Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 1 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002 

February 12, 2010 

 

Sand Spring and Lone Spring Resource 

Protection and Enhancement Project 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Surprise Field Office 

602 Cressler Street 

Cedarville, CA 96104 

Phone: 530-279-2704 

Fax: 530-279-2171 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 2 

Contents 

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................ 3

Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans ................................................................................................. 3

Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans ............................................................................. 5

Issues and Scoping .................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 5

Alternative 1: Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 5

Alternative 2: No Action .......................................................................................................................... 9

Alternative Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 9

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 10

Native American Religious Concerns ..................................................................................................... 11

Invasive and Non-Native Species ........................................................................................................... 11

Livestock Management ........................................................................................................................... 11

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

Vegetation/Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................... 12

Special Status Plant Species ................................................................................................................... 13

Wetlands and Riparian ............................................................................................................................ 13

Wild Horses and Burros .......................................................................................................................... 13

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 14

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 14

Native American Religious Concerns ..................................................................................................... 14

Invasive and Non-Native Species ........................................................................................................... 15

Livestock Management ........................................................................................................................... 15

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Vegetation, Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................... 16

Wetland and Riparian Zones ................................................................................................................... 17

Wild Horse and Burros ........................................................................................................................... 17

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................... 18

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................ 19

Cumulative Impacts to Affected Resources ............................................................................................ 19

Chapter 5 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ........................................................ 20

List of BLM Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 20
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 3 

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need of the project is to provide protection to sensitive resources associated 

with Sand Spring and Lone Spring. These springs are located, respectively, on the Massacre 

Lakes and Long Valley Grazing Allotments (see Project Location Map p.3). Watering troughs 

located at both of these springs have resulted in heavy use of the areas by both cattle and wild 

horses. A consequence of this heavy use is severe soil churning, denuded vegetation, and soil 

erosion in the surrounding area, which are causing effects to cultural resources at Sand Spring 

and Lone Spring and riparian resources at Lone Spring. Also, current transportation routes are 

impacting cultural resources at Sand Springs. In order to protect and enhance these resources, 

the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to construct exclosure fences around the sensitive 

resources, relocate the watering troughs, and reroute current transportation routes to reduce and, 

or, eliminate impacts to these resources. 

Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans 

The proposed action is in conformance with the Proposed Surprise Field Office Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in May 2007 as 

adopted by the Record of Decision approved in April 2008 and can be found in the following 

sections of the RMP. 

Section 2.14.4 

Actions would minimize damage to the watershed and its soil, vegetation, air-quality or 

other resources of the public lands. 

Section 2.19.5 

Protecting uplands, springs, streams, riparian areas, and wetlands from grazing by 

employing and maintaining protective exclosures. 

Section 2.2.2 

Protect and preserve significant cultural resources. Ensure that these resources are available 

to present and future generations for appropriate uses. Manage legitimate activities in a 

manner that will ensure preservation and provide public benefits through education 

(including interpretation), research, public uses, and conservation for future generations. 

Section 2.2.5 

Cultural resources will be managed in accordance with existing laws, regulations, executive 

orders, and Nevada and California State Historic Preservation Office protocol agreements 

(as amended). 

Section 2.22.2) 

Locate new livestock watering sites where depletion of natural springs and wetland areas 

can be avoided. Equip watering troughs with ramps for wildlife access and egress; provide 

water at ground level, if possible. 

Ensure that sufficient vegetation is retained around springs and other water sources, riparian 

areas, and wetlands to fulfill the needs of wildlife. 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 4 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 5 

Remove fencing that is no longer required and replace fencing that is harmful to wildlife. 

Build all new fencing to wildlife-friendly specifications. 

Close and rehabilitate (when feasible) resource extraction or other temporary roads where 

needed to reduce disturbance of special status and special interest wildlife. 

Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans 

The proposed action is consistent with the following laws, regulations, and protocols: 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (1966), as amended. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), as amended 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as amended 

BLM-California State Historic Preservation Office Protocol Agreement (2004), as amended 

Executive Order No. 11,593- Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 1971 

BLM Manual 8100 – Cultural Resource Management 

Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C 315 - 1934) 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701, 1976) 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act (43 U.S.C. 1901. 1978) 

Long Valley & Massacre Lakes Allotment Management Plans (1980s) 

Issues and Scoping 

On March 26, 2009, the Surprise Field Office sent a scoping letter to all interested parties. A 

letter of response was received from the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office in support of 

the project. The Northeast California Resource Advisory Council (RAC) visited Sand Spring 

during the summer of 2008, and was informed of resources issues associated with the site. The 

RAC requested future consultation regarding BLM’s proposal for the project. Meetings were 

held with permittees on the Long Valley and Massacre Lakes Allotments. Issues discussed were 

project design to ensure that cattle from both allotments would be able to access water and also 

the placement of watering troughs. 

