Chapter 5. Cumulative Impacts
 
This page intentionally

left blank
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Draft Resource Management iii

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents
 

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

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................. 5
 

5. Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................. 7
 

5.1. Cumulative Analysis Methodology ................................................................................ 9
 

5.2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .......................................... 10
 

5.3. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat ............................................... 20
 

5.3.1. Other Regional Efforts ......................................................................................... 20
 

5.3.2. Management Zone III .......................................................................................... 21
 

5.3.3. Management Zone IV .......................................................................................... 31
 

5.3.4. Management Zone V ............................................................................................ 36
 

5.3.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 43
 

5.4. Vegetation and Soils ...................................................................................................... 45
 

5.4.1. Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 45
 

5.4.2. Soil Resources ...................................................................................................... 46
 

5.5. Riparian Areas and Wetlands ........................................................................................ 47
 

5.5.1. Alternative A ........................................................................................................ 48
 

5.5.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 48
 

5.5.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 49
 

5.5.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 49
 

5.5.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 49
 

5.5.6. Alternative F ........................................................................................................ 49
 

5.6. Wild Horses and Burros ................................................................................................ 49
 

5.6.1. Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................... 50
 

5.7. Wildland Fire and Fire Management ............................................................................ 50
 

5.7.1. Alternative A ........................................................................................................ 51
 

5.7.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 51
 

5.7.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 51
 

5.7.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 51
 

5.7.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 51
 

Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

iv Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.7.6. Alternative F ........................................................................................................ 51
 

5.8. Livestock Grazing ......................................................................................................... 52
 

5.8.1. Alternative A ........................................................................................................ 52
 

5.8.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 53
 

5.8.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 53
 

5.8.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 54
 

5.8.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 54
 

5.8.6. Alternative F ........................................................................................................ 55
 

5.9. Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 55
 

5.9.1. Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................... 55
 

5.10. Travel and Transportation Management ..................................................................... 56
 

5.10.1. Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................... 56
 

5.11. Lands and Realty ......................................................................................................... 56
 

5.11.1. Alternative A ...................................................................................................... 57
 

5.11.2. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 58
 

5.11.3. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 58
 

5.11.4. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 58
 

5.11.5. Alternative E ...................................................................................................... 59
 

5.11.6. Alternative F ...................................................................................................... 59
 

5.12. Renewable Energy Resources ..................................................................................... 59
 

5.12.1. Alternative A ...................................................................................................... 62
 

5.12.2. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 62
 

5.12.3. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 62
 

5.12.4. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 63
 

5.12.5. Alternative E ...................................................................................................... 63
 

5.12.6. Alternative F ...................................................................................................... 63
 

5.13. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 63
 

5.13.1. Fluid Minerals .................................................................................................... 63
 

5.13.1.1. Alternative A ........................................................................................... 63
 

5.13.1.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................... 64
 

5.13.1.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................... 64
 

5.13.1.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................... 64
 

5.13.1.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................... 64
 

5.13.1.6. Alternative F ........................................................................................... 64
 

5.13.2. Locatable Minerals ............................................................................................. 64
 

5.13.2.1. Alternative A ........................................................................................... 65
 

5.13.2.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................... 66
 

5.13.2.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................... 66
 

5.13.2.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................... 66
 

5.13.2.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................... 67
 

5.13.2.6. Alternative F ........................................................................................... 67
 

5.13.3. Mineral Materials ............................................................................................... 67
 

5.13.3.1. Alternative A ........................................................................................... 68
 

5.13.3.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................... 68
 

5.13.3.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................... 69
 

5.13.3.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................... 69
 

5.13.3.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................... 69
 

5.13.3.6. Alternative F ........................................................................................... 70
 

5.14. Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................. 70
 

Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

Draft Resource Management v

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.15. Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 70
 

5.15.1. Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................... 71
 

5.16. Tribal Interests (Including Native American Religious Concerns) ............................ 72
 

5.16.1. Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................... 72
 

5.17. Climate Change ........................................................................................................... 72
 

5.17.1. Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................... 73
 

5.18. Social and Economic Impacts (Including Environmental Justice) ............................. 73
 

Table of Contents
This page intentionally

left blank
Draft Resource Management vii

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

List of Tables
 

Table 5.1. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Greater Sage-Grouse Subpopulation ....... 12
 

Table 5.2. Relevant Cumulative Actions – Management Zone III

Table 5.4. Exclusion and Avoidance Areas by Alternative (BLM- and Forest
 

................................................ 24
 

Table 5.3. Relevant Cumulative Actions – Management Zone IV ................................................ 33
 

Service-administered Lands) .............................................................................................. 57
 

Table 5.5. Renewable Energy ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas by Alternative (BLMand Forest Service-administered Lands) ............................................................................ 61
 

Table 5.6. Locatable Mineral Withdrawals .................................................................................... 65
 

Table 5.7. Mineral Material Withdrawals ...................................................................................... 68
 

Table 5.8. Projected Employment by Alternative for Socioeconomic Study Area ....................... 74
 

List of Tables
This page intentionally

left blank
Draft Resource Management 9

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

This section presents the likely cumulative impacts on the human and natural environment that

could occur from implementing the alternatives presented in Chapter 2, Alternatives. This

section is organized by topic, similar to Chapter 3, Affected Environment.

The CEQ defines a cumulative impact as the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such

other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant

actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts in this context are effects on the

environment that could result from implementing any individual actions associated with one of

the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS alternatives, when

combined with other individual actions not part of this plan, either within the planning area or

outside of it. Cumulative impact analysis is required by CEQ regulations because environmental

conditions result from many different factors that act together.

5.1. Cumulative Analysis Methodology

The cumulative impacts discussion that follows considers the alternatives in the context of the

broader human environment – specifically, actions that occur outside the scope and geographic

area covered by the planning area. Cumulative impact analysis is limited to important issues of

national, regional, or local significance.

Because of the programmatic nature of the LUP Amendment and cumulative assessment, the

analysis tends to be broad and generalized to address potential effects that could occur from

a reasonably foreseeable management scenario combined with other reasonably foreseeable

activities or projects. Consequently, this assessment is primarily qualitative for most resources

because of lack of detailed information that would result from project-level decisions and other

activities or projects. Quantitative information is used whenever available and as appropriate

to portray the magnitude of an impact. The analysis assesses the magnitude of cumulative

impacts by comparing the environment in its baseline condition with the expected impacts of

the alternatives and other actions in the same geographic area. The magnitude of an impact

is determined through a comparison of anticipated conditions against the naturally occurring

baseline as depicted in the affected environment (see Chapter 3) or the long-term sustainability

of a resource or social system.

The following factors were considered in this cumulative impact assessment:

● Federal, nonfederal, and private actions.

● Potential for synergistic effects or synergistic interaction among or between effects.

● Potential for effects across political and administrative boundaries.

● Other spatial and temporal characteristics of each affected resource.

● Comparative scale of cumulative impacts across alternatives.

Temporal and spatial boundaries used in the cumulative analysis are developed on the basis of

resources of concern and actions that might contribute to an impact. 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.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative Analysis Methodology
10 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Spatial boundaries vary and are larger for resources that are mobile or migrate (e.g., migratory

birds) compared with stationary resources. Occasionally, spatial boundaries could be contained

within the planning area boundaries or an area within the planning area. Spatial boundaries

were developed to facilitate the analysis and are included under the appropriate resource section

heading. The cumulative effects analysis for all topics included an analysis of cumulative

effects at the planning area level. For GRSG, cumulative effects analysis included an analysis

at the WAFWA Management Zones 3, 4, and 5, in addition to the planning level analysis.

WAFWA Management Zones are biologically based delineations that were determined by GRSG

populations and sub-populations identified within seven floristic provinces. Analysis at this level

enables the decision maker to understand the impacts on GRSG at a biologically meaningful scale.

5.2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered in the analysis to identify

whether and to what extent the environment has been degraded or enhanced, whether ongoing

activities are causing impacts, and trends for activities in and impacts on the area. Projects and

activities are evaluated on the basis of proximity, connection to the same environmental systems,

potential for subsequent impacts or activity, similar impacts, the likelihood a project will occur,

and whether the project is reasonably foreseeable.

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative analysis were identified through meetings

held with cooperators and BLM employees with local knowledge of the area. Each was asked

to provide information on the most influential past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future

actions. Additional information was obtained through discussions with agency officials and

review of publicly available materials and websites.

Effects of past and present actions and activities are manifested in the current condition of the

resources, as described in the affected environment (see Chapter 3). Reasonably foreseeable

future actions are actions that have been committed to or known proposals that would take place

within a 20-year planning period and would be typically reviewed during the 5-year evaluation.

Reasonably foreseeable future action scenarios are projections made to predict future impacts –

they are not actual planning decisions or resource commitments. Projections, which have been

developed for analytical purposes only, are based on current conditions and trends and represent a

best professional estimate. Unforeseen changes in factors such as economics, demand, and

federal, state, and local laws and policies could result in different outcomes than those projected

in this analysis.

Other potential future actions have been considered and eliminated from further analysis because

there is a small likelihood these actions would be pursued and implemented within the life of

the plan or because so little is known about the potential action that formulating an analysis of

impacts is premature. In addition, potential future actions protective of the environment (such

as new regulations related to fugitive dust emissions) have less likelihood of creating major

environmental consequences alone, or in combination with this planning effort. Federal actions

such as species listing would require the BLM to reconsider decisions created from this action

because the consultations and relative impacts might no longer be appropriate. These potential

future actions may have greater capacity to affect resource uses within the planning area; however,

until more information is developed, no reasonable estimation of impacts could be developed.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Actions
Draft Resource Management 11

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Data on the precise locations and overall extent of resources within the planning area are

considerable, although the information varies according to resource type and locale. Furthermore,

understanding of the impacts on and the interplay among these resources is evolving. As

knowledge improves, management measures (adaptive or otherwise) would be considered to

reduce potential cumulative impacts in accordance with law, regulations, and applicable LUPs.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are human-generated actions that are considered against

a backdrop of ongoing resource and habitat trends. Three trends that are dominant in the

planning area are the ongoing effects of an altered fire regime and the feedback loop within an

expanding footprint of invasive grasses, the invasion of conifer into sagebrush habitats, and the

effects of climate change. While the discrete impacts of localized human-generated actions are

important to maintaining and restoring GRSG habitats and can cause the introduction or spread of

environmental degradation, the impacts generated by the dominant trends relegate cumulative

human impacts to incidental influence in any broad-scale assessment within this sub-region.

Management for fire, invasive plant species, and climate are the major ecological dynamics

affecting the persistence of GRSG in the western half of the range.

Projects and activities identified as having the greatest likelihood to generate potential cumulative

impacts when added to the Nevada and Northeastern California GRSG LUPA/EIS alternatives

are displayed in Table 5-1, Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Greater Sage-Grouse

Sub-Population.

In addition, there are on-going planning efforts both within (e.g., Carson City RMP) and adjacent

to the sub-region (e.g., Idaho/ Montana Sub-Region Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS) with which this

planning effort has been coordinated and aligns. The collective actions proposed in these ongoing

efforts could result in cumulative effects throughout the Great Basin Region, including on this

Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Actions
12 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 5.1. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Greater Sage-Grouse Subpopulation

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

Central Nevada Sage-Grouse Subpopulation Area — Management Zone III

Long Canyon Mine Open-pit gold mining operation

located on the east side of the Pequop

Mountains. Operations would include

one open pit, a heap leach pad, waste

rock dump, tailing storage facility, and

other ancillary facilities. The operator,

Newmont Mining, is also proposing

a natural gas pipeline for self-power

generation on site. The pipeline would

run from the Ruby pipeline south on

existing ROWs to the project site,

approximately 40 miles. The proposed

disturbance acreage for operations is

2,116 acres, including public, private,

and split estate lands. The projected

life of mine is 14 years, including

construction, operations, and closure

and post-closure monitoring.

Central Nevada Subpopulation

30 miles east of Wells, Nevada, and 32

miles west of West Wendover, Nevada, on

Interstate 80.

Currently writing the Draft EIS.

Public scoping and the NOI have

been completed. Alternatives to the

proposed action have been developed.

Anticipated Decision date of August

2014.

Oil and Gas – Noble Energy 60 Proposed Wells over 3 Project

Areas

Located within both the North Eastern and

Central Nevada Population. Includes portion

of Management Zone IV

NEPA not complete

McGinness Hills Geothermal

Expansion (Phase II)

40 MW Power Plant Located within the Central Nevada

Population

Construction Not Initiated

Salt Wells Geothermal Utilization

Project – Gradient Resources

120 MW Power Plant Located within the Central Nevada

Population

Construction Not Initiated

3 Bars Restoration Project EIS Battle Mountain District/Central Nevada

Population

Ongoing planning area estimated at

800,000 acres

Battle Mountain WUI EA EA Battle Mountain District/Central Nevada

Population

Planning

Heath Canyon Ponderosa Hazardous

Fuels EA

EA Battle Mountain District/Central Nevada

Population

Planning

Earthquake Fuels Project Ongoing Carson City District/Central Nevada

Population

Mastication, thinning, reduce fire

threat and improve wildlife habitat

prescribed fire

Antelope Unit N Monitor EA

(NFRR17 - Antelope Planning)

Ongoing, implementation to begin in

FY14 (1,500 acres in FY14)

Austin-Tonopah Ranger District Planning

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Actions
13 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

Antelope Unit N Monitor

(SRS2-Antelope Implementation-Cut

& Leave)

800 acres to be treated in FY13 Austin-Tonopah Ranger District Implementation

Big Ten/Hat Peak Steves Unit (SRS2

- Big Ten Implementation)

100 acres to be treated in FY13 Austin-Tonopah Ranger District Implementation

Cloverdale within Priority Watershed

(SRS2 - Indian Valley-Cloverdale

Unit)

1,000 acres to be treated in FY13 Austin-Tonopah Ranger District Implementation

Horse Heaven/Dobbin Unit N

Monitors

Ongoing, implementation to begin in

FY16 (200 acres in FY16)

Austin-Tonopah Ranger District Planning

Kingston Ongoing, implementation to begin in

FY15 (200 acres in FY15)

Austin-Tonopah Ranger District Planning

Overland Pass (NFRR17 - Overland

Fuels)

Ongoing, 1,000 acres to be completed

in FY14

Ruby Mountains Ranger District Planning

Harrison Watershed Ongoing, 1,500 acres to be completed

in FY14

Ruby Mountains Ranger District Inventory

Lamoille Canyon WUI Ongoing, 150 acres to be completed in

FY14

Ruby Mountains Ranger District Planning

Southeast Nevada Sub-Population Area — Management Zone III

Kinsley Exploration Plan Expansion of mining exploration

activities, including construction of

drill pads and access roads, from a 4.79

acre Notice to 60 acres. The operator

is also proposing the construction of 2

water wells, existing road maintenance

to the project area, and gravel removal

from an existing pit located near the

project area, totaling an additional

40 acres of disturbance. The total

disturbance for the Plan is 100 acres.

Southeast Nevada Subpopulation

40 miles south of West Wendover, Nevada in

the Kinsley Mountain range on the Elko/Ely

District boundary border

Draft EA is out for public review until

May 30th. Anticipated Decision in

mid-June 2013

Spruce Mountain Restoration Project Restoration of up to 10,000 acres

to improve wildlife habitat, reduce

hazardous fuels, improve forest health,

and protect cultural resources

Southeast Nevada Subpopulation

Wells Field Office/Elko District

Treatments beginning;

Mastication/seeding/ prescribed

fire/herbicide reduce fire threat and

improve wildlife habitat

Transwest Express Transwest Express is a 725 mile 600

kV transmission line

Begins in south central Wyoming, crosses

Utah diagonally from northeast to southwest,

and crosses into Nevada and ends south of

Las Vegas

Project under NEPA review, estimated

ROD in 2014

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Actions
14 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

Zephyr Transmission line 500 kV line Begins in south central Wyoming, crosses

Utah diagonally from northeast to southwest,

and ends south of Las Vegas

Application received

Southwest Intertie Transmission Line 500 kV AC Transmission line stretching between Idaho

and southern Nevada. Covering the eastern

portion of Nevada. Includes portion of

Management Zone IV.

Application received

Southern Nevada Water Authority

ROW

241 miles of 230 kV, 69 kV, and 25

kV power lines; 258 miles of pipeline;

ancillary facilities include pump

stations, water treatment facility within

corridor

Begins near Ely, Nevada and ends northeast

of Las Vegas, Nevada

K Valley corridor authorized under the

Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation

and Development Act of 2004

Decision signed; ROW issued

Pioche/Caselton WUI Project

Identified as an extreme hazard in

Lincoln County Community Risk

Assessment

11,300 acre project area

3,246 to 4,711 acres identified for

treatment. Reduce fire threat and

improve wildlife habitat by thinning

pinyon/juniper

Ely District/Quinn Canyon Range and

Southeast Nevada Populations

Ongoing treatments 3,157

acres completed, mastication,

mowing/seeding, chaining,

cut/pile/burn

Stonehouse WUI/Non-WUI Project 23,676 acres project area. Reduce fire

threat and improve wildlife habitat

by thinning pinyon/juniper in PPH

adjacent to low value habitat, affects

three major GRSG leks

Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Ongoing treatments 16,660 to

19,000 identified for mechanical

treatments. 12,359 acres treated were

in 2010-2012. Approved treatments

double chaining/seeding, lop/scatter,

cut/pile, mow/drill seed

Pleasant Valley (WUI) 15,725 acres project area

11,008 to 12,580 acres identified for

treatment.

Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Ongoing 1,840 acres treated in

2010-2012. Mastication, chaining,

broadcast burn, biomass utilization,

hand cut, aspen restoration

Lincoln County Chain Maintenance

Project

Burnt Canyon, Woods McCullough,

Reeds Cabin in GRSG habitat

Ely District/Quinn Canyon Range and

Southeast Nevada Populations

Ongoing- 2,607 acres completed as of

June 2013

Cold Springs Project Stewardship Contract, thinning

densities showcase demonstration site

Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Ongoing- 521 acres of cut/pile/burn

slash and 18 acres cut/piled as of June

2013

South Steptoe Watershed Plan 49,000 acres of treatments identified Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population BLM Decision Affirmed On Appeal,

has interdisciplinary objectives

Ward Mtn. Watershed Ongoing joint project/funding Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Planning

Lein Draw Ongoing joint project/funding Ely District Planning

Overland Pass Ongoing joint project/funding Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Planning

Combs Creek Ongoing joint project/funding Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Ongoing implementation

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Actions
15 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

Kious Basin/Snake Range Aspen Ongoing joint project/funding Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Planning

Smith Valley Stewardship Contract Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Ongoing implementation

North Antelope Stewardship Contract Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Ongoing implementation

Kern Mountain Stewardship

Agreement

Stewardship Agreement Ely District/Southeast Nevada Population Identifying areas for potential 10 year

stewardship contracting, NEPA in

progress

Hwy 6 PJ cutting (CE) (NFRR17 -

Currant-Ellison Restoration Planning

and Implementation project)

300 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Planning

Currant/Ellison Mt EA (NFRR17 -

Currant-Ellison Restoration Planning

and Implementation project)

Ongoing, 500 acres to be completed in

FY14

Ely Ranger District Planning

White Pine (Currant/Ellison)

(NFRR17 - Currant-Ellison

Restoration Planning and

Implementation project)

700 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Implementation

Worthington (RAC) (CE) (S2F4R1

- SRS2 Worthington Canyon Sage

Steppe Restoration Project and

NFRR17 - Worthington Canyon

NEPA and Implementation of RAC

Proposals by ENLC and UNR)

650 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Planning

Adaven (WFHF17 Adaven) 200 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Implementation

SNPLMA North Schell (SNPLMA

) (SNJR04 North Schell Restoration

(F006/9-4) C. Carlock (ES) [Exp.

Date 1-31-15])

2,500 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Implementation

SNPLMA Ward Mt (WFHF17 Ward

Mountain WUI implementation )

800 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Implementation

SNPLMA Central White Pine

(SNLR03 Central White Pine

Sage-Grouse Restoration 11-3/F012

(K. Woodtle-Johnson) Exp.

9/30/2013)

3,000 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Implementation

Duck Ck PJ cutting (NDOW)

(SRSA17 - SRSA - Duck Creek

Pinyon-Juniper Treatment Project )

Ongoing Ely Ranger District Implementation

S. Schell (RMEF) (NFXN - Ely South

Schell PJ thinning RMEF)

400 acres to be treated in FY13 Ely Ranger District Implementation

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Actions
16 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

SNPLMA North Schell (SNJR04

North Schell Restoration (F006/9-4)

C. Carlock (ES) [Exp. Date 1-31-15])

Ongoing, 500 acres to be completed in

FY14

Ely Ranger District Monitoring

Duck Creek Basin Joint project/funding Ely District Planning

Northwest Interior Sub-Population Area — Management Zone III

Montana Mountain Fuels Project 346,000 acre planning area to reduce

fire threat and improve wildlife habitat

Winnemucca District/North Central

Nevada/Northwestern Interior Population

Treatments on going reduce fire threat

and improve wildlife habitat

Double H/Bilk Creek 390,856 acre planning area to reduce

fire threat and improve wildlife habitat

Winnemucca District/North Central

Nevada/Northwestern Interior Population

Planning reduce fire threat and

improve wildlife habitat

Quinn Range Sub-Population Area — Management Zone III

Cave/Lake Valley Watershed Plan 121,600 acres of treatments identified Ely District/Quinn Canyon Range

Population

Planning, has interdisciplinary

objectives

North Central Nevada/Southeast Oregon Sub-Population Area — Management Zone IV

Santa Rosa Fuels Project Ongoing 355,699 acre planning area to

reduce fire threat and improve wildlife

habitat

Winnemucca District/North Central Nevada

Population

Treatments ongoing. Reduce fire

threat and improve wildlife habitat

Northeast Nevada Sub-Population Area — Management Zone IV

Round Mountain Gold Mine

Expansion

Expansion of existing facilities at

the Round Mountain Mine and

development of new mining and

leaching facilities at the adjacent Gold

Hill ore deposit.

