

Black Rock Population over and Forest Service

Pine Forest AML; Infrastructure administration.

Shoshone Shoshone, WWP 2,895,660 Yes Grazing; Conifer High Category 1 habitat and 

Cortez, Three Encroachment; contains numerous active 

Bar, Diamond Wildfire leks. Northern portion 

includes fragmented 

checkerboard, Southern 

portion is intact with active 

leks.

Snake Gollaher, WWP 1,482,827 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Includes mostly categories 1 

Snake Species; and 2 with small inclusion of 

Infrastructure; Category 3. May need to be 

Grazing analyzed to identify potential 

corridors to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

Sonoma Limbo, WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire. 

South Fork South Fork, WWP 2,783,681 Yes Wildfire; Conifer High Correlates with Elko District 

Ruby Valley Encroachment; Pinion Range nomination. 

Invasive Species; Large portions of the PMU 

Grazing/Mule deer; do not contain values outside 

Human Uses of NDOW Category 1.

There is habitat 

fragmentation with potential 

in the checkerboard area 

that can be further analyzed 

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 23 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name Proposed

to conserve habitat. 

Competition with mule deer. 

Pinon Range Elko District 

Office

171,158 Yes Wildfire; Conifer 

Encroachment; 

Invasive Species; 

Grazing/Mule deer 

High Correlates with WWP South

Fork/Ruby Valley nomination. 

Large portions of the PMUs 

do not contain values outside 

of NDOW Category 1.

There is habitat 

fragmentation with potential 

in the checkerboard area 

that can be further analyzed 

to conserve habitat. 

Competition with mule deer.

South Mono Bi-State WWP 4,527,963 Outside of planning area.

Spring/Snake 

Valley

Steptoe-Cave, 

Lincoln, 

Spring-Snake 

Valley

WWP 3,371,534 Yes Conifer Invasion; 

Infrastructure; 

Grazing/Wild Horse 

Population over 

AML; Wildfire

High Large areas of the PMU do

not contain relevance or

importance values or 

essential importance habitat. 

NDOW Category 1 and 2 

seem to capture the 

irreplaceable and important 

habitat covered by the active 

leks.

Steptoe/Cave Steptoe-Cave, 

Lincoln, 

WWP 3,371,534 Yes Conifer Invasion; 

Infrastructure; 

High Large areas of the PMU do 

not contain relevance or

Spring-Snake 

Valley

Grazing/Wild Horse 

Population over 

AML; Wildfire

importance values or 

essential importance habitat. 

NDOW Category 1 and 2 

seem to capture the 

irreplaceable and important 

habitat covered by the active 

leks. 

24 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name

Stillwater

Proposed

Stillwater, WWP 1,258,067 No No documented occupation 

Clan Alpine, of available habitat. 

Desatoya

Three Bar Roberts NDOW 98,617 Yes Conifer High Correlates with WWP 

Mountain* Encroachment; Three Bars nomination. 

Hard Rock Mining; 

Grazing; Wildfire

Continuity of habitat, 

potential for population.

Shoshone, WWP 2,895,660 Yes Conifer High Correlates with NDOW 

Cortez, Three Encroachment; Roberts Mountain 

Bar, Diamond Hard Rock Mining; 

Grazing; Wildfire

nomination. Continuity of 

habitat, potential for 

population.

Toiyabe Bates NDOW 340,983 Yes Conifer High Correlation between WWP, 

Mountain* Encroachment; CBD, and NDOW 

wildfire; Invasive nominations. One of the 

Species; Grazing; 

Infrastructure

largest unfragmented habitat 

areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

Toiyabe, 

Reese River, 

WWP 5,699,520 Yes Conifer 

Encroachment; 

High Correlation between WWP, 

CBD, and NDOW 

Monitor wildfire; Invasive nominations. One of the 

Species; Grazing; largest unfragmented habitat 

Infrastructure areas; includes important 

cultural resources and 

important habitat for other 

species. NDOW's 

nominations contain the 

most scientific information 

and relevance.

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 25 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name

Trinity 1

Proposed

Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire.

Trinity 2 Limbo WWP 1,323,776 No Shows lack of habitat and 

Nightingale, population. Is in the middle 

and 9 Others of checkerboard with 

fragmented surface 

administration and old 

mining areas and 

infrastructure area that is 

frequently affected by 

wildfire.