Chapter 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative 1: Proposed Action 

Sand Spring

The BLM is proposing to construct approximately two miles of new fence (Map 1). The fence 

would enclose approximately 138 acres for the purpose of resource protection. In addition, a 

portion of the new fence would result in an adjustment of the allotment boundary fence between 

the Long Valley and Massacre Lakes Allotments. Approximately 3,658 feet of old allotment 

boundary fence would be removed. The new fence would be built with four strand design (3 

barbed, and bottom smooth wire) according to BLM standards. If the area becomes important to 

sage-grouse, collision marking (see Lone Springs below) would be added at a later date. 

With the addition to the new fence, watering troughs would need to be moved away from the 

spring and relocated to the southwest on each allotment. In order to provide water to the troughs 

the current pipeline would also need to be extended. Approximately 1,935 feet of 1.5 inch PE 

pipeline would be installed. A trencher would be used to construct the pipeline trench from the 

existing pipeline to just past the area of sandy soil; from this point a backhoe would be used to 

construct the remainder of the pipeline trench which would be located within the existing road. 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 6 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 7 

The current access route through Sand Spring would be closed and a new access would be routed 

west using light equipment (mainly driving the route with a vehicle). A 200 foot section of road 

located at the north end of the exclosure would be rehabilitated to discourage use. In addition, a 

1,215 foot section of road just south of the exclosure would be created in the same manner for 

the purpose of connecting the two southern routes. Directional signs informing the public of the 

new routes would be placed in strategic locations. Signs informing the public of no vehicular 

use within the exclosure due to sensitive resources would also be strategically placed around the 

exclosure. 

Lone Spring

The BLM is proposing to construct 1,395 feet of new fence, which would enclose approximately 

4.7 acres, for the purpose of enhancing riparian habitat (Map 2). The new fence would be built 

with four strand design (3 barbed, and bottom smooth wire) according to BLM standards. Fence 

would also be “marked” with vinyl siding strips to reduce potential sage-grouse collisions. The 

vinyl strips are approximately 2x3 inches in size and hung about four feet apart on the top two 

wires in an alternating pattern along the field of the fence. An existing wire holding pen which is 

no longer in use would be removed (488 ft). Watering troughs would be relocated about 600 feet 

to the south of the current location, and outside of the cultural resource site. A new 1,000 feet 

pipeline would be installed to provide water to the troughs. This 1.5 inch PE pipeline would be 

installed using a backhoe. A section of the new pipeline would also overflow into the riparian 

area on the seeding side when troughs are full. A new valve box would be installed, which 

would assist in providing overflow to the riparian area. All excavation work occurring within the 

boundaries of the cultural resource site would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. 

Cultural resources associated with Lone Spring would be monitored at the end of each season of 

grazing use for 3 years to assess whether impacts to the site have been reduced. A reduction of 

impacts would be a noticeable decrease in trailing throughout the site and re-establishment (soil 

stabilization) of vegetation in the area surrounding where the previous water troughs were 

located. 

Standard Operating Procedures 

1. The livestock permittees would be responsible for fence maintenance defined in a 

cooperative agreement. Prior to final inspection all construction trash and excess debris 

would be removed from the public lands and disposed of at a site approved by the BLM 

Contracting Officer Representative or Project Inspector. 

2. Fence construction activities would occur after the ground is dry. 

3. Vehicles and equipment would be cleaned prior to entry to the site for fence work to prevent 

or the spread or introduction of weeds. 

4. Prior to construction, large brush will be completely removed and cleared back to 2’ on either 

side of fence line as necessary to maintain proper fence alignment. 

5. All rocks used for rock basket construction shall be gathered as from the project area outside 

of cultural resource sites. 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 8 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 9 

Alternative 2: No Action 

Sand Spring

Under the No Action alternative, an exclosure fence would not be built, the current road would 

not be rerouted, and the watering troughs would not be relocated. Degradation of the cultural 

resource site would continue to occur from cattle, wild horse, and vehicular activities, which 

would be in violation of certain statutes and regulations governing cultural resources. 

Lone Spring

Under the No Action alternative, an exclosure fence would not be built and the watering troughs 

would not be relocated outside of the cultural resource site. The riparian area would be further 

degraded and not enhanced. In addition, the cultural resource site would continue to receive 

impacts from wild horse and cattle use due to the location of the current watering troughs, which 

would be in violation of certain statutes and regulations governing riparian and cultural 

resources.