Nye County, Nevada ROD signed, responding to protests.

Northeast Nevada Wild Horse

Eco-Sanctuary

Development of a wild horse

Eco-Sanctuary that would be

managed through a joint BLM-private

partnership.

Wells, Nevada Draft Environmental Review

Angel Wing Exploration Plan Expansion of mining exploration

activities, including construction of

drill pads and access roads and existing

road maintenance, from a 3.3 acre

Notice to 60 acres. Access to the

proposed Plan is through Utah near the

town of Grouse Creek

Northeast Nevada Subpopulation

60 miles northwest of West Wendover,

Nevada, on the Utah/Nevada State Line.

Currently waiting for updated Plan

of Operations from the operator.

Biological baseline and cultural

inventories have been completed and

waiting for report review

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Actions
17 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

Murdock Mountain Phosphate

Prospecting Permit

Phosphate exploration drilling and

trenching in the Murdock Mountain

area. The operator is proposing to

construct 31 drill pads with 2 drill holes

per pad and 29 exploration trenches

measuring 100 feet long by 5 feet wide

by 5 feet deep. Exploration roads will

also be constructed and existing roads

will be utilized. Exploration operations

are anticipated to take 200 days to

complete

Northeast Nevada Subpopulation

35 miles northwest of West Wendover,

Nevada, and 10 milessouthwest of Montello,

Nevada

Waiting for the operator to submit

the required cost recovery money in

order to continue with the project.

NEVAGRO would also like submit an

updated project proposal in order to

update their trenching methods

North Tuscarora Sage-Grouse Habitat

Restoration Project

Restoration of up to 10,000 acres of

GRSG habitat. Treatments would

improve, protect GRSG habitat, protect

PPH, protect Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

Streams, improve wildlife habitat,

reduce invasive weeds, and reduce

hazardous fuels

Northeast Nevada Subpopulation

Tuscarora Field Office/Elko District

Planning Process, Internal and

External Scoping

China Mountain Wind Project Utility-scale wind facility Northeastern Nevada Temporarily deferred pending NVCA

GRSG EIS

White Rock Mountain Aspen

Exclosures

Place up to nine exclosures around

aspen stands to protect from

overgrazing by livestock

Northeastern Nevada Undergoing NEPA/archaeological

review

Hollister Mine Underground mine and power lines Northeast Nevada FEIS completed in June of 2013

Arturo Mine Open pit expansion Northeast Nevada FEIS completed June 2013

Midas vest raises Ventilation for underground mine &

power lines

Northeast Nevada DR and Plan approval signed May

2013

Eureka Pipeline Project Natural gas pipeline from Goldstrike

to Gold Quarry

Northeast Nevada SF 299 received. Initiating work on

project. (company wants to have line

in operation by winter of 2013)

Rossi Mine expansion Mine expansion Northeast Nevada Working on baseline data, expect Plan

amendment by July 2013

Green Lantern Mine expansion Northeast Nevada Working on baseline data, expect Plan

amendment Fall 2013

Gold Quarry Mine expansion Mine expansion Northeast Nevada Working on baseline date, expect Plan

amendment Winter 2014

Spruce Mountain Project Spruce Mountain Seeding Maintenance

700 acres

Elko District/Northeastern Nevada

Population

Mastication/seeding reduce fire threat

and improve wildlife habitat

Northeast California/Northwest Nevada Sub-Population Area — Management Zone V

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Actions
18 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

Vya Population Management Unit

Programmatic Habitat Restoration

and Fuels Reduction Project

Up to a total of 100,000 acre of

treatment over a 10-year period. A

combination of juniper thinning or

removal and prescribed burning.

16,274 acres identified for prescribed

fires and up to 83,726 acres of juniper

treatment

Northeast California/Northwest Nevada

Population

NEPA in process. Funded to

implement 10,000 acres of juniper

removal. Planning reduce fire threat

and improve wildlife habitat

NE California Juniper Treatments Multiple juniper removal treatments

throughout the Alturas, Surprise and

Eagle Lake Field Offices. Total 32,099

acres.

Northeast California/Northwest Nevada

Population

NEPA finished and partially funded

Reduce fire threat and improve

wildlife habitat.

Northeast California Prescribed Fires Multiple prescribed fire treatments

throughout the Alturas, Surprise and

Eagle Lake Field Offices. Burns

include broadcast timber understory

burns, Aspen regeneration, pile burns

and small meadow broadcast burns. A

total of 3,015 acres

Northeast California/Northwest Nevada

Population

NEPA finished and partially funded.

Reduce fire threat and improve

wildlife habitat.

Lands and Realty Cases within the BLM LR2000 System — All Management Zones

Other Linear ROWs 351 pending ROW cases - Roads,

pipelines, transmission, fiber optics,

telephone, etc.

Within the sub-region Applications pending and Under

NEPA review

ROW- Wind Testing 12 pending ROW cases for testing Within the sub-region Applications pending and under

NEPA review

ROW- Wind Development 5 pending ROW cases for development Within the sub-region Applications pending and under

NEPA review

ROW- Solar Development 0 pending ROW cases for development Within the sub-region 4 Applications pending and under

NEPA review in Southern Nevada.

Land Tenure actions - disposals 3,435,300 acres are identified for

disposal.

Within the sub-region Some Applications pending, other

lands are just identified

Locatable Plans of Operation 95 Pending Plans of Operation Within the sub-region Applications pending

Locatable Notices of Exploration 100 Pending Notices of Exploration Within the sub-region Applications pending

Mineral Material sites 108 Pending cases Within the sub-region Applications pending

Other Sub-Regional Actions

Carson Lake Geothermal Utilization

Project – Ormat

40 MW Power Plant Outside all Populations Construction not initiated

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Actions
19 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Name of Action Description of Action Location/Population Area Status of Action

New York Canyon Geothermal 62 MW Power Plant Outside all Populations NEPA finalized; construction not

initiated

Ongoing vegetation management

actions

Noxious and invasive weed control,

post fire rehabilitation seedings, and

range improvement seedings

Across entire sub-region and all Populations Ongoing

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Actions
20 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.3. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

The cumulative effects analysis study area extends beyond the planning area boundary and

consists of WAFWA Management Zones III, IV, and V (See Figure 1-1). This Draft EIS contains

a quantitative cumulative effects analysis for GRSG habitat within the planning area boundary. At

the larger WAFWA Management Zone level, the analysis is primarily qualitative in nature. Data

and information to enable a more comprehensive quantitative analysis that becomes available

between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS may include the following: ongoing land use plan

amendments and revisions, state plans that may not yet be completed, coordination with states

and agencies during consistency reviews, and data from non-BLM-administered lands. Those

data that become available will be compiled and included in the quantitative cumulative effects

analysis for GRSG in the Final EIS.

Relevant cumulative actions are demonstrated in the current condition of the resources, as

described in the Affected Environment (see Chapter 3). An action is reasonably foreseeable if:

1) there is an existing proposal, such as the submission of an application; 2) there has been a

commitment of resources, such as funding; or 3) if it is a Federal action, the NEPA process has

begun or has been completed but the project has not been implemented. A 20-year planning

period was used for this analysis.

Data on the precise locations and overall extent of resources within the planning area are

considerable (Table 5-1) although the information varies according to resource type and locale.

The assumptions and indicators follow those established for the analysis of direct and indirect

effects in Chapter 4.

5.3.1. Other Regional Efforts

State of Nevada (includes California): In August 2000, then Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn

appointed a Sage-Grouse Conservation Team that developed a conservation strategy for GRSG

(State of Nevada 2004). Through collaboration with the CDFW, the strategy was later expanded

to include Eastern California and local working groups in each state were identified and tasked

with designing practical solutions for their respective region. The seven local working groups

(including a Bi-State Planning Group) developed local conservation plans, which were submitted

to the Governor’s Team for synthesis into a conservation plan for Nevada and Eastern California

(State of Nevada 2004).

The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California prioritizes

conservation efforts within both states. Immediate priorities identified include a comprehensive

spatial analysis to determine those areas which support large populations of GRSG and are at high

risk for wildfire or invasion of cheatgrass (State of Nevada 2004). In 2012, the NDOW published

its GRSG habitat categorization analysis, which delineated five classes of GRSG habitat, ranging

from essential/irreplaceable habitat to unsuitable habitat, to direct mitigation and conservation

efforts within Nevada and California (NDOW 2012b).

Other top priorities identified by the Governor’s Team include wildfire pre-suppression

treatments/fire control and vegetation management. The average fire size in the Southern Great

Basin (Management Zone III) increased from 1980 to 2007 (USFWS 2010a). As much as 80

percent of the land within the Great Basin ecoregion (Management Zones III, IV, and V) is at risk

of being displaced by cheatgrass in the next 30 years, and an estimated 35 percent of sagebrush

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse

Habitat
Draft Resource Management 21

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

in the region is at high risk of displacement by pinyon-juniper in the same time (Connelly et

al. 2004).

The Nevada Department of Wildlife, in cooperation with various federal agencies, has

implemented numerous conservation projects to confront these threats, dedicating over $2 million

and totaling nearly 69,000 treated acres (280 square kilometers) on private lands and lands

administered by federal agencies from 2001 to 2009. These projects include pinyon-juniper

removal, weed treatments, and fire rehabilitation (NDOW 2012a). More recently, Governor Brian

Sandoval issued an Executive Order forming the Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Advisory

Committee to recommend policies for the protection of GRSG. The recommendations, released

in July 2012, provide management strategies to achieve “no net loss” for controllable activities

and aggressive pre-suppression, initial attack and restoration for uncontrollable events (State of

Nevada 2012).

WAFWA Strategy: WAFWA is implementing its Greater Sage-Grouse Strategy across

management zones. The WAFWA Greater Sage-Grouse Strategy includes monitoring, research

and funding of conservation projects for GRSG. A basic premise of the WAFWA Greater

Sage-Grouse Strategy is that additional conservation capacity must be developed. This is

compatible with the COT Report (USFWS 2013a) statement that GRSG habitats outside of

priority areas for conservation may also be essential to maintaining the redundancy, resilience

and representation of the population.

NRCS Strategy: The USDA NRCS Greater Sage-Grouse Initiative is working with private

landowners in 11 western states to improve habitat for GRSG while simultaneously improving

working ranches (NRCS 2012). With the checkerboard pattern of ownership (where each

alternating township is either under public or private ownership) in Management Zone III the

opportunity for the Greater Sage-Grouse Initiative to accomplish the COT’s General Conservation

Objective 3 (Develop and implement state and federal GRSG conservation strategies and

associated incentive-based conservation actions and regulatory mechanisms) is potentially very

high if a critical mass of willing participants develops and Congress continues to authorize the

program.

The State of Nevada is working on developing a mitigation bank for GRSG. This would

presumably mitigate for residual impacts from mining and other surface disturbing activities.

In addition to these projects, noxious weed control, vegetation restoration, conifer removal and

fuels treatment projects are ongoing and would presumably have a net positive impact on GRSG

habitat in both the short and long term.

5.3.2. Management Zone III

The cumulative effects analysis focuses on the three most substantial threats to GRSG habitats

and populations in Management Zone III which include the spread of weeds, fire, and conifer

encroachment. Infrastructure, mining, and energy are present but of lesser magnitude (USFWS

2013a). The analysis presents an overview of populations within the management zone and which

are susceptible to the threats listed above. The analysis also characterizes the cause-and-effect

relationship between GRSG, their habitat, and the three major threats. Each alternative is

examined within the framework of each major threat to determine whether the major threat

would be reduced through implementation of that alternative in conjunction with trends and past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in Management Zone III.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
22 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Management Zone III consists of 12 GRSG populations, mainly in the Southern Great Basin in

Nevada and Utah. The populations in Nevada within this management zone are the Southern

Great Basin (Southeast Nevada and Central Nevada subpopulations), the Quinn Canyon Range,

and the Northwest Interior. Land ownership in this management zone is 82 percent federal (71

percent BLM), indicating that actions on federal lands may have measurable population effects,

and measures on private lands may be less influential. However, large areas of influence exist

from some threats, therefore cooperation and prioritization of habitats across jurisdictions is still

important in this management zone (Manier et al. 2013). This management zone, along with

Management Zones IV and V, is a stronghold for GRSG (Wisdom et al. 2011) and predicted

population trends indicate that populations are stable; however these scenarios are limited in their

ability to predict the future, especially stochastic events and novel environmental conditions

(Manier et al. 2013).

Sagebrush cover is naturally limited and patchy across much of this management zone, due to

geologic substrates and topographic formations creating micro-climates and local environmental

conditions that enable sagebrush dominance; these conditions result in a lack of connectivity

among subpopulations in this management zone (Knick and Hanser 2011). The management zone

also faces substantial risk from wildfire (USFWS 2013a).

This management zone is dominated by the large Southern Great Basin population which occupies

much of central and eastern Nevada; however several smaller but significant populations are

included in this management zone, and priority management issues and challenges associated with

these small subpopulations may be distinctive from other populations in the Great Basin region

(USFWS 2013a). The GRSG population areas within Management Zone III in Nevada include:

● The Northwest Interior population of Pershing and South Humboldt counties is relatively

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

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

habitats which have burned extensively and repeatedly for the last two decades due to the

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

since 1984. Post-fire sagebrush restoration success is limited due to environmental factors.

Sagebrush canopy is absent over vast areas marginalizing habitat value to GRSG. The entire

population indicates invasive grass potential above 45 percent with fire regime departures

the highest in Nevada (Comer et al. 2012a).

● The Central Nevada subpopulation includes 13.8 million surface acres and 6.7 million acres

of GRSG habitat. The subpopulation contains 16 PMUs and is considered one of the four

stronghold GRSG habitats within Nevada but considered in long-range population decline

(Connelly et al. 2004; Garton et al. 2011). The subpopulation area supports 134 active

and 51 currently inactive leks. Wildfire activity has been concentrated in the northern

end of the subpopulation adjacent to the Northeast subpopulation area where wildfire has

exerted the highest impacts within the state. The southern two-thirds of the Central Nevada

subpopulation remains relatively insulated from the occurrence and effects of wildfire.

Conifer encroachment plays a larger role affecting connectivity between breeding and summer

ranges. Annual grasses model at or below 45 percent probability of occurrence throughout

the entire subpopulation giving it a lower but still moderate ranking of fire regime departure

(projected increase in frequency and extent) but reflective of the current level of annual

grass invasion which has already occurred (Comer et al. 2012a). Ownership includes a high

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

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
Draft Resource Management 23

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

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

million acres (18 percent).

● The Southeastern Nevada subpopulation includes 9 million surface acres and 3.6 million acres

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

important as a stronghold within the state, but are recognized as having generally smaller

population size (lek size) on average compared to other stronghold areas. The subpopulation

area supports 105 active and 42 currently inactive leks (NDOW 2012b). Topography in this

subpopulation is a north-south basin and range configuration with invasive conifer occupying

an elevation zone between breeding and summer brood-rearing habitats. GRSG complete

one- and two-stage migrations in this subpopulation between these seasonal ranges. The COT

report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes the seasonal ranges as “disjunct, but connected”. As

with populations throughout Nevada, the population is considered to be in long-term decline

(Connelly et al. 2004; Garton et al. 2011). Annual grasses have potential abundance at or

above 45 percent throughout the basins with low to no risk on mountain topography. Post-fire

habitat restoration success is high due to monsoonal rains in late summer.

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

GRSG range in Nevada, located in east Nye and northwest Lincoln Counties. The

Quinn PMU encompasses 2 million surface acres (1.7 BLM, 222,000 Forest Service).

NDOW maps estimate total habitat at 258,557 acres with no habitat in Categories 1 and 2

(Essential/Irreplaceable and Important). The COT report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes

the population status at “high risk”, because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining

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

The 2012 NDOW lek database indicates no active leks. Moderate and imminent threats to the

population are myriad including weeds/annual grasses, conifers, infrastructure, livestock, and

wild horses. Climate change modeling indicates the near elimination of sagebrush habitat for

this population by 2060 (Comer et al. 2012a).

Primary threats to GRSG habitats and populations occurring across populations in Management

Zone III include habitat loss and fragmentation as a result of weeds, wildfire and conifer

encroachment (USFWS 2013a). Since 2000, 404,000 acres (1,635 square kilometers; 2.8 percent)

of GRSG habitats (PPH and PGH combined) have burned in this Management Zone (Manier et

al. 2013).

Current energy developments in Nevada portions of Management Zone III are not widespread;

however, more than 1.8 million acres (13 percent) of the GRSG habitats in Management Zone III

(including Utah) are currently leased for federal fluid mineral development, suggesting increased

pressure from energy development in the future (Manier et al. 2013). The highest oil producing

region in Nevada is Railroad Valley, much of which is located in and adjacent to the Southeast

Nevada subpopulation. In addition to the high potential area of Railroad Valley, much of the Ely

District Office is identified as moderate potential and low potential for petroleum. Drilling on

federal mineral estate in the Central Nevada subpopulation is expected to increase. Much of the

moderate to high potential areas identified for petroleum in the Ely District Office are identified as

GRSG habitat.

The second highest oil-producing region in Nevada is Pine Valley, which is located in the northern

end of the Central Nevada subpopulation. Production of oil in Pine Valley has been declining

over recent years. Oil and gas operators have not indicated an interest in drilling new wells

in Pine Valley. Areas to the east and northeast of Pine Valley and within the Central Nevada

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
24 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

subpopulation are identified as moderate potential for the presence of petroleum. Developers

have plans to explore for oil to the west of the City of Wells and in the valleys west of the

Ruby Mountains, targeting the Elko formation. As a result, drilling on federal mineral estate in

the northern end of the Central Nevada subpopulation is expected to increase. Many of these

moderate-to-high-potential areas identified for petroleum are identified as GRSG habitat.

Mining claims for gold, silver, and copper are found throughout the planning area but are virtually

ubiquitous throughout the Southern Great Basin. Prices have risen over the last few years, and

there is increased interest in developing ore deposits for these minerals leading to increased

demand for associated infrastructure.

High potential for geothermal energy development also occurs in GRSG habitats in central and

western portions of Management Zone III, and solar energy potential is high in southern portions

of the Great Basin region. These alternate energy sources could have impacts on GRSG habitats

in southern Nevada and Utah in the future (depending on technology, financial markets and

public policies; Manier et al. 2013).

Cheatgrass invasion has been widespread in this region for decades, and some former habitats are

likely unrecoverable; many of these areas are already excluded from current habitat distributions

(Manier et al. 2013). Conifer encroachment potentially affects over 1.8 million acres (13 percent)

of PPH and PGH in Management Zone III.

In addition to cheatgrass, widespread, intense land-use coupled with natural variability and

limitations of climate, has resulted in measurable effects on rangeland conditions. In 2006, 1.6

million acres of the BLM-administered GRSG habitats in Management Zone III (17 percent) did

not meet wildlife standards due to grazing impacts. Further, over 4.1 million acres (29 percent)

of this area is designated wild horse and burro range, mostly in central Nevada; horse and

burro herbivory have been connected to intense resource use and measureable effects on range

conditions and habitat quality (Beever and Aldridge 2011).

Table 5-2, Relevant Cumulative Actions – Management Zone III, summarizes the cumulative

actions in Management Zone III by category.

Table 5.2. Relevant Cumulative Actions – Management Zone III

Actions by Category Quinn

Population

Southeast Nevada

Subpopulation

Central Nevada

Subpopulation

Northwest

Interior

Population

Mining 0 1 1 0

Infrastructure (ROW) 0 3 0 0

Fluid Minerals 0 0 3 0

Renewable energy 0 0 0 0

Fuels/Vegetation

treatments

3 22 9 2

Other 0 0 0 0

Major Threats

Fire

Fire has largely negative effects on GRSG by directly affecting the distribution and condition

of available sagebrush habitats (Nelle et al. 2000; Beck et al. 2009; Rhodes et al. 2010; Baker

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
Draft Resource Management 25

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

2011). Wildfire and prescribed fires typically kill sagebrush thereby reducing cover and forage in

the short-term. However, fire is also associated with natural dynamics and spatial heterogeneity

of many sagebrush ecosystems, suggesting that not all fires in sagebrush communities have

net-negative effects on GRSG populations and habitats. In some higher elevation habitats, where

mountain big-sagebrush is the canopy dominant, rapid regeneration due to site potential, seed

production and layering can produce 25 percent cover within 20 years (Winward 2004). There

is little evidence that fire will enhance GRSG habitat in Wyoming big sagebrush communities

(Crawford et al. 2004). In low elevation Wyoming big sagebrush, due to increased fuel potentials

caused by annual grasses and landscape-scale decrease in intact sagebrush habitats, wildfire

represents an important threat to habitat conservation and population stability (USFWS 2010).