Tuscarora Tuscarora, WWP 3,220,492 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Includes Categories 1, 2, and

North Fork Species; Grazing; 3 that need to be analyzed to 

Infrastructure; Hard 

Rock Mining

identify potential corridors 

to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

Willow Creek Elko District 28,800 Yes Wildfire; Invasive High Correlates with WWP 

Ridge* Office Species; Grazing; Tuscarora/North Fork 

Infrastructure; Hard nomination. Includes 

Rock Mining Categories 1, 2, and 3 that 

need to be analyzed to 

identify potential corridors 

to reduce habitat 

fragmentation. 

Virginia Virginia-Pahrah WWP 356,213 Yes Wildfire; Conifer; 

Invasive Species;

High The Virginia Range may be

viable for assessment and 

Infrastructure; analyzed further. Issues were 

26 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office July 2013
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report

Table 6-1

Population Management Units Evaluated for Relevance and Importance 

ACEC 

Name

Nominator1 Proposed 

Acres

Meets 

Relevance and 

Importance?

Major 2 Threats Vulnerability 

to Change Comments

PMU Name Proposed

Geothermal; discussed by the State Local 

Urbanization PMU Working Group.

Vya Vya Sheldon WWP 2,147,742 Yes Wildfire; Conifer High Includes large areas of 

Massacre Encroachment; Category 1 and 2 habitats

Buffalo- Invasive Species; and some Category 3. The 

Skedaddle Grazing/Wild Horse Sheldon area is outside BLM 

Black Rock Population over and Forest Service

Pine Forest AML; Infrastructure administration.

White Bi-State WWP 4,527,963 Outside of planning area

Mountains

July 2013 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 27 
Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern NAT ONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

CA

OR ID

UT

AZ

Ely

Reno

Elko

Alturas

Tonopah

Las Vegas

Cedarville

Susanville

Winnemucca

Battle Mountain

N E V A D A

C A L I F O R N I A

CA

UT

ID

AZ

OR

Nevada and northeastern

California planning area

Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)

USDA Forest Service (USFS)

USFS non-priority forest

Other land management

BLM district or field office

Nominated ACEC

BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

July 24, 2013

NVCA_SG_ACEC_Nom_V03 pdf

Bureau of Land Management

Nevada State Office

National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

No warranty is made by the BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) were nominated by Nevada Division

of Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, BLM Eagle

Lake Field Office, BLM Surprise Field Office, and BLM Elko District Office.

0 50

Miles
Alternative C:

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

NAT ONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

CA

OR ID

UT

AZ

Monitor

Lincoln

Desert

Toiyabe

Massacre

Vya Gollaher

North Fork

Tuscarora

East Valley

Butte/Buck/White Pine

South Fork

Ruby Valley

Reese River

Buffalo/Skedaddle

Cortez

O'Neil Basin

Santa Rosa

Snake

Schell/Antelope

Three Bar

Shoshone

Steptoe/Cave

Spring/Snake Valley

Desatoya

Clan Alpine

Lone Willow Islands

Virginia

Fish Creek

Black Rock

Pine Forest

Ely

Reno

Elko

Alturas

Tonopah

Las Vegas

Cedarville

Susanville

Winnemucca

Battle Mountain

N E V A D A

C A L I F O R N I A

CA

UT

ID

AZ

OR

Nevada and northeastern California

planning area

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

USDA Forest Service (USFS)

USFS non-priority forest

Other land management

County

BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

September 10, 2013

NVCA_SG_ACEC_Proposed_C_V03 pdf

Bureau of Land Management

Nevada State Office

National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

No warranty is made by the BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. 

Action C-SD 1: Designate proposed ACEC's to preserve, protect, conserve, restore, and sustain

GRSG populations and the sagebrush ecosystem on which the GRSG relies.

0 50

Miles

Existing Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Proposed ACEC

Existing Preliminary Priority Habitat

Existing Preliminary General Habitat

Population management unit with PPMA
Alternative F:

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

NAT ONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

CA

OR ID

UT

AZ

Ely

Reno

Elko

Alturas

Tonopah

Las Vegas

Cedarville

Susanville

Winnemucca

Battle Mountain

N E V A D A

C A L I F O R N I A

CA

UT

ID

AZ

OR

Nevada and northeastern California

planning area

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

USDA Forest Service (USFS)

USFS non-priority forest

Other land management

County

BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

September 10, 2013

NVCA_SG_ACEC_Proposed_F_V03.pdf

Bureau of Land Management

Nevada State Office

National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

No warranty is made by the BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. 

Action F-SD 1: Designate proposed ACEC's (BLM) and Special Conservation Areas (Forest

Service) as sagebrush reserves to conserve GRSG and other sagebrush-dependent species.

0 50

Miles

Existing Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Proposed ACEC

Existing Preliminary Priority Habitat

Existing Preliminary General Habitat