Alternative Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis 

During the initial scoping period an additional alternative for the Sand Springs project was 

considered. This alternative would have placed the Massacre Lakes Allotment watering trough 

north of the exclosure. A solar pump would have been used to pump water to the trough. This 

alternative would not have required an adjustment to the allotment boundary fence. After further 

analysis and discussions with the permittees it was decided that due to the rise in elevation and 

the small flow of water from the spring, a solar pump would not be able to provide an adequate 

amount of water to the trough. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further. 

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Supplemental Authorities of the Human Environment 

The following supplemental authorities of the human environment are specifically required by 

statute, regulation, and executive order and must be considered in the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives. Supplemental Authorities of the Human Environment are those elements that are 

subject to the requirements specified in statute, regulation, or executive order, and must be 

considered in all EAs (BLM H-1790-1, Appendix 5). These authorities have either been analyzed 

in the Environmental Assessment or are not present or not affected by the Proposed Action or 

Alternatives. 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 10

Consideration of Supplemental Authorities 

Supplemental Authorities Review 

N/A or Not 

Present 

Applicable or 

Present, No 

Impact 

Discussed in 

EA

Air Quality 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Cultural Resources 

Climate Change 

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) 

Farm Lands (prime or unique) 

Floodplains 

Native American Religious Concerns 

Invasive, Non-Native Species 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

Wastes, Hazardous Substances or Solid Wastes 

Water Quality 

Wetlands/Riparian Zones 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (Eligible) 

Wilderness 

Other Elements Considered 

Wild Horses and Burros 

Wildlife 

Recreation 

Soils 

Vegetation 

Livestock 

All supplemental authorities and other elements are either not present or will not be affected by 

proposed action or any of the alternatives and will not be discussed further in this EA.

Cultural Resources 

In 2008 the Surprise Field Office (SFO) conducted National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

Section 106 compliance inventories for the Long Valley Grazing Allotment. The inventories are 

designed to identify any cultural resources that may be affected by impacts associated with 

grazing. As a result of the inventories the SFO identified two cultural resource sites that were 

being impacted by grazing on the Long Valley Grazing Allotment. These two sites are 

associated with Sand Spring and Lone Spring. Neither of these cultural resource sites has been 

formally evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). However, 

the BLM, Surprise Field Office assumes that both of these sites are eligible to the NRHP. 

Disturbance to the cultural resources at Sand Spring are a result of the watering troughs being 

located within the cultural resource site. Cattle use in the area is heavy; trampling, trailing, 

wallowing, and soil churning is evident throughout the site. This has affected cultural resources 

by causing artifact breakage, horizontal artifact displacement, and erosion to sub-surface deposits 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project 

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 11

from denuded vegetation and severe soil erosion. In addition to cattle impacts, a two track road 

runs through the center of the site causing the same effects to cultural resources as discussed 

above. 

At Lone Spring cattle impacts to cultural resources are also a result of the watering troughs being 

located within the cultural resource site. In addition, wild horses frequent the watering troughs 

and associated riparian areas year-round. Soil within this area is less fragile than soil at Sand 

Spring; therefore affects to sub-surface deposits are not an issue. However, heavy use of the area 

by cattle and wild horses is resulting in trailing and trampling, which is causing horizontal 

artifact displacement, and artifact breakage within the site. 

The proposed project was inventoried at a Class III level for the purpose of identifying cultural 

resources that may be affected by the project. No additional cultural resources, other than those 

associated with the two springs, were identified during the inventory of the Area of Project 

Effect. 

Native American Religious Concerns 

Since 2008, the Surprise Field Office has been in frequent consultation with the Fort Bidwell 

Tribe regarding the impacts to cultural resources at Sand Spring and Lone Spring. The tribe 

expressed concern over the impacts occurring to their ancestral sites at Sand Spring and Lone 

Spring. The Surprise Field Office solicited from the tribe their thoughts on how to reduce or 

eliminate impacts to both of the sites. The tribe was in favor of the proposed mitigation 

measures to protect and preserve the sites. 

Invasive and Non-Native Species 

Weeds as defined in this EA are non-native plant that disrupts or has the potential to disrupt or 

alter the natural ecosystem function, composition and diversity of the site it occupies. Weed 

inventory was conducted in the Sand Spring and Lone Spring areas and no known noxious weed 

infestations found in the project sites. The closest known weed site was an infestation of Scotch 

thistle along Highway 8A, near the Massacre Lakes and Nut Mountain Allotments boundary, 

three miles from Sand Springs. This site was inventoried and weeds were manually removed in 

1999, and follow-up inventories have not found any re-infestations. Since both springs were 

originally developed as a water sites 50+ years ago for cattle (and wild horses) there have been 

associated impacts to the riparian resources at the springs, including soil disturbance and some 

soil erosion in the surrounding area. The possibility of invasive weed introduction exists by 

vehicles if road access and disturbance from livestock continues, although currently this has not 

resulted in any noxious weed invasion at the springs.