Within Management Zone III in Nevada, effects and extent of habitat conversion from wildfire

are variable with a nearly complete type conversion of the Northwest Interior population, severe

effects in the northern third of the Central Nevada subpopulation, and lesser effects to the

Southeast Nevada subpopulation (see Table 3-9, Fire Starts and Acres Burned by Decade by

Population/Subpopulation).

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 emphasis on sagebrush during wildland fire operations would not be instituted as they

would be in Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F. GRSG populations in Management Zone III are

considered stable in the Central and Southeastern populations and at high risk for extirpation in

the Northwest Interior and Quinn Canyon populations. Selection of the No Action, Alternative

A and the associated direct and indirect effects described in Chapter 4, in conjunction with the

listed past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to cumulatively

affect the remaining stable GRSG populations in Management Zone III over a critical threshold.

However, two significant concerns with regard to fire are the trend of increasing exotic annual

grass/weed infestations and subsequent wildfires, and predicted climate change and increasing

fire activity. Due to these trends, portions of Management Zone III, including the Northwest

Interior and Quinn Canyon Range in Nevada and isolated populations in Utah, may have, or are at

risk of, exceeding a critical threshold for GRSG persistence. Stronghold populations, such as

the Central Nevada and Southeastern Nevada populations are significantly less threatened by the

altered fire regimes induced by invasive grasses and are likely to persist. Potentially, the direct

and indirect effects from the existing LUPs, in conjunction with the past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions indicate a strong focus on restoration and vegetation management with

the intent of reducing the cumulative impacts from fire and invasive species while new significant

infrastructure development is not anticipated. . Some of the ongoing activities that may help

alleviate impacts from fire include ongoing vegetation management actions that control noxious

weeds and post-fire rehabilitation include the Pioche/Caselton Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)

project (3,200 to 4,700 acres) of fuels reduction and pinyon-juniper thinning, the Stonehouse

WUI and non-WUI project (24,700 acres) of fuels reduction and pinyon-juniper thinning, the

Pleasant Valley (11,000 to 12,500 acres) fuels thinning and removal, Lincoln County Chain

Maintenance project, and others as listed in Table 5-1.

Management actions under Alternative B with regard to fire are all focused on increased

protection of GRSG habitat, primarily within PPMA, thereby benefitting GRSG rather than

removing or fragmenting habitat. Under Alternative B, 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 GRSG

habitat would be included. Fuels treatment activities would focus on protecting GRSG habitat,

primarily within PPMA. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of fire to GRSG from the

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
26 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

management actions under Alternative B, which are largely beneficial for GRSG, when combined

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

impacts on GRSG While the management actions under Alternative B with regard to fire seek to

minimize the impacts from wildfire on GRSG habitat, the trends described for Alternative A, No

Action, are expected to continue. Additional reasonably foreseeable future actions do not add

significantly to the risk of these ongoing environmental factors driving the current wildfire regime

in Management Zone III. Stable populations have a higher probability of persistence, as noted

under Alternative A, based on increased emphasis on fire pre-suppression activities, sagebrush

retention prioritization during fire suppression, and increased emphasis on restoration activities.

The cumulative effect with respect to fire, of the direct and indirect effects of management actions

under Alternative C, D, E, or F, as described in Chapter 4, 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 and are not expected to change the existing

population trend or remove and fragment sagebrush habitat beyond that which is induced as a

result of the interaction of fire and invasive species.

Invasive Species

Invasive weeds alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling,

and hydrology and may cause declines in native plant populations, including sagebrush habitat,

through competitive exclusion and niche displacement, among other mechanisms. Invasive

plants reduce and, in cases where monocultures occur, eliminate vegetation that GRSG use

for food and cover. Invasive species do not provide suitable GRSG habitat, since the species

depends on a variety of native forbs and the insects associated with them for chick survival.

GRSG also depend on sagebrush, which is eaten year-round and used exclusively throughout

the winter for food and cover. Along with competitively excluding vegetation essential to

GRSG, invasive species fragment existing GRSG habitat or reduce habitat quality. Invasive

species can also create long-term changes in ecosystem processes, such as fire-cycles and other

disturbance regimes that persist even after an invasive plant is removed (Connelly et al. 2004,

pp. 5-9). All the subpopulations in Nevada are threatened to some extent by spread of invasive

weeds, especially cheatgrass.

Many areas in Management Zone III are threatened to some extent by the spread of invasive

species (Manier et al. 2013, Table 20), especially cheatgrass which has been widespread for

decades in this management zone. In Management Zone III, 31.3 percent of PPH and 43.2 percent

of PGH is at moderate to high probability of cheatgrass occurrence (Manier et al. 2013, Table 20).

Weeds and annual grasses are considered widespread in all but one of the 12 population areas

making up this management zone (USFWS 2013a, Table 2). Although only 0.8 percent of PPH

and PGH have burned over the last decade in this management zone, cheatgrass invasion is

generally high especially at lower elevations. In southern habitats (Management Zones III, IV, and

V), cheatgrass is found primarily at elevations between 5,249 to 6,562 feet (1,600 to 2,000 meters)

but has been expanding in habitats down to 3,937 feet (1,200 meters; Connelly et al. 2004).

Much of the Great Basin is at risk for invasion by cheatgrass or pinyon-juniper encroachment

within the next 30 years (Wisdom et al. 2005; Leu et al. 2008; Doherty et al. 2008), and where

cheatgrass has invaded, there has typically been an increase in fire frequency resulting in

further degradation of GRSG habitats by removing, and excluding sagebrush (Knapp 1996;

Epanchin-Niell et al. 2009; Rowland et al. 2010; Baker 2011; Condon et al. 2011).

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
Draft Resource Management 27

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Large-scale restoration is needed in many areas, making minimally invaded areas highly valuable

for habitat conservation. In the sagebrush steppe of northern habitats (all or parts of Management

Zones I, II, IV, V, and VI), cheatgrass is less ubiquitous but demonstrates increased dominance,

productivity, and elevation range on south-facing slopes (Connelly et al. 2004) which indicates

the need for careful local considerations and best-practices that minimize disturbance in areas

with a threat (presence) of cheatgrass expansion.

Under Alternative A, treatment of noxious weeds would continue under current policy with

impacts the same as described under current LUPs. Policies would be expected to improve

habitats; however under this alternative, more acres of PPH and PGH would have the potential to

burn during wildfires, requiring additional post fire management. The action alternatives address

the spread of invasive grasses by managing disturbance levels. Under Alternative B, no large

scale disturbances would be allowed in PPH and small-scale disturbances would be limited to

3 percent surface disturbance. This would reduce the risk of invasive establish over more area

compared to Alternative A. Alternative C emphasizes passive restoration of disturbed sites. This

would include sites which may have passed a threshold or transition state. This alternative would

not be expected to provide as much benefit as Alternative A since active management, such as

seeding, is often needed for restoration (Manier et al. 2013). Alternative D focuses vegetation

activities in PPMA and PGMA including prioritizing fire suppression, landscape restoration

activities, and mandatory two years of rest from livestock use on burned acres. Alternative D

provides a policy of no unmitigated loss of habitat, which equates to a disturbance threshold

of zero percent. Alternative E focuses on avoidance and minimization of impacts and then

mitigation, placing priority on vegetation treatment of disturbed areas and limiting disturbance to

5 percent in occupied and suitable habitats. Management under Alternative E would be expected

to treat more acres of GRSG habitat than Alternative A, but may lead to more acres being

impacted overall than Alternative A. Alternative F limits disturbance to 3 percent and focuses on

passive restoration in unoccupied habitat. Alternative F has similar impacts on vegetation and

therefore invasive species potential as Alternative B.

Fuels and vegetation treatments continue to be important factors in this management zone with

the combined percent federal ownership in Management Zone III being approximately 82 percent.

Higher levels of federal ownership would be expected to provide better opportunities for funding

and larger landscapes to implement restoration on degraded lands.

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternatives B, E, and F on invasive species

in Management Zone III (described in Chapter 4), when combined with the past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions, are similar and do not result in significant cumulative

impacts on GRSG habitats. While Alternatives B, E, and F contain direction that caps disturbance,

Alternative D contains more stringent direction intended to significantly reduce the impacts of a

potentially expanding human footprint. Alternative C reduces disturbance levels similar to the

other action alternatives, but relies on natural processes to restore habitats and ultimately reduce

the impacts of invasive species. Invasive species are likely to contribute further to cumulative

impacts on GRSG and their habitats under this alternative.

Conifer

Expansion of conifer woodlands, especially juniper (Juniperus spp.) present a threat to GRSG

because they do not provide suitable habitat, and further, mature trees displace shrubs, grasses and

forbs through direct competition for resources which are important components of GRSG habitat;

juniper expansion is associated with increased bare ground and an increased potential for erosion

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
28 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

(Petersen et al. 2009). Mature trees may offer perch sites for raptors, thereby, woodland expansion

may also represent expansion of raptor predation threat, similarly to perches on power lines, poles

and other structures. In some areas (best documented in Management Zones III, IV, V, and VI)

conifer encroachment is connected to reduced habitat quality in important seasonal ranges when

woodland development is sufficient to restrict shrub and herbaceous production (Connelly et al.

2004). While widespread, this problem affects specific sagebrush habitats and GRSG populations

because of local juniper and/or pinyon-juniper expansions; notably, Forest Service research

indicated more than 55 percent of Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems (Management Zones III and

V) are at risk of cheatgrass invasion, whereas approximately 40 percent of this same landscape was

at risk of displacement by juniper expansion. Within Management Zone III in Nevada, the Central

and Southeast subpopulation areas exhibit basin and range topography with higher elevation lands

in the mountain big sagebrush/Wyoming sagebrush interface experiencing very high levels of

conifer expansion. This in turn affects connectivity between nesting and summer seasonal ranges.

Conifer removal (vegetation treatments) would be implemented under all alternative scenarios

and continue to improve GRSG habitat. Alternatives B and F emphasize conifer removal in

riparian sites. Alternatives D and E emphasize a more broadly applied approach to encroaching

conifer in all habitat types. Alternative D provides specific conifer objectives by habitat type to

guide restoration. Alternative C de-emphasizes conifer removal in favor of natural restoration

processes resulting from the removal of livestock grazing.

Cumulatively, Alternatives D and E provide the greatest reduction of the impacts from conifer

expansion on GRSG habitats and may reverse habitat declines and result in the elimination

of conifer encroachment as a contributor to cumulative effects. Alternatives B and F improve

site-specific habitats, such as late-summer brood-rearing, but would not appreciably reduce the

impacts of conifer encroachment over broader landscapes. Alternative C does not include actions

that indicate a broad-scale approach to conifer encroachment into GRSG habitats.

Management under Alternative A would continue to use GRSG habitat standards defined by

Connelly et al. 2000a and Hagen et al. 2007, which are based on research conducted outside

of the Nevada and Northeast California Sub-region. Vegetation treatments for GRSG would

continue to be prioritized in PMUs and follow the associated conservation strategy. Treatments

would also be prioritized within close proximity to active lek sites and within Phase 1 and II

juniper stands. The BLM and Forest Service would continue to coordinate vegetation treatments

with other federal and state agencies, private landowners and tribes.

Alternative B, D, and E would prioritize vegetation treatments within PPMA and PGMA. For

Alternative B and E vegetation treatments would incorporate the same GRSG habitat parameters

as Alternative A. Management under Alternative D would provide for specific on the ground

management objectives for vegetation treatments which are categorized by locally derived

GRSG seasonal habitat requirements, allowing for attainment of the appropriate treatments to

be applied on the ground and a set of common goals and objectives being met throughout the

sub-region. Management under Alternative B would require the establishment of designated seed

harvest areas for sagebrush seed collection in fire prone areas. All three alternatives consider

climate change. In addition, post-restoration management plans would be implemented to ensure

long-term persistence of vegetation treatments. The BLM and Forest Service would continue

to coordinate vegetation treatments with other federal and state agencies, private landowners

and tribes under these alternatives.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
Draft Resource Management 29

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Management under Alternative C would focus vegetation treatments in unoccupied GRSG

habitats (e.g., crested wheat grass seedings, urban interface, and areas of significant disturbances).

This alternative does not specify GRSG habitat standards to be implemented but discusses the

use of “Risk Assessments” and establishment of monitoring sites. Because this alternative does

not prioritize vegetation treatments within intact sagebrush communities or existing GRSG

habitats it does not provide for increasing the amount and quality of GRSG habitat (Manier

et al. 2013, p. 108).

Climate Change

The effects of changing climate are pervasive throughout all Management Zones, particularly in

Management Zone III in the southern portion of the GRSG range. Changing climate conditions

may render some locations less suitable for sagebrush than for other species, creating potential

shifts in ecosystem distributions (Bradley 2010). Dramatic climate envelope shifts are forecasted

for GRSG, with only a relatively small proportion of the current distribution forecasted to retain

the climate regime close to that currently supporting this species. More generally, species that rely

on sagebrush habitat have higher loss in climate envelope compared with other species (Comer et

al. 2012a). Summer precipitation and temperature are the best predictors of regional distribution

of sagebrush, suggesting that changing summer conditions may have the most impact on

long-term viability of sagebrush habitats (Bradley 2010). Forecasts predict substantial increases

in maximum temperatures for all months, with the greatest increases concentrated during the

summer. By 2060, 90 percent and 85 percent of the Central Basin and Range (Management Zone

III) is forecast to experience monthly maximum temperatures two standard deviations beyond

the values of the 20th century baseline for July and August, respectively (Comer et al. 2012a).

These climatic changes manifest as conversion of low-elevation sagebrush communities to salt

desert scrub, the proliferation of invasive annual grasses, and substantial fire regime departure

(Comer et al. 2012a). Landscape pattern effects, in most cases, indicate a clear shift to higher

elevation, and to the north. Farther upslope, the climate envelope for Great Basin pinyon-juniper

woodlands is forecasted to retreat northward to some degree.

Lesser Threats

Mining

Mining is ubiquitous across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and occurs at a variety of

scales. Surface and subsurface mining for mineral resources (coal, uranium, copper, phosphate,

and others) results in direct loss of habitat if they occur in sagebrush habitats. GRSG and nests

could be directly affected by trampling or vehicle collision. GRSG also could be impacted

indirectly from an increase in human disturbance, ground shock, noise, dust, reduced air and

water quality, and changes in vegetation and topography (Brown and Clayton 2004). Industrial

activity associated with the development of surface mines and infrastructure could result in

noise and human activity that disrupt the habitat and life-cycle of GRSG. All studies which

assessed impacts of energy development on GRSG found negative effects; no studies reported a

positive influence of development on populations or habitats (Naugle et al. 2011). Declines in

GRSG population growth (21 percent) between pre- and post-mine development were attributable

to decreased nest success and adult female survival; the treatment effect was more noticeable

closer to gas field infrastructure. Annual survival of GRSG individuals reared near gas field

infrastructure (yearling females and males) was significantly lower than control individuals not

reared near infrastructure (Holloran 2005).

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
30 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Management under Alternative A would maintain the current acreage open to locatable mineral

development. WSAs and some ACECs are proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry.

Alternative B and F would propose all priority habitats for withdrawal and would subject existing

claims within priority habitats to validity examinations. Management under Alternative C would

propose all occupied habitats (PPMA) for mineral withdrawal. Management under Alternatives D

and E would maintain current acreage open to mineral development but add the application of

best management practices and off-site mitigation.

Infrastructure

Human developments, such as power lines, pipelines, communication towers, fences, roads,

and railroads, contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation, with power lines and roads having

the largest effects (Connelly et al. 2004; Naugle et al. 2011). Human disturbance is increased

over the short term during infrastructure construction. In the long term, increased threats from

predators perching on infrastructure may cause declines in lek attendance or nest success. GRSG

population declines have resulted from avoidance of infrastructure, reduced productivity, and/or

reduced survival in the vicinity of infrastructure (Naugle et al. 2011). Pipelines have similar

short-term effects but impacts may be ameliorated in the long-term as vegetation re-establishes.

Power lines can directly affect GRSG by posing a collision and electrocution hazard, and can

have indirect effects by decreasing lek attendance and recruitment, increasing predation, reducing

connectivity, and facilitating the invasion of invasive plants (Braun 1998, pp. 145-146; Connelly

et al. 2004, pp. 12, 25). In particular, power poles and crossarms provide perches and nesting

habitat for potential avian predators, such as golden eagles and ravens (Ellis 1984). GRSG

have been observed to avoid brood-rearing habitats within three miles of transmission lines

(LeBeau 2012). Higher densities of power lines within four miles of a lek negatively influence lek

attendance (Walker et al. 2007). In addition, power lines are linear and often extend for many

miles. Thus, ground disturbance associated with power line construction, as well as vehicle

and human presence during maintenance activities, may introduce or spread invasive weeds

over large areas, thereby degrading habitat.

Impacts from roads may include direct habitat loss from road construction and direct mortality

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

habitats. Other impacts include facilitation of predator movements, spread of invasive plants, and

human disturbance from noise and traffic (Formann and Alexander 1998, pp. 207-231). Research

suggests that road traffic within 4.7 miles of leks negatively influence male lek attendance

(Connelly et al. 2004). Fences also may cause direct mortality through collisions, as the birds

fly fast and low across the landscape, particularly during the breeding season. In addition, fence

poles create predator perch sites and potential predator corridors along fences (particularly if a

road is adjacent). Furthermore, fences may effectively cause habitat fragmentation, as GRSG

may avoid habitat around the fences to escape predation (Braun 1998, p.145). The NRCS Greater

Sage-Grouse Initiative includes incentives for private landowners to mark or remove fences that

have been deemed high-risk for GRSG injury or mortality.

Alternative A includes ROW exclusion for existing congressionally designated lands such

as Forest Service wilderness areas and National Historic Trails. LUPs in California identify

avoidance areas and apply seasonal buffers and timing restrictions on ROWs. Most BLM districts

consider ROW exclusion on a case-by-case basis. Management under Alternative B would

identify all PPMA as ROW exclusion and all PGMA as ROW avoidance. Alternatives C and F

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone III
Draft Resource Management 31

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

would identify all PPMA and PGMA as ROW exclusion. Alternative E carries forward existing

exclusion and avoidance areas per Alternative A, but adds priority habitats for avoidance.

Energy

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

the Southeast Nevada and Central Nevada subpopulations. Potential expansion of oil and gas

development is indicated in the northern Central Nevada subpopulation. Nonrenewable (oil and

gas) energy development impacts GRSG and sagebrush habitats through direct disturbance and

habitat loss from well pads, access construction, seismic surveys, roads, power lines, and pipeline

corridors; indirectly from noise, gaseous emissions, changes in water availability and quality,

and human presence. The interaction and intensity of effects could cumulatively or individually

lead to habitat fragmentation in the long term (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 41; Holloran 2005, pp.

57-60). Geothermal energy development potential is widespread throughout Management Zone

III. The direct footprint of existing development is relatively small and cumulatively affects

a small percentage of GRSG habitats (0.73 percent of PPH and 1.33 percent of PGH) in the

Management Zone. Impacts from geothermal development are similar to fossil-fuel-fired power

plants in that resources are exploited in a highly centralized fashion. Related infrastructure

increases the direct footprint and includes roads and transmission lines. Existing geothermal

development is widespread, and geothermal potential is distributed across a majority of priority

and general habitats throughout the range of GRSG habitat. Cumulatively, impacts from future

development will be localized and of small scale with a high potential for siting outside of PPMA

and PGMA (Manier et al. 2013).

Management under Alternative A would maintain the current acreage open to leasing of fluid

minerals, without stipulations. Areas closed under Alternative A include some existing ACEC

designations, designated wilderness, and wilderness study areas. Alternatives B and F would

increase protection by adding all PPMA to existing closures. Alternative C closes all ACECs as

delineated in that alternative. These ACEC designations include all occupied and unoccupied

habitat within all PMUs in the sub-region precluding fluid mineral development within the range

of GRSG. Alternative D is the same as Alternative A with respect to areas closed to entry, but

adds NSO restrictions to all PPMA without waiver, exception, or modification. NSO restrictions

would apply to PGH with allowance for waivers, exceptions and modifications. Alternative E

would apply NSO restrictions to all occupied and suitable habitat within SGMAs allowing for

waivers, exceptions, and modifications.

Under all alternatives, the impacts of both renewable and non-renewable energy development

would be highly regulated within GRSG habitats and would not add significant impacts on GRSG

and their habitats when considered within the context of other factors affecting GRSG persistence.

