BLM LIBRARY Nevada and Northeastern California L ; QL 696 . G285 N483 2013 >artm iartm The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations BLM/NV/NV/ES/ 1 3-20+ 1 793 Cover Photo: Steve Ting # Qo35 q ^ , l"b ‘S^blp'S'^U 6 Chapter 3. Affected Environment at ! S? i \A O <3S Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 395 3.1. Introduction This chapter succinctly documents the existing conditions and trends of resources in the planning area that may be affected by implementing any of the proposed alternatives described in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives. The affected environment provides the context for assessing potential impacts as described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. For this LUPA/EIS, the planning area is the entire Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region (49,868,700 acres), which contains BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Within the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area, there are 45,360,300 of BLM-administered lands and 9,721,600 acres of Forest Service-administered lands The planning area is the geographic area within which the BFM and Forest Service will make decisions during this planning effort, and the planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction. Fands addressed in the FUP amendments will be public lands (including surface-estate split estate lands) managed by the BFM and Forest Service in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. Any decisions in the FUP amendments will apply only to federal lands administered by either the BFM or the Forest Service. 3.1.1. Organization of Chapter 3 This chapter contains sections describing the biological, physical, and human resources of the planning area and follows the order of topics addressed as follows: • GRSG and GRSG Habitat • Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds) • Riparian Areas and Wetlands • Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species • Wild Horse and Burros • Wildland Fire and Fire Management • Fivestock Grazing/Recreation • Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management • Fand Use and Realty • Renewable Energy Resources/Mineral Resources • Special Designations o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern o Wilderness Areas o Wilderness Study Areas o National Trails September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Introduction 396 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement o Byways o Wild and Scenic Rivers • Water Resources • Soil Resources • Cultural Heritage Resources • Tribal Interests (Including Native American Religious Concerns) • Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (BLM) • Visual Resources • Air Quality • Climate Change • Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Each resource section in this chapter contains a discussion of background information, including guidance and regulations, and current conditions. Current conditions describe the location, extent, and current conditions of the resource in the planning area on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands. Conditions for a resource can vary, depending on the resource. Those resources (e.g., vegetation, fire management, livestock grazing, mineral resources, and lands and realty) that have a greater influence on GRSG populations and habitat and that are more likely to be affected by GRSG management actions are described in greater detail than those resources (e.g., water, air quality, and soil resources) that have little to no influence. The Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area comprises 49,868,700 acres. Within the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area, there are 45,360,300 acres of BLM-administered lands and 9,721,600 acres of Forest Service-administered lands that are managed according to the BLM and Forest Service plans being amended by this LUPA/EIS. For each resource, a general description of the existing conditions is provided for the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region planning area, regardless of land status. This is done to provide a regional context for the resource. Then, a more detailed description of the existing conditions is provided for the BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands managed according to the BLM and Forest Service plans being amended by this LUPA/EIS. This is done to provide an area-specific description of the existing conditions for the resource. When possible, greater emphasis is placed on describing the existing conditions of the resource as it pertains to GRSG and its habitat. The BLM and Forest Service reviewed the LUPs being amended under this LUPA/EIS and other relevant information sources (such as LUPAs, maps, and state GRSG conservation strategies or plans) for existing conditions and trends for the resources listed above with respect to GRSG and its habitat. This affected environment information is summarized below and, where appropriate, noted when the information is incorporated by reference. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Organization of Chapter 3 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 397 3.2. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 3.2.1. Range and Taxonomy Greater Sage-grouse ( Centrocercus spp.) are the largest grouse found in North America. They are a ground-dwelling, sagebrush obligate species. Historically, GRSG were considered to be one species with a range that included 14 US states and 3 Canadian provinces prior to Euro American contact (Figure 3-1, Historic Greater Sage-Grouse Range; Aldrich 1963; Johnsgard 1983; Connelly et al. 2004; Schroeder et al. 2004). After considering the splitting of GRSG into separate species and sub-species based on a variety of genetic, morphological, and behavioral evidence, only the Gunnison Sage-Grouse has been determined to be a unique species. The Bi-State population in southwestern Nevada and east-central California has been found to be genetically unique and its status is widely debated, but the species remains taxonomically within GRSG. The Bi-State population, however, is not within the purview of this Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-regional LUPA/EIS. The current range of GRSG includes 1 1 US states and 2 Canadian provinces and is thought to be a reduction of 44 percent from the range prior to Euro American contact (Connelly and Braun 1997; Schroeder et al. 2004). Regional population declines have ranged from 17 to 47 percent (Connelly and Braun 1997). Although specific reasons for population decline differ across the range, the underlying cause is the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of suitable sagebrush habitat (Connelly and Braun 1997; Leonard et al. 2000; Aldridge et al. 2008). As sagebrush habitats increasingly overlap with natural resources (e.g., oil, gas, wind, minerals, agriculture, and recreation areas) and face increased landscape-level changes caused by exotic weeds, fire, and conifer encroachment (Connelly et al. 2004), populations have declined substantially, raising conservation concern for the species. (PDF Map 3-1) Figure 3.1. Historic Sage Grouse Range 3.2.2. Biology and Life History GRSG depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout their life cycle and are considered obligate users of several species of sagebrush, including Wyoming big sagebrush f Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis ), mountain big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. vaseyana), and basin big sagebrush (A. t. tridentata) (Patterson 1952; Braun et al. 1976; Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et al. 2004; Miller et al. 201 1). GRSG also use other sagebrush species such as low sagebrush (A. arbuscula ), black sagebrush (A. nova), fringed sagebrush (A. frigida), and silver sagebrush (A. cana) (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2004). GRSG distribution is strongly correlated with the distribution of sagebrush habitats (Schroeder et al. 2004). GRSG exhibit strong loyalty, also known as site fidelity, to seasonal habitats (including breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering areas) even when the area is no longer of value (Connelly et al. 2004). Adult GRSG rarely switch between these habitats once they have been selected, limiting their ability to adapt to changes. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage- Grouse Habitat 398 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement During the spring breeding season, male GRSG gather together to perform courtship displays on areas called leks. Areas of bare soil, short-grass steppe, windswept ridges, exposed knolls, or other relatively open sites typically serve as leks (Patterson 1952; Connelly et al. 2004). Leks are often surrounded by denser shrub-steppe cover, which is used for escape, thermal, and feeding cover. The proximity, configuration, and abundance of nesting habitat are key factors influencing lek location (Connelly 1982; Connelly et al. 2000b; Connelly et al. 201 1). Leks can be formed opportunistically at any appropriate site within or adjacent to nesting habitat (Connelly et al. 2000a), and, therefore, lek habitat availability is not considered to be a limiting factor for GRSG (Schroeder et al. 1999). Nest sites are selected independent of lek locations, but the reverse is not true (Bradbury et al. 1989; Wakkinen et al. 1992). Thus, leks are indicative of nesting habitat. Leks range in size from less than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare) to over 90 acres (36 hectares; Connelly et al. 2004) and can host from several to hundreds of males (Johnsgard 2002). Males defend individual territories within leks and perform elaborate displays with their specialized plumage and vocalizations to attract females for mating. Males do not participate in incubation of eggs or rearing chicks. Females have been documented to travel more than 12.5 miles (20 kilometers) to their nest site after mating (Connelly et al. 2000a), but distances between a nest site and the lek on which breeding occurred is variable (Connelly et al. 2004). Average distance between a female’s nest and the lek on which she was first observed ranged from 2.1 miles (3.4 kilometers) to 4.8 miles (7.8 kilometers) in 5 studies examining 301 nest locations (Schroeder et al. 1999). Productive nesting areas are typically characterized by sagebrush with an understory of native grasses and forbs (broad-leaved flowering plants), with horizontal and vertical structural diversity that provides an insect prey base, herbaceous forage for pre-laying and nesting hens, and cover for the hen while she is incubating (Gregg 1991; Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2011). GRSG also may use other shrub or bunchgrass species for nest sites (Klebenow 1969; Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et al. 2004). Shrub canopy and grass cover provide concealment for GRSG nests and young and are critical for reproductive success (Barnett and Crawford 1994; Gregg et al. 1994; DeLong et al. 1995; Connelly et al. 2004). Vegetation characteristics of successful nest sites include a sagebrush canopy cover of 1 5 to 25 percent, sagebrush heights of 1 1 .8 to 3 1 .5 inches (30 to 80 centimeters), and grass/forb cover of 7.1 inches (18 centimeters; Connelly et al. 2000a). Hens rear their broods within 0.1 to 3.1 miles (0.2 to 5 kilometers) of the nest site for the first 2 to 3 weeks following hatching, based on 2 studies in Wyoming (Connelly et al. 2004). Forbs and insects are essential nutritional components for chicks (Klebenow and Gray 1 968; Johnson and Boyce 1991; Connelly et al. 2004). Therefore, early brood-rearing habitat must provide adequate cover (sagebrush canopy cover of 10 to 25 percent; Connelly et al. 2000a) adjacent to areas rich in forbs and insects to ensure chick survival during this period (Connelly et al. 2004). All GRSG gradually move from sagebrush uplands to more mesic areas (moist areas such as streambeds or wet meadows) during the late brood-rearing period (3 weeks post-hatch) in response to summer desiccation of herbaceous vegetation (Connelly et al. 2000a). Summer use areas can include sagebrush habitats as well as riparian areas, wet meadows, and alfalfa fields (Schroeder et al. 1999). These areas provide an abundance of forbs and insects for both hens and chicks (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a). GRSG will use free water although they do not require it since they obtain their water needs from the food they eat. However, natural Chapter 3 Affected Environment Biology and Life History September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 399 water bodies and reservoirs can provide mesic areas for succulent forb and insect production, thereby attracting GRSG hens with broods (Connelly et al. 2004). As vegetation becomes desiccated through the late summer and fall, GRSG shift their diet entirely to sagebrush (Schroeder et al. 1999). GRSG depend entirely on sagebrush throughout the winter for both food and cover. Sagebrush stand selection is influenced by snow depth (Patterson 1952; Hupp and Braun 1989), availability of sagebrush above the snow to provide cover (Connelly et al. 2004 and references therein) and, in some areas, topography (e.g., elevation, slope, and aspect; Beck 1977; Crawford et al. 2004). Many populations of GRSG migrate between seasonal ranges in response to habitat distribution (Connelly et al. 2004). Migration can occur between winter, breeding, and summer areas, or not at all. Migration distances of up to 100 miles (161 kilometers) have been recorded (Patterson 1952); however, distances vary depending on the locations of seasonal habitats (Schroeder et al. 1999). Migration distances for female GRSG generally are less than for males (Connelly et al. 2004), but, in one study in Colorado, females traveled farther than males (Beck 1977). Almost no information is available regarding the distribution and characteristics of migration corridors for GRSG (Connelly et al. 2004). GRSG dispersal (when a population permanently moves to other areas) is poorly understood (Connelly et al. 2004) and appears to be sporadic (Dunn and Braun 1986). Habitat and Population Trends Considerable attention has been given to this species since the 1 980s, as evidenced by the National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (DOI 2004). This conservation strategy provides national GRSG habitat conservation guidance. The plan identifies potential conservation actions that might be implemented in order to maintain and enhance GRSG populations and habitat. Several factors related to GRSG habitat and the way it is used by this species have been considered causes of the decline in GRSG distribution and abundance. These factors include habitat loss, alteration, and degradation (Braun 1995). Historically, sagebrush-dominated vegetation was one of the most widespread habitats in the country and still covers much of the Great Basin and Wyoming Basin, reaching into the Snake River Plain, Columbia Basin, the Colorado Plateau, Montana, southwestern Colorado, northern Arizona, and New Mexico. Across this area, big sagebrush predominates and has five known subspecies (West 1988; Kartesz 1994). The sagebrush mosaic was historically subject to impacts from natural components of the environment, such as small and patchy fires, and periodic population explosions of jackrabbits, grasshoppers, and crickets. Big sagebrush does not resprout after a fire, but is replenished by wind-dispersed seed from adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending on the species and the size of a bum, sagebrush can reestablish itself within five years of a bum, but a return to a full pre-burn community (density and cover of sagebrush) cover can take 15 to 30 years (Bunting 1984; Miller and Rose 1999) for species that grow in higher precipitation zones, such as mountain big sagebrush. Species such as Wyoming big sagebrush, which grow exclusively in dry soils, can take 100 to 200 year to recover to pre-bum sagebrush canopy (Cooper et al. 2007; Eichhorn and Watts 1984). Since Euro American contact with the West began, the amount, distribution, and quality of sagebrush habitats and populations of GRSG that depend on them have declined as a result of activities such as large-scale conversions to cultivated croplands or pastures, altered fire frequencies resulting in conifer encroachment at higher elevations and annual grass invasion at lower elevations, livestock grazing, herbicide use, mineral and energy development, and recreational activities related to urban growth and increased human populations. As a result, the September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Biology and Life History 400 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1 56 million acres of sagebrush that existed historically were reduced to 1 1 9 million acres by 2004 (Connelly et al. 2004). Currently, sagebrush communities and GRSG are at risk from multiple sources across multiple scales (BLM 2004d). About 56 percent of the potential distribution of habitat prior to Euro American contact is currently occupied by GRSG (Connelly et al. 2004). GRSG use different components of their sagebrush habitat for breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering. Key habitat components include adequate canopy cover of tall grasses and medium height shrubs for nesting, abundant forbs and insects for brood rearing, and availability of herbaceous riparian species for late growing-season foraging (BLM 2004d). Understory, height, density, cover, and patchiness of the sagebrush-dominated ecosystem are important to GRSG. The negative impacts of habitat fragmentation on GRSG include reductions in courtship site persistence, courtship site attendance, winter habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival, and female nest site choice (USFWS 2010d). Invasive plants are also a serious range-wide threat to GRSG habitat. Once established, invasive plants reduce and eliminate vegetation essential for GRSG food and cover. Invasive species can out-compete sagebrush and increase wildfire frequencies, further contributing to direct loss of habitat. Sagebrush restoration techniques are limited and have generally been ineffective (USFWS 2010a). GRSG have declined dramatically within the past 20 years in large portions of its overall range. In March 2010, USFWS concluded that the GRSG warranted protection under the ESA; however, USFWS determined that proposing the species for protection is precluded by the need to take action on other species facing more immediate and severe extinction threats. As a result, the GRSG will be added to the list of species that are candidates for ESA protection. Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from wildfire, energy development, urbanization, agricultural conversion, conversion of sagebrush to other vegetation types (such as pinyon-juniper woodlands), and infrastructure development are the primary threats to the species (USFWS 2010a). Habitat Selection GRSG are currently estimated to occupy 165 million acres (668,000 square kilometers) across the western US and Canada (Knick and Connelly 201 1), and his range encompasses tremendous variability in habitat conditions, anthropogenic activities, and GRSG populations. The development of comprehensive monitoring approaches led to formal recognition that habitat selection assessments need to utilize approaches that address multiple spatial scales to represent selection processes of the animals (Connelly et al. 2003b; Connelly et al. 2011). First-order selection is the geographic range and defines the GRSG population of interest. Within this geographic range, second-order selection hinges on large, relatively intact regions of habitat and is often identified using subpopulation distributions (e.g., geographic proximity and potential connections among leks or regional population connectivity using genetics). Third-order selection represents refinement of habitats used by subpopulations by identifying seasonal habitats (e.g., nesting habitat), patch selection, and migration habitats. Assessment can be made of the fourth-order of behavioral classification by quantifying food and cover attributes and foraging behavior at particular sites (Stiver et al. 2010). In practice, selection of food items is nested within selection of feeding site because selection of a particular site determines the array of food items available to be selected. Habitat value and use will best be determined using a combination of these characteristics (not one alone). To accurately characterize GRSG habitat selection for a given population at the first and second orders (landscape spatial scale), the migratory nature (e.g., seasonal movements) of the population must be well understood (Connelly et al. 2000a) and this may include very large areas on an annual basis; it has been suggested that migratory Chapter 3 Affected Environment Biology and Life History September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 401 populations may range across a habitat the size of the state of Rhode Island (approximately 1,200 square miles [31 1,000 hectares]; Connelly et al. 2003). Habitat Sagebrush occurs in two natural vegetation types that are delineated by temperature and patterns of precipitation (Miller et al. 2011). Sagebrush steppe ranges across the northern portion of GRSG range, from British Columbia and the Columbia Basin, through the northern Great Basin, Snake River Plain, and Montana, and into the Wyoming Basin and northern Colorado. In this type, sagebrush typically co-dominates with perennial bunchgrasses (Miller et al. 201 1 ). The second major type. Great Basin sagebrush, occurs south of sagebrush steppe, and extends from the Colorado Plateau westward into Nevada, Utah, and California (Miller et al. 201 1 ). The herbaceous component contributes a smaller portion of the total plant cover (Miller and Eddleman 2000) due to hydrologic patterns. In this habitat type, sagebrush is frequently the canopy dominant with little understory (Miller et al. 2011). Table 3-1, Characteristics of Sagebrush Rangeland Needed for Productive GRSG Habitat, describes GRSG habitat characteristics and provides the standard for seasonal habitat definitions. Based on current research conducted within the Great Basin sagebrush type (as opposed to the sagebrush steppe), the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region has developed GRSG habitat standards to replace the Connelly guidelines within the sub-region or within the floristic province represented by the WAFWA Management Zone III. These guidelines, outlined in Table 3-2, Habitat Health Indicators and Objectives, emphasize the role of sagebrush canopy cover for nesting in the Great Basin sagebrush type, the importance of riparian condition and species diversity in brood-rearing habitat, and the nesting of site-specific habitat attributes within broader scales of habitat selection by GRSG. Table 3.1. Characteristics of Sagebrush Rangeland Needed for Productive GRSG Habitat Breed in P p Brood-rearing Winter0 Height (centimeters) Canopy (%) ‘ Height (centimeters) Canopy (%) ‘ Height (centimeters) Canopy (%) ‘ Mesic sites3 Sagebrush 40 to 80 1 5 to 25 40 to 80 10 to 25 25 to 35 10 to 30 Grass-forb >1 8C >25d variable >15 N/A N/A Arid sites3 Sagebrush 30-80 1 5 to 25 40 to 80 10 to 25 25 to 35 10 to 30 Grass-forb 18° >15 variable >15 N/A N/A Areab >80 >40 >80 Source: Connelly et al. 2000a; Tisdale and Hironaka 1981; Hironaka et al. 1983; Schroeder 1995 3 Mesic and arid sites should be defined on a local basis; annual precipitation, herbaceous understory, and soils should be considered. bPercentage of seasonal habitat needed with indicated conditions. cMeasured as “droop height”; the highest naturally growing portion of the plant. d Coverage should exceed 15% for perennial grasses and 10% for forbs; values should be substantially greater if most sagebrush has a growth form that provides little lateral cover. e Values for height and canopy coverage are for shrubs exposed above snow. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Biology and Life History 402 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.2. Habitat Health Indicators and Objectives Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Objective General All life stages Rangeland Health Standards Meeting all standards 1 LEK Cover Availability of sagebrush cover Has adjacent sagebrush cover Security Proximity of tall trees Within 3 kilometers (1.86 miles): • none within line of sight of the lek • <3.5% conifer land cover Proximity of tall structures None within 5 kilometers NESTING Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (%) >20 Sagebrush species present Includes Artemesia tridentata subspecies Perennial grass cover (%) >10 if shrub cover <252 Annual grass (%) <5 Total shrub cover (%) >40 Conifer encroachment (%) <5 BROOD-REARING/SIIMMER Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (%) >10 Cover and Food Perennial forb canopy cover (%) >5 arid >15 mesic Food Riparian Areas/Meadows Manage for PFC Perennial forb availability (riparian areas/meadows) > 5 plant species present3 Security Conifer encroachment (%) <3 phase 1(0- 25% cover) No phase II (25 - 50% cover) No phase III (>50% cover) within 850-meter (2,788-foot) buffer of microhabitat plot Riparian Area/Meadow Interspersion Perimeter to area ratio of 0. 1 5 within 1 59-meter with adjacent sagebrush (522-foot) buffer of the microhabitat plot WINTER Cover and Food Sagebrush canopy cover (%) >10 Sagebrush height (centimeters) >25 Conifer encroachment (%) <5 phase I (0 - 25% cover) no phase 11 (25 - 50% cover) no phase III (>50% cover) within 850-meter (2,788-foot) buffer of microhabitat plot Sagebrush extent (%) >85 sagebrush land cover within 850-meter (2,788-foot) buffer centered on microhabitat plot Sagebrush species comp (%) >50 A. tridentate sites 25 A. arbuscula sites Chapter 3 Affected Environment Biology and Life History September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 403 Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Objective 25 A. vaseyana sites Sources: Blomberg et al. 2012; Casazza 2011; Coates et al. 2011; Coates and Delehanty 2010; Coates and Casazza (in prep. A); Coates and Casazza (in prep. B); Connelly et al. 2000; Kolada 2009a, 2009b; Lockyer et al. (in review); Nevada Governor’s Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2010 1 Upland standards are based on indicators for canopy and ground cover, including litter, live vegetation, and rock, appropriate to the ecological potential of the site. 2 Assumes upland rangeland health standards are being met. 3 Standard considered in addition to PFC. Measured Ecological Site Deterioration (ESD)/Daubemnire (20-centimeter by 50-centimeter frame). Includes all mesic plant species, not perennial forbs only. 3.2.3. Management Zones Due to the differences in the ecology of sagebrush across the range of the GRSG, WAFWA further parses sagebrush habitats into seven management zones (Management Zones 1-VI1) based primarily on floristic provinces (Figure 3-2, Preliminary Priority and General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat and WAFWA Management Zones). The boundaries of these management zones were delineated based on their ecological and biological attributes rather than on arbitrary political boundaries (Stiver et al. 2006). Vegetation found within each management zone is similar, and GRSG and its habitat within these areas are likely to respond similarly to environmental factors and management actions. (PDF Map 3-2) Figure 3.2. Preliminary Priority and General Sage-Grouse Habitat and WAFWA Management Zones The Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-regional planning area includes GRSG habitat and populations within three management zones as delineated by WAFWA. To facilitate local planning efforts and foster stakeholder involvement in state-led planning initiated by the Nevada Governor in 2004, the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region was divided into 66 PMUs that remain a primary reference tool for describing the sub-regional populations (Nevada Governor’s Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2004). Management zones in the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region include the following: • Management Zone III: Southern Great Basin Management Zone (includes Utah, Nevada, and California) • Management Zone IV: Snake River Plain Management Zone (includes Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon) • Management Zone V: Northern Great Basin Management Zone (includes Oregon, California, and Nevada) These management zones, their aggregate populations and subpopulations, and the PMUs in the sub-region are described in Table 3-3, WAFWA Management Zones in the Planning Area and in Figure 3-3, Populations/Subpopulation Management Units and WAFWA Management Zones. Portions of PMUs may cross population/subpopulation boundaries (Connelly et al. 2004). For September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones 404 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement planning purposes, management zone boundaries are adapted to the PMU boundaries described for the sub-region. Management Zone Conditions Nevada Habitat Mapping NDOW, the BLM, and Forest Service completed detailed mapping of GRSG habitats within Nevada, with the exception of habitat for the northeast Califomia/northwest Nevada population, which includes the California portion of the sub-region and the California-managed portion of northwestern Nevada. This mapping was developed using a mapping framework produced by the BLM that designates the restoration potential of sagebrush communities (R-values) within the known range of GRSG in Nevada. The R-values, based upon existing vegetation cover, ecological site potential, and burned areas, were developed in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) by the Nevada BLM State Office staff and district personnel with cooperation from NDOW wildlife biologists. R-value classifications were adapted from Sather-Blaire et al. (2000). Restoration potentials are defined as follows: • R-0 : Areas with desired species composition that have sufficient, but not excessive, sagebrush canopy and sufficient grasses and forbs in the understory to provide adequate cover and forage to meet the seasonal needs of GRSG (nesting, early brooding, summer, fall/winter). Table 3.3. WAFWA Management Zones in the Planning Area WAFWA Management Zone Populations/Subpopulations Population Management Units III Central Nevada Cortez, South Fork, Shoshone, Three Bar, Monitor, Reese River, Toiyabe, Kawich, Clan Alpine, Desatoya, Stillwater, Fish Creek, Sonoma, Ruby Valley, Battle Mountain, Diamond Southeast Nevada East Valley, Butte/Buck/White Pine, Schell/Antelope, Spring/Snake Valley, Steptoe/Cave, Fincoln Northwestern Interior Jackson, Slumbering Hills, Eugene, East Range, Humboldt, Trinity, Limbo, Majuba 1,2, 3,4, Sahwave 1,2, Nightingale, Eden Valley Quinn Range Quinn IV North Central Nevada Santa Rosa Desert Northeastern Nevada Tuscarora, North Fork, Islands, O’Neil Basin, Snake, Gollaher V South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada Lone Willow Northeastern California/ Northwestern Nevada Massacre, Vya, Sheldon, Buffalo-Skedaddle, Likely Tablelands, Black Rock, Pine Forest Klamath (California) Devil’s Garden Warm Springs Valley Virginia/Pah Rah Source: Stiver et al. 2006 • R-l: Areas with potential to produce sagebrush plant communities that have good understory composition of desired grasses and forbs but lack sufficient sagebrush canopy. These areas Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 405 could be characterized by native perennial grasslands post-fire or seeded perennial grass rangelands. • R-2: Existing sagebrush plant communities with insufficient desired grasses and forbs in the understory. • R-3: Areas dominated by pinyon-juniper woodland that may have the potential to produce sagebrush plant communities. These areas include sagebrush sites that have been encroached by pinyon-juniper woodlands, as well as other pinyon-juniper dominated sites that may provide potential value to GRSG. • X-3: Pinyon-juniper areas that have crossed the threshold from sagebrush ecological site to pinyon-juniper or juniper woodland or have only had a potential for woodland plant community. (PDF Map 3-3) Figure 3.3. Populations/Subpopulation Management Units and WAFWA Management Zones • R-4 : Areas with potential to produce sagebrush plant communities but are dominated by annual grasses, annual forbs, or weeds. • X-4 : Areas that have crossed the threshold from sagebrush ecological site to annual grasses, perennial weeds, bare ground, or a non-sagebrush ecological site. • Other. Areas with some value to GRSG but typically not considered traditional GRSG habitat. These areas include riparian zones, salt desert scrub communities, aspen stands, mountain mahogany stands, and agricultural lands. Using the R-mapping as a starting point, the NDOW habitat categorization mapping then incorporates the best available data (including lek observations, telemetry locations, survey and inventory reports, vegetation cover, soils information, and aerial photography) into a statewide prioritization of GRSG habitat. This mapping delineates GRSG habitat into the following five categories: • Category 1 - Essential/Irreplaceable Habitat'. The lek and associated nesting habitat is categorized as essential and irreplaceable habitat. The interrelationships between the vegetal characteristics of a given