Livestock Management 

Sand and Lone Springs were acquired by BLM as part of larger private land acquisition in the 

1990s. Sand Spring is located in the Massacre Lakes Allotment at the boundary with the Long 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 12

Valley Allotment. It is unclear when the spring was first developed for livestock water, but in 

1990s the project was modified to provide water to the Long Valley Allotment. The spring still 

provides water to livestock for both allotments; however, due to the low flow of the spring and 

poor condition of the trough, water is not always available to the Long Valley Allotment. 

In the Massacre Lakes Allotment, Sand Spring is located in the Sand Spring Pasture. Cattle are 

scheduled to graze this pasture after July 15 annually with use restricted of 40-60% or moderate

utilization levels. In the Long Valley Allotment, the Sand Spring trough is located at the north 

end of the Mountain Pasture. Cattle are generally herded to this pasture in early July and 

removed by mid August each year.

Lone Spring is located in the Mountain Pasture of the Long Valley Allotment; a pipeline delivers 

water to a trough in the Lone Spring Seeding Pasture. Lone Spring was redeveloped by BLM in 

the 1980s under a Range Improvement Easement, prior to the acquisition. Cattle are turned out 

into the Lone Spring Seeding in early May on alternate years and moved to the Mountain Pasture 

in early July for about 6 weeks. Cattle are scheduled to be off the mountain pasture by midAugust. 

Soils

The soil classification for the Massacre Lakes and Long Valley Allotment is contained in the 

Washoe County North Part Soil Survey, NV #759 (an Order III soil survey). The soil survey has 

been updated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Reno State Office to 

current standards and can be found on the NRCS web site.

The affected soils at Sand Spring are Davey-Corral association and Zorravista fine sand; both 

soils are capable of supporting basin big sagebrush plant communities.

Soils at the Lone Spring site are Davey-Corral association (Lone Spring Pasture) and Reywat 

very stony loam (Mountain Pasture). The Davey-Corral soils can support basin big sagebrush 

communities, while Reywat series supports Wyoming big sagebrush communities.

Vegetation/Threatened and Endangered Species 

Ecological sites and dominant plant communities associated with the soils at Sand Spring 

include: 

Sandy 8-12” P.Z. 023XY051NV – needle-and-thread, Wyoming and basin big sagebrush, Indian 

ricegrass; Loamy 8-10” P.Z. 023XY006NV – Thurber’s needlegrass, Wyoming big sagebrush, 

Indian ricegrass; Dunes 8-10” P.Z. 023XY011NV – Indian ricegrass, basin big sagebrush, 

needle-and-thread. 

Ecological sites and dominant plant communities at Lone Spring are as follows: 

Sandy 8-12” P.Z. 023XY051NV – needle-and-thread, Wyoming and basin big sagebrush, Indian 

ricegrass; Loamy 8-10” P.Z. 023XY006NV – Thurber’s needlegrass, Wyoming big sagebrush, 

Indian ricegrass; Loamy Slope 10-14” P.Z. – bluebunch wheatgrass, Wyoming big sagebrush, 

Thurber’s needlegrass.
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 13

Special Status Plant Species

No threatened or endangered plant species exist on the soils within the project areas. 

Wetlands and Riparian

There is less than 1 acre of riparian habitat at Lone Spring and no riparian habitat at Sand Spring 

therefore Sand Spring will not be discussed further. Riparian habitat at Lone Spring has been 

altered by the past development of the spring source and subsequent dewatering of the riparian 

zone at variously times of the year. Due to this alteration, much of the riparian habitat at Lone 

Spring now consists of a small strip of riparian vegetation that receives water only periodically. 

Based on field observations, it appears that habitat has been artificially created below the troughs 

at Lone Spring due to “day lighting” of the overflow pipe and/or leaking troughs. These troughs 

are located within 100 feet of the riparian zone which leads to concentrations of cattle in the 

riparian zone. 

Currently, water flows from the spring box at Lone Springs to troughs in both the Mountain 

Pasture and the Lone Springs seeding. When no cattle are in the Mountain Pasture, water is shut 

off to its troughs, diverted to a valve box, and allowed to run in its original channel where it 

eventually dries up on the Lone Springs seeding side. When no cattle are in the Lone Springs 

seeding, water is shutoff to the single trough as well. 