5.3.3. Management Zone IV

Management Zone IV consists of nine GRSG populations in the Snake River Plains: east-central

Idaho, southwest Montana, Snake-Salmon-Beaverhead, Belt Mountains, Weiser, northern Great

Basin, Box Elder and Sawtooth (Garton et al. 2011). The three most substantial threats to GRSG

habitats and populations occurring across populations in Management Zone IV are spread of

weeds, fire, and isolation/small size. Infrastructure and mining are present but of lesser magnitude

(USFWS 2013a). The Northeastern and Southeast Oregon/North Central Nevada subpopulations

in Nevada are located in this management zone. These populations are part of the northern Great

Basin population which is large and considered stable, though threatened by fragmentation,

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone IV
32 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

invasive species, wildfire and agricultural conversion (USFWS 2013a). As a result, many

populations in the region are small or isolated, with the exception of central Idaho (watershed of

the Snake-Salmon-Beaverhead Rivers) and the northern Great Basin population (USFWS 2013a).

The primary limiting factor for the northern Great Basin population in this region is surface

disturbance, especially from fire (Manier et al. 2013, p. 133).

The majority of the sagebrush in this management zone is federally managed (Knick 2011), but

local projects may be more important than range-wide effects because of habitat quality and

connectivity at the local scale. The GRSG population areas within Management Zone IV include:

● Management Zone IV consists of two subpopulations (Northeastern, North Central) and all

or portions of nine PMUs in north-central and northeastern Nevada. Surface acreage and

occupied habitat for the northeastern subpopulation is 6 million acres and 5.1 million acres.

Surface acreage and occupied habitat for the North Central subpopulation is 2.1 million acres

and 1.5 million acres. Of the seven management zones, Management Zone IV is characterized

as one of those supporting the highest densities of GRSG but also considered in long-range

population decline (Connelly et al. 2004; Garton et al. 2011). The Northeastern subpopulation

supports 157 active and 93 currently inactive leks. The North Central subpopulation supports

44 active and 29 currently inactive leks. The critical factor affecting GRSG and their habitats

in Management Zone IV is the effect of wildfires. Combined, these subpopulations have had

555 fire starts burning 3.5 million acres since 1984. The combined footprint of wildfires in

these subpopulations is 2.3 million acres. Thirty-seven (18 percent) of 201 active and 51 (42

percent) of 122 inactive leks have burned. 82 percent of active and 91 percent of inactive leks

have suffered nesting habitat losses within a 4-mile buffer of leks. Wildfires have increased

dramatically in both frequency and extent leaving large areas devoid of sagebrush canopy

and dominated by grasses in general but particularly invasive species. Restoration efforts are

moderately successful in some areas demonstrating some resiliency for this portion of the

population (USFWS 2012). The COT report (USFWS 2013a) highlights fire, weeds/annual

grasses, conifer encroachment, and infrastructure development as threats. The potential

abundance of invasive annual grasses is consistently above 45 percent over the majority

of the management zone, with the remainder in the 25-45 percent range, second only to

the Northwest Interior subpopulation area in invasive grass abundance. However, climate

change modeling shows expansion of habitat types supportive of GRSG through time with an

accompanying increase in invasive juniper. Considering the intermediate scores for landscape

condition and invasive annual grasses, low likelihood of future development, and low climate

change stress, habitat restoration opportunities are very high in this management zone

supporting the potential for management as a stronghold in this zone (Comer et al. 2012a).

Geothermal energy development potential is widespread throughout Management Zone IV. The

direct footprint of existing development is relatively small and cumulatively affects a small

percentage of GRSG habitats, impacting 0.26 percent of PPH and 0.16 percent of PGH in the

management zone. Impacts from geothermal development are similar to fossil-fuel-fired power

plants in that resources are exploited in a highly centralized fashion. Related infrastructure

increases the direct footprint and includes roads and transmission lines. Existing geothermal

development is widespread, and geothermal potential is distributed across a majority of priority

and general habitats throughout the range or GRSG. Cumulatively, impacts of future development

will be localized and of small scale with a high potential for siting outside of PPMA and

PGMA. Few oil and gas wells exist in Management Zone IV and none within the Nevada and

Northeastern California Sub-Region, though there is potential for exploration and development in

the vicinity of Wells, Nevada, in the southeast corner of the subpopulation. Less than 350,000

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone IV
Draft Resource Management 33

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

acres (1 percent) of GRSG habitats are currently leased for federal fluid mineral exploration. Coal

and solar potential are also low throughout the management zone. Agricultural development

influences 1 percent of the management zone and 85 percent of PPH and PGH are within 4.3

miles (6.9 kilometers) of cropland (Manier et al. 2013). Agricultural influence is variable within

Management Zone IV and not as prevalent within the sub-region as in Idaho and Montana.

Mining claims for gold, silver, and copper are found throughout the planning area. Within Nevada,

the largest concentration of mining claims for gold, silver, and copper are located in Management

Zone IV. Prices have risen over the last few years, and there is increased interest in developing ore

deposits for these minerals leading to increased demand for associated infrastructure.

Table 5.3. Relevant Cumulative Actions – Management Zone IV

Actions by Category Northeast Nevada

Subpopulation

Northcentral Nevada

Subpopulation

Mining 9 0

Infrastructure (ROW) 1 0

Fluid Minerals 0 0

Renewable energy 1 0

Fuels/Vegetation

treatments

3 0

Other 1 0

Major Threats

Fire

Fire has largely negative effects on GRSG by directly affecting the distribution and condition

of available sagebrush habitats (Nelle et al. 2000; Beck et al. 2009; Rhodes et al. 2010; Baker

2011). Wildfire and prescribed fires typically kill sagebrush thereby reducing cover and forage in

the short-term. However, fire is also associated with natural dynamics and spatial heterogeneity

of many sagebrush ecosystems, suggesting that not all fires in sagebrush communities have

net-negative effects on GRSG populations and habitats. In some higher elevation habitats, where

mountain big-sagebrush is the dominant canopy, rapid regeneration due to site potential, seed

production and layering can produce 25 percent cover within 20 years (Winward 2004). There

is little evidence that fire will enhance GRSG habitat in Wyoming big sagebrush communities

(Crawford et al. 2004). In low elevation Wyoming big sagebrush, due to increased fuel potentials

caused by annual grasses and landscape-scale decrease in intact sagebrush habitats, wildfire

represents an important threat to habitat conservation and population stability (USFWS 2010).

Within Management Zone IV in Nevada, effects and extent of habitat conversion from wildfire

are high in both the Northeastern and Southeast Oregon/North Central Nevada subpopulations

(see Table 3-9, Fire Starts and Acres Burned by Decade by Population/Subpopulation).

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

emphasis on sagebrush during wildland fire operations would not be instituted as they would be

in Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F. GRSG populations within Management Zone IV have some

of the highest densities of all of the seven management zones; however, they have undergone

long-range population declines. Under Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects described in

Chapter 4, in conjunction with the listed past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions

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

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone IV
34 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

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

wildfire in this management zone.

Some of the ongoing activities that may help alleviate impacts from fire include ongoing

vegetation management actions that control noxious weeds and post-fire rehabilitation, the North

Tuscarora Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project (10,000 acres) and the Spruce Mountain

Project (700 acres) seeding maintenance to reduce fuels and improve wildlife habitat.

Management actions under Alternative B with regard to fire are all focused on increased

protection of GRSG habitat, primarily within PPMA, thereby benefitting GRSG rather than

removing or fragmenting habitat. Cumulative effects under Alternative B in Management Zone

IV, with regard to fire, are similar to the effects described for fire in Management Zone III.

Namely, the direct and indirect effects of fire on GRSG from the management actions under

Alternative B, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions do

not substantially increase impacts on GRSG.

The cumulative effect with respect to fire, of the direct and indirect effects of management actions

under Alternative C, D, E or F, as described in Chapter 4, 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 and are not expected to change the existing

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

Invasive Species

Invasive weeds alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling,

and hydrology and may cause declines in native plant populations, including sagebrush habitat,

through competitive exclusion and niche displacement, among other mechanisms. Invasive

plants reduce and, in cases where monocultures occur, eliminate vegetation that GRSG use

for food and cover. Invasive species do not provide suitable GRSG habitat, since the species

depends on a variety of native forbs and the insects associated with them for chick survival.

GRSG also depend on sagebrush, which is eaten year-round and used exclusively throughout the

winter for food and cover. Along with competitively excluding vegetation essential to GRSG,

invasive species fragment existing GRSG habitat or reduce habitat quality. Invasive species can

also create long-term changes in ecosystem processes, such as fire-cycles and other disturbance

regimes that persist even after an invasive plant is removed (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 5-9). All

the subpopulations in Nevada are threatened to some extent by the spread of invasive weeds,

especially cheatgrass.

Although Management Zone IV has one of the largest areas of connected habitat, all but two

of the nine populations found in this management zone are considered to have widespread

populations of weeds or annual grasses (USFWS 2013a, Table 2) with approximately 53 percent

of PPH and 58 percent of PGH being at risk of cheatgrass (Manier et al. 2013, Table 20). This

management zone has a long history of agricultural land uses, and effects from wildfire. Since

1984, GRSG populations have been affected by more than 2.3 million acres of wildfire in this

management zone and about 19 to 20 percent of PPH and PGH, combined, do not meet BLM land

health standards in this management zone (Manier et al. 2013, Table 22). Infrastructure (ROW),

mining, and fuels/vegetation treatments continue to be important factors in this management zone.

Impacts would be similar to those which would occur in Management Zone III with greater

amounts of PPH and PGH acres and a majority of the landscape in federal ownership. This

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone IV
Draft Resource Management 35

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

would be expected to increase the potential for restoration actions and reduce the potential for

invasive species.

Conifer

Conifer encroachment is not considered a major threat in Management Zone IV. Spatial

modeling of the potential for conifer encroachment risk on BLM-administered lands depicts a

relative influence of 55 percent in PPH and 34 percent in PGH. Spatial modeling on Forest

Service-administered lands depicts a potential of 15 percent in PPH and 25 percent in PGH

(Manier et al. 2013, Table 21).

Lesser Threats

Mining

Mining is ubiquitous across Management Zones III and IV in Nevada and occurs at a variety of

scales. Surface and subsurface mining for mineral resources (gold, silver, and others) results in

direct loss of habitat if they occur in sagebrush habitats. GRSG and nests could be directly

affected by trampling or vehicle collision. GRSG also could be impacted indirectly from an

increase in human disturbance, ground shock, noise, dust, reduced air and water quality, and

changes in vegetation and topography (Brown and Clayton 2004). Industrial activity associated

with the development of surface mines and infrastructure could result in noise and human

activity that disrupt the habitat and life-cycle of GRSG. All studies which assessed impacts of

energy development on GRSG found negative effects; no studies reported a positive influence

of development on populations or habitats (Naugle et al. 2011). Declines in GRSG population

growth (21 percent) between pre- and post-mine development were attributable to decreased nest

success and adult female survival; the treatment effect was more noticeable closer to gas field

infrastructure. Annual survival of GRSG individuals reared near gas field infrastructure (yearling

females and males) was significantly lower than control individuals not reared near infrastructure

(Holloran 2005).

See discussion in Mining under Management Zone III, above.

Infrastructure

Human developments, such as power lines, communication towers, fences, roads, and railroads,

contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation, with power lines and roads having the largest effects

(Connelly et al. 2004; Naugle et al. 2011). Human disturbance is increased over the short term

during infrastructure construction. In the long term, increased threats from predators perching on

infrastructure may cause declines in lek attendance or nest success. GRSG population declines

have resulted from avoidance of infrastructure, reduced productivity, and/or reduced survival in

the vicinity of infrastructure (Naugle et al. 2011).

Power lines can directly affect GRSG by posing a collision and electrocution hazard, and can

have indirect effects by decreasing lek attendance and recruitment, increasing predation, reducing

connectivity, and facilitating the invasion of invasive plants (Braun 1998, pp. 145-146; Connelly

et al. 2004, pp. 12, 25). In particular, power poles and crossarms provide perches and nesting

habitat for potential avian predators, such as golden eagles and ravens (Ellis 1985). GRSG

have been observed to avoid brood-rearing habitats within three miles of transmission lines

(LeBeau 2012). Higher densities of power lines within four miles of a lek negatively influence lek

attendance (Walker et al. 2007). In addition, power lines are linear and often extend for many

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone IV
36 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

miles. Thus, ground disturbance associated with power line construction, as well as vehicle

and human presence during maintenance activities, may introduce or spread invasive weeds

over large areas, thereby degrading habitat.

Impacts from roads may include direct habitat loss from road construction and direct mortality

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

habitats. Other impacts include facilitation of predator movements, spread of invasive plants, and

human disturbance from noise and traffic (Formann and Alexander 1998, pp. 207-231). Research

suggests that road traffic within 4.7 miles of leks negatively influence male lek attendance

(Connelly et al. 2004). Fences also may cause direct mortality through collisions, as the birds

fly fast and low across the landscape, particularly during the breeding season. In addition, fence

poles create predator perch sites and potential predator corridors along fences (particularly if a

road is adjacent). Furthermore, fences may effectively cause habitat fragmentation, as GRSG

may avoid habitat around the fences to escape predation (Braun 1998, p.145). The NRCS Greater

Sage-Grouse Initiative includes incentives for private landowners to mark or remove fences that

have been deemed high-risk for GRSG injury or mortality.

See discussion in Infrastructure under Management Zone III, above.

5.3.4. Management Zone V

This management zone consists of five populations/subpopulations in three states (Connelly et al.

2004) and all or portions of ten PMUs in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California. It

represents the westernmost extent of the GRSG range and contains a mix of habitat issues which

have had long-term effects on GRSG populations. A majority of the sagebrush landscape (77

percent) is federally managed (Knick 2011), suggesting that federal habitat management may be

expected to have a strong influence on these populations. GRSG leks in Management Zone V are

relatively well-connected (second to the Wyoming Basin; Knick and Hanser 2011); however, the

COT Report identifies habitat loss and fragmentation due to wildfire and conifer encroachment as

primary threats to GRSG (USFWS 2013a). The range of GRSG in the sub-region has continued to

shrink in extent over the last three decades, while some populations within Management Zone V

are relatively stable. When considered in its entirety, including south-central Oregon, population

change from 1965-2004 was statistically undetectable (Connelly et al. 2004), declining by 3.3

percent (WAFWA 2008), and by 2 percent (Garton et al. 2011). Of the seven management zones,

Management Zone V is characterized as one of those supporting the highest densities of GRSG.

The Northern Great Basin region contains less ‘moderately’ and ‘highly’ affected GRSG habitat

than the west-wide average. But it also contains the most extensive ‘low’ land-use intensity

distribution of all management zones. Similarly, areas with intensive use that overlap PPH and

PGH may be readily prioritized for habitat improvements as these areas are less extensive than in

adjacent regions. However, since 2000, more than 1.5 million acres (6,400 square kilometers;

12.2 percent) of PPH (17.5 percent) and PGH (5.8 percent) burned with an average size of more

than 95,000 acres (385 square kilometers) in PPH and 26,000 acres (105 square kilometers) in

PGH per year during this time span (Manier 2013, Table 18; Figure 25). Additionally, 68.5

percent of PPH and 64.2 percent of PGH in the region is considered at high risk for large fires

(Manier 2013, Table 19; Figure 26). Land at risk of conifer encroachment includes approximately

1.4 million acres of all ownerships (5,670 square kilometers; 11 percent) influencing 73 percent of

PPH and 65 percent of PGH in Management Zone V (Manier 2013, Table 21), indicating that the

spatial heterogeneity in habitat threats and conditions require local interpretation and adaptation

to differentiate threats and develop specific management solutions.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone V
Draft Resource Management 37

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Over 5.6 million acres (22,735 square kilometers; 43.5 percent) of Management Zone V are

considered moderate to high risk for cheatgrass; a large block of high risk PPH is located in

northwestern Nevada (Manier 2013, Table 20; Figure 27). Over 3.6 million acres (14,570

square kilometers; 28 percent) of GRSG habitats distributed throughout Management Zone V

are federally managed wild horse and burro range (Manier et al. 2013, Table 23; Figure 29).

Approximately 6 percent of BLM managed GRSG habitats in Management Zone V do not meet

wildlife standards (Manier 2013, Table 22; Figure 28), with again a relatively large block of PPH

not meeting standards in northwestern Nevada. The GRSG population areas within Management

Zone V include:

● The Northeast California/Northwest Nevada subpopulation includes portions of west

Humboldt and north Washoe counties in Nevada, and east Lassen and southeast Modoc

counties in California. Total surface acreage is 4.3 million with 3.5 million acres of mapped

habitat. The subpopulation includes a mix of extirpated, highly threatened, and relatively

stable PMUs. In the COT Report, USFWS generalizes threats to this subpopulation as

isolation/small size, conifers, fire, weeds/annual grasses, livestock, and feral horses.

● The California portion includes the Likely-Tables PMU in western Modoc County which is

likely to become extirpated within the next decade. The population consists of only one lek

which contained two strutting males in 2012. Up to 8 leks were present on the tablelands

in the 1980s and were connected to other populations/PMUs on the Devil’s Garden and

further west onto Rocky Prairie and into the next valleys to the west, including Round

Valley and Big Valley in far northwestern Lassen County, all of which are extirpated. The

Likely-Tablelands PMU is the site of an extensive invasion of non-native grasses including

cheatgrass, but specifically medusahead grass. Repeated fires and the resulting continuous mat

of medusahead have precluded all but a few localized areas of sagebrush from this landscape.

The PMU is disconnected from the Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU to the south by a 20-mile-wide

band of invasive conifer.

● The Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU is one of mixed habitat quality and is discussed as a stronghold

in many references. Of 1.4 million acres in the PMU, restoration mapping indicates 46 percent

of potential habitat (mature sagebrush) understory is dominated by annual grass, annual forbs,

bare ground, or zero to 9 percent juniper cover (invasive phase 1). An additional 19 percent of

potential sagebrush habitat has crossed the threshold from sagebrush-dominated to juniper

or annual grass-dominated communities (Armentrout and Hall 2006). The PMU has been

subject to a highly altered fire regime which has systematically reduced sagebrush cover. In

2012, the Rush Fire burned 315,000 acres of this habitat (23 percent of the PMU). The Rush

Fire burned nearly the entire length of the PMU and severed the remnant western half of the

PMU from the stronghold populations to the east, creating another isolated GRSG population

along the western edge of the range. Restoration of previous burns in the PMU has not proven

successful due to the presence of invasive grasses, low-elevation Wyoming sage sites, and

low precipitation. Similar results are expected from this most recent extensive wildfire.

Long-term population declines leading to extirpation of GRSG in this PMU are likely over

the next several decades due to isolation and habitat loss, thus greatly shrinking the GRSG

range on the western edge and potentially eliminating GRSG from northeastern California.

Subsequent to the Rush fire, no modeling has been completed to support this hypothesis. As

of 2012, 21 leks were active in the PMU. Eleven of these leks were burned in the Rush fire

of 2012. Livestock grazing, both historic and present, and wild horse overpopulation are

additional threats affecting both nesting cover and availability of late-summer brood-rearing

habitats within the PMU.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone V
38 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

● The remaining PMUs within the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada sub-population

include stronghold populations within northwestern Nevada and the far northeastern corner

of California. The Massacre PMU has experienced much less wildfire than is the norm for

the remainder of northern Nevada. Invasive grasses, though present, are a threat which have

not manifested extensively in the PMU. GRSG populations remain high and stable and are

connected with stronghold PMUs at the Sheldon Antelope Refuge and into Oregon. As of

2012, 28 leks were active in the PMU including two leks with over 100 males. Though

the high level of fire activity since the 1980s characterizing much of northern Nevada has

spared this PMU, recent wildfire activity has affected up to 100,000 acres. This potentially

reflects a further heightening of wildfire activity overall due to the effects of climate change

and resultant lowering of fuel moisture levels in larger fuel types such as sagebrush. Habitat

quality is further threatened by both livestock grazing and wild horse overpopulation affecting

both nesting cover and availability of late-summer brood-rearing habitats.

● Adjacent to the Massacre PMU, the Vya PMU is the northwestern-most Nevada PMU and

includes a sliver of northeastern California. Similar to the Massacre, wildfire and invasive

grasses are less manifested than in north-central and northeastern Nevada with overall habitat

quality relatively high. However, GRSG habitat is affected by the encroachment of invasive

juniper. The agencies continue to conduct large-scale juniper control in the PMU. Livestock

grazing and wild horse overpopulation are additional threats. The PMU supports 16 active

leks with population declines apparent as the conifer encroachment increases fragmentation.

● The Warm Springs Population (Pahrah and Virginia PMUs) encompass 402,748 surface acres

and 156,111 acres of mapped habitat in southern Washoe County. Wildfires have burned

approximately 35 percent of these PMUs converting sagebrush dominated shrub lands to

annual grasses and weeds. Wildfires, which occurred during the years of 1999 through 2001,

were particularly devastating, burning some of the last strongholds of GRSG habitats left in

both the Pahrah and Virginia Mountain Ranges. GRSG in these two mountain ranges occur in

small isolated pockets of suitable habitat in the northern Virginia Mountains. It is estimated

that GRSG currently utilize approximately 54,000 acres or 15 percent of the 356,034 acres

in the Virginia PMU. Only 65 percent is under BLM management while 24 percent is under

private ownership and 9 percent belongs to the Pyramid Lake Indian Tribe. Urbanization

particularly in the Pah Rah Range threatens existing GRSG habitat. Of the estimated 53,760

acres of habitat currently used by GRSG in the Pah Rah and Virginia Mountain Ranges 27,520

acres or 51 percent are under private ownership. Within the Pah Rah Range it is estimated that

69 percent of existing GRSG habitat is under private ownership. A qualitative population

viability analysis was completed using parameters outlined in Appendix 6 of the Nevada

Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse plan. Analysis by Nevada Division of Wildlife of factors in

these mountain ranges indicates a high probability of extirpation within the next 20 years.