area, female nest site selection, and movement patterns of the population that drive males to establish a lek in areas of female use is spatially and temporally dynamic and has yet to be successfully recreated (USFWS 2013a). However, focusing solely on the lek location and a certain buffer around the lek does not always adequately represent those areas that are crucial to the long-term survival of particular populations, especially those that are migratory. Several telemetry monitoring efforts, particularly in eastern Nevada, have shown that females will move up in elevation from the lek sites to more mesic habitats to both nest and raise their broods. These habitats should also be considered as Category 1 habitats that are essential and irreplaceable. Category 1 habitat often corresponds to the R-0 habitat definition (see definitions above). • Category 2 - Important Habitat : Suitable and diverse winter habitats and high quality brood-rearing habitats are critical to the long-term persistence of GRSG populations. Winter habitats are very important to GRSG due in large part to their complete dependence September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones 406 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement on sagebrush during the late fall and winter months (Connelly et al. 2000a). Depending on the year and the snowpack in a given area, winter habitats elevate in importance as snow accumulations rise. Because of the loss of sagebrush in Nevada over the last decade (approximately 2.6 million acres or 12 percent of available GRSG habitat), winter habitat is at a premium and, depending on the particular PMU, could actually be considered essential and irreplaceable. In Nevada, winter habitats are essentially comprised of mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, and low sagebrush communities. Plants within these communities are usually taller than at random sites (Connelly 1982; Schoenberg 1982). Also, sagebrush canopy cover is typically greater than 20 percent at wintering sites (Hanf et al. 1994; Eng and Schladweiler 1972; Homer et al. 1993). High quality winter habitat may correspond to the R-2 habitat definition, but there are situations where important winter habitats could be nested within R-0 habitats as well. Brood-rearing habitats are also a very important component of GRSG habitats. A mosaic of upland sagebrush vegetation intermixed with mountain meadows and spring systems compose brood rearing habitat. These habitat types are fairly limited in Nevada because of the dry climate exhibited throughout the majority of the Great Basin. These habitats have been impacted by improper livestock grazing practices (whether prior or current), overutilization by wild horses, and pinyon and juniper encroachment. High quality brood-rearing habitat generally corresponds best to the R-0 habitat definition; however, there are instances where high quality brood-rearing habitat could be nested within R-l and R-2 habitat definitions. • Category 3 - Habitat of Moderate Importance : These habitats are not meeting their full potential due to any number of factors but still serve some benefit to GRSG populations. These habitats can serve as nesting, brood rearing, wintering, or transitional habitat but are marginal. For the short term, these habitats may only be of limited value on a seasonal basis but could serve additional long-term values if certain habitat components (most importantly sagebrush) return to the site. Habitats within this category could correspond to R-l, R-2, or R-3 habitat definitions. R-l habitats generally tend to be upper elevation sagebrush habitats, normally mountain big sagebrush communities that have recently burned. These areas are likely to return to a mountain big sagebrush community within 35 to 100 years (Baker 2006) and would then serve greater value to GRSG, but presently may only be of marginal value during the brood-rearing period, for example. R-2 habitats with ample sagebrush but little understory exist at various elevation and topography types. These areas can often be treated with passive management techniques, which are recommended in xeric sagebrush communities that receive less than or equal to 12 inches of precipitation. Pinyon and juniper-encroached sagebrush habitats, or R-3 habitats that have not crossed a threshold, may be of value to GRSG depending on the level of encroachment. • Category 4 - Low Value Habitat and Transition Range : Habitats within this category currently contribute very little value to GRSG other than transitional range from one seasonal habitat to another or minimal foraging use. Habitats within this category that also correspond to R-3 habitat definitions have not completely crossed a threshold where restoration efforts would be ineffective but would be very expensive, with secondary work needed to recover the understory. The cost to benefit ratio is too high to apply recovery efforts at this time. Similarly, habitats that correspond to the R-4 habitat definition may not have necessarily crossed the restoration threshold, but restoration would be very expensive and would also require secondary or tertiary treatments to control invasive plant species post treatment. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 407 • Category 5 - Unsuitable Habitat : This category represents non-habitat at this time unless greater strides are made with respect to restoration techniques. In general, this type of habitat is in such poor condition that restoration efforts would not be feasible or effective. Non-habitat can either be designated non-habitat areas delineated within seasonal distribution maps or areas that have undergone substantial change and are not likely to recover. These areas could be lower elevation sagebrush habitats that have burned and are now annual grasslands dominated by various invasive weeds. Areas such as these are not likely to recover without substantial effort and expense. Other examples of habitat alteration that could render an area to be considered non-habitat include agricultural conversion, or cultivation, and urban/suburban development. Category 5 habitat could correspond to the R-3 or R-4 (and X-3 or X-4) habitat definitions. These areas have little potential to produce sagebrush plant communities and are currently dominated by pinyon-juniper woodlands or annual grasses and forbs. California Habitat Mapping The California BLM administers lands within the Surprise, Eagle Lake, and Alturas Field Offices in the northwestern portion of the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region. BLM-administered lands in the Surprise and Eagle Lake Field Offices fall within California and Nevada. For the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada GRSG population, California BLM utilized a mapping methodology based on the Doherty modeling (Doherty et al. 201 1 ), including the 100 percent breeding bird density core regions, or all known active leks with appropriate buffering (6.4 kilometers [4 miles] for 25 percent and 50 percent kernels, 8.5 kilometers [5.3 miles] for 75 percent and 100 percent kernels). Areas were modified by local knowledge of seasonal range use, known connectivity, and vegetative and natural barriers. In California, extensive radio telemetry information was available, providing a direct footprint of GRSG use areas. For the purposes of quantifying GRSG habitat, the terms PPH and PGH are used. PPH includes NDOW mapping Categories 1 and 2, and PGH includes mapping Category 3. All mapped habitat within California and California-managed PMUs in northwestern Nevada are included as PPH and PGH per the methodology noted above. Surface and Habitat Acres Population/subpopulation surface acreage within the sub-region is dominated by BLM-administered lands at 70 percent. Forest Service-administered lands comprise 13 percent, and all other ownerships comprise the remaining 17 percent (Table 3-4, Surface Ownership within Nevada Population/ Subpopulation Areas). Table 3.4. Surface Ownership within Nevada and Northeastern California Population/Subpopulation Areas Population/Subpopulation Total BLM Forest Service Other Management Zone III Central Nevada 13,796,074 9,561,331 2,461,316 1,773,427 Northwestern Interior 1,284,622 991,457 0 293,165 Quinn Range 1 ,986,395 1,719,176 222,502 44,717 Southeast Nevada 9,015,524 7,530,250 787,939 697,335 Management Zone IV North Central Nevada 2,063,293 1,341,319 312,456 409,5 1 8 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones 408 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Population/Subpopulation Total BLM Forest Service Other Northeastern Nevada 5,981,841 3,403,738 679,337 1,898,766 Management Zone V Klamath (California) 69,539 0 59,446 10,093 Northeastern California/Northwestern Nevada 4,265,207 3,129,350 18,213 1,117,644 South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 480,377 456,409 0 23,968 Warm Springs Valley 356,033 231,387 0 124,646 Total 39,319,059 28,364,422 4,541,212 6,393,283 Source: Manieretal. 2013 Population/subpopulation PPH and PGH within the sub-region is slightly more skewed toward BLM-administered lands at 73 percent. Forest Service-administered lands comprise 11 percent, and all other ownerships comprise the remaining 15 percent (Table 3-5, GRSG Habitat within Nevada and Northeastern California Population/Subpopulation Areas). Of note is the percentage of PPH/PGH contained within each of the population/subpopulation areas and the contribution of each for the sub-region (Table 3-6, Suitable GRSG Habitat As Percentage of Population/Subpopulation Surface Acreage and as Percentage of Sub-region Occupied Habitat). Occupied GRSG habitat is depicted on Figure 3-4, Occupied Habitat. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Table 3.5. GRSG Habitat1 within Nevada and Northeastern California Population/Subpopulation Areas Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 409 •_ a> -c X o Oh SC a Ou a* '> •- a* c/5 41 o Lu X o Cl X o- CL X o 0. X Cu Cl C/5 3 G. O Oh 3 .2 "3 CM o o N H s 4) E 41 OH C3 C C3 so ci o OS xf xf 0 00 Xf Os xf Cl ' — < to * — 1 r- Os xf r- SO Os ’ — < so Os 00 SO oc O Cl ’ — 1 Cl 0 1 — 1 CO OS 1— H Os 0 0 xp ci 0 SO Cl to 0 so 00 o 0 Os so to CO l/j <0 C) Cl Cl v=m tO OO co CO r~- to SO oc so xf i r> tO to xf r- SO so Cl 1— ( Os to IT) co xf to OS OS oc to OS <0 SO sO co i—i Os r- Os r- os to xf Cl Cl xf i— < to to SO Xf SO 1— < OC re SO 1 — 1 Cl (O CO oc xf Cl Cl s© co to Os. so Cl Cl 0 so CO to Cl i— ( to so to 00 0 0 1—1 CO CG <0 ' — 1 SO 00 Cl 0 CO oc so Cl CO OS 1 — < Cl 0 so Cl xf CO xf ri r i 00 oc to 1—1 OC xf ' — 1 Cl <0 Cl 0 CO 1 fi xf- CJ 1 — 1 Xt CO 1 r, J3 t: 0 J-< > 1=1 ft ft xd ft > > #ft ft ft kO JD 1 (X) O ’ft CD 03 4> 3 O xd ft > CD 4* c 0 ]ft £ ft <2 xd ft > CD G Of) CD ft xd ^3 Xd 03 > N X CD £ N *-> 2 ft O x O ft xd ft P CD CD c ft c g ft ft Of > OJ X ■*— » C/3 CD £ OJJ 3 3 -* ft a j U > (D £ "ft _3 'C Cl GO 5-i r-| ft JO ft JJ jj J0 J3 J0 J-H ft 3 O JO 3 T3 JO "3 £ o Q X hO JO "O "O JO 3 X "3 a i—* o o o September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones 410 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.6. Suitable GRSG Habitat As Percentage of Population/Subpopulation Surface Acreage and as Percentage of Sub-region Occupied Habitat Popu latio n/Sn bpopulation As % of Surface within Population/Subpopulation As % of Sub-region Occupied Habitat Central Nevada 49 31 Northwestern Interior 31 2 Quinn Range 13 1 Southeast Nevada 40 17 North Central Nevada 72 7 Northeastern Nevada 84 23 Klamath (California) 100 <1 Northeastern California/Northwestern Nevada 81 16 South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 83 2 Warm Springs Valley 44 1 Source: NDOW and CDFW 2012 Sage-Grouse Populations The NDOW and CDFW lek database classifies leks into five categories defined as follows: • Active: 2 or more males observed at least twice in the last 5 years • Pending Active: 2 or more males observed only once in the last 5 years with no other visits conducted • Inactive : 0 or 1 male observed during every visit (minimum 2 visits) in the last 5 years • Historic: 0 or 1 male observed during every visit (minimum 5 visits) in the last 30 years • Unknown: no other conditions met Currently, there are 573 leks classified as active, 272 leks classified as inactive, and approximately 200 leks classified as pending (having been active within the last 5 years with no other visits). Active leks are distributed among the population/subpopulation areas, as shown in Table 3-7, Leks in Population/Subpopulation Areas. Lek data demonstrate where GRSG in the sub-region are persistent within populations/subpopulations. (See management zone discussions below for summaries of population trends and habitat factors.) (PDF Map 3^4) Figure 3.4. Occupied Habitat Table 3.7. Leks in Population/Subpopulation Areas Population/Subpopulation Active Inactive Total Central Nevada 134 51 185 Northwestern Interior 0 9 9 Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 411 Population/Subpopiilation Active Inactive Total Quinn Range 0 0 0 Southeast Nevada 105 42 147 North Central Nevada 44 29 73 Northeastern Nevada 157 93 250 Northeastern California/Northwestern Nevada 95 30 125 South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 36 18 54 Warm Springs Valley 2 0 2 Source: NDOW and CDFW 2012 Numbers of males per active lek in each population/subpopulation are characterized in Table 3-8, Percentage Distribution of Active Leks by Size Category within Population/Subpopulation Areas. Table 3.8. Percentage Distribution of Active Leks by Size Category within Population/Subpopulation Areas 1-10 males 11-20 males 21-30 males 31-40 males 41-50 males 50+ males Central Nevada 35% 23% 16% 11% 6% 8% Northwestern Interior N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Quinn Range N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Southeast Nevada 56% 28% 10% 3% 0% 3% North Central Nevada 43% 18% 16% 7% 2% 14% Northeastern Nevada 44% 27% 17% 3% 5% 3% Lake Area: Northeastern Cali forn ia/North western N evada 24% 19% 18% 17% 7% 1 5% South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 53% 19% 17% 5% 3% 3% Warm Springs Valley 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% Source: NDOW and CDFW 2012 The distribution of lek categories among the population/subpopulations depicts their relative strength. Of note is the northeast Califomia/northwest Nevada subpopulation with a relatively flat distribution across lek categories indicating a disproportionate number of larger leks. Central Nevada exhibits a similar distribution. Northeastern Nevada and Southeastern Nevada have a high number of small leks and a linear decrease in number of leks by lek size across the categories. The smaller but viable populations in North Central and South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada have fewer leks overall but lek size distributions similar to those of the most robust northeast California/northwest Nevada and Central Nevada populations. These distributions generally correlate to wildfire/annual grass/conifer influences among subpopulations. Fire Occurrence Fire has played a major role in the decline of GRSG habitat within the sub-region. Fire starts and total burned acres by both year and decade have increased substantially since 1980. Causal factors are attributable initially to the influence of invasive grasses on fire return intervals. The fine fuel bed created annually has the ability to ignite more frequently and to burn in larger, more continuous patches. Of increasing importance is the role of climate change. Live fuel moistures are reaching lower values earlier than in recorded history thus greatly increasing the flammability of larger fuels such as sagebrush. This increases fire size and also intensifies fire behavior. Figure 3-5, Areas with a High Probability of Cheatgrass Occurrence, shows the areas of the sub-region with a high probability for cheatgrass to occur. The loss of GRSG habitat in the September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones 412 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Northwestern Interior population of the sub-region bears a direct relationship to the high risk of cheatgrass replacement following wildfire (Connelly et al. 2004). Of note is the low risk for the Nevada portion of the Northeast Califomia/Northwest Nevada, North Central, and Northeastern subpopulations and the low to moderate risk in the Central and Southeastern subpopulations, demonstrating some level of resilience to the effects of wildfire and ultimately loss of habitat in these areas. More recent fire history in the sub-region is shown on Figure 3-6, Fire History 2000-2012, while the trends in fire starts and burned acres are depicted in Table 3-9, Fire Starts and Acres Burned by Decade by Population/Subpopulation Area. Chart 3-1, Acres Burned by Decade, displays fire data by decade and demonstrates the increase in fire size. Trends in fire starts reflect a general increase across the chart, while acres burned more than tripled from the 1980s to the 1990s and nearly quadrupled to current. (PDF Map 3—5 ) Figure 3.5. Areas with a High Probability of Cheatgrass Occurance (PDF Map 3—6) Figure 3.6. Fire History 2000-2012 Table 3.9. Fire Starts and Acres Burned by Decade1 by Population/Subpopulation Area Population/ Subpopulation 1983-1992 1993-2002 2003-2012 Total Starts Acres Starts Acres Starts Acres Acres Central Nevada 215 189,475 517 1,123,789 503 631,250 1,944,514 Northwestern Interior 71 75,305 214 394,503 110 91,217 561,025 Quinn Range 5 1,928 4 1,362 9 10,735 14,025 Southeast Nevada 120 54,085 182 100,672 69 59,361 214,118 North Central Nevada 45 44,284 84 187,976 1 14 328,232 560,492 Northeastern Nevada 310 279,340 519 809,090 590 1,841,607 2,930,037 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 223 132,446 426 211,190 142 419,248 762,884 South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 29 99,309 41 91,569 34 239,713 430,591 Warm Springs Valley 81 55,772 65 73,304 119 24,145 153,221 Total 1099 931,944 2052 2,993,455 1690 3,645,508 7,570,907 Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 'Nevada fire data 1984 to present. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 413 Chart 3-1 Acres Burned by Decade 9.000 000 8000 000 7.000 000 6,000000 B, 000 000 W, 000 000 3000000 2000 000 1000 000 0 I m 1992 1993-2002 2003-2012 Decade fetal Source: BLH/NDOW dats noc published This chart and these tables reflect a relatively lower frequency and fire size in the 1980s. Burned acreage increased dramatically in Central Nevada from 1993 to 2002 and remains high into the present. Fires are concentrated in the northern one-third of this subpopulation adjacent to the Northeastern subpopulation where fire activity more than doubled per decade, burning nearly 2 million acres between 2003 and 2012. This general area of fire activity is within an apparent storm track that bisects the state from west to east and runs generally from the Warm Springs Valley population on the west, through the Northwest Interior, and into the Northeast. While certain spikes of fire activity are obvious, of note are the general increases in recent fire activity in those previously relatively unbumed populations. These trends are noticeable in the Northeast Califomia/Northwest Nevada, North Central, and South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada population/subpopulations where the 2003 to 2012 decade demonstrates decadal highs. Populations of comparatively low fire activity are Southeast Nevada and the southern two-thirds of Central Nevada. Higher terrain, varied fuel types, and monsoonal late-summer weather patterns may contribute to this effect. Fire Effects on GRSG To depict the direct effects of fires and fire history on GRSG populations, Table 3-10, Active and Inactive Lek Sites and Adjacent Nesting Habitat Burned Since 1980, utilizes the composite footprint of all wildfires in the sub-region and overlays active and inactive leks (NDOW and CDFW 2012), and any leks that had wildfire occurrence within a four-mile buffer to reflect impacted nesting habitat. An unknown number of “Pending Active” leks may be either active or inactive and are omitted from this analysis. In areas of high wildfire frequency and extent, an extremely high percentage of active and inactive lek sites have been impacted. It is assumed that Chapter 3 Affected Environment September, 2013 Management Zones 414 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement many of these leks may have become inactive in the years following wildfires. The Northeastern subpopulation shows the highest percentage of impact on active/inactive leks and associated nesting habitat. Approximately 25 percent of active leks and over 50 percent of inactive leks have been burned. Virtually all leks have had varying amounts of associated nesting habitat burned. The effects of the 2012 wildfires are shown in the South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada subpopulation, where nearly one-third of active and inactive leks are burned and virtually all nesting habitat associated with active and inactive leks is impacted. In the Northeast Califomia/Northwest Nevada area, while just over 10 percent of active leks have burned, nesting habitat associated with virtually all leks has been impacted. Table 3.10. Active and Inactive Lek Sites and Adjacent Nesting Habitat Burned Since 1980 Population/Subpopulation Total Leks Burnet Leks Lek Site Burned Within 4-mile buffer Active Inactive Active Inactive Active Inactive Central Nevada 134 51 2 1 71 22 Northwestern Interior 0 9 0 0 0 6 Quinn Range 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southeast Nevada 105 42 2 0 37 15 North Central Nevada 44 29 1 1 21 20 Northeastern Nevada 157 93 36 50 145 91 Northeastern California/ Northwestern Nevada 95 30 10 1 66 20 South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada 36 18 8 7 33 16 Warm Springs Valley 2 0 0 0 2 0 Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 Connectivity A key feature relating to connectivity on the statewide scale in Nevada is the presence of the Interstate 80 corridor following the general centerline of the checkerboard land ownership that bisects the state. The checkerboard ownership is a product of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, which conveyed to the railroads ten sections of land in alternating sections on either side of each completed mile of railroad in support of the construction and operation of the trans-continental railroad system. The Act therefore facilitated a 40-mile wide corridor (20 miles to either side of the railroad) of checkerboard ownership. The railroad and the subsequent interstate highway provide a transportation network around which much of the infrastructure development in northern Nevada has occurred. While this infrastructure is not expected to expand dramatically into GRSG habitats, development will continue to intensify within this zone (Comer et al. 2012a). The corridor contains the largest urban areas in northern Nevada, extensive mining and transportation infrastructure, and agricultural development. The combined effects of the corridor on GRSG and their habitats are well demonstrated, with consensus among the land and wildlife management agencies that very little seasonal range connectivity currently exists across this corridor. It is unknown whether enough episodic crossing occurs to facilitate genetic exchange. The detrimental effects of interstate highways on GRSG nesting has been documented in Wyoming and northeastern Utah (Connelly et al. 2004) (Chart 2-5), with an analysis of active leks within distance buffers from the interstate and exhibiting similar land ownership and concentration of infrastructure as in Nevada. The analysis found no leks within 2 kilometers of Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 415 the interstate (4-kilometer-wide [2.5-mile-wide] band) and only 9 leks between 2 and 4 kilometers [1.2 and 2.5 miles] of the interstate. Only 1 equivalent-sized band 62 to 64 kilometers [38.5 to 40 miles] from the interstate had 8 leks, with all other intervals having more. A similar analysis for Interstate 80 in Nevada shows similar results. In the Nevada analysis, active leks were counted in 5-kilometer [3.1 -mile] bands out to 60 kilometers [37.3 miles] on either side of the interstate from Winnemucca to the Utah border. No leks occur within the 5-kilometer [3.1-mile] band (10 kilometers [6.2 miles] wide), 9 occur within the 10-kilometer [6.2-mile] band (20 kilometers [12.4 miles] wide), and 10 occur within the 15-kilometer [9.3-mile] band (30 kilometers [18.6 miles] wide). An equivalent band 21 to 25 kilometers [13 to 15.5 miles] away contains 9 leks. Of the highest 5 band counts, 4 occur beyond 40 kilometers [24.8 miles], indicating that the corridor may be affecting GRSG to that distance. The distance and distribution of GRSG leks in relation to Interstate 80 are displayed in Chart 3-2, Leks by Distance from Interstate 80 and Chart 3-3, Nevada Lek Distribution - Interstate 80, below. Chart 3-2 Leks by Distance from Interstate 80 v' v *V sS- cy NV A \> A' O' ,v Distance from luterstate-SO (km) Source: Con nelly 2004 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones 416 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chart 3-3 Nevada Lek Distribution - Interstate 80 £>5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26 30 31 35 36-4041-45 46-5051-55 56-60 Distance Bands from 1-80 Source: BLM/NDOW data not published Management Zone III Management Zone III is the most arid and includes the southern extent of GRSG populations across all of central and south-central Nevada and five of seven subpopulations across Utah. The zone consists of 4 populations/subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004) and all or portions of 39 PMUs in central and southeastern Nevada. Of the four populations/subpopulations, two of these are considered large but fragmented (Central Nevada and Southeast Nevada), and two are considered small and isolated (Northwestern Interior and Quinn Range). The Central Nevada subpopulation includes West Nye, East Churchill, Eureka, South Elko, Lander, and West White Pine counties, including 13.8 million surface acres and 6.7 million acres of GRSG habitat. The subpopulation contains 16 PMUs and is considered 1 of the 4 stronghold GRSG habitats within Nevada. Vegetation modeling across GRSG population areas was completed June 2013 by Forest Service and the BLM using the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT). This tool incorporated Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project (LANDFIRE; USGS 2006a), available GRSG habitat information, expert opinion, and other related information. VDDT modeling indicates that 44 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 68 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation treatments are resulting in an improving trend. However, this subpopulation is considered in long-range population decline (Connelly et al. 2004; Garton et al. 2011). The Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 417 subpopulation area supports 134 active and 51 currently inactive leks. Fifty-six active leks (42 percent) have greater than 20 males in attendance, with 1 1 active leks having greater than 50 males (NDOW 2013). The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes the population status as being “potentially at risk” because of limited or declining numbers, range, or habitat even though GRSG may be locally abundant in some portions of the area. The report highlights conifers, weeds/annual grasses, fire, infrastructure, grazing, free-roaming horses and burros, and recreation as threats. 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 subpopulation remains relatively insulated from the occurrence and effects of wildfire. Generally, wildfire has had less overall impact on habitats than in other populations/subpopulations in central Nevada, while conifer encroachment plays a larger role. 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 to increase in frequency and extent) but reflective of the current level of annual grass invasion which has already occurred. Overall, compared with the habitats of other Nevada subpopulations, these habitats maintain the highest integrity in the state with respect to potential abundance of annual grasses. Change in extent of pinyon-juniper woodland is moderate, indicating a significant level of continuing expansion into sagebrush habitats. Summarizing the effects of climate change on GRSG habitats indicates a strong predicted influence with increased temperature regimes shifting lower elevation sagebrush habitats into mixed salt desert scrub on a significant scale and sagebrush habitat expansion occurring at higher elevations, retaining significant habitat as potential projected climate change focal areas for GRSG and other species (Comer et al. 2012). Ownership includes a higher percentage of higher elevation lands managed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The BLM administers 9.6 million surface acres (69 percent), and Forest Service administers 2.5 million acres (18 percent). The Southeastern Nevada subpopulation includes portions of far Southeast Elko, East White Pine, and North Lincoln counties, including 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 with other stronghold areas. The subpopulation area supports 1 05 active and 42 currently inactive leks. Only 17 active leks (17 percent) have greater than 20 males in attendance, with 3 active leks having greater than 50 males (NDOW 2013). VDDT modeling indicates that 36 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. FTabitat condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 54 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation treatments are resulting in an improving trend. 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 ). The COT Report USFWS 2013a) does not differentiate between the Central and Southeastern Nevada subpopulations. The report characterizes the population status as being “potential at risk” because of limited or declining numbers, range, and habitat even though GRSG may be locally abundant in some portions of the area. The report highlights conifers, weeds/annual grasses, lire, infrastructure, grazing, free-roaming horses and burros, and recreation as threats. Annual grasses Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 418 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement have potential abundance at or above 45 percent throughout the basins, with low to no risk on mountain topography. Climate change projections indicate a substantial shrinkage of sagebrush habitats from the southern end of the subpopulation due to an increase in salt desert scrub and northerly encroachment of Mojave Desert species with only minor expansion of pinyon-juniper habitats. Intact habitats will persist at higher elevations (Comer et al. 2012). While 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 that have burned extensively and repeatedly for the last two decades due to the domination of invasive grasses and altered fire return intervals. Approximately 561,000 acres have burned since 1984. Sagebrush canopy is absent over vast areas, marginalizing habitat value to GRSG. NDOW mapped habitat on only small portions of seven of these PMUs based on the lack of leks and the suspected inability of these areas to recover from wildfire. Total GRSG habitat is 31 1,000 acres. VDDT modeling was not completed on this population. The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes the population status as “high risk” because of extremely limited or rapidly declining numbers, range, or habitat, making GRSG in this area highly vulnerable to extirpation. The NDOW lek database indicates no active and nine currently inactive leks. The report highlights isolated and small size, fire, weeds, annual grasses, mining, infrastructure, grazing, free-roaming horses and burros, and recreation as threats. The invasive grass potential is above 45 percent, with fire regime departures the highest in Nevada (Comer et al. 2012). 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 million BLM; 222,000 Forest Service). NDOW maps total habitat at 258,557 acres with no habitat in Categories 1 and 2 (Essential/Irreplaceable and Important). VDDT modeling was not completed on this population. The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) characterizes the population status as “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 report states the population as containing less than 200 birds and that Garton et al. 2011 does not model the population due to lack of data. The NDOW lek database indicates no active or currently inactive 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. 2012). Management Zone IV This management zone is extensive, including five states with the subpopulations in Nevada shared into southern Idaho, northwestern Utah, and southeastern Oregon. The zone consists of two subpopulations (Northeastern and North Central) and all or portions of nine PMUs in north-central and northeastern Nevada, in the northern half of Elko and eastern Humboldt counties. Surface acreage and habitat for the Northeastern subpopulation are 6 million acres and 5.1 million acres, respectively. Surface acreage and habitat for the North Central subpopulation are 2.1 million acres and 1.5 million acres, respectively. Of 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. Active lek size distribution is skewed toward leks with less than twenty males (112 leks, 71 percent). Four leks have more than 50 males. The North Central subpopulation supports 44 active and 29 currently inactive leks. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 419 Seventeen leks (39 percent) have more than 20 males (NDOW 2013). 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 areal footprint of wildfire 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. Eighty-two percent of active and 91 percent of inactive leks have suffered nesting habitat losses within a four-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. VDDT modeling in the Northeastern subpopulation indicates that 55 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 62 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation treatments are resulting in a stable to improving trend. VDDT modeling in the North Central subpopulation indicates that 56 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 70 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation treatments are resulting in an improving trend. The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) highlights fire and 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 to 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. 2012). Management Zone V This 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 in California and contains a mix of habitat issues that have had long-term effects on GRSG populations. The range of GRSG in this region has continued to shrink in extent over the last three decades, while some populations within the zone are relatively stable. When considered in its entirety, including south-central Oregon, population changes from 1965 to 2004 are statistically undetectable (Connelly et al. 2004). Of seven management zones. Management Zone V is characterized as one of those supporting the highest densities of GRSG. The Klamath population in northern Modoc County, California, is shared with Oregon and contains the Devil’s Garden PMU. It was once connected to PMUs to the south in northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, but is now virtually extirpated. Of 46 active leks known to have been extant as late as the 1970s, only 1 active lek remains. The lek is located on USFWS lands at Clear Fake and has been supported for the last seven years through population augmentation efforts consisting of annual trans-location of various numbers of males and females from other lek sites, mostly from the Sheldon Antelope Refuge and other well-attended lek locations in Nevada. Habitat in this area has been severely compromised by conifer encroachment and to a lesser extent by invasive grasses. The persistence of the Clear Fake population is Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 420 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement dependent upon the implementation of large-scale juniper removal by the Modoc National Forest. Planning for this PMU/population is not considered further in this LUPA/EIS. 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 2013a), USFWS generalizes threats to this subpopulation as isolation and small size, conifers, fire, weeds, annual grasses, livestock, and wild horses. The California portion includes the Likely Tablelands PMU in eastern Modoc County, which is likely to become extirpated within the next decade. The population consists of only one lek that contained three strutting males in 2012. Up to eight leks were present on the tablelands in the 1980s and were connected to other populations 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 0 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 that 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 the Rush fire. 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 GRSG range on the western edge and potentially eliminating GRSG from northeastern California. No modeling has been completed to support this hypothesis. As of 2012, 21 leks were active in the PMU. Of these leks, 11 were burned in the Rush Fire of 2012. Livestock grazing, both historic and present, and wild horse overpopulation are additional threats affecting the PMU, including both nesting cover and availability of late-summer brood-rearing habitats. The remaining PMUs within the Northeast Califomia/Northwest Nevada subpopulation 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 2 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, including 60,000 acres lost to fire in 2012. This Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 421 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 farthest northeastern California. Similar to the Massacre, wildfire and invasive grasses are less manifest 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. Overall, VDDT modeling for the Northeast California/Northwest Nevada subpopulation indicates that 56 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover down to 45 percent in 50 years. Trend is down due to increasing annual grasses and conifer encroachment. The South Central Oregon/North Central Nevada subpopulation contains 480,390 surface acres and 400,000 acres of GRSG habitat in Humboldt County north of Highway 140 and west of Highway 95. It is denoted as the Lone Willow PMU and includes the Bilk Creek and Montana mountains. The subpopulation is continuous into Oregon and also includes the Trout Creek Mountains and the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge. Though relatively small in size, the subpopulation includes 36 active leks, with 9 of these supporting 21 to 50 males and 1 population supporting more than 50 males, similar to other larger subpopulations considered as strongholds in the sub-region. It contains one of the most densely populated winter ranges identified in Nevada. Fire activity is high with total burned acreage of nearly 25 percent of the area by decade. In 2012, the Holloway Fire burned approximately 214,000 acres in the Nevada portion and another 245,000 acres in Oregon. VDDT modeling indicates that 30 percent of sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover up to 35 percent in 50 years. Current vegetation treatments are resulting in an improving trend though greatly impacted by recent fire activity. The COT Report (USFWS2013a) characterizes fire and annual grasses as substantial and imminent threats within this portion of the subpopulation along with mining and infrastructure as substantial and non-imminent. The Warm Springs Population (Pah Rah and Virginia PMUs) encompass 402,748 surface acres and 156,111 acres of mapped habitat in southern Washoe County. This area is bounded on the west by Highway 395, on the south by Long Valley, Interstate Highway 80, and the cities of Reno and Sparks Nevada, and on the east and the north by State Highway 446. Wildfires have burned approximately 35 percent of this PMU, converting sagebrush-dominated shrub lands to annual grasses and weeds. Wildfires that occurred from 1999 through 2001 were particularly devastating, burning some of the last strongholds of GRSG habitat left in both the Pah Rah 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 ( 1 5 percent) of the 356,034 acres in this PMU. Only 65 percent is under BLM administration, while 24 percent is under private ownership and 9 percent belongs September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Zones 422 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 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, an estimated 69 percent of existing GRSG habitat is under private ownership. VDDT modeling indicates that 60 percent of the modeled remaining sagebrush habitats support 10 to 30 percent sagebrush cover, which is considered suitable habitat. Habitat condition trends, which include continued implementation of habitat treatments under current management, are projected to bring sagebrush habitats supporting 10 to 30 percent cover to 56 percent in 50 years. Downward trends are slight and due to treatment rates not keeping pace with annual grass expansion. A qualitative population viability analysis was completed using parameters outlined in Appendix 6 of the Governor’s GRSG 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 indicate declining numbers with a spring breeding population of 150 to 200 GRSG (NDOW 2004b). The COT Report (USFWS 2013a) 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 report identifies the population as “at risk” overall. 3.2.4. Regional Context Clear patterns in the distribution and current ecological condition of conservation elements are a direct response to change agents of invasive plant species, alterations to wildfire regimes, and development. Roads, other linear infrastructure, urban areas, mining, and other industry have a relatively small overall footprint in this ecoregion. Approximately 7 percent of the land surface is currently occupied by these uses. Development tends to occur in areas of productive soils, surface and groundwater availability, and areas topographically suitable for roads, transmission, and pipelines, which also tend to be favored for wildlife movement and so may impact some of the most productive and sensitive resources. Much more pervasive are the effects of expanding invasive species and their interacting effects of wildfire regimes. Nearly every fifth field watershed is vulnerable to, if not already seriously infested with, invasive annual grasses, substantially altering effects on natural wildfire regimes. Effects include wildfires of increased size and severity, conversion from perennial bunchgrasses, forbs, and shrubs to annual grasses, and related fragmentation of habitat for species such as GRSG. The relative size and frequency of wildfire events will in all likelihood continue to increase across the region. Infrastructure All development types currently occupy approximately 7 percent of the ecoregion and are only expected to increase another 0.5 percent by 2025. The proportion of the ecoregion that would be developed by 2025 will increase from less than 7.1 percent currently to 7.6 percent by 2025. While this increase is proportionately small, it represents nearly 500,000 acres of additional development. Renewable energy development remains as a key concern for managers. While the current and expected 2025 renewables footprint amounts to only 0.2 percent of the ecoregion, the potential (as mapped by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) covers the majority of the area. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Regional Context September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 423 All of the indicators consistently show impacts for the heavily developed urban and agricultural use areas in the northwestern quadrant of the ecoregion, along the Wasatch Front, in the Owen’s Valley, along the Interstate 80 corridor, and in certain interior watersheds where large mines and other impacts occur. Consistent with forecasts of the development change agents, the summary map of landscape for current and projected 2025 conditions does not indicate a large degree of change. For the most part, increased urbanization is forecasted to occur in and around current locations. Figure 3-7, Landscape Condition, shows the current landscape condition indicator based on development change agents. Source: Comer et al. 2012a Figure 3.7. Landscape Condition Invasive Species/Fire Currently and by 2025, wildfire and invasive annual grasses are by far the greatest management concerns. An overwhelming proportion of the CBR is predicted by this model to support annual grasses at 45 percent cover. Although disturbance is a driver of the competitive success of these invasive annual grasses, one can assume that future disturbances will continue in the present patterns. This is undoubtedly the most severe circumstance on an ecoregion scale in the western United States. Indicators suggest overall that substantial fire regime departure has occurred throughout the Montane Uplands (Montane forest and shrub land vegetation) of the CBR. Change from historic reference conditions (known as fire regime departure in fire analysis discussions) for upland ecosystems in the inter-mountain basins (such as salt desert scrub and big sagebrush shrub land) is overall more severe, and reflects a similar spatial pattern to that Chapter 3 Affected Environment Regional Context September, 2013 424 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement provided by the invasive annual grass indicator. While annual grasses and fire regime departure are linked processes operating on the landscape, the current mapping of invasive species is not yet fully coupled with fire regime departure. For example, fire frequency remains very low in some desert scrub types, while they appear to be accumulating invasive plant abundances. Fire regime departure models from 2025 to 2060 indicate relative minor differences. Thus, management priorities guided primarily by the analysis of current conditions should hold for the upcoming decades. Where current conditions suggest needs for habitat restoration and management focus, forecasts for upcoming decades for landscape condition and fire regime departure suggest those same management directions. Climate Change Over the coming 20 to 50 years, forecasts indicate the potential for truly profound transformation in many ecosystems across the CBR. Climate space trends indicate the potential for extreme growing season temperatures throughout the vast majority of the ecoregion. These forecasts appear most intense along the southern CBR, and throughout the other largest basins. For November through June for the 2020s, less than 5 percent of the CBR area is projected to experience statistically significant increases in monthly maximum temperature of one standard deviation beyond the values of the 20th century baseline. In contrast, for this same near future time period, July, August, and September may see similarly significant maximum temperature increase over 50, 65, and 70 percent of the CBR ecoregion, respectively. The spatial distribution of these projected changes by the 2020s is concentrated toward the southern half of the ecoregion. By 2060, the six global climate models ensemble forecasts substantial increases in maximum temperatures for all months, with the greatest increases concentrated during the summer. For July and August, by 2060, 90 percent and 85 percent of the CBR, respectively, is forecast to experience monthly maximum temperatures 2 standard deviations beyond the values of the 20th century baseline. As early as the 2020s, July, August, and September minimum temperatures (i.e., night-time temperatures) are predicted to exceed 1 standard deviation beyond the 20th century baseline for 90 percent of the CBR. By the 2050s, the increases in monthly minimum temperature become even more pervasive and severe. For every month during the 2050s, nearly all of the CBR is projected to exceed 1 standard deviation beyond the 20th century baseline, and for July through September, the models predict that 90 percent of the region will experience monthly minimum temperatures 2 standard deviations beyond baseline values, and 6 1 percent of the region will experience this in October. In some cases, substantially more than 50 percent of the area of the current climate distribution is lost over the next 50 years. Regarding landscape pattern effects, in most cases, a clear shift to higher elevation, and to the north, can be observed in each model. Differences among types tend to be in the forecasted magnitude of change (i.e., the relative proportion of current distribution where the climate envelope is forecasted to move elsewhere). There is a tendency for mixed salt desert scrub to expand into adjacent lands currently occupied by big sagebrush shrub land. In the southern portion of the region mixed salt desert scrub is displaced with expansion by desert scrub species characteristic of the Mojave Desert. Farther upslope, the climate envelope for Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodland is forecast to retreat northward to some degree, but overall there appears to be considerable overlap throughout this region. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Regional Context September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 425 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 (see Figure 3-8, Bioclimate Change Summary: Greater Sage-Grouse). Green areas indicate where current climate envelope distributions “overlap” with forecast. Blue areas indicate potential contraction, where current climate characteristics supportive of GRSG habitat will be replaced by significantly different climate regime. Pink areas indicate where current climate regime for GRSG habitat is forecasted to occur outside of the current distribution by 2060. More generally, species that rely on sagebrush habitat have higher loss in climate envelope compared with other species. In particular pygmy rabbit, sage sparrow, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are projected to experience severe climate-related loss by 2060. Biocliiruite Change Summary: Greater Sage Grouse Legend Source: Comer et al. 2012a Figure 3.8. Bioclimate Change Summary: Greater Sage-Grouse Lowest elevation basins throughout the ecoregion could transition from cool semi-desert into very warm and sparsely vegetated desert landscapes more typical of the Mojave Basin and Range. When the overlap areas of major vegetation type climate envelopes are combined, one can identify areas ranging in importance for retaining these vegetation types (i.e., focal areas). In some areas of the CBR, as many as seven major vegetation types show an overlap between current and forecasted climate envelopes. These areas are good indicators of potential climate change focal areas. Areas forecasted to experience the least amount of change are concentrated in north-central and south-central Nevada. These areas may be further evaluated in this light for their potential to provide some degree of climate change focal areas. Restoration priorities and restoration focal areas can be identified in areas showing intermediate status scores for landscape condition and invasive annual grasses, low likelihood of future development, and low climate change stress by mid-century. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Regional Context September, 2013 426 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 3.3. Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds) Vegetation serves multiple purposes on the landscape and provides many ecosystem services. Vegetation stabilizes soils, prevents erosion, uses carbon dioxide, releases oxygen, increases species diversity, and provides habitat and food for animals and products for human use. Many of the BLM’s and the Forest Service’s land management policies are directed toward maintenance of healthy vegetation communities. Vegetation can be characterized generally by ecological provinces and more specifically by plant communities. The ecological provinces and plant communities discussed below are those that provide the most important land cover across the planning area. The planning area falls in the Northern Basin and Range, CBR, Sierra Nevada, and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills ecoregions (EPA 2010). These ecoregions are subdivided based on physical characteristics of the landscapes, and further divided into vegetation communities, which are named according to the types of plant species of which they are composed. Plant communities with the same name can occur in more than one ecoregion or subdivision; however, these communities often have subtle differences in their makeup. A description of each of the major vegetation communities in the planning area is provided below. Acres of each vegetation community in PGH and PPH on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in the planning area are shown in Table 3-11, Acres of Vegetation Communities within PPH and PGH. Table 3.11. Acres of Vegetation Communities within PPH and PGH Vegetation Community PGH (acres) PPH (acres) BLM Forest Service BLM Forest Service Northern Basin and Range 793,800 179,600 5,201,500 551,00 Central Basin and Range 3,663,600 358,600 6,208,100 625,600 Sierra Nevada 400 0 400 0 Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills 50,500 0 106,00 0 Mojave Basin and Range 0 0 0 0 Cascades 0 0 0 0 Total 4,508,300 538,200 11,516,926 1,198,431 Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 3.3.1. Weed Control Guidance and Programs Integrated Weed Management is a systems approach for the management of noxious weeds and invasive species. Walker and Buchanan defined Integrated Weed Management as “the application of many kinds of technologies in a mutually supportive manner. It involves the deliberate selection, integration, and implementation of effective weed control measures with due consideration of economic, ecological, and sociological consequences” (Walker and Buchanan 1982). Noxious weeds and invasive annual grass species out-compete native vegetation for resources through advantageous physiological characteristics. Weeds threaten to degrade public lands in Nevada and California by spreading into and infesting sensitive riparian ecosystems, important rangelands, wildfire scars, and developed lands maintained as ROWs or recreational areas. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds) September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 427 These threats can come in the form of unbalanced biodiversity, a weakened ecosystem, a higher propensity for soil erosion, increased frequency of wildfires, and limited food resources for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Weeds on private agricultural lands have the potential to spread onto federal lands and vice versa. 3.3.2. Current Condition Noxious Weeds on BLM-Administered Lands There are about 8.5 million acres of noxious weeds on BLM-administered land in the planning area. Most species are expanding at about 14 percent annually (BLM 1985c). Active management of noxious weeds occurs on a regular basis by federal, state, and county agencies; conservation groups; and private landowners. Repeated wildfires and other disturbance regimes tend to increase noxious and invasive weed presence and likelihood. Infestation rates have reached the point in many areas where complete eradication is no longer possible (BLM 1986c). Noxious Weeds on Forest Service-Administered Lands On the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, invasive species account for less that 0.5 percent of the land base in Nevada. Approximately 29,000 acres of invasive species have been identified; of this approximately 1 6,000 acres are classified as noxious weeds. Of this, 1 6,000 acres, 40 percent of the infestation is less than one tenth of an acre in size, and 30 percent of the infestations are one half acre or less. The Forest Service has comparative data showing what vegetative community types are currently infested with noxious weeds. These data show that while mountain big sage accounts for 1 8 percent of the vegetative types, it contains 27 percent of the weed occurrences. Comparatively, pinyon-juniper accounts for 37 percent of the vegetative types but contains 17 percent of the noxious weed occurrence. When all riparian vegetative types are combined, they account for 1 percent of the vegetative types found on the forest but contain 24 percent of the noxious weed occurrence. The fact that riparian-related vegetation types support such a disproportionate amount of noxious weeds species makes management of riparian areas even more important. This is especially true in the arid state of Nevada, where preserving the integrity of riparian areas is critical for wildlife, recreation, water quality, and grazing management. Ecoregion Types Northern Basin and Range The Northern Basin and Range ecoregion contains arid intermontane basins, dissected lava planes, and scattered mountains. Shrub communities and aridisols are common, and non-mountain areas have sagebrush steppe vegetation. Mountain ranges are generally covered in sagebrush at higher elevations as well as other mountain browse species with an understory of bunchgrasses and forbs. These areas are largely treeless and included a mosaic of native bunchgrasses and shrubs. In this type, sagebrush typically co-dominates with perennial bunchgrasses (Miller et al 2011 ). Common species include Wyoming, basin, and mountain big sagebrush as shrub components, with inclusion areas that contain low sagebrush, early sagebrush, and black sagebrush occurring within shallower soils. Other mountain browse species can be found at higher elevations, which typically include antelope bitterbrush, serviceberry, and snowberry. Bunchgrasses are typically September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition 428 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement cool season grasses such as Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass. Great Basin wildrye, Indian ricegrass, needle and thread, and Idaho fescue. However the range of understory and diversity are based on successional stages that vary from early, mid, and late. Central Basin and Range The CBR ecoregion is internally drained (Great Basin) and is characterized by a mosaic of xeric basins, scattered low and high mountains, salt flats, and dry lake beds. It has a hotter and drier climate, more shrubland, and more mountain ranges than the Northern Basin and Range ecoregions to the north. Basins in this ecoregion are primarily covered by Wyoming and basin big sagebrush with a limited understory of bunchgrasses and forbs, as well as salt desert and greasewood vegetation occurring in the low valleys. The herbaceous component contributes a smaller portion of the total plant cover (Miller and Eddleman 2000) due to hydrologic patterns. In this habitat type, sagebrush is frequently the canopy dominant with little understory (Miller et al. 2011). Sierra Nevada The Sierra Nevada is a deeply dissected block fault that rises sharply from the arid basin and range ecoregions on the east and slopes gently toward the Central California Valley to the west. The eastern portion has been strongly glaciated. Much of the central and southern parts of the region are underlain by granite. The vegetation is mixed conifer and in Nevada are predominately white fir and lodgepole pine on the west side and Jeffery pine and lodgepole pine on the east side. Higher elevations include red fir, mountain hemlock, and western white pine. There are many high mountain lakes, streams, and meadow/riparian areas. Alpine conditions exist at the highest elevations (EPA 2010). Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills The Eastern Cascade Slopes and Foothills ecoregion is in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains. Its climate exhibits greater temperature extremes and less precipitation than ecoregions to the west. Open forests of ponderosa pine and some lodgepole pine distinguish this region from the higher ecoregions to the west where fir and hemlock forests are common, and the lower dryer ecoregions to the east where shrubs and grasslands are predominant. The vegetation is adapted to the prevailing dry continental climate and is highly susceptible to wildfire. Volcanic cones and buttes are common in much of the region (EPA 2007). Vegetation Types Vegetation All iances Vegetation Alliances are the largest division of plant formations. “An alliance is a vegetation classification unit containing one or more associations, and defined by a characteristic range of species composition, habitat conditions, physiognomy, and diagnostic species, typically at least one of which is found in the uppermost or dominant stratum of the vegetation’’ (Jennings et al. 2004). There are four alliances in the management area: forest/woodland, shrubland, herbaceous, and wetland/riparian. Plant Associations are used to describe a characteristic collection of diagnostic species according to local habitat conditions and physiognomy (Jennings et al. 2004), for example: “Great Basin mixed shrub” or “basin big sagebrush.” Plant Communities are used to describe a collection of plants living in close association that are linked by effects on one another and by their response to a shared environment (Jennings et al. 2004). The following is a list of the Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 429 most common plant alliances, associations, and communities that provide habitat for GRSG in the Nevada and Northeastern California planning area. Shrub Alliances Shrubs are woody plants, relatively short in height, that have multiple stems. Seven shrub associations have been identified in the planning area; a description of each follows. Because many disturbance factors affect these associations similarly, they are addressed in a general manner here. Disturbance means a significant, and relatively sudden, modification of the resource (i.e., an alteration of the plant community away from a stable state, accompanied by changes in species composition, growth patterns, and reproduction). The key functional elements of any disturbance are its timing (seasonality), intensity (degree of resource modification/loss), frequency (recovery interval between disturbances), availability of abiotic (water and nutrients) and biotic (plant species and effects of wildlife and domestic stock) resources, and regime (connection with similar disturbances in time and space; Sousa 1984). In the following discussion, variations in response to disturbance are noted for each plant community. Past and current human influences on sagebrush-steppe ecosystems (particularly livestock grazing, fire, and recreation) are not perpetuating the original plant communities. West (1999) estimates that less than 1 percent of the sagebrush-steppe remains in unaltered condition. Furthermore, systematic disturbance has caused significant, and sometimes radical, changes in species composition in many areas. This has occurred in one of three ways: ( 1 ) disturbances may enhance the competitive ability of a dominant species (e.g., sagebrush) and force formerly dominant species into a subservient role (e.g., perennial grasses); (2) disturbances may enhance the competitive ability of a dominant species (e.g., a perennial grass) and eliminate the other formerly dominant species (e.g., sagebrush); and (3) disturbance may result in loss of the original dominants. In order to preserve the integrity of the original plant community in all three scenarios, one or all of the originally dominant species must exhibit sufficient dynamism and adaptability to compete with various disturbance-adapted species associated with human activities (e.g., cheatgrass and medusahead). The natural dominants, having evolved with an indigenous disturbance regime, are not well adapted to this role. Management of fire, livestock and wild horse grazing in particular are difficult issues that involve much ecological uncertainty; the question is whether human activities will be sufficiently altered to rehabilitate and stabilize natural ecosystems, or whether compromised but fairly functional desired plant communities will be perpetuated. The present state of sagebrush-steppe ecosystems requires difficult decisions about fire, livestock, and wild horse management, to be made in order to salvage sagebrush steppe communities. The effects of overgrazing, high-frequency fires, and other factors (particularly off-road driving) on sagebrush-steppe communities and soils are obvious (Blaisdell et al. 1982; Bunting et al. 1987; Vavra et al. 1994). Less obvious are the effects on other biota and more subtle changes. For instance, judicious grazing and prescribed fire are still associated with varying degrees of uncertainty regarding short-term and long-term outcomes in these plant communities. A degree of uncertainty can be expected because the manner in which these key disturbance activities are conducted varies with time and location. Furthermore, with a highly variable climate, they function more as a disturbance regime than as independent events (Eddleman and Doescher 1 999). Great Basin Mixed Shrub Association September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition 430 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement This association includes several plant communities, a few of which have substantial variation in canopy cover or understory vegetation. Human and natural phenomena can have adverse effects on these communities. These include heavy, late-summer livestock browsing on snowberry, antelope bitterbrush, and other palatable shrubs; pinyon-juniper invasion; decreasing precipitation associated with long-term climate change; and short-term climate extremes, especially drought. The risk of dominance and type-conversion to exotic annual grasses is high below 5,500 feet because of lower precipitation and a dryer environment that supports hotter fires. Above this elevation, native plants normally receive more precipitation and respond better to disturbance; therefore, they compete successfully with invasive annuals such as cheatgrass. A typical plant community is the mixed mountain shrub 25 to 39 percent perennial grass community. This is a moderate-to-dense, primarily broad-leaf community of 3-foot to 6-foot evergreen shrubs. Canopy cover is 25 percent to 39 percent. The dominant shrubs are mountain big sagebrush and snowberry. Grasses include California brome, western needlegrass, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and squirreltail. Understory forbs include mule’s ears, old man’s whiskers, and silvery lupine. This plant community grows between 6,600 and 7,600 feet and is frequently found on north-facing slopes throughout the region. Another typical plant community is the Great Basin mixed shrub 1 0 to 24 percent perennial grass community. This is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf evergreen and deciduous community dominated by 3- to 6-foot tall sagebrush. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. Grasses include Sandberg’s bluegrass, squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, Thurber’s needlegrass, and cheatgrass. Understory forbs include tapertip hawksbeard, silvery lupine, uncommon annual buckwheat, mule’s ears, arrowleaf and Hooker’s balsamroot, sulfur buckwheat, and rock eriogonum. This plant community occupies flats and moderate slopes at elevations of 4,500 to 5,800 feet. Mountain Big Sagebrush Association Most researchers believe that genus Artemisia (sagebrush) originated in Eurasia. Mountain big sagebrush, the most genetically primitive form, evolved during the middle Pliocene (5 million years ago), or earlier. During pluvial times, mountain big sagebrush had a nearly continuous distribution. However, under hypsothermal climatic conditions (and into recent times), mountain big sagebrush retreated into foothills and mountains where deep, well-drained but summer-moist soils are prevalent (Trimble 1989). Mountain big sagebrush is normally found at elevations above 5,000 feet (in locations where soils are deep, well-drained, and moist). This species is not a fire responder, and recovery after fire may take 20 years (Bunting et al. 1987). Where undisturbed, canopy cover varies from 15 percent to 40 percent, though it may be 50 percent in wetter areas with deep, loamy soils and northerly exposures. Bitterbrush and snowberry are commonly associated shrubs (Tisdale 1994). Forbs are usually abundant, with 12 genera and many species. Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Thurber’s needlegrass are the principal grasses on drier sites. On deeper, loamier sites, onion grass, western needlegrass, and subalpine needlegrass are more common. A typical plant community is the big sagebrush 10 to 24 percent perennial grass community. This is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf evergreen shrub community dominated by 3- to 6-foot mountain big sagebrush. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. The understory is primarily bluebunch wheatgrass; however, plateau gooseberry, antelope bitterbrush, snowberry, basin wildrye, Idaho fescue, arrowleaf balsamroot, mule’s ears, and prickly gilia are also present. This community grows on flats or gentle-to-steep slopes, primarily at elevations of 5,500 to 7,800 feet. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition September, 2013 431 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Basin Big Sagebrush Association Basin big sagebrush has trunk-like stems and is heavily branched with uneven tops. Shrub heights normally range from 3 to 6 feet, though plants in heavily incised drainages may reach 15 feet. This plant grows in various soils, but prefers the dry, deep, well-drained soils of the plains, and valleys and foothills below 7,000 feet (Blaisdell et al. 1982). The presence of this subspecies often indicates productive rangeland because it frequently grows in deep, fertile soil (Blaisdell et al. 1982; Collins 1984). Basin big sagebrush was once the most abundant shrub in North America. However, its lowland range has been largely converted to agricultural uses. This subspecies was thought to be intolerant of alkali; however, there are ecotypes that grow in relatively alkaline areas in association with alkali-tolerant plants such as black greasewood, shadscale, saltbush, and saltgrass (Blaisdell et al. 1982). Basin big sagebrush is killed by fire; recovery following fire may take as long as 50 years (Bunting 1990). Overgrazing can eliminate the understory of native perennial grasses. Communities in this association may then be easily dominated by exotic annual grasses (weeds) where this is allowed to happen. A typical plant community is the big sagebrush 10 to 24 percent perennial grass community. This is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf evergreen shrub community dominated by 3- to 6-foot basin big sagebrush. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. It is associated with forbs and perennial grasses, especially bluebunch wheatgrass, which dominates the understory. Other common grasses are basin wildrye, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and Thurber’s needlegrass. This community grows on flats at elevations of 4,700 to 7,800 feet. Wyoming Big Sagebrush Association The Wyoming big sagebrush association appears to have originated as a cross between basin big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush (Trimble 1989). Although Wyoming big sagebrush grows in combination with the other two big sagebrush subspecies; it occupies the drier, shallower, and poorer soils. It is the shortest subspecies, reaching only 3 to 4 feet under normal conditions (Blaisdell et al. 1982). Natural fire intervals in Wyoming big sagebrush communities appear to range from 10 to 110 years or more. Post-burn recovery to 20 percent canopy cover may take more than 40 years after a stand-replacing fire (Young and Evans 1989; Winward 1991). Grasses usually dominate the site before reestablishment occurs. Sites are reestablished from soil seedbanks, and seeds from remnant and adjacent plants. Because Wyoming big sagebrush occupies drier soils and poorer sites, these communities are especially vulnerable to grazing impacts. Many have lost a substantial portion of the native perennial grass understory. This has opened these communities to invasion by exotic annual grasses such as cheatgrass, which has now replaced the native perennial grasses in most areas. A cheatgrass understory is highly susceptible to fire, and greatly shortens the fire interval. As a result, these communities are dominated by exotic annual grasses and are severely degraded (Young and Evans 1989). A typical plant community is the big sagebrush 10 to 24 percent perennial grass community. This is an open to moderately dense, broad-leaf, evergreen shrub community dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush about 3 feet in height. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. Low-growing sagebrush is associated with perennial grasses and forbs. Other codominants in Wyoming big sagebrush steppe include western wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, Idaho fescue, Thurber needlegrass, and needle-and-thread grass. Although not often used in vegetation classifications, cheatgrass is also a dominant species in some Wyoming big sagebrush steppe communities. This community occurs on flats at elevations of 4,700 to 5,500 feet. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition 432 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Low Sagebrush Association Low sagebrush grows on very poor shallow soils that are dry, rocky, and frequently alkaline. In the warmer, drier parts of its range, particularly in Nevada, it may grow at altitudes above 9,800 feet. In some areas, low sagebrush grows in discontinuous, low or high-elevation bands. Soils that support this species generally are rockier and contain more clay than those that support big sagebrush; they are also wetter in spring and dryer in fall (Blaisdell et al. 1982). Low sagebrush stands generally escape fire when mixed with big sagebrush. However, under extreme conditions, low sagebrush will bum; when this happens, recovery time is longer than for big sagebrush. If overgrazed, low sagebrush communities are susceptible to cheatgrass invasion. Where clay content is high, the invasive grass is usually medusahead (Blaisdell et al. 1982). A typical plant community is the low sagebrush scrub 10 to 14 percent perennial grass community. This is an open, broad-leaf evergreen shrub community dominated by low sagebrush, usually less than 1 foot in height. Canopy cover is 10 percent to 24 percent. Associated plants are primarily perennial grasses and forbs, sometimes with scattered western juniper. Sandburg’s bluegrass dominates the understory; other associated species include antelope bitterbrush, plateau gooseberry, gray horsebrush, squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, ballhead sandwort, desert yellow daisy, low pussy-toes, rock eriogonium, Bolander’s yampah, Hooker’s balsamroot, and cushion eriogonium. Tufts of perennial grasses are often elevated, indicating soil loss. This community occurs on rocky flats or gentle slopes at elevations of 4,200 to 6,800 feet throughout the region. Black Sagebrush Association Black sagebrush is generally 12 inches tall or shorter, with leaves less than one half inch long. This species flowers in the fall, and the flower stalks often cast a slight orange appearance. These flower stalks often persist from year to year. The canopy is often loosely branched with a short trunk but may have a compact rounded appearance if heavily grazed by wildlife or livestock. The stems are usually dark, and the leaves have tiny black dots, hence the name black sagebrush. Black sagebrush is found on sites from about 4,500 feet to 8,500 feet, where the annual precipitation ranges from less than 8 inches to over 16 inches. Black sagebrush is often found on gentle slopes above the nearly level valley bottoms, the adjacent foothills, and on steep mountainside slopes. The primary factors that control its distribution are a soil with a low water holding capacity and usually a high level of calcium carbonates. Black sagebrush typically inhabits soils that have either bedrock or a caliche (thick calcium carbonate that restricts rooting depth) layer at about 18 inches or less. Black sagebrush tolerates large amounts of soil carbonates better than the other sagebrush species. It is common on shallow soils derived from limestone. Soil profiles often have substantial amounts of gravel or rock that further limit the soil’s water holding capacity. Black sagebrush does not tolerate prolonged flooding, preferring to inhabit drier sites. Black sagebrush provides important forage for pronghorn, mule deer, GRSG, and domestic sheep, particularly in the late summer, fall, and winter, when succulent forbs and grasses decline. Cattle may increase consumption of the plant in the fall and winter (Shultz and McAdoo 2002). The perennial grasses associated with these communities are Idaho fescue, Webber ricegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, Cusick bluegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and pine bluegrass. Potential vegetative composition is about 50 percent grasses, 15 percent forbs, and 35 percent shrubs. Typically, the sparse vegetation of most black sagebrush communities normally precludes the occurrence of fire, except in exceptional years. Black sagebrush stands, where they form a major Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 433 part of the community, are a valuable wildlife winter forage species, and should not be burned on a large-scale basis. Herbaceous and Grassland Alliance By definition, herbaceous plants have succulent (non-woody) stems; they include forbs and aquatic plants and may have annual or perennial life-cycles (Sawyer and Keeler- Wolf 1995). Herbaceous plants are usually a major part of the understory vegetation in tree or shrub-dominated communities. However, in this alliance, forbs and grasses are the dominant plants. The herbaceous and grassland alliance is primarily seasonal or permanent meadow and seep communities (the latter are described under Wetland and Riparian Associations). Although herbaceous and grassland habitats are characterized by low species diversity, and when compared with habitats with more complex structural diversity, they are very important in terms of regional biodiversity. There are three main plant associations. Non-Native Perennial Grass Association During the late 1950s and early 1960s, various forms of crested wheatgrass were used to control the invasive weed halogeton ( Halogeton glomeratus) and to provide spring grazing deference on native ranges for purposes of improving rangeland conditions. These seedings were conducted primarily on gentle terrain at lower elevations (Wyoming big sagebrush sites). BLM records indicate that the cumulative acreage of rangeland seedings on BLM-administered lands in Nevada increased from approximately 30,000 acres in 1962, to 160,000 acres by 1965, 400,000 acres by 1969, and 500,000 acres by 1975. This acreage does not include private land seedings. The practice of range seeding to improve spring ranges peaked in Nevada as early as 1965, then underwent a slow, steady decline through the next decade until no acres were treated from 1978 through 1981. By 1999, the cumulative total of seeded acres had grown to 590,000 acres (State of Nevada 2001). Native Perennial Grass Association These areas also include areas of dominant native grasses and forbs that can occur following a wildfire. Fire occurrences in the last 20 years have resulted in many acres of shrub-grasslands being converted to a vegetative community currently dominated by perennial grasses and forbs. Over time, shrubs will naturally reestablish and begin to dominate the vegetative composition of these areas. These areas are historic GRSG habitat that still have potential in the future to develop a shrub component capable of providing cover and forage for GRSG. Some of these areas in higher elevations have had successful fire rehabilitation treatments and already have established sagebrush seedlings, but currently do not have the height or structure to provide adequate habitat. Annual Grassland Association Annual grassland habitats composed of invasive weeds (primarily cheatgrass and medusahead) are highly undesirable and considered biological deserts. Exotic annual grasses (particularly medusahead and cheatgrass) are likely to persist, whether or not livestock grazing continues on BLM-administered lands. These plants persist because of abundant annual seed production and long-term viability of seed stored in surface litter and soil, plus earlier germination than native perennials. Damage and loss of native perennial shrubland/bunchgrass communities because of persistent grazing and frequent wildfires has greatly accelerated introductions and domination by exotic annual weeds. However, it is possible to reduce infestation, or at least slow its progress, through proper grazing management on lands surrounding the affected area. Improving health September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition 434 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement in adjacent areas creates a natural barrier to the spread of weeds. Properly designed grazing strategies have also noticeably improved areas presently dominated by exotic annuals. Areas where annual grasses are still a minor problem have also benefited from improved grazing management. Improvement is evidenced by increased vigor and seed production in native vegetation, and such efforts are now being prioritized (Reisner et al. 2013). Wetland and Riparian Alliance Nationwide riparian-wetland areas comprise less than nine percent of the land base. However, these areas are the most productive and prized resource on BLM-administered lands. Riparian-wetland areas are essential to restoring and maintaining natural hydrologic function (particularly groundwater recharge and flood control) and the physical, chemical, and biological health of the nation’s water supply. There is disproportionately heavy use of riparian-wetland areas by numerous wildlife species, more so than any other habitat types. Riparian-wetland areas are also highly prized for their recreational value (e.g., hunting, fishing, photography, hiking, and wildlife-viewing), economic value (e.g., livestock grazing), and for nature education. These habitats are highly valued by Native Americans for food-gathering and other traditional economic activities. When viewed from high elevations, riparian zones usually appear as thin green ribbons in canyon bottoms. Green strips in many mountain drainages are less than 15 feet wide (including stream width); even the largest streams in the management area are only 10 to 40 feet wide. However, portions of some rivers exceed 100 feet in width. The riparian vegetation zone varies tremendously in width, according to water depth, volume, and flow rate and local topography, soils, and streambank (or nearby) modifications. Riparian and wetland communities in this planning area are primarily found in or adjacent to seeps and springs, seasonal or permanent meadows, creeks and rivers, natural lakes or playas, and human-made irrigation canals and reservoirs. Because of the proximity and abundance of water, riparian plants are usually quite different from those found in adjacent upland areas; they also thrive in or tolerate wet or saturated soil conditions that upland plants cannot. The BLM’s Riparian- Wetland Initiative for the 1990s (BLM 1991c) establishes national goals and objectives for protecting riparian-wetland resources on public lands. The initiative’s chief goals were to restore and maintain riparian-wetland areas so that at least 75 percent were in PFC by 1997 and to achieve an advanced condition of ecological stability (except where resource management objectives, such as PFC, required an earlier stage of succession to provide greater habitat diversity for wildlife, fish, and watershed protection). The strategy of this initiative requires holistic watershed-based management. The condition of the entire watershed is an essential component for determining whether a riparian-wetland area is functioning properly. Riparian Scrub /Herbaceous Association Riparian zones and riparian plant communities in this association occupy areas adjacent to streams, lakes, and other natural sources of open water, as well as reservoirs; this water exerts a predominant influence on the native vegetation and the associated biotic community (USDA NRCS 1997). The riparian association, riparian communities, and ecological sites all describe plants that grow in the riparian zone. Obligate species require the environmental conditions that prevail within this zone, whereas facultative species tolerate these conditions and are frequently found outside the riparian zone. Riparian ecosystems are distinctly different from surrounding lands and vegetation because of the strong influence exerted by free water in the soil (USDA NRCS 1997). Riparian and all plant communities are classified according to recognizable. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition September, 20/3 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 435 repeatable, and clearly defined assemblages of riparian plant species. The following plant communities are commonly found in California and Nevada. Willow Scrub Community This is an open to moderately dense deciduous community of tall shrubs (less than 8 feet) or trees (less than 30 feet). The dominant genus is willow, mixed with wet meadow plants and scattered low shrubs (3 feet or less). Associated species may include narrow-leaf willow, arroyo willow, red willow, Scouler’s willow, Lemmon’s willow, shining willow, interior rose, sedges, rushes, columbine, mountain alder, American dogwood, quaking aspen, and black cottonwood. This community occupies flats or gentle slopes in springs, meadows, and wet drainages throughout the region. Willows grow in riparian and wetland associations on periodically saturated soils. Healthy willow communities sprout vigorously following fire. Willows also sprout well from cuttings, and are used extensively for revegetation. However, close association with open water and palatability make willows especially vulnerable to overgrazing by livestock, wild horses, and burros. Repeated streambank trampling by livestock causes soil erosion and gullying, which lowers the water table and converts riparian habitats to upland shrub communities. Similar effects can result from improper road placement (through or alongside riparian habitats) and excessive motor vehicle traffic. Seasonally Dry Meadow Community This community occupies areas with remnant meadow soils that are wet in spring but usually dry by early summer. It is primarily composed of perennial, grass-like plants, but also may contain scattered 3- to 6-foot shrubs. When in poor condition, it may contain numerous annual weeds or bare ground. The dominant plants are usually Baltic rush and various sedges. Associated species include silver sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, squirreltail, annual beardgrass, clustered field sedge, mat muhly, beardless wildrye, inland saltgrass, meadow barley, fine-branched popcornflower, and tanseyleaf evening primrose. This community occupies flats or gentle slopes at elevations of 4,000 to 6,000 feet. Wet Meadow or Seep Community This community occupies seeps, springs, or meadows that are wet most of the year. It supports a dense community of primarily riparian grass-like plants, and sometimes a few scattered 3- to 6-foot shrubs. Rushes and sedges are the dominant plants. Associated species include willow, golden currant, interior rose, Nebraska sedge, Baltic rush, common spikerush, short-awn foxtail, meadow barley, spike redtop, thingrass, western blue flag, small-flowered camas, hoary nettle, and common monkeyflower. This community grows on flats or gentle slopes at elevations of 4,000 to 8,000 feet. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants Noxious weeds and invasive plants are recognized as a very serious threat to the biodiversity of native rangelands, second only to habitat loss and fragmentation. These plants alter basic ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling, hydrology, and wildfire frequency; overwhelm native plants and animals; and sometimes hybridize with native species. All natural plant communities are susceptible to noxious weed invasion. The presence, abundance, and influence of noxious weed infestations in a particular ecosystem is highly dynamic, responding to changes in local environmental conditions from a range of human and natural causes. Introduction, proliferation, and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants — and priorities for their September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition 436 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement control — can change in as little as two years, as new infestations are located, known infestations are successfully treated (or increase in size and severity), and management priorities change. Trends in noxious weed infestation are assessed according to the number and severity of infestations, and their net or gross size in acres. A sustained reduction in any of these factors is considered a positive trend. The ultimate goal of the noxious weed program is elimination (or effective control) of noxious weeds on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Effects of change on the noxious weed problem are difficult to predict because of the complexity of ecosystem processes and the diversity of management activities. However, there is an undisputed consensus that, in the absence of continued inventory, a coordinated weed-treatment program, and yearly treatment evaluation, the problem would rapidly worsen. Certain weeds have already become so ubiquitous that infestations are now considered too difficult, time-consuming, and costly to treat. Aggressive fire suppression and overgrazing have led to encroachment and degradation of sagebrush communities by certain native shrubs, particularly western juniper. Fire can be used to control invasive species or to approximate historic fire regimes. Nonetheless, land managers must be cautious when using fire for these purposes; if not used correctly, fire may favor proliferation of other fire-tolerant invasive species or exotic weeds, resulting in further degradation of already compromised ecosystems. Natural fire regimes in sagebrush ecosystems did not occur in the presence of numerous exotic plants, and its use may not be feasible if fire tolerant exotics are present (Brooks and Pyke 2001). Exotic annual grasses especially benefit from fire, and the proliferation of these grasses results in a frequent reoccurrence of fire (i.e., an unnaturally shortened fire-return interval) to the point where native species cannot persist and sagebrush communities are converted to exotic annual grasslands. Type-conversion of this kind severely reduces biodiversity and is devastating for wildlife, including carnivores. Therefore, effective wildlife management depends on the control of invasive and exotic plants and use of appropriate, site-specific fire regimes (Brooks and Pyke 2001). Cheatgrass, especially, is widespread in low-elevation juniper woodlands. However, cooler, mesic woodlands appear less susceptible to invasion and dominance by this and other exotic annuals. A better understanding of factors that influence woodland susceptibility to invasive and exotic species is required. Whisenant (1990) reviewed the effects of cheatgrass infestation on fire frequency in shrub-steppe communities and found that it tends to exert dominance on disturbed soils. Because it forms a continuous fuel load, its presence leads to more frequent fires. Frequent fire shrinks native plant cover, encourages proliferation of cheatgrass, and reduces biodiversity, making establishment easier on relatively undisturbed soils. The BLM and Forest Service utilize an integrated pest management approach to prevent the introduction and establishment of noxious weeds and to control existing infestations. This includes education and preventive measures, as well as physical, biological, chemical, and cultural treatments. In 2007, the BLM released the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Land in 1 7 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (BLM 2007a). The ROD identified prevention measures and standard operating procedures for the BLM to follow to protect and enhance natural resources that could be affected by future vegetation treatments. Prevention measures are designed to minimize invasive weed establishment as part of activity planning. In Table 3-1 2, the known acreage values of cheatgrass, by jurisdictional boundaries, are presented. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Current Condition September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 437 Table 3.12. Acres of Cheatgrass Potential in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Zone Acres' Acres' within Acres' Acres' within Agency within PGH PPH within PGH PPH BLM III 2,521,800 5,157,100 2,521,800 3,612,900 IV 6,234,900 13,995,500 674,300 3,044,200 V 4,209,100 4,401,200 543,600 2,649,300 Forest Service III 243,700 1,065,100 243,700 437,600 IV 1,086,900 1,521,600 181,300 566,700 V 1 13,600 82,500 1 1,800 44,100 Tribal and Other III 15,700 288,200 15,700 5 1 ,900 Federal IV 740,200 974,100 2,200 1,700 V 96,300 374,100 1 6,400 193,900 Private III 468,200 1,972,100 468,200 510,100 IV 4,257,400 5,643,800 1 487,800 1 ,5 1 0,700 V 1,429,500 759,300 72,900 148,000 State III 200 427,900 200 5,600 IV 945,500 1,022,900 400 1,000 V 107,800 62,600 7,900 13,100 Other III 0 100 0 100 IV 54,900 93,800 0 100 V 94,100 361,800 88,700 361,800 Source: Manier et al. 2013 ’Acreage composed of areas with a high potential for cheatgrass occurrence Conifer Encroachment Pinyon-juniper woodlands are complex, not only in terms of species composition and physiognomy, but also because the management area contains woodlands that vary greatly in successional stage (from early to senescent). The developmental stage greatly affects fuel loads, wildlife habitats, and management activities involving other natural resources. Treatment of invasive pinyon-juniper, including methods, cost, and response to treatment, also largely depends on developmental stage. Studies show that the expansion of pinyon-juniper has more than tripled in the areas dominated by pinyon-juniper woodlands within the last 150 years. Although pinyon-juniper woodlands have increased dramatically in the last 150 years, they currently occupy far less than they are capable of under current climatic conditions (Miller and Tausch 2001 ). These changes have generally coincided with the introduction of heavy livestock grazing, tree utilization by the mining industry, and fire suppression that followed settlement of the region. Unfortunately, pinyon-juniper has the potential to replace existing shrubland and grassland communities. An increase in tree dominance results in a loss of understory. A loss of understory further reduces the fuel and further decreases the fire frequency. Altered disturbance regimes and climate change have resulted in major changes in plant community compositions. Since the 1860s, many bunchgrass and sagebrush-bunchgrass communities, which dominated the Intermountain West, have shifted to pinyon and juniper woodland or introduced annual-dominated communities (West 1984; Miller et al. 1994). Studies conclude that barring some major environmental change or management action, continued forage reduction and decreased fire frequency will continue until trees dominate most of the sites favorable to their survival. This continued tree dominance then jeopardizes the historic woodland sites because under the right conditions, a crown fire could result in a stand replacement wildfire with catastrophic consequences because of continuous tree canopy. Studies September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Condition 438 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement further show that in pinyon-juniper communities that are overstocked, the ability of the understory to respond after a fire is dramatically reduced and potentially opens the site to the invasion by exotics. Once these communities become mature, tree-dominated woodlands, treatment becomes difficult and expensive (Miller and Tausch 2001). 3.4. Riparian Areas and Wetlands Riparian areas and wetlands are critical to the long-term viability of GRSG populations. Riparian habitats provide important sources of food and cover for GRSG, particularly during the late summer brood-rearing period (see Section 3.2, Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat). This function is especially important in the more arid portions of the GRSG range, including much of the planning area. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas are lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers, streams, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit vegetation dependent on free water in the soil. Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, lakeshores, sloughs, bogs, wet meadows, estuaries, and some riparian areas. For a description of riparian and wetland vegetation community types characteristic of the planning area, refer to Section 3.3, Vegetation. Riparian and wetland areas adjacent to surface waters are the most productive and important ecosystems in the planning area. Although these areas represent 2,509,000 acres (5 percent) of the planning area, riparian habitats play an integral role in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources (Fitch and Ambrose 2003). Healthy riparian and wetland areas have the potential for multi-canopy vegetation layers with trees, shrubs, grasses, forbs, sedges, and rushes and are valuable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. Healthy systems also filter and purify water, reduce sediment loads, enhance soil stability, provide micro-climatic moderation, and contribute to groundwater recharge and base flow (Prichard et al. 1998). Generally, riparian areas and wetlands are stratified into lotic (flowing water or riverine) systems and lentic (standing water) systems, which may include a wide variety of wetland types. In the planning area, lentic riparian habitats typically include seeps, springs, aspen stands, and both wet and dry meadows. Current Conditions Although detailed information on the condition and trend of riparian and wetland areas is not available for the planning area as a whole, some data are available for portions of the Elko, Battle Mountain, and Winnemucca BLM districts in Nevada, the Surprise, Eagle Lake, and Alturas BLM field offices in California, and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in both California and Nevada (Table 3-13, Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals; BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013). Collectively, these seven management areas cover 14,778,500 acres (83 percent) of total PPH and PGH within the planning area. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Riparian Areas and Wetlands September, 2013 439 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Much of the information presented in Table 3-13, Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals, is based on proper functioning condition (PFC) assessments, as this technique is used by the BLM to determine whether or not riparian areas are meeting rangeland health standards. Riparian areas are considered to be in PFC when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to dissipate energy, improve water quality and reduce erosion, filter sediment and aid floodplain development, capture and store water, and provide for greater biodiversity (Prichard et al. 1998; Prichard et al. 1999, Revised 2003). Riparian areas that are functioning at risk lack one or more soil, water, or vegetation attribute, making them susceptible to degradation. Nonfunctional riparian areas are clearly not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or debris to dissipate energy, filter sediment, capture and store water, and provide for greater biodiversity. Table 3.13. Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals Management Unit Percent Meeting Goals1 Data Set Assessment Method2 Lotic Riparian Areas