Riparian habitat around Lone Spring is severely impacted by cattle and horse use. Signs of 

current degradation include pocking and shearing of the wetted riparian, deposits if eroding soil

in the current riparian zone, and large fluctuations of water flow. Most impacts to riparian 

habitat occur in the Mountain Pasture side. Impacts are mainly due to horses since this habitat is 

used yearlong by horses and for about 6 weeks by cattle (see livestock management section). 

Riparian habitat in the Lone Springs seeding side is less impacted. The seeding is used by 

livestock for about 2 months in alternate years but most water in the seeding is associated with 

its single trough more than 1,500 feet away from the riparian habitat at Lone Springs. The 

riparian in the Lone Springs seeding side does show signs of long-term over- use such as 

sagebrush in the riparian zone and hummocking along the fence line between the Mountain and 

Lone Springs Seeding pastures. 

Wild Horses and Burros

Neither of the project sites is located within a Herd Management Area (HMA) or Herd Area; 

however, currently about 30 wild horses occupy the Mountain Pasture in the Long Valley 

Allotment. These horses likely entered the allotment from the nearby High Rock HMA. Wild 

horses generally water at Lone Spring year-round. There is no recent evidence of wild horses 

using Sand Spring in the Massacre Lakes or Long Valley Allotment.

Wildlife

No known T&E species or their habitats are found at either location. Several inventories were 

conducted for pygmy rabbits around the Sand Spring project in areas that appeared to be suitable 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 14

for building burrows but neither pygmy rabbit burrows nor rabbits were found. Suitable areas 

for burrows do not occur at the Lone Springs site and burrows or rabbits were not seen during 

survey and design of the project. Greater sage-grouse are the only known BLM sensitive species 

that occur in or around either project site. Sage-grouse sign was found at both sites. The 

presence of riparian habitat, surface water, and higher amounts of sign found at Lone Springs 

indicate that Lone Springs is much more important to sage-grouse, most likely as summer brood 

rearing habitat. Active sage-grouse strutting grounds are greater than 7 miles from either project. 

The area around Lone Spring is considered summer pronghorn antelope habitat and areas around 

both springs summer habitat for mule deer. Coyote, various rodents, rattlesnakes, and blacktailed jack rabbits or their sign have also been noted in the general area of these projects. Other 

sagebrush obligate birds are expected to use the general area. 

Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Cultural Resources 

PROPOSED ACTION – Under the proposed action cultural resources at Sand Spring would be 

protected from cattle impacts. Impacts to soil from cattle activity would cease allowing 

vegetation to re-establish; stabilizing soils and assisting in the prevention of soil erosion. 

Vehicular access through the site would no longer be allowed, which would prevent further 

degradation to areas of the site that are currently used for vehicular access and throughways. 

The proposed action would also reduce impacts to cultural resources associated with Lone 

Spring. Under the action the watering troughs would be located outside of the boundaries of the 

cultural resource site thereby reducing impacts to the site. Trailing to the new watering location 

would occur, but trailing patterns would change due to the new trough location. It is expected 

that there would be less trailing through the cultural resource site under this alternative.

NO ACTION - Under the no action alternative impacts to both of the NRHP eligible sites 

associated with Sand Spring and Lone Spring would continue to occur, which could result in loss 

of integrity to the sites.

Native American Religious Concerns

PROPOSED ACTION – Under the proposed action cultural resources associated with Sand 

Spring would be protected by fencing. Resources associated with Lone Spring would be 

protected by relocation of the watering troughs. The proposed action would provide protection to 

cultural resources that the Fort Bidwell Tribe has identified as being important. 

NO ACTION - Under this alternative no exclosure fences would be constructed, watering troughs 

and travel routes would not be relocated. Therefore, resources important to the Fort Bidwell 

Tribe would continue to be impacted by cattle and wild horse grazing, and use on established 

roadways.
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 15

Invasive and Non-Native Species

PROPOSED ACTION – The proposed action is not expected to increase the establishment or 

spread of noxious weeds, as there are no known infestations of noxious weeds in the existing 

project areas to date. Weeds which are introduced or become established in the project areas 

would be detected early with continued vigilance, and these sites would be expected to be treated 

under the current weed management program. Construction of exclosure fences around the 

sensitive resources, relocating watering troughs, and rerouting the current access roads will 

reduce the likelihood of weed infestations in the future. 

Under the proposed action, project construction and vehicles traveling through infested sites into 

the project areas could provide an opportunity for weeds to become introduced. The cleaning of 

construction vehicles before entering the project sites would reduce or eliminate this possibility. 

Implementation of the proposed action would allow disturbed riparian sites to recover and thus, 

lesson the likelihood of weeds invading the sites. 