Only three active leks are known. Current population estimates based on these leks indicates

declining numbers with a spring breeding population of 150 to 200 GRSG. (NDOW 2004b).

The COT Report notes only two leks and characterizes the population at less than 200 males. It

does not provide estimates for persistence. The report highlights a myriad of threats including

fire infrastructure, weeds/annual grasses, conifer, energy, free-roaming horses and burros,

recreation, and urbanization. The COT Report identifies the population as “at risk” overall.

There are various forms of industrial development that affect GRSG habitats in this region. No

active oil and gas wells currently exist in the management zone (Manier 2013, Figure 15), and no,

measurable, additional acreage has been leased for fluid mineral exploration (Manier 2013, Table

13). Mining claims are extremely limited by the basalt cap characterizing the management zone

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone V
Draft Resource Management 39

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

within the sub-region. Urbanized areas, power lines, and railroads are less dense in Management

Zone V than in eastern portions of the GRSG range (Manier 2013, Tables 5 - 7; Figures 10 - 12).

However, the Warm Springs Valley population, a small area on the California-Nevada border

(Garton et al. 2011) is known to be influenced by urbanization and a transmission line (USFWS

2013a). Agricultural developments currently influence less than 1 percent of the management

zone, however 75 percent of PPH and PGH are within the influence of cropland (Manier et al.

2013, Table 4; Figure 9) indicating a high likelihood of influence, without direct displacement.

Actions by Category Warm

Springs Valley

Population

Northeast

CA/North-west NV

Subpopulation

South Central

OR/North Central

NV Subpopulation

Mining 0 0 0

Infrastructure (ROW) 0 0 0

Fluid Minerals 0 0 0

Renewable energy 0 0 0

Fuels/Vegetation

treatments

0 3 1

Other 0 0 0

Major Threats

Fire

Fire has largely negative effects on GRSG by directly affecting the distribution and condition

of available sagebrush habitats (Nelle et al. 2000; Beck et al. 2009; Rhodes et al. 2010; Baker

2011). Wildfire and prescribed fires typically kill sagebrush thereby reducing cover and forage in

the short-term. However, fire is also associated with natural dynamics and spatial heterogeneity

of many sagebrush ecosystems, suggesting that not all fires in sagebrush communities have

net-negative effects on GRSG populations and habitats. In some higher elevation habitats, where

mountain big-sagebrush is the dominant canopy, rapid regeneration due to site potential, seed

production and layering can produce 25 percent cover within 20 years (Winward 2004). There

is little evidence that fire will enhance GRSG habitat in Wyoming big sagebrush communities

(Crawford et al. 2004). In low elevation Wyoming big sagebrush, due to increased fuel potentials

caused by annual grasses and landscape-scale decrease in intact sagebrush habitats, wildfire

represents an important threat to habitat conservation and population stability (USFWS 2010).

Within Management Zone IV in the sub-region, effects and extent of habitat conversion from

wildfire are variable, but most severe in subpopulations with cheatgrass dominance, the California

portion of the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada subpopulation, and the south-central

Oregon/north-central Nevada subpopulation, each of which were affected by wildfires exceeding

300,000 acres in size in 2012 alone (see Table 3-9, Fire Starts and Acres Burned by Decade by

Population/Subpopulation)

Analysis of Alternatives A-F Relative to Fire

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 emphasis on sagebrush during wildland fire operations would not be instituted as they would

be in Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F. Management Zone V contains the western most extent of

GRSG distribution. Population stability within the management zone is highly mixed. Some

areas are undergoing range contraction as populations on the western edges of the range become

extirpated, while other areas in northwestern Nevada through southeastern Oregon remain stable

in Management Zone V, retaining some of the highest bird densities of all of the seven WAFWA

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone V
40 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

management zones. Under Alternative A, the direct and indirect effects described in Chapter 4,

in conjunction with the listed 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 this management zone.

Some of the ongoing activities that may help alleviate impacts from fire include ongoing

vegetation management actions that control noxious weeds and post-fire rehabilitation such as

the Vya PMU Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction project (up to 100,000 acres), and the

Northeast California Juniper Treatments (32,100 acres).

Management actions under Alternative B with regard to fire are all focused on increased

protection of GRSG habitat, primarily within PPMA, thereby benefitting GRSG rather than

removing or fragmenting habitat. Cumulative effects under Alternative B in Management Zone

V, with regard to fire, are similar to the effects described for fire in Management Zone III.

Namely, the direct and indirect effects of fire to GRSG from the management actions under

Alternative B, when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions do

not substantially increase impacts on GRSG.

The cumulative effect of management actions under Alternatives C, D, E, or F, as described in

Chapter 4, when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are

similar to the cumulative effects described in Alternative B. Cumulative impacts are not expected

to be substantial and are not expected to change the existing population trend or remove and

fragment sagebrush habitat beyond that which is induced as a result of current interaction of

fire and invasive species.

Invasive Species

Invasive weeds alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling,

and hydrology and may cause declines in native plant populations, including sagebrush habitat,

through competitive exclusion and niche displacement, among other mechanisms. Invasive

plants reduce and, in cases where monocultures occur, eliminate vegetation that GRSG use

for food and cover. Invasive species do not provide suitable GRSG habitat, since the species

depends on a variety of native forbs and the insects associated with them for chick survival.

GRSG also depend on sagebrush, which is eaten year-round and used exclusively throughout the

winter for food and cover. Along with competitively excluding vegetation essential to GRSG,

invasive species fragment existing GRSG habitat or reduce habitat quality. Invasive species can

also create long-term changes in ecosystem processes, such as fire-cycles and other disturbance

regimes that persist even after an invasive plant is removed (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 5-9). All

the subpopulations in the Great Basin sub-region are threatened to some extent by spread of

invasive weeds, especially cheatgrass.

All four populations within this Management Zone V (three within the planning area) are

threatened by widespread weeds and annual grasses (USFWS 2013a, Table 2). About 77 percent

of lands within this management zone are under federal management. Since 2000, more than 1.5

million acres have burned and a majority of the management zone is considered at high risk of fire

and about 44 percent of lands are considered to be at high risk of cheatgrass. Approximately 8

percent and 4 percent of PPH and PGH respectively do not meet BLM land health standards in

this management zone (Manier et al. 2013, Table 22).

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone V
Draft Resource Management 41

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Impacts would be similar to those which would occur in Management Zones III and IV. Most

PGH and all PPH occur on BLM-administered lands. Management Zone V has approximately the

same amount of lands in PPH and PGH as Management Zone IV but possibly more importantly

has a much greater percentage of its landscapes in PPH and PGH as either management zone,

potentially providing much greater opportunities for restoration and to reduce the potential for

invasive species.

Conifer

Expansion of conifer woodlands, especially juniper (Juniperus spp.) present a threat to GRSG

because they do not provide suitable habitat, and further, mature trees displace shrubs, grasses

and forbs through direct competition for resources which are important components of GRSG

habitat; juniper expansion is associated with increased bare ground and an increased potential for

erosion (Petersen et al. 2009). Mature trees may offer perch sites for raptors, thereby, woodland

expansion may also represent expansion of raptor predation threat, similarly to perches on power

lines, poles and other structures. In some areas (best documented in Management Zones III, IV, V,

and VI) conifer encroachment is connected to reduced habitat quality in important seasonal ranges

when woodland development is sufficient to restrict shrub and herbaceous production (Connelly

et al. 2004). While widespread, this problem affects specific sagebrush habitats and GRSG

populations because of local juniper and/or pinyon-juniper expansions; notably, Forest Service

research indicated more than 55 percent of Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems (Management

Zones III and V) are at risk of cheatgrass invasion, whereas approximately 40 percent of this same

landscape was at risk of displacement by juniper expansion. Within Management Zone IV in

California and Nevada, the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada subpopulation has significant

juniper encroachment increasing isolation and causing extirpation of some populations on the

western edge of the range.

Conifer removal (vegetation treatments) would be implemented under all alternative scenarios and

continue to improve GRSG habitat by increasing forage, cover quality and composition, reducing

predator perches, decreasing fire spread and intensity and potentially increasing water availability

within Management Zones III, IV and V. Most alternatives specify areas where vegetation

treatments would be prioritized and how treatments would be developed. However, treatment

acres are not specified within the alternatives and therefore, not quantifiable by alternative.

Management under Alternative A would continue to use GRSG habitat standards defined by

Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007, which are based on research conducted outside of the

Nevada and Northeast California Sub-region. Vegetation treatments for GRSG would continue to

be prioritized in PMUs and follow the associated conservation strategy. Treatments would also be

prioritized within close proximity to active lek sites and within Phase 1 and II juniper stands. The

BLM and Forest Service would continue to coordinate vegetation treatments with other federal and

state agencies, private landowners and tribes. Within the Northeastern California/Northwestern

Nevada subpopulation, the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (BLM 2008) would

continue to be implemented. This strategy targets conifer reduction starting at 14,000 acres per

year, increasing to an annual rate of 34,000 acres per year. The restoration strategy is a critical

management action toward sustaining GRSG populations on the western edge of the range.

Alternatives B and F emphasize conifer removal in riparian sites. Alternatives D and E emphasize

a more broadly applied approach to encroaching conifer in all habitat types. Alternative

D provides specific conifer objectives by habitat type to guide restoration. Alternative C

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone V
42 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

de-emphasizes conifer removal in favor of natural restoration processes resulting from the

removal of livestock grazing.

Cumulatively, Alternatives D and E provide the greatest reduction of the impacts from

conifer on GRSG habitats and may reverse habitat declines and result in the elimination of

conifer encroachment as a contributor to cumulative effects of other actions on the landscape.

Alternatives B and F improve site-specific habitats, such as late-summer brood-rearing, but would

not appreciably reduce the impacts of conifer encroachment over broader landscapes. Alternative

C does not include actions that indicate a broad-scale approach to conifer encroachment into

GRSG habitats.

Management for conifer encroachment is well-established for the Northeastern

California/Northwestern Nevada subpopulation under Alternative A and would be continued

through all alternatives. Provisions of the action alternatives include guidance for increasing

conifer management in the Warm Springs Valley and South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada

subpopulations, which would incrementally improve management of conifer encroachment in the

Management Zone, cumulatively reducing the threat of conifer to GRSG habitats.

Lesser Threats

Grazing

Grazing occurs throughout all management zones, Current literature describes the negative effects

of livestock grazing (Connelly et al. 2004) and the “press” form of disturbance created (Knick

2011), but attributes overall loss of habitat quality to grazing being conducted at “unsustainable”

levels (Wisdom et al. 2002). Additionally, large portions of Management Zone III (89 percent of

BLM land/8 percent Forest Service), IV (95 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service), and

V (91 percent of BLM land/0 percent Forest Service) are within wild horse and burro HMAs and

Territories compounding the effects of livestock grazing on these lands (Manier et al. 2013).

Urbanization

Urbanization is recognized as a threat within the sub-region in the Northeast Nevada

subpopulation and the Warm Springs population on the northern outskirts of Reno where it

has been a major factor in the decline of GRSG (USFWS 2012). Generally, urbanization

and infrastructure proliferation is not significant in the sub-region and, if left unregulated, is

characterized as having the potential to influence only an additional 1.4 percent of GRSG habitat

by the year 2060 in Management Zone III (Comer et al. 2012a). This assessment included the

Warm Springs population.

Recreation

Recreation activities in the sub-region are primarily dispersed, including but not limited

to off-highway vehicles, camping, bicycling, and hunting. Effects from recreation are

well-documented and include noise, distribution of invasive plants, dust, and predator and prey

behavior modifications (Manier et al. 2013). These impacts generally increase with expanding

population, urbanization, and expanding infrastructure. Roads and high road densities exert

great influence over GRSG habitat (Knick and Connelly 2011) but are not expected to expand

significantly within the sub-region (Comer et al. 2012a).

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Management Zone V
Draft Resource Management 43

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.3.5. Conclusion

Regardless of alternative, amelioration of the major threats in Management Zones III, IV, and IV

can be greatly enhanced through implementation of GRSG conservation strategies. Because 82

percent of all designated GRSG habitat Management Zone III, 65 percent in Management Zone

IV, and 74 percent in Management Zone V is comprised of BLM- and Forest Service-administered

lands, the relative ability of BLM and Forest Service actions to reduce the major threats—in

terms of acres affected—is greater than that of tribal, state, and local governments, and private

land owners.

Under Alternative A, current management would continue on BLM-and Forest

Service-administered lands and there would be less amelioration of major threats in Management

Zones III, IV, and V than under other alternatives. With regard to regulatory mechanisms affecting

use authorizations, there would be no new ROW avoidance or exclusion areas established and no

new areas closed or restricted to fluid mineral leasing. Current management does consider wildlife

habitat value in decision-making, which provides limited protection for GRSG. State sagebrush

protection and restoration efforts to restore habitat, improve rangeland, and establish or improve

linkages between habitat areas, in coordination with private landowners, oil and gas leaseholders,

and federal and state agencies, would continue. In addition, the NRCS Greater Sage-Grouse

Initiative would continue to work with ranchers to reduce impacts on GRSG on private lands.

Planned transmission lines and ROWs across federal, state, and private lands would increase

fragmentation of GRSG habitat, and a substantial number of mines and other infrastructure are

planned on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands, which would increase loss of habitat and

disturbance of GRSG populations. Voluntary protections would continue to be implemented on

private land. Overall the limited number and extent of regulatory mechanisms under Alternative

A would result in continued proliferation of use authorizations potentially degrading GRSG

habitat in Management Zones III, IV, and V. Cumulatively, the impact of projected marginal

anthropogenic increase in these Management Zones does not significantly decrease the likelihood

for persistence when combined with other management activities. The determining factors of

GRSG persistence under Alternative A are the degree to which the combined threats of fire,

invasive species, and conifer encroachment are addressed. Data from Nevada indicate a dramatic

increase in fire occurrence and extent over the last three decades with 10-year running averages of

acres burned of less the 50,000 acres per year (1981 to 1990), reaching nearly 250,000 acres per

year in the decades ending in 2007 and 2008. Recent data indicates a possible reduction in the

10-year running average to approximately 180,000 acres per year. Though this trend is relatively

short-term, it may be indicative of the additional resources and emphasis the agencies have placed

on fire and invasive species management in recent years under current management. Similarly,

in Management Zones III and V, where conifer encroachment has had maximum impact on

GRSG populations, current management includes extensive treatments to improve connectivity in

Management Zone III and to recover habitats in Management Zone V.

Under Alternative B, the BLM and Forest Service would implement a number of protections

for GRSG, including designating PPMA and PGMA and new ROW exclusion and avoidance

areas. Habitat would be protected by NSO stipulations or closure to fluid mineral leasing. Land

disposals and acquisitions would focus on maintaining sagebrush acreage and connectivity.

Management under Alternative B would site transmission lines to minimize impacts on GRSG,

would recommend withdrawal of PPMA to locatable mineral entry, and would close PPMA to

fluid mineral leasing, likely reducing the number of planned wells and acres of habitat disturbed

by mining and energy development, compared to Alternative A. These restrictions are likely to

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Conclusion
44 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

influence the siting of development outside of identified GRSG habitats. Management under

Alternative B would be sufficient to reduce threats from future development on BLM- and Forest

Service-administered lands on a cumulative scale. Alternative B focuses fire pre-suppression and

suppression, and habitat restoration efforts within PPMA and PGMA and sets thresholds for

both limiting disturbance from development and for attaining habitat objectives within PPMA.

Cumulatively, the management actions for habitat protection and restoration, when combined

with current management, provide a basis for stabilizing or reversing habitat trends that currently

impact GRSG habitat across the affected management zones.

Management under Alternative C would provide more protected area for GRSG on BLM- and

Forest Service-administered lands in Management Zones III, IV, and V than any other alternative.

These protections significantly reduce threats from all forms of development-generated

disturbance. All occupied habitat would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, reducing the amount

of development allowed within GRSG habitat on BLM-and Forest Service-administered lands.

Grazing would also be greatly reduced in GRSG habitat by excluding livestock grazing in priority

habitats. These policies would provide the most protection for GRSG habitat from loss and

fragmentation and limit human disturbance. Alternative C reduces emphasis on active habitat

restoration by applying criteria which restrict the areal scope and available tools for these types of

actions. The alternative relies on natural processes to promote landscape-scale restoration over

time. While having the greatest regulatory effect across all management zones with respect to a

projected minor increase in human development, the alternative de-emphasizes and, cumulatively,

may not adequately address broad-scale ecological processes such as fire, invasive species, and

conifer encroachment, which are the greatest contributors to the decline of GRSG and their

habitats across the management zones.

Management under Alternative D would improve GRSG habitat protection over current

management, but is less restrictive to disturbance from development than Alternatives B or C.

Management under Alternative D would not close habitat to fluid mineral leasing and would rely

on NSO, CSU or TL stipulations to minimize disturbance within PPMA and PGMA. Similarly,

it would establish ROW avoidance areas rather than exclusion in PPMA and PGMA with the

exception of renewable energy, which is excluded from PPMA and PGMA. These provisions

would allow for limited development on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands, but still

retain a high level of protection from the impacts of future development. Alternative D focuses

management on the broad-scale ecological processes that are the greatest contributors to the

decline of GRSG and their habitats across the management zones. Detailed actions are identified

for fire pre-suppression, suppression, control of invasive species, and conifer encroachment which

are essential components to arresting GRSG declines. Cumulatively, the management actions

for habitat protection and restoration, when combined with current management, provide a basis

for stabilizing or reversing habitat trends that currently impact GRSG habitat across the affected

management zones.

Management under Alternative E is similar to Alternative D. The alternative designates SGMA,

which replicate the mapped PACs from the COT report (FWS-2013). SGMAs apply only to the

Nevada portion of the planning area. Management in California would be subject to current

management. In California, recent land use planning provides a high level of protection to

GRSG and includes aggressive management of the primary broad-scale influences affecting

habitat as noted in Alternative A, above. Acreage to which use restrictions are applied within

Nevada is less than acreage of PPMA and PGMA in the other action alternatives. The underlying

management approach is one of avoidance of human disturbance and reliance on an oversight

management structure consisting of the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council and Nevada

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Conclusion
Draft Resource Management 45

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team to provide guidance. Similar to Alternative D, it provides a

high level of emphasis on the broad-scale ecological processes that are the greatest contributors

to the decline of GRSG and their habitats across the management zones. Detailed actions and

management approaches are identified for fire pre-suppression and suppression, control of

invasive species, and conifer encroachment which are essential components to reducing GRSG

habitat decline. Cumulatively, the management actions for habitat protection and restoration,

when combined with current management, provide a basis for stabilizing or reversing habitat

trends that currently impact GRSG habitat across the affected management zones.

Management under Alternative F would generally adopt the provisions of Alternative B with

respect to disturbance from development and restoration of habitats. Additional management

actions include designation of a system of ACECs and reducing wild horse and burro numbers

by 25 percent in PPMAs. Cumulatively, the management actions for habitat protection and

restoration, when combined with current management, provide a basis for stabilizing or reversing

habitat trends that currently impact GRSG habitat across the affected management zones.

5.4. Vegetation and Soils

5.4.1. Vegetation

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect vegetation and soils

resources are locatable and fluid mineral development, lands and realty actions, livestock grazing

and range improvements, vegetation management, wildfires, invasive plant species, drought,

and climate change.

The combination of all of these actions would likely cause an increased chance of invasive weed

spread and establishment. Drought conditions, combined with wildfires and invasive species

presence and potential climate change effects could lead to increased invasive annual vegetation

and shorten the wildfire cycle, causing a cyclic effect, compounding the vegetation loss and

conversion to invasive annual grass communities. The Central Basin and Range REA provides a

risk potential of invasive annual grass cover due to a combination of factors, such as proximity to

past wildfires, wildfire history, and other criteria. The REA data shows that much of the central

Great Basin is at risk of invasive annual grass presence. Also, the potential for soil erosion

could increase as invasive weed populations crowd out the native vegetation and its soil holding

characteristics. Post fire vegetation treatments and other restoration projects designed to bring

damaged sites to healthy functioning systems, combined with mitigation measures from the

above mentioned actions and invasive weed control treatments may offset vegetation and soil

disturbances.

Alternatives Analysis

Alternatives that reduce livestock grazing, locatable and fluid mineral development, lands and

realty actions may help to reduce vegetation and soil disturbance on a landscape scale. Sagebrush

is killed by wildfires and recovery requires many years, especially in the case of large fires.

Contiguous old-growth sagebrush sites are at high fire risk, as are large blocks of continuous dead

sagebrush. Prior to recovery, these sites are of limited use by GRSG except along the edges in

unburned islands. As a result of this loss of habitat, fire has been identified as a primary factor

associated with GRSG population declines. Depending on the species and the size of a burn,

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Vegetation and Soils
46 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

a return to a full pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 years (Connelly et al. 2004).

In addition, fires can result in a reduction of invertebrate food sources and may facilitate the

spread of invasive weeds. Cheatgrass readily invades sagebrush communities especially in drier,

lower elevation areas, and disturbed sites after wildfire (Balch et al. 2012). Cheatgrass changes

historical fire patterns by providing an abundant, continuous and easily ignitable fuel source that

facilitates rapid fire spread. While most sagebrush subspecies are killed by fire and slow to

reestablish, cheatgrass recovers within one to two years of a fire event from seed in the soil.

Invasive weeds alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling,

and hydrology and may cause declines in native plant populations, including sagebrush habitat,

through competitive exclusion and niche displacement, among other mechanisms. Invasive plants

reduce and, in cases where monocultures occur, eliminate vegetation that GRSG use for food and

cover. Invasive plant species do not provide suitable GRSG habitat, since the species depends

on a variety of native forbs and the insects associated with them for chick survival. GRSG also

depend on sagebrush, which is eaten year-round and used exclusively throughout the winter for

food and cover. Along with competitively excluding vegetation essential to GRSG, invasive

weeds fragment existing GRSG habitat or reduce habitat quality. Invasive annual grasses can

also create long-term changes in ecosystem processes, such as fire-cycles and other disturbance

regimes that persist even after an invasive plant is removed (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 5-9).

All the management areas in the planning area are threatened to some extent by spread of invasive

weeds, especially cheatgrass. Beyond managing risk, restoration of potentially valuable areas,

such as those that would increase connectivity among seasonal habitats or sub-populations,

or increase quality of current seasonal ranges, may become an important management option

where natural and anthropogenic patterns and processes have fragmented and degraded habitats

(Manier et al. 2013).

5.4.2. Soil Resources

The cumulative impact analysis area used to analyze cumulative impacts on soils includes the

entire planning area. Surface-disturbing activities occurring within the planning area are not

expected to affect soil resources outside of the planning area. The cumulative impact analysis area

used to analyze cumulative impacts on water quality and watershed resources extends outside

of the planning area, following fourth-order watershed boundaries. Given that the hydrologic

influence of the surrounding area is primarily focused in the stream channels and that delineation

of the cumulative impact analysis area was based on watershed boundaries, the area of analysis is

sufficient. The hydrologic influence of the planning area on areas outside the planning area is

primarily the result of hydrograph alteration and quality of the water flowing from the area. Areas

extending beyond the planning area may be considered for cumulative impact analysis where the

hydrologic unit extends outside the planning area.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect soil and water

resources are mineral development, livestock grazing, infrastructure development, vegetation

treatments, wildfires, recreation, and travel and transportation activities.

Alternatives Analysis

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Soil Resources
Draft Resource Management 47

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Mineral development, including oil and gas, coal, and other minerals, could cause localized

impacts on soils. Intensive mechanical vegetation treatments likely have and would continue to

impact soils resources locally, but they would increase vegetation cover, and thus soil health, over

the long term. Past livestock grazing has impacted soil resources. Active management of grazing

allotments has led to improvements in soil health over time in the planning area.

An important trend in the planning area is rapidly increasing recreational use. This growth in

recreation on public lands is due to local population growth, as well as the planning area’s

reputation as a national and international recreation destination. All forms of recreational

activities can increase potential for erosion, sedimentation, gully creation, biologic soil crust

damage, and riparian and upland vegetation damage. Recreation activities may also directly and

indirectly impact water quality due to erosion and sediment production potential. However, the

significance of such impacts varies with the nature and degree of disturbance as well as site

specific environmental conditions. Typically larger disturbances represent greater potential to

damage soils and vegetation, degrade water quality, and impair overall watershed function and

condition than smaller disturbances.

Potential cumulative impacts on water resources in the planning area would result from

alteration of functional vegetative communities and could lead to increased runoff and

sediment/contaminant delivery. Activities with impacts on water resources include management

actions attributed to the alteration of natural vegetative communities (e.g., pinyon-juniper

encroachment and cheatgrass), historic grazing practices, surface-disturbing actions in areas of

low reclamation potential, conversion of native rangelands to irrigated agricultural lands (on nonBLM- and Forest Service-administered lands), improper maintenance of transportation facilities,

spills/leaks of substances used to develop mineral resources, and recreational use. These activities

cause surface disturbances by removing vegetation cover, displacing and compacting soils, and

altering soil structure and chemistry. The result is exposed surfaces that increase the potential for

runoff and erosion, which delivers sediment and contaminants to nearby waterways.

The cumulative effect of mineral development, invasive species, wildfires, livestock grazing and

other ground-disturbing activities could damage biological soil crusts.

5.5. Riparian Areas and Wetlands

The cumulative impact analysis area for impacts on riparian areas and wetlands includes all

GRSG habitats within the sub-region. This includes PPH, PGH, and additional habitats identified

by the State of Nevada.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected or will (in the future) affect riparian areas and wetlands

include: leasable, salable, and locatable minerals management; travel management; lands and

realty actions; energy development; livestock grazing; wild horse and burro management;

vegetation management, wildlife management; recreation management; special use designations;

and climate change.

These land uses, management actions and conditions can collectively affect riparian areas and

wetlands in both negative and positive ways. Negative cumulative impacts include ground

disturbance, loss of hydrologic and ecological function and replacement of mesic plant

communities with non-native invasive species or species associated with direr conditions.

Positive cumulative impacts include restoration and/or protection of riparian ecosystems. With

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Riparian Areas and Wetlands
48 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

the exception of climate change, essentially all of the actions and land uses described above can

have both negative and positive cumulative impacts depending on such variables as project design

features, management strategies, mitigation programs, special designations and other factors.

Essentially, these actions or conditions act to either increase cumulative impacts on riparian

areas and wetlands or to reduce the magnitude and extent of those impacts through restoration,

management or avoidance measures.

The following cumulative effects analysis for each of the alternatives examines relative

differences in increasing and decreasing impacts on riparian areas and wetlands within PPH and

PGH over the next 20 years.

5.5.1. Alternative A

Disturbance to riparian areas and wetlands is expected to accelerate in PPH and PPG within the

planning area. Under Alternative A, the vast majority of the planning area is open to surface

disturbing activities associated with mineral and energy development. Numerous projects or

activities which could adversely impact riparian habitats are foreseeable across the planning area.

Some impacts would be offset or reduced as result of stipulations or other measures incorporated

into the permitting process.

Land uses such as grazing by livestock and wild horses and burros would continue under current

policies and regulations resulting in both positive and negative cumulative impacts depending on

effectiveness of management applications. Recreational use of public lands within the planning

area is expected to increase causing additional impacts on riparian areas and wetlands. Predicted

changes in environmental conditions as a result of climate are also likely to adversely affect

riparian habitats.

Numerous vegetation treatments including projects designed to improve wildlife habitat as well

as overall rangeland health have or will be implemented within PPH and PGH within the planning

area (refer to Table 5-1). Collectively, these projects cover many thousands of acres and will add

positive cumulative effects on riparian areas and wetlands in PPH and PGH.

5.5.2. Alternative B

Under Alternative B, surface disturbing activities associated with mining, travel, recreation,

energy development and lands actions in GRSG habitat would decrease in comparison to

Alternative A. Uses which have the potential to cause direct or indirect disturbance to riparian

areas and wetlands would be restricted or limited over significant portions of the planning area.

Changes to the livestock grazing and while horse and burro programs proposed under Alternative

B would provide more benefits to riparian areas in comparison to Alternative A.

Added restrictions for range improvements and for vegetation treatments under Alternative B

could indirectly affect riparian areas if tools for better livestock distribution were reduced and if

certain vegetative treatments for fuels or watershed health were not implemented.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative A
Draft Resource Management 49

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.5.3. Alternative C

When considered in conjunction with other non-BLM/Forest Service actions and compared to the

other alternatives, management under Alternative C would result in the least amount of surface

disturbance and the least cumulative effects to riparian areas and wetlands in PPMA. Management

under Alternative C would also result in decreased cumulative impacts from livestock grazing

across the planning area.

Opportunities for positive and indirect cumulative effects as a result of collaborative watershed

management across jurisdictional boundaries would likely decrease under Alternative C compared

with Alternative A.

5.5.4. Alternative D

Cumulative impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from management under Alternative D

would be similar to Alternative B with the exception that fewer acres would be restricted from

surface disturbing activities. Management under Alternative D also provides more emphasis on

collaborative management and on restoration. If successful, these efforts would result in positive

direct and indirect cumulative impacts on riparian areas and wetlands in PPMA and PGMA.

5.5.5. Alternative E

Strategies proposed under Alternative E to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on riparian areas

and wetlands would provide direct and indirect positive cumulative effects to riparian habitats

in occupied, suitable and potential GRSG habitats including PPMA and PGMA. The proposed

mitigation banking and credit system as well as the increased focus on collaborative management

across jurisdictional boundaries would also add to positive cumulative effects for riparian areas

and wetlands within the planning area.

5.5.6. Alternative F

Cumulative impacts on riparian areas and wetlands in PPMA and PGMA would be similar to

those under Alternative B, although more acres within the planning area would be closed to

surface disturbing activities.

5.6. Wild Horses and Burros

The cumulative impact analysis area used to analyze cumulative impacts on wild horse and burro

management includes the planning area because impacts are expected to be limited to those

actions originating within the planning area.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect wild horse and burro

management are actions that change forage and water availability, access to water sources, range

conditions, barriers to movement and population control activities (removal of excess animals,

population growth suppression, etc.). In addition, actions that result in indirect disturbance to

wild horses and burros include recreational activities and development for minerals, energy,

and transmission.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative C
50 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.6.1. Alternatives Analysis

Under all alternatives, no direct change would occur to areas allocated as HMAs/WHBTs for wild

horses and burros. Under Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F, the potential for long-term reduction of

AMLs exists should management for wild horses and burros conflict with GRSG management

objectives, resulting in a cumulative addition to the management needs and associated costs

of wild horse and burro management in the planning area. In addition, should management

resources be concentrated in GRSG habitat, HMAs/WHBTs outside of GRSG habitat may be

allotted fewer resources. In general, actions to improve land health for GRSG are also likely to

improve rangelands for wild horses and burros resulting in a cumulative improvement in ability

to meet AMLs.

5.7. Wildland Fire and Fire Management

The cumulative impact analysis area used to analyze cumulative impacts on wildland fire ecology

and management is the planning area.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect wildland fire ecology

and management are vegetation management projects, projects that impact ability to respond to

wildland fire, projects that would increase ROWs and energy and mineral development, and

projects that would increase access to land and consequently increase the risk of human-caused

ignitions. Past and present impacts resulting from livestock grazing has affected wildland fire

management depending on the degree or intensity of livestock grazing. In areas heavily grazed,

less vegetation would be available to burn.

From 1982 to the present, minerals, lands and realty, and renewable energy developments

have impacted fire management as more areas have been developed increasing fire suppression

priorities to protect buildings and infrastructure. This holds true with development and expansion

of wildland urban areas. Recreation activities and OHV use have increased the potential for

human caused fire.

Continued large wildfires due to drought conditions and increasing fine fuels due to establishment

and spread of annual invasive plants have increased demands on fire suppression operations and

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation

efforts have limited establishment and spread of annual invasive plants (cheatgrass) in areas

treated. This could impact wildland fire management through increased personnel requirements,

and increased need for fire-suppression activities, as well as increased costs to the wildland

fire management program.

Past fuels treatments within the planning area, including hazardous fuels reduction, prescribed

fires, chemical and mechanical treatment, and seeding, would likely continue and potentially

increase in the future.

ROWs and the associated development may increase the risk of human-caused ignitions due to

vehicular travel to and from the site, construction, maintenance, and operation of the facilities.

The development allowed under these authorizations would result in surface-disturbance, which

would generally contribute to the modification of the composition and structure of vegetation

communities in the vicinity of developed areas, which could then be more likely to fuel highintensity fires.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternatives Analysis
Draft Resource Management 51

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Similarly, energy and mineral development particularly that including surface disturbing actives,

has contributed to human-caused ignitions in the planning and would do so in the future. As the

global effects of climate change continue into the future, the likelihood of natural, unplanned

ignition within the planning area may increase due to the irregular weather patterns, increased

likelihood of storms, and drought. The more restrictive alternatives, as climate change is a global

process, impacts on climate change from management actions related to this project would be

negligible and would be similar across all alternatives.

5.7.1. Alternative A

Under Alternative A, trends as described above would continue to affect fire management in the

planning area.

5.7.2. Alternative B

Under Alternative B, increased restrictions on land uses may reduce new sources of ignition and

decrease the risk of human-caused ignitions. Though some of these restrictions may limit the

ability of the wildland fire management program to suppress and preventatively treat fires, other

restrictions, such as restrictions on types of recreation, may also lessen the occurrence of fires in

the first place, potentially resulting in fewer fires for the planning area as a whole.

5.7.3. Alternative C

Under Alternative C (the most restrictive alternative), responses to wildland fire or appropriate

treatments to prevent wildland fire may be prohibited. There is the possibility that planning

decision would result in changes in fuels level or changes to management option for fuels

treatments and wildfire suppression. Drought may affect vegetation health, which consequently

makes vegetation more vulnerable to wildland fires. These cumulative circumstances may result

in a greater need for flexibility in access to the planning area and in fire-suppression activities.

The management actions under Alternative C that inhibit responses to and preventative treatments

for wildland fire may struggle to meet the growing need for this flexibility in the future.

5.7.4. Alternative D

Under Alternative D, greater flexibility in fuels management options would reduce the potential

for changes in fuel levels that would increase cumulative fire risk in the planning area.

5.7.5. Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the emphasis on fire risk reduction in GRSG habitat and efforts to coordinate

with local and state governments would result in a cumulative reduction in fire risk.

5.7.6. Alternative F

Under Alternative F, there is the possibility that planning decisions would result in changes

in fuels level or changes to management option for fuels treatments and wildfire suppression.

Drought may affect vegetation health, which consequently makes vegetation more vulnerable

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative A
52 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

to wildland fires. These cumulative circumstances may result in a greater need for flexibility in

access to the planning area and in fire-suppression activities. The management actions under

Alternative F that inhibit responses to and preventative treatments for wildland fire may struggle

to meet the growing need for this flexibility in the future.

5.8. Livestock Grazing

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect range management are

wildfires, surface-disturbing activities, the presence and abundance of grazing wildlife and/or

wild horses, increased recreational demands, and protections for sensitive resources.

The cumulative impact analysis area used to analyze cumulative impacts on range management

includes allotments located entirely or partially within the planning area. Past actions that have

affected livestock grazing include human-caused surface disturbances (mineral development,

recreation, prescribed burning, mechanical vegetation treatments, WSAs, and historic grazing

practices) and wildland fires that have contributed to current ecological conditions.

Cumulative projects that increase human disturbance in grazing areas could also directly impact

grazing by increasing weeds and invasive species. As stated above, weed invasion can reduce

preferred livestock and wildlife forage and increase the chance of weeds being dispersed by

roaming cattle. Cumulative projects that increase human disturbance in grazing areas could also

directly impact grazing by displacing, injuring, or killing animals.

Present actions affecting livestock grazing are mainly those that reduce available grazing acreage,

restrict management actions or the level of forage production in those areas. Key examples

include wildland fires, land disposals, motorized vehicle use, recreation, habitat restoration, fuels

reduction, and special designations that restrict grazing. Future actions affecting livestock grazing

would be similar to present actions, except under Alternative C, under which the BLM and

Forest Service would close PPMA to grazing.

The cumulative impacts under each alternative would parallel the impacts of the alternatives in

the general impact analysis, (Chapter 3). In general, management actions in every alternative

would result in short- and possibly long-term reductions of forage due to treatment activities,

other surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, human disturbance, special designations, and

the presence of grazing wildlife, threatened, or endangered species.

Under Alternatives A, B, D, and E, forage would be utilized annually at various levels relative to

the protections provided in the three alternatives.

5.8.1. Alternative A

On BLM-administered lands, permitted active use would decline under Alternative A, over time,

primarily due to the implementation of grazing management changes required to meet rangeland

health standards for riparian resources, and wildlife and special status species habitats, including

GRSG, and levels of surface disturbing activities. These will include changes to type of livestock,

timing, duration or frequency of authorized use, including temporary closures.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Livestock Grazing
Draft Resource Management 53

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Restrictions on the ability to construct or maintain range improvements and conduct treatments

(infrastructure and vegetation) would increase due to the above factors although, in some cases,

infrastructure may be required to implement needed grazing management.

Increased forage levels due to improved grazing management would likely result in increased fuel

loads and potentially increased frequency and intensity of wildfire on the landscape. This in turn

would likely result in expansion of annual grass communities and noxious weed communities

within and outside the planning area. Adaptive management would allow livestock grazing to

be used as a tool to manage fuel loads under this alternative.

Management under Alternative A would contribute the most cumulative effects to range

management by allowing the most surface disturbance, which would cumulatively decrease

forage availability.

5.8.2. Alternative B

The goal of this alternative is to “maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution

by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend

in cooperation with other conservation partners (NTT 2011). GRSG populations have the

greatest chance of persisting when landscapes are dominated by sagebrush and natural or human

disturbances are minimal (Aldridge et al. 2008; Knick and Hanser 2011; Wisdom et al. 2011).

Permitted active use would likely decline over time, due to the implementation of grazing

management changes required to meet the stated goal of this alternative. Restrictions on livestock

grazing in GRSG habitat would result in operations being scaled down, and economic viability

could be compromised.

Restrictions on the ability to construct or maintain range improvements and conduct treatments

(infrastructure and vegetation) would increase. Infrastructure required to implement needed

grazing management would be designed to conserve enhance, restore GRSG habitat.

Increased forage levels due to reduced levels of grazing would result in increased fuel loads and

increased frequency of wildfire on the landscape. This in turn would likely result in expansion

of annual grass communities and noxious weed communities within and outside the planning

area. Adaptive management would allow livestock grazing to be used as a tool to manage fuel

loads under this alternative.

Surface disturbing activities would be sited in lower priority habitat areas and mainly in

non-habitat areas. This would likely result in declines in permitted use and restrictions to range

improvement construction in non-habitat areas. Concentrating these activities in smaller and

smaller areas would magnify the effects of the activities on forage availability and management

options.

5.8.3. Alternative C

Although forage would be expected to increase over the long term under Alternative C with no

livestock grazing, this forage would not be available for grazing in these areas. The elimination

of grazing use in occupied habitat would result in an overall reduction in livestock grazing.

Elimination of grazing in occupied habitat would likely result in operations being scaled down to

a point that economic viability could be compromised. Livestock operations dependent solely

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative B
54 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

on public lands in GRSG habitat would be most affected. Range improvements would not be

constructed in PPMA.

Increased forage levels due to elimination of grazing would result in increased fuel loads and

increased frequency of wildfire on the landscape. This in turn would likely result in expansion of

annual grass communities and noxious weed communities within and outside the planning area.

Surface disturbing activities would be concentrated in non-habitat areas which would impact

livestock grazing use on those areas.

5.8.4. Alternative D

Permitted active use would likely decline over time due to the implementation of grazing

management changes required to maintain or enhance priority and general habitat for GRSG..

These will include changes to type of livestock, timing, duration, intensity or frequency of

authorized use, including temporary closures. Restriction on grazing in occupied habitat would

likely result in operations being scaled down to a point that viability could be compromised.

Range improvements will be authorized primarily when they directly benefit GRSG habitat.

Furthermore, improvements will be evaluated and modified/removed if not beneficial to GRSG.

Restrictions to the ability to construct or maintain range improvements and conduct treatments

(infrastructure and vegetation) will increase due to the above factors although, in some cases,

infrastructure may be required to implement needed grazing management.

Increased forage levels due to reduced levels of grazing would likely result in increased fuel loads

and increased frequency of wildfire on the landscape, both inside and outside the planning area.

This in turn would likely result in expansion of annual grass communities and noxious weed

communities within and outside the planning area. Adaptive manage management would allow

livestock grazing to be used as a tool to manage fuel loads under this alternative.

This alternative would likely result in the siting of surface disturbing activities primarily in

non-habitat areas. This would likely result in declines in permitted use and restrictions to range

improvement construction in non-habitat areas. Concentrating these activities in smaller and

smaller areas would magnify the effects of the activities on forage availability and management

options and consequently the viability of the livestock operation as a whole.

5.8.5. Alternative E

The goal of this alternative is no net loss in the occupied, suitable, and potential habitat categories

within the sagebrush ecosystem for activities that can be controlled such as a planned disturbance

or development.

Implementation of prescribed grazing practices would result in changes to current permitted

grazing use in some areas. These could include changes to type of livestock, timing, duration,

intensity or frequency of authorized use.

Construction and maintenance of range improvements would increase under this alternative.

Range improvements would be designed to benefit both livestock grazing and GRSG habitat.

Implementation of proper grazing management would rely on infrastructure such as pasture

fences and water developments designed to mitigate the effects of improper grazing use on

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative D
Draft Resource Management 55

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

GRSG habitat. Riparian management would rely on the development of fencing and off-site

waters. Due to the extent of riparian area acreage present in GRSG habitat, this would increase

the infrastructure footprint in priority habitat.