NO ACTION - Lone Spring and Sand Spring may be at increased risk of weed introduction under 

the No Action alternative. These riparian areas are used by livestock to water and are at 

increased risk of soil disturbance and therefore vulnerable to entry by invasive and noxious 

weeds. Vehicles accessing the spring sites via current access roads would continue to impact the 

riparian resources, and could increase the potential for weed introduction by inadvertently 

bringing in weed seeds and other reproductive parts noxious weeds.

Livestock Management

PROPOSED ACTION – Livestock management on both allotments would remain relatively 

unchanged. Cattle numbers and season of use in the affected pastures would remain the same; 

however, due to the relocation of the Sand Spring troughs, the newly constructed exclosure and 

adjustments to the allotment boundary fences, the Massacre Lakes cattle would have to be trailed 

to the troughs initially to get them adapted to the new location. 

NO ACTION - The No Action Alternative would have no effect on current livestock management 

for either allotment. At Sand Spring, adjustments to the allotment boundary fence and 

construction of the exclosure would not occur. Cattle would continue to water at the current 

trough locations in both allotments. However, without the redevelopment of the pipeline, water 

for livestock may continue to be unreliable to Long Valley unless a new water trough is installed. 

At Lone Spring, water troughs would not be relocated, therefore cattle would continue to water 

at the current location.
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 16

Soils

PROPOSED ACTION – In the proposed Sand Spring exclosure, organic matter would increase 

but would not be incorporated into the soil as fast as it would from the hoof action of cattle. In 

the long term, plant vigor and litter could decline as the amount of standing dead litter is 

increased but is not being incorporated into the soil. Soils within the exclosure would no longer 

receive impacts from livestock such as trampling and compaction at watering sites; however, 

these impacts would occur at the new trough locations and along fencelines.

Soils along the proposed two-track road would be compacted as motor vehicle traffic increases.

Riparian soils within the proposed exclosure at Lone Spring would no longer be impacted by 

livestock trampling, sheering and compaction. Like Sand Spring, organic matter within the 

exclosure would increase but would not be incorporated into the soil as fast as it would from the 

hoof action of cattle. In the long term, plant vigor and litter could decline as the amount of 

standing dead litter is increased but is not being incorporated into the soil.

Livestock and wild horse use would continue to impact upland soils in the form of trampling and 

compaction near watering sites and along fencelines in the Mountain Pasture near Lone Spring.

NO ACTION – The protective exclosures would not be constructed and impacts to upland and 

riparian soils around the current watering sites would continue. Since the proposed two-track 

road will not be created, new impacts to upland soils from motor vehicles would not occur. 

Vegetation, Threatened and Endangered Species 

PROPOSED ACTION – There is no known T & E or other special status plants within or near 

the project area. At Sand and Lone Spring, sagebrush would be mechanically removed at the 

new trough locations using a wheeled front loader/backhoe. Over time, sagebrush in the 

immediate vicinity of the troughs would become trampled and otherwise be lost as result of 

livestock concentrating in the area while watering. Herbaceous vegetation in a localized area 

around the troughs would also be lost to livestock grazing and trampling. The actual disturbed 

area is expected to be 1⁄4 acre. The existing trough site and access road at Sand Spring would be 

located within the proposed exclosure, and therefore vegetation would recover in long term to 

conditions expected at ecological site potential. At Lone Spring, the new disturbance is expected 

to be approximately 1⁄4 acre as result of the troughs and associated pipeline being moved to a new 

location outside the culture resource site.

Some sagebrush may also be mechanically cleared / removed to create the proposed two-track 

roads around the exclosure in the Massacre Lakes and Long Valley Allotments. Vegetation in 

the tracks would soon disappear as the frequency of vehicle disturbance and compaction 

increases. While livestock would continue to graze affected pastures annually, the proposed 

action is unlikely to change utilization patterns or affect basic plant communities and plant 

community seral stages within the pastures affected by the project area. 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 17

In the short term, perennial grasses within the Sand Spring exclosure would see improved vigor 

with the absence of grazing. In the long term without some form of disturbance, vigor of 

perennial grasses could decline as standing dead litter is not removed and incorporated into the 

soil. 

Riparian vegetation within the exclosure at Lone Spring would recover and increase in density 

and diversity. In the long term, woody riparian species would become established. 

NO ACTION - Vegetation (including riparian) in the localized area around the troughs at both 

project sites would continue to receive impacts from livestock such as heavy grazing and 

trampling. 

Wetland and Riparian Zones

PROPOSED ACTION – At Lone Spring the proposed action would divert water from the water 

collection system to the troughs, and the overflow would be routed into the proposed exclosure. 