Surface disturbing activities would likely be concentrated in non-habitat areas which could impact

livestock grazing use on those areas.

5.8.6. Alternative F

Forage would be expected to increase over the long term under Alternative F as grazing is highly

restricted in PPMA/PGMA. This alternative rests 25 percent of the acreage annually and then

limits utilization to 25 percent on the areas that are available each year. The restrictions on grazing

use in occupied habitat would result in an overall reduction in livestock grazing. Restrictions on

grazing in occupied habitat would result in operations being scaled down and economic viability

compromised. Fewer range improvements would be constructed.

The reductions in grazing use on public lands would likely increase fuel loads and contribute to

increased wildfire intensity and occurrence on the landscape. Wild fire would affect lands both

inside and outside the planning area. Adaptive management would allow livestock grazing to

be used as a tool to manage fuel loads under this alternative.

Surface disturbing activities would be concentrated in non-habitat areas which would impact

livestock grazing use on those areas and consequently the viability of the livestock operation

as a whole.

5.9. Recreation

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect recreation include

large electrical transmission lines, pipeline projects, and similar linear ROW development

projects that conflict with recreation opportunities. In addition, mineral extraction and oil and

gas development would impact recreation opportunities by conflicting with recreation users and

through the creation of noise and visual disruptions the affect user experiences.

5.9.1. Alternatives Analysis

The degree of conflict with recreation users and creation of barriers to recreation opportunities

would be greatest under Alternative A because of fewer restrictions on conflicting activities.

The implementation of increased restrictions to protect GRSG under Alternatives B, C, D, E,

and F such as ROW exclusion, and closure to mineral development would result in the fewest

impacts on recreation.

At the same time, management to protect GRSG under Alternatives B, D, and F would only allow

SRPs in PH that have a neutral or beneficial effect on PH. As a result, some types of permitted

activities (e.g., OHV races) that could negatively affect GRSG habitat may be impacted, resulting

in fewer opportunities to engage in the types of events and activities affected.

Management under Alternative F, which would seasonally prohibit camping and other

non-motorized recreation activities within four miles of active leks, would decrease the area

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative F
56 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

available for recreational opportunities such as camping, mountain biking, hiking, and hunting

resulting in seasonal reductions in recreational opportunities.

Reasonably foreseeable trends that would result in cumulative impacts on recreation include

continued growth patterns in demand for all recreation experiences, increased demand for

close-to-home recreation opportunities for local residents, continued and increased visitation from

a growing regional population, and increased popularity of adjacent public lands. However,

restrictions on development of public lands to protect GRSG habitat could cumulatively benefit

recreation.

5.10. Travel and Transportation Management

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect travel management are

the result of management actions to limit motorized travel to existing or designated routes.

5.10.1. Alternatives Analysis

Under Alternative A there would be no new restrictions related to GRSG habitat management,

and no change in impacts on travel management. Management under Alternative B would limit

motorized travel to existing roads and trails in PPMA, thereby reducing cross-country access in

those areas. Alternatives C. D and E would limit motorized use in both PPMA and PGMA, further

reducing cross-country travel. Alternatives B and E limit routed construction to realignments of

existing routes only. Alternatives D and E provide for new road construction as long as there

is no net loss and maintains or enhances PPMA. Reduction in access would be greatest under

Alternative F due to management that would limit motorized use in both PPMA and PGMA and

prohibit new road construction within four miles of active leks.

Reasonably foreseeable trends that would result in cumulative impacts on travel and transportation

include continued growth patterns in demand for OHV recreation experiences, continued and

increased visitation from a growing regional population, and increased popularity of adjacent

public lands.

5.11. Lands and Realty

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect lands and realty

include new electrical transmission line development projects such as the Transwest Express

600-kV project designed to deliver energy generated at large-scale wind energy development

sites in Wyoming and the Dakotas to large load centers, such as Las Vegas, in the southwest.

Since California and Nevada are located between generation sources and several load centers

throughout the west, transmission lines such as those identified in Table 5-1 would continue to

affect lands and realty. California and Nevada are also prime locations for renewable energy

development. Large-scale wind developments like Horse Lake Wind in California would help the

state and nation meet its renewable energy goals.

Several ROWs for utilities, pipelines, and fiber-optic lines are approved or in development in

the planning area. The Forest Service has 31 existing special use permits for these uses, but no

permits are currently approved or in development.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Travel and Transportation Management
Draft Resource Management 57

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Limitations on land tenure adjustments (which provide the BLM with opportunities to sell,

exchange, withdraw, or acquire lands, and the Forest Service to exchange, purchase, donate, and

acquire ROWs to bolster effective management) would be the most restrictive under Alternatives

C and F, and least restrictive under Alternative A. Management under Alternatives D and E

would allow land sales under certain conditions.

The Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (Public Law 108-424) was

signed in 2004 allowing for the disposal of 90,000 acres of federal land as identified in the Ely

RMP. Approximately 6,909 acres of PGH and 224 acres of PPH have been identified for disposal

in the planning area.

The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (Public Law 109-432)

was enacted in 2006. It allowed for the disposal of 45,000 acres of federal lands in White Pine

County, of which 5,691 acres of PGH and 586 acres of PPH are identified for disposal.

Two land adjustments in GRSG habitat are currently being evaluated on the Forest Service

Mountain Ranger District–the disposal of the Mountain City Administrative Site and the Small

Tract Sale at the Rizzi Ranch. In addition, the Rosenlund purchase on the Austin Ranger District

and the Cave Lake State Park conveyance on the Ely Ranger District are expected to occur.

Forest Service Forest Plan Prescriptions are similar to BLM exclusion and avoidance areas.

Additionally, the Forest Service authorizes SUAs on Forest Service-administered lands, while the

BLM grants ROWs on their respective agency lands.

Impacts on lands and realty across alternatives are largely dependent on the number of acres where

the BLM would exclude or avoid new ROW development. Since ROW exclusion designations

prevent new ROW development, the resulting impact on the lands and realty program would be

an inability to accommodate new ROW infrastructure in exclusion areas.Table 5-3, Exclusions

and Avoidance by Alternative (BLM- and Forest Service-administered Lands), applies to areas

in occupied habitat.

Management under Alternatives A and D would result in the fewest impacts on lands and realty

from ROW exclusions, while management under Alternatives B, C, E, and F would result in

varying degrees of restrictions on ROW development, with B, C, and E being the most restrictive.

Conversely, limitations on mineral development under Alternatives B and C would decrease

demand for new ROWs to support those types of activities.

Table 5.4. Exclusion and Avoidance Areas by Alternative (BLM- and Forest

Service-administered Lands)

Alternative

A B C D E F

Exclusion 3,229,500 15,469,200 33,086,400 3,229,500 Not Mapped 20,341,400

Avoidance 190,900 5,217,200 190,900 17,809,500 Not Mapped Not mapped

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

5.11.1. Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 3,229,500 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, and 190,900 acres

would be managed as ROW avoidance.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative A
58 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Management under this alternative would be the least restrictive to ROWs because it would

manage the fewest acres of avoidance and exclusion areas. Pending and existing ROWs would

continue to be managed through the same process as directed by existing LUPs.

Management under this alternative would also have the least amount of restrictions on land tenure.

5.11.2. Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 15,469,200 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, and 5,217,200

acres would be managed as a ROW avoidance area.

Management under this alternative would have the most impact on ROWs because of the number

of acres managed as ROW avoidance and exclusion. Pending ROWs within habitat could be

rejected or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost. Existing ROWs would

have to undergo new restrictions. Management under this alternative would impact the BLM and

Forest Service Lands and Realty Programs.

In general habitat, the amount of land available for disposal (3,199,800 acres) would be the

same as Alternative A.

5.11.3. Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 33,086,400 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, and 190,900

acres would be managed as ROW avoidance.

Management under this alternative would have the most restrictions on ROWs because of

the number of acres managed as ROW exclusion areas. Pending ROWs within habitat could

be rejected or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost. Existing ROWs

would have to undergo new restrictions when maintaining and managing the existing ROWs.

Management under this alternative would impact the BLM and Forest Service Lands and Realty

Programs.

Land tenure adjustments would have more restrictions in GRSG habitat and would not allow the

disposal of lands to be flexible for consolidation and effective management of other resources.

5.11.4. Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 3,229,500 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, and 17,809,500

acres would be managed as ROW avoidance.

Management under this alternative would have moderate impact on ROWs because of the

number of acres managed as ROW avoidance. Pending ROWs within habitat could be rejected

or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost. Existing ROWs would not be

subject to new restrictions. Management under this alternative would impact the BLM and

Forest Service Lands and Realty Programs.

Management under this alternative would allow the most flexibility in acres available for

acquisition, disposal, or exchange because there is no management action proposed to retain

public ownership of PPMA.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative B
Draft Resource Management 59

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.11.5. Alternative E

Management under this alternative would have moderate impact on ROWs because of the

number of acres managed as ROW avoidance. Pending ROWs within habitat could be rejected

or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost. Existing ROWs would have to

undergo new restrictions upon modification or renewal of the ROW authorization. Management

under this alternative would impact the BLM and Forest Service Lands and Realty Programs.

In general habitat, the amount of land available for disposal (3,199,800 acres) would be the

same as Alternative A.

5.11.6. Alternative F

Under Alternative F, 20,341,400 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, and 5,039,400

acres would be managed as ROW avoidance.

Management under this alternative would have moderate impact on ROWs because of the number

of acres managed as ROW avoidance areas. Pending ROWs within habitat could be rejected or

withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost. Existing ROWs would have to

undergo new restrictions. Management under this alternative would impact the BLM and Forest

Service Lands and Realty Programs.

Under Alternative F, the BLM would retain public ownership in PPMA with no exceptions.

Impacts from land tenure would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception that the BLM

would propose all PPMA, including mineral split-estate, for mineral withdrawal.

5.12. Renewable Energy Resources

Several ROWs for utilities, pipelines, and fiber-optic lines are approved or in development in the

planning area.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect wind energy

development are the construction of existing and proposed roads and transmission lines. They

would have a minor cumulative effect by increasing the routing options and possibly reducing

project construction or implementation costs. The primary indicators of impacts on renewable

energy is whether an alternative restricts the availability of BLM- or Forest Service-administered

lands to a level below that of the acreage estimated in the reasonably foreseeable development

scenario.

Impacts on renewable energy across alternatives are largely dependent on the number of acres

the BLM would manage as ROW exclusion or avoidance for new development. Since ROW

exclusion would prevent new renewable energy ROW development, the resulting impact on the

lands and realty program would be an inability to accommodate new renewable energy ROW

infrastructure in exclusion areas. It should be noted that a Forest Plan Prescription Area on Forest

Service-administered land either restricts or prohibits certain uses and is considered the same

as a BLM exclusion or avoidance.

Cumulative impacts on renewable energy would be greatest under Alternatives B, C, D, and

F, since these management strategies would place the most restrictions on development by

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative E
60 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

designating habitat as exclusion areas. In contrast, management under Alternative A would place

the fewest restrictions on the renewable energy program and would, therefore, be expected to

contribute the fewest cumulative impacts on lands and realty. Management under Alternative

E would also place restrictions on development (e.g., by managing areas a ROW avoidance)

but to a lesser extent than under Alternatives B, C, D, and F. Management under Alternative E

would, therefore, be expected to cumulatively contribute fewer impacts on lands and realty than

Alternatives B, C, D, and F, but more impacts than Alternative A.

Table 5-4, Renewable Energy ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas by Alternative (BLM- and

Forest Service-administered Lands), applies to areas in occupied habitat.

Restrictions in Alternatives B and C would prevent ROWs from being located in PPMA, while

Alternatives D and E would avoid siting in PPMA if possible, preserving management flexibility

at the expense of localized habitat degradation. Management under Alternative A would not

restrict the siting of ROWs, though existing policy does recommend co-locating ROWs where

possible. Management under Alternatives B and C would benefit GRSG the most on public lands.

Management under Alternatives D and E would site ROW infrastructure to minimize loss and

fragmentation of habitat, predation risk, and other threats.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Renewable Energy Resources
61 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 5.5. Renewable Energy ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas by Alternative (BLM- and Forest Service-administered

Lands)

Alternative

A B C D E F

Exclusion 3,229,500, 1,492,800

Solar exclusion. -

Solar, no similar

actions on wind

15,469,200-ROWs

No similar actions

on wind or solar

33,086,400- ROW,

32,286,000- Solar, No

similar actions on wind

3,229,500- ROW,

20,341,400-Wind,

17,773,300- solar

No similar actions on

wind or solar

20,341,400- ROWs

and wind, no similar

actions on solar

Avoidance 190,900 5,217,200 190,900 17,809,500 No similar actions on

wind or solar

190,900

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Renewable Energy Resources
62 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Energy development is among the greatest threats to GRSG, and it can result in direct habitat loss;

fragmentation of important habitats by roads, pipelines, and power lines; noise; and direct human

disturbance. The effects of energy development often add to the impacts from other human

development and would result in GRSG population declines.

Renewable energy facilities, including solar and wind power, typically require many of the same

features for construction and operation as do nonrenewable resources (USFWS 2010, p. 13951-2).

Future wind energy development would likely be restricted under Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F,

but quantification currently is not possible given the existing data.

5.12.1. Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 3,229,500 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, 190,900 acres would

be managed as ROW avoidance, and 1,492,800 acres would be managed as solar ROW avoidance.

Management under this alternative would be the least restrictive to renewable energy ROWs

because the fewest acres would be managed as avoidance and exclusion areas. Pending and

existing renewable energy ROWs would continue to be managed through the same process as

directed by existing LUPs.

5.12.2. Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 15,469,200 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas, and

5,217,200 acres would be managed as a ROW avoidance area.

Management under this alternative would have the most impact on renewable energy ROWs

because of the number of acres managed as ROW avoidance and exclusion. Pending renewable

energy ROWs within habitat could be rejected or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened

mitigation cost. Existing renewable energy ROWs would have to undergo new restrictions.

Management under this alternative would impact the BLM and Forest Service Lands and Realty

Programs.

5.12.3. Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 33,086,400 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, 190,900 acres

would be managed as ROW avoidance, and 32,286,000 acres would be managed as solar ROW

exclusion.

Management under this alternative would impact renewable energy ROWs because of the number

of acres managed as ROW exclusion. Pending renewable energy ROWs within habitat could be

rejected or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost. Existing renewable

energy ROWs would have to undergo new restrictions. Management under this alternative would

impact the BLM and Forest Service Lands and Realty Programs.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative A
Draft Resource Management 63

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.12.4. Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 276,600 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, 17,456,300 acres

would be managed as ROW avoidance, and 17,732,900 acres would be managed as ROW

exclusion for wind and solar development. Refer to Table 5-4.

Management under this alternative would impact renewable energy ROWs because of the number

of acres managed as ROW avoidance. Pending renewable energy ROWs within habitat could

be rejected or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost. Existing renewable

energy ROWs would have to undergo new restrictions.

5.12.5. Alternative E

Under Alternative E, 620,700 acres of occupied and suitable habitat would be managed as ROW

exclusion, and 12,950,800 acres would be managed as ROW avoidance, similar to Alternative D

but with less total acreage of exclusion and avoidance. Management under this alternative would

impact renewable energy ROWs due to the number of acres managed as ROW avoidance. Pending

renewable energy ROWs within habitat could be rejected or withdrawn due to restrictions and

heightened mitigation costs. Existing renewable ROWs would have to undergo new restrictions.

5.12.6. Alternative F

Under Alternative F, 20,341,400 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion, and 190,900 acres

would be managed as ROW avoidance.

Management under this alternative would have moderate impacts on renewable energy ROWs

because of the number of acres managed as ROW avoidance. Pending renewable energy ROWs

within habitat could be rejected or withdrawn due to restrictions and heightened mitigation cost.

Existing renewable energy ROWs would have to undergo new restrictions. Management under

this alternative would impact the BLM and Forest Service Lands and Realty Programs.

5.13. Mineral Resources

5.13.1. Fluid Minerals

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect leasable minerals are:

market fluctuations, available markets for distribution, regulatory constraints, new technologies,

and reservoir/reserve depletion.

5.13.1.1. Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the oil and gas and geothermal production would be those described in

RFD for geothermal and oil and gas (see Appendix H, Oil and Gas Reasonable Foreseeably

Development Scenarios) for the life of the LUP. The management actions proposed under

Alternative A would cumulatively impact mineral development through existing and future

surface use restrictions (e.g., closures and NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations). These restrictions

could ultimately decrease the number of geothermal and oil and gas wells drilled in the decision

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternative D
64 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

area over the life of the LUP. In addition, fluid mineral exploration and development would be

expected to continue as correlated with mineral commodity prices.

5.13.1.2. Alternative B

When compared with Alternative A, the management actions proposed under Alternative B would

cumulatively impact mineral development through more constraining surface use restrictions

(e.g., closures and NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations). These restrictions could ultimately decrease

the number of geothermal and oil and gas resources developed when compared to Alternative A.

5.13.1.3. Alternative C

Under Alternative C, no new fluid mineral development would occur within the decision area.

Existing leases would expire under their own terms and no longer be available for leasing.

Existing fluid mineral projects could not be expanded, and production of fluid mineral resources

would decline.

5.13.1.4. Alternative D

When compared with Alternative A, the management actions proposed under Alternative D would

cumulatively impact mineral development through more constraining surface use restrictions

(e.g., closures and NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations). The application of NSO stipulations in areas

with high geothermal potential would reduce fluid mineral development in that current drilling

technologies only allow for directional drilling of maximum lateral length of approximately

2,800 feet (EPA 2002).

5.13.1.5. Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the impacts on fluid minerals would be similar to those described under

Alternative A. However, because of the limited detailed information included in this alternative, it

is not possible to quantify these affects.

5.13.1.6. Alternative F

When compared with Alternative A, the management actions proposed under Alternative F would

cumulatively impact mineral development as a result of more constraining surface use restrictions

(e.g., closures and NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations). These restrictions could ultimately decrease

the number of geothermal and oil and gas resources developed when compared with Alternative A.

5.13.2. Locatable Minerals

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect locatable minerals

are: market fluctuations in price and demand, available markets for distribution, regulatory

constraints, and new technologies.

The cumulative impact analysis area for locatable minerals is the planning area, northern Nevada

and northeastern California, regardless of land ownership. Impacts on the ability to develop and

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Locatable Minerals
Draft Resource Management 65

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

extract mineral resources could cumulatively reduce exploration and production of commodities

from BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands.

Impacts on mineral resources that are individually minor may cumulatively reduce exploration

and production of commodities from BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. The locatable

minerals program is non-discretionary for the BLM and Forest Service. Factors that impact

the development of these minerals include regulations, policy, public perception and concerns,

transportation, commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other necessities for workers.

Locatable mineral development is an ongoing enterprise in the cumulative impact analysis area

and is expected to continue under Alternatives A and C. As prices for gold remain high, demand

from companies to conduct exploration activities for gold and develop projects is expected to

continue. Under all of the action alternatives (Alternatives B, D, E, and F), locatable mineral

development would be expected to decrease due to restrictions and mitigation measures placed

on development. Decreases in production would be expected to be greatest under Alternatives

B and F, under which the BLM and Forest Service would recommend all PPMA be withdrawn

from mineral entry.

Given that the locatable minerals program is a non-discretionary program by the BLM and Forest

Service, mineral exploration and development would be expected to continue to occur under all

alternatives. However, acreages open to exploration and development would vary by alternative.

Overall, management under Alternatives B, E, and F may be restrictive to mineral development

and could significantly impact mineral exploration and development in the study area. All action

alternatives potentially allow for an increase in sagebrush habitat and could benefit the GRSG

population due to alternative measures that will avoid, minimize and mitigate surface disturbance.

Management actions for mineral programs other than locatable minerals would not impact

locatable minerals. Therefore, only the impacts from locatable mineral management actions are

discussed in the paragraphs below.

5.13.2.1. Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain

withdrawn from location under the Mining Law of 1872.

Table 5-5, Locatable Mineral Withdrawals, shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for

withdrawal, and open to locatable mineral entry.

Table 5.6. Locatable Mineral Withdrawals

Alternative

Withdrawn from

Locatable Mineral

Entry

Recommended for

Withdrawal from

Locatable Mineral

Entry

Open to Locatable

Mineral Entry

Alternatives A and C 6,547,200 0 43,321,500

Alternatives B and F 6,547,200 11,466,300 32,249,700

Alternative D 6,547,200 0 43,321,500

Alternative E 6,547,200 0 43,321,500

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Locatable Minerals
66 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

This alternative would be the least restrictive to locatable minerals because a larger percentage

of the planning area would be open to locatable mineral entry and no additional restrictions

would be applied to mining operations.

Existing mining claims in areas withdrawn from locatable mineral entry would have to undergo a

validity exam to be approved for notices or plans of operations.

There are 95 pending plans of operations and 100 notices of exploration within the Nevada and

Northeastern California sub-region. This alternative would have the least amount of restrictions

on these pending cases.