This would change existing water flow patterns for 500 feet. Currently when water is not piped 

to the troughs it overflows to a degraded riparian zone in the Mountain Pasture. This action 

would instead create or maintain about 600 feet of riparian zone. This would occur due to water 

being diverted from the new troughs back into the exclosure when the troughs are full. Since 

livestock and horse use is expected to move away from the old riparian channel on the Mountain 

Pasture side, some amount of riparian habitat is expected to persist and recover within the 

channel for some time afterwards. Over time this habitat would change to upland species due to 

the lack of water in the channel. Riparian habitat on the Lone Springs seeding side would benefit 

by protecting it from any livestock impacts. Riparian vegetation in the exclosure would be 

expected to spread somewhat, with the loss of sagebrush in the riparian zone eventually 

occurring.

NO ACTION – The exclosure would not be built in the Lone Spring seeding therefore riparian 

habitat in this area would not be protected from livestock use. Riparian habitat in the Mountain 

Pasture would continue to be impacted by both livestock and horses and would never improve. 

Wild Horse and Burros

PROPOSED ACTION – The proposed action would not affect the wild horse population because 

water would remain available year-round at Lone Spring, particularly during the summer and fall

periods when other water sources in the pasture may be dry. The riparian exclosure at Lone 

Spring would be constructed in the Lone Spring Seeding and therefore, would not affect wild 

horses since they generally do not enter this pasture. 

Due to the low flow of water at Sand Spring and poor condition of the Long Valley trough, water 

availability is unreliable. The redevelopment of the Sand Spring pipeline and new trough in 

Long Valley may improve water availability and encourage use by wild horses, potentially 

relieving some impacts to Lone Spring. 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 18

NO ACTION - This alternative would have no affect on the wild horse population in the Long 

Valley Allotment. Wild horses will have access to year-around water and impacts to cultural 

resources at Lone Spring will continue. Water to Long Valley Allotment from Sand Spring may 

continue to be unreliable without the installation of a new trough, discouraging use by wild 

horses as well as livestock. 

Wildlife

PROPOSED ACTION- Since pygmy rabbit are not known to occur at either site no effects are 

expected to pygmy rabbit from this action. Late summer brood rearing habitat for sage-grouse 

would slightly benefit by expected improvements to riparian habitat in the Lone Springs seeding. 

Expected improvements include increasing the size of riparian habitat and increased availability 

of yearlong water on the ground. Increasing yearlong water availability would benefit many 

other wildlife species as well. When water is present in the troughs (including Sand Springs) 

they are also expected to be used by big game, birds, small mammals, and to some extent bats. 

The use of approved escape ramps would reduce chances of wildlife drowning in the troughs and 

fence placement away from the troughs would reduce the chances of bird or bat collisions. 

Removal of the old holding pen downhill of Lone Springs would reduce the possibility of 

wildlife entanglements. Negligible short term negative effects would occur to sage-grouse and 

other wildlife by blocking access to water during construction activities and the expected limited 

use of new routes. Effects to sage-grouse and other wildlife from fencing would be mitigated by 

building fences to BLM specifications including adding permanent markers to fences at Lone 

Springs to reduce the possibility of sage-grouse or bats strikes. 

As perennial grasses within the 134 acre Sand Spring exclosure increased, wildlife use would 

increase under the Proposed Action. Higher amounts of nesting would occur for sagebrush 

obligate species such as sage-grouse, sage thrasher sage sparrow, and Brewer’s sparrow as well 

as small mammals. Hiding and thermal cover would be created for larger animals including 

mule deer and pronghorn antelope. 

It is anticipated that 1⁄4 acre of sage-steppe habitat would be lost around the new troughs areas at 

Sand Springs and Lone Springs due to cattle and wild horses watering at those sites. There 

would be net increase of .7 miles of unimproved access routes as result of rerouting and 

decommissioning roads. The overall affect would be a potential loss of about .9 acres of 

sagebrush habitats. These routes are expected to regain much of their vegetative cover due to the 

method of initial removal and the limited basis in which they are expected to be used. 

It is anticipated that overall, the proposed action would have minor benefits to wildlife species in 

the area. 

NO ACTION – Wildlife including sage-grouse would not benefit from improved riparian habitat 

in the Lone Springs seeding. The Sand Springs exclosure would not be built therefore wildlife 

would not benefit from the increased cover and forage from a new exclosure. Additional loss of 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 19

habitat from new routes or movement of troughs would not occur and the possibility of impacts 

such as bird collisions or strikes from the creation of additional fences would not occur. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are the “incremental impacts of a proposal when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of which agency or person 

undertakes them” (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7)

Cumulative Impacts to Affected Resources

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

For the Long Valley and Massacre Lakes Allotments, impacts of past actions include overutilization of forage resources that resulted in a decrease in the composition and production of 

native bunchgrass, the loss of riparian vegetation, and degradation of some cultural resources. 

To implement provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act, and the Massacre Lakes and Long Valley 

Allotment Management Plans, a variety of range improvements projects were constructed on the 

allotments. The projects include fences, cattleguards, wells, spring developments, vegetation 

treatments and reservoirs. Prior to the 1970s, impacts to cultural resources from recreation and 

grazing had not been addressed on either of these allotments and the NHPA Section 106 

processes were not applied to a number of range improvement projects.

Impacts of present actions include the maintenance of existing projects and continued grazing as 

authorized. Grazing would continue as authorized in both allotments and range improvement 

projects would be maintained. Authorized grazing and all future range improvement projects 

would be subject to the NHPA Section 106, all applicable BLM/SHPO protocols, and NEPA 

requirements. Wild horses in the Mountain Pasture of the Long Valley Allotment are expected 

to be gathered or returned to the adjacent High Rock HMA. BLM would continue to conduct 

monitoring and project inspections to determine if the projects accomplished LUP goals and 

objectives.

Cumulative impacts of the proposed action would be slight, if any. Combined, both exclosures 

would provide an additional 138 acres of high quality habitat for wildlife. This would have 

negligible benefits to a variety of birds, small mammals, and big game by providing nesting and 

hiding cover, forage, and a readily available source of water at ground level. New troughs

outfitted with escape ramps would reduce or eliminate wildlife drowning at these water sources 

and new roads are expected to be used on a very limited basis. Additional fencing would have 

none to negligible negative impacts to wildlife due to the wildlife mitigations described above

and some beneficial cumulative impacts would be provided to wildlife, riparian, and cultural 

resources. Grazing would continue as authorized on both allotments. Permittees on the 

Massacre Lakes Allotment may have to manually trail cattle to the new trough location at Sand 

Spring until tailing habits are established. However, these impacts would be short term and 

negligible.

Cumulative impacts of the no action alternative would continue to be localized to Sand Spring 

and Lone Spring, but resources important to the Fort Bidwell Tribe would continue to be 

impacted by cattle and wild horse grazing, and use on established roadways. Current permitted 
Sand Spring/Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement Project

DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002-EA Page 20

livestock management in both allotments would continue. Not adjusting the allotment boundary 

fence at Sand Spring and not constructing of the exclosure would have less of a cumulative 

impact on permittees livestock operation when compared with the proposed action. The 

additional projects would increase their maintenance costs, but the improved water system would 

improve livestock water availability in the allotments. The overall cumulative impact of the no 

action alternative would be irrelevant to grazing management. 

Since both springs were originally developed as livestock watering sites 50+ years ago, the 

cumulative impacts of the no action alternative to the riparian resources at the springs, including 

soil disturbance and some soil erosion in the surrounding area would likely be slight. This 

period of use has not resulted in any noxious weed invasion at the springs. However, the 

possibility of invasive weed introduction still exists by vehicles if road access and disturbance 

from livestock continues. Cumulative impacts are expected to be minor to special status species

since sage grouse is the only sensitive species known to use the proposed project areas and their 

use is infrequent.

Reasonable and foreseeable future actions would include additional fencing of the Lone Spring 

exclosure if riparian habitat in the proposed exclosure expands. Additional fencing would 

provide protection to the expanded habitat. With the removal of wild horses from Long Valley, 

water could be diverted to the valve box higher on the slope at Lone Spring and allowed to 

“daylight” earlier, into the Mountain Pasture. This would allow riparian habitat to be maintained 

on the Mountain Pasture side of the Lone Spring development. 

Chapter 5 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

Fort Bidwell Tribal Council

Steve Hicks, Long Valley Permittee

Donald Hicks, Long Valley Permittee

Will Steveson, Long Valley Permittee

Al Erquiaga, Massacre Lakes Permittee

Gene Erquiaga, Massacre Lakes Permittee

Northeast California RAC

Interested publics of record

List of BLM Preparers

Penni Borghi, Archaeologist

Elias Flores, Wildlife/Fisheries Biologist

Steve Mathews, Rangeland Management Specialist

Lynette Sullivan, Noxious Weed Specialist

Steve Surian, Rangeland Management Specialist/NEPA Coordinator

AD/CX/EA Name and Number: Sand Spring and Lone Spring Resource Protection and Enhancement 

Project. Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2010-0002 EA

Date Submitted for Comments: 1/12/2010 Complete Review:

Project Leader(s): Penni Borghi