5.13.2.2. Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain

withdrawn from location under the Mining Law of 1872, and an additional 11,466,300 acres (23

percent) would continue to be petitioned for withdrawal. If the Secretary issues a Public Land

Order to formally withdraw these lands, subject to valid existing rights, the location of new

mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872 would be forbidden. Exploration and mining would

be allowed on existing, valid mining claims.

Table 5-5 shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for withdrawal, and open to

locatable mineral entry.

This alternative would restrict locatable minerals because a larger percentage of the planning area

would be closed to locatable mineral entry.

Withdrawal or closure of an area to mining development removes the mineral resources in that

area from being able to be accessed and extracted under new mining claims. This represents an

impact on the potential discovery, development, and use of those resources by decreasing the

availability of those mineral resources. Existing mining claims in areas withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry would have to undergo a validity exam to be approved for notices or plans of

operations. This validity exam would increase up-front costs of locatable mineral development

and would delay the start of locatable mineral development on those claims. Existing notices or

plans of operations would also have to undergo a validity exam before any material change to the

operation. Alternative B is expected to impact the locatable minerals program.

There are 95 pending plans of operations and 100 notices of exploration within the Nevada and

Northeastern California sub-region. This alternative would restrict these pending cases and could

cause them to be rejected, withdrawn or closed.

5.13.2.3. Alternative C

Management under Alternative C has the same goals and objectives as Alternative A and would

have the same cumulative impacts.

5.13.2.4. Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain

withdrawn from location under the Mining Law of 1872.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Locatable Minerals
Draft Resource Management 67

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Table 5-5 shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for withdrawal, and open to

locatable mineral entry.

This alternative emphases conservation, maintenance, and enhancement of PPMA while

managing locatable mineral development. This alternative would be more restrictive to locatable

mineral development than Alternative A due to an emphasis on minimizing the net loss to PPMA

by applying best management practices to plans of operations or provide for enhancement of

priority habitat through off-site mitigation. Also, claimants and operators would be encouraged

to consolidate exploration activities into plans of operations to reduce proliferation of discrete

exploration notices under 43 CFR 3809.21(b).

Existing mining claims in areas withdrawn from locatable mineral entry would have to undergo a

validity exam to be approved for notices or plans of operations.

There are 95 pending plans of operations and 100 notices of exploration within the Nevada and

Northeastern California sub-region. This alternative would restrict these pending cases and could

cause them to be rejected, withdrawn or closed.

5.13.2.5. Alternative E

Under Alternative E, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain

withdrawn from location under the Mining Law of 1872.

Table 5-5 shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for withdrawal, and open to

locatable mineral entry.

This alternative would have similar restrictions as Alternative A but would create an oversight

committee to provide consistent evaluation, reconciliation, and guidance for project development

to avoid or minimize conflicts with GRSG habitat.

There are 95 pending plans of operations and 100 notices of exploration within the Nevada and

Northeastern California sub-region. This alternative would have a similar amount of restrictions

on these pending cases as Alternative A.

5.13.2.6. Alternative F

Management under Alternative F would result in cumulative impacts similar to Alternative B.

5.13.3. Mineral Materials

Analysis of impacts on mineral materials from this report focuses on the impacts of conservation

measures to protect GRSG habitat. These impacts may be direct or indirect. For example, a direct

impact on mineral materials would result from closure of an area to mineral material disposal.

An indirect impact would result from removal of a road, which would change the economic

feasibility of developing a site.

Given that the mineral materials program is a discretionary program by the BLM and Forest

Service, mineral development would be expected to continue to occur under all alternatives.

However, acreages open to development would vary by alternative. Overall, management under

Alternatives B and D are the most restrictive to mineral development and could significantly

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Mineral Materials
68 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

impact mineral development in the study area. All action alternatives potentially allow for an

increase in sagebrush habitat and could benefit the GRSG population due to alternative measures

that will avoid, minimize and mitigate surface disturbance.

5.13.3.1. Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral materials would remain

withdrawn from development.

Table 5-6, Mineral Material Withdrawals, shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for

withdrawal, and open to mineral material development.

Table 5.7. Mineral Material Withdrawals

Alternative Withdrawn from

Mineral Material

Development

Recommended for

Withdrawal from

Mineral Material

Development

Open to Mineral

Material Development

Alternatives A and C 6,547,200 0 43,321,500

Alternatives B and F 6,547,200 11,466,300 32,249,700

Alternative D 6,547,200 0 43,321,500

Alternative E 6,547,200 0 43,321,500

Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013

This alternative would be the least restrictive to mineral material development because a larger

percentage of the planning area would be open to mineral entry, and no additional restrictions

would be applied to mining operations.

There are 108 pending material site cases within the Nevada and Northeastern California

sub-region. This alternative would have the least amount of restrictions on these pending cases.

5.13.3.2. Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain

withdrawn from mineral material development, and an additional 11,466,300 acres (23 percent)

would continue to be petitioned for withdrawal.

Table 5-6 shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for withdrawal, and open to mineral

material development.

This alternative would restrict mineral material development because a larger percentage of the

planning area would be closed to mineral entry.

Withdrawal or closure of an area to mineral development removes the mineral resources in that

area from being able to be accessed and extracted. This represents an impact on the potential

development and use of those resources by decreasing the availability of those mineral resources.

Management under Alternative B is expected to impact the mineral materials program which

would affect the supply of base materials for community infrastructure, mining, and other

industry development.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Mineral Materials
Draft Resource Management 69

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

There are 108 pending material site cases within the Nevada and Northeastern California

sub-region. This alternative would place restrictions on these pending cases that could cause them

to be withdrawn, rejected, or closed.

5.13.3.3. Alternative C

Management under Alternative C has the same goals and objectives as Alternative A and would

have the same cumulative impacts.

5.13.3.4. Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain

withdrawn from mineral material development. Salable minerals will be managed to meet the

states demand for sand, grave, and mineral materials while providing for conservation and

maintenance or enhancement of PPMA.

Provide reasonable access opportunity to Federal Highway Administration, NDOT, counties, and

the public for existing mineral material pits in priority and general habitat.

Table 5-6 shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for withdrawal, and open to mineral

material development.

This alternative emphasizes conservation, maintenance, or enhancement of PPMA while

managing mineral material development. Management under this alternative would be more

restrictive to mineral material development than Alternative A due to no new salable mineral

material sites development in priority and general habitat. Loss of habitat through disturbance

at current sites would be offset through offsite mitigation. Additional mitigation, including

offsite mitigation, would be required to offset any net loss of habitat as a result of authorizing an

expansion of existing material pits. Habitat loss in priority and general habitat would be offset

through mitigation to ensure no net unmitigated loss. All mineral materials activities would be

subject to compliance with standard surface use stipulations for GRSG in PPMA and PGMA.

There are 108 pending material site cases within the Nevada and Northeastern California

sub-region. This alternative would place restrictions on these pending cases that could cause them

to be withdrawn, rejected, or closed.

5.13.3.5. Alternative E

Under Alternative E, 6,547,200 acres (12 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain

withdrawn from mineral material development.

Table 5-6 shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for withdrawal, and open to mineral

material development.

Management under this alternative would have similar restrictions as Alternative A, but would

create an oversight committee to provide consistent evaluation, reconciliation, and guidance for

project development to avoid or minimize conflicts with GRSG habitat. The goal of the committee

will be to encourage a strong conservation ethic in the mining industry by implementing

enhancement and reclamation of disturbed lands to preserve, protect, and improve habitat in

GRSG management areas. On federal, state, and private lands, projects with an approved

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Mineral Materials
70 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Nevada Department of Environmental Protection permit are exempt from any new mitigation

requirements above and beyond what has been stipulated in the projects approvals.

There are 108 pending material site cases within the Nevada and Northeastern California

sub-region. Management under this alternative would have a similar amount of restrictions on

these pending cases as Alternative A.

5.13.3.6. Alternative F

Management under Alternative F would result in cumulative impacts similar to Alternative B.

5.14. Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect ACECs are those

management decisions which are specific to restoring GRSG habitat, as opposed to those

management decisions which will maintain existing habitat.

Alternatives Analysis

Under alternatives A, B, D and E there would be no new management restrictions regarding

GRSG habitat management or impacts on existing ACECs.

Alternatives C and F will increase substantially the amount of acreage under ACEC management

and subsequently encompass existing ACECs. The majority of management decisions in these

two alternatives will provide beneficial and supportive measures in the long term to existing

ACECs where Relevance and Importance values are primarily scenic, geologic and in some

cases vegetative.

Reasonably foreseeable trends that would result in cumulative impacts on some existing ACECs

would include moderate to large changes in vegetative cover from pinyon-juniper woodland to

sage brush steppe. This may allow for potential fire impacts from invasive and noxious weeds

which can provide fine fuels to propel large scale fires through ACECs with vegetative and/or

cultural Relevance and Importance values.

5.15. Water Resources

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect water resources are

fluid mineral development, lands and realty actions, livestock grazing and range improvements,

vegetation management, drought and climate change.

Mineral development will continue to impact water resources in the planning area. These activities

could impact water resources through an increase in the presence of petroleum-using vehicles

and equipment which increases the likelihood of chemical spills, erosion, and contamination of

waterways. Mineral development can increase the likelihood of the creation of pools of standing

water, which can serve as mosquito breeding habitat, increasing the ability for West Nile virus to

spread into a landscape otherwise not at risk to the pathogen.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Special Designations – Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern
Draft Resource Management 71

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

Vegetation management is important for soil stability as vegetation anchors soils in place and

prevents excessive erosion and runoff into waterways. Vegetation management includes hazardous

fuels reduction through prescribed fires, chemical and mechanical treatments, and seeding. Active

vegetation management should contribute to the stabilization and protection of soils in these areas

from erosion and subsequent runoff contributing to higher pollutant loads in waterways.

Existing, proposed, and foreseeable ROW development in the planning area will also result

in cumulative impacts on water resources through human-made runoff of soils and chemicals

into waterways. The development allowed under these authorizations would result in

surface-disturbance, which would generally contribute to a decrease in water quality through

compaction, erosion, and sediment runoff into waterways as well as an increase in the potential

for chemical contamination.

Grazing by livestock and wild horses and burros can affect water resources through the trampling

of soils and vegetation along and within natural water features and through the formation

of fecal coliform and nutrients in waterways. Livestock grazing is associated with range

management, which involves constructing infrastructure in order to support livestock grazing.

Proposed rangeland improvement projects are on-going and the most common ones include water

developments and fencing. These types of actions could cumulatively impact waters through

compaction and erosion of soils during construction, modification of water sources and riparian

habitats and subsequent runoff into waterways.

Drought affects the health of rangeland, riparian areas, and forests which make them more

susceptible to the invasion of weeds and fire. Fire can impact water resources in the short term

through the removal of vegetation resulting in instability of soils and increased erosion and

sediment into waterways. Long- term effects of fire are considered beneficial as the landscape

can be returned to a healthier state with proper seeding and management, which would indirectly

reduce the risk of fire which would reduce erosion of soils into waterways. Climate change would

also pose a long-term threat of cumulative impacts water resources. Cumulative impacts from

climate change on GRSG habitat and, consequently, water resources could include vegetation

regime changes (e.g., from sagebrush to grasslands), increased wildfire potential due to drought,

and increased sedimentation and erosion into waterways (Connelly et al. 2004).

5.15.1. Alternatives Analysis

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to allow ROWs, mineral development, and grazing

throughout the planning area with the result of continued cumulative impacts on water resources.

Alternatives B, C, D, and F would include limitations on surface disturbing activities, such as

ROW development, grazing, and mineral development, reducing the potential for long-term

cumulative impacts on water resources. When considered in conjunction with other non-BLM

actions and compared with the other alternatives, management under Alternative C would result

in the least amount of cumulative impacts on waters due to proposed management prescriptions

that include the designation of occupied habitat as ROW exclusion, removal of livestock grazing

in GRSG habitat, and closure or application of lease stipulations to mineral development in

PPMA. Alternative E would result in more positive cumulative impacts on water resources

than Alternative A as a result of strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on riparian

and water resources.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternatives Analysis
72 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.16. Tribal Interests (Including Native American Religious

Concerns)

The cumulative impact analysis area used to analyze cumulative impacts on tribal interests

consists of PPH and PGH.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect tribal interests are

similar to those described above in Chapter 4. These include proposed mine expansions for

locatable minerals, transmission lines, fuels reduction projects, habitat restoration projects,

renewable energy projects, and the creation of a wild horse eco-sanctuary. These projects could

decrease the opportunities for tribes to continue valued traditional cultural practices if one or more

of them cause GRSG populations to decrease in the future. In addition, fuels reduction projects

that remove or thin pinyon and juniper trees could decrease tribal opportunities to utilize these

resources in their traditional cultural practices. Habitat restoration projects conducted in PPH and

PGH within tribal allotments could decrease tribal revenues.

5.16.1. Alternatives Analysis

All of the action alternatives propose some degree of management goals and objectives to increase

GRSG populations. Implementing these protective measures could increase tribal opportunities

to continue valued traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior because

GRSG would continue to be present into the future. Removing pinyon and juniper trees for fuels

reduction would be initiated only after additional site-specific NEPA analysis. Tribal concerns

would be taken into consideration prior to removal. In addition, site-specific habitat restoration

projects would also be subjected to NEPA analysis and additional tribal consultation to take

into account tribal concerns.

5.17. Climate Change

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have contributed greenhouse gases to the atmosphere include mineral

development, wildfire, and fuel combustion.

Mineral development has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur on both federal

and nonfederal mineral estate lands within the planning area. Mineral development results in

short-term and long-term emissions of GHGs during fuel combustion in vehicles, drill rigs, and

construction equipment. The management actions proposed in this LUPA/EIS would close areas

of high potential to development in the planning compared with current management actions,

thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with these actions on BLM-administered lands.

While GHG emissions would likely be reduced, restricting mineral development on federally

administered lands could shift development to non-federal lands.

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can emit large quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere,

including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (EPA 2012h, pp. 7-21 - 7-22); fires also

remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. Proposed management actions would restrict the

amount of vegetation that can be burned in a prescribed burn, or that can be allowed to burn in an

unplanned natural ignition, to maintain sagebrush canopy cover, potentially resulting in fewer

fire-related emissions in the short term.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Tribal Interests (Including Native American Religious

Concerns)
Draft Resource Management 73

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

5.17.1. Alternatives Analysis

Compared with Alternative A, cumulative air quality impacts would be slightly reduced under

Alternatives B, D, and F and would be the same under Alternatives C and E. The cumulative

actions identified in Table 5-1 are not expected to cumulatively result in a violation of the national

ambient air quality standards under any alternative.

Overall, federal and nonfederal actions within the planning area would not have a significant

cumulative impact on climate change. Actions in the planning area contribute a very small

percentage of state and national greenhouse gas emissions; CO2 emissions for all of Nevada were

0.7 percent and California were 6.5 percent of total US CO2 emissions (2010 numbers; EIA 2013).

5.18. Social and Economic Impacts (Including Environmental

Justice)

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative

impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect social and economic

conditions are chiefly mining and mineral exploration and development, lands, realty,

transportation, ROWs, renewable energy development, recreation, and livestock grazing.

The cumulative impact analysis area used to analyze potential impacts on social and economic

conditions consists of the counties identified as the socioeconomic study area.

Changes to social and economic conditions result when individuals, businesses, governments, and

other organizations initiate actions. Millions of decisions will be made by thousands of residents

of the counties in the socioeconomic study area, and others, over the next several decades,

which will affect trends in employment, income, housing, and property. Projections published

by the Research and Analysis Bureau of the Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and

Rehabilitation, and the Employment Development Department of California, account for these

individual decisions in the aggregate, and provide a baseline for comparing effects of alternatives

in the future. The projections represent a regional forecast taking a wide range of actions into

account – management actions by the BLM and Forest Service as well as many other government

entities, private citizens, and businesses. As a result, they incorporate the past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future projects that will form the basis of future economic and social trends

in the cumulative impact analysis area. Current and future trends in the cumulative impact analysis

area include population growth, changes in mining activity, including gold, silver, copper and

other locatable and salable minerals as well as exploration for hydrocarbons; renewable energy

development, especially geothermal and wind power; changing recreational demands; livestock

grazing; and other activities, as noted in Section 4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice.

Some of the predicted employment and income effects of the actions considered in this EIS were

able to be quantified, and where possible, BLM and Forest Service used IMPLAN, a regional

economic model, to calculate indirect and induced impacts of these actions. Table 5-7, Projected

Employment by Alternative for Socioeconomic Study Area, shows projected employment for

approximately 2020, as forecast by Nevada and California state agencies. Because Alternative

A represents current management plans, employment would correspond most closely to the

existing forecasts. By contrast, employment under Alternatives B through F would be expected to

change from the projections, with the best estimate for those changes being the quantities shown

in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Thus, Table 5-7 shows the estimated change in

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Alternatives Analysis
74 Draft Resource Management

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

employment for these alternatives, based on modifying the projected future employment by the

estimated changes for the socioeconomic study area (from IMPLAN). The Nevada and California

state agencies do not provide projections for labor income or output.

Table 5.8. Projected Employment by Alternative for Socioeconomic Study Area

Item Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F

Employment (2010)1 287,953 287,953 287,953 287,953 287,953 287,953

Average annual change in future

employment related to grazing2

N/A 0 -1,489 0 0 -726

Average annual change in future

employment related to geothermal

development

N/A -236 -336 -202 0 -336

Average annual change in

future employment related to

oil development

N/A -175 0 0 0 -175

Overall change in 2018-2020

employment

N/A -411 -1,825 -202 0 -1,237

Projected 2018-2020 employment3 316,672 316,261 314,847 316,470 316,672 315,435

% change, 2010 to 2018-2020 10.0% 9.8% 9.3% 9.9% 10.0% 9.5%

Source: Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation (2013a, 2013b, 2013c), and Employment

Development Department of California (2013) (projected employment data), modified by estimates from IMPLAN

reported in Section 4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. Changes related to specific sectors include

direct, indirect, and induced effects from IMPLAN; see Appendix M, Detailed Employment and Earnings Data,

for a detailed description of this model.

1. The source of 2010 employment data used in this table differs from that used in Section 3.22, Socioeconomics

and Environmental Justice, so there may be differences between the estimates shown.

2. The values for livestock grazing represent the midpoint of the low and high scenarios described in Section 4.21,

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice.

3. Due to inconsistent projection years in the underlying data, projected 2018-2020 employment is calculated

from 2020 projections for Churchill and Washoe Counties, and 2018 projections for the remaining counties.

Where the underlying data sources do not provide county-level employment projections, they were imputed

based on the county shares of current employment.

Changes in employment, especially in Alternatives C and F, would have a measurable although

relatively small effect on future employment, according to this analysis. Employment changes

related to livestock grazing – including sectors that support and are supported by grazing –

account for the majority of this effect in both Alternative C and Alternative F. Employment

changes from geothermal development and related industries would also play a role, as would

oil-related sectors in Alternatives B and F. In Alternatives A, B, D, and E, employment would

increase by about 10 percent, with very small reductions to 9.8 percent projected in Alternative

B and 9.9 percent projected in Alternative D. In Alternatives B and D, these reductions would

not likely be noticeable given the size of the study area and the uncertainty associated with

a long-term forecast. In Alternatives C and F, employment would be projected to increase by

somewhat less: 9.3 percent in Alternative C, and 9.5 percent in Alternative F. Although these

reductions would be noticeable, they would also be relatively insignificant given the size of the

study area and the uncertainty inherent in long-term forecasting.

Of the effects documented in Section 4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, the

impact that most exacerbates current economic challenges is the potential for several of the

management alternatives to result in increased costs for livestock grazing operators. Long-term

trends including changing market conditions, consolidation supported by economies of scale,

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts

Social and Economic Impacts (Including

Environmental Justice)
Draft Resource Management 75

PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement

demographic change, and environmental concerns have resulted in increasingly challenging

economic conditions for ranch operators, especially smaller operators.

Alternatives C and F would have some degree of cumulative social and economic impact related

to grazing, due to the AUM reductions proposed in these alternatives and the already challenging

conditions for operators of ranches and grazing operations. Alternatives B, D and E would also

entail some changes to management of grazing lands, but in the long run it is expected that

changes to vegetation treatments would sustain rangeland health and would ultimately not

adversely impact counties and communities.

In terms of geographic regions, the cumulative effects on livestock grazing operators would occur

in several counties, but would be most important in Modoc and Nye Counties (in which Section

4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice also identifies a potential disproportionately

high and adverse impact on low-income populations), as well as in Pershing County, Nevada.

The other effect identified in Section 4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice that could

lead to a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts would be potential fiscal effects,

especially in the smaller counties that are also more dependent on economic activities on public

lands. Because specific impacts on local government tax revenues could not be quantified, the

nature of the potential cumulative effect is not possible to characterize beyond the analysis in

Section 4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. That analysis notes specific counties in

which local tax revenues could be most affected by the management alternatives.

Other effects, including potential changes in recreation patterns and changes in economic activity

related to wind energy and transmission lines, would not be expected to contribute to cumulative

effects. From a cumulative effects standpoint the economic and social impacts of these changes

would be relatively minor, as documented in Section 4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental

Justice, and do not particularly exacerbate existing trends in the study area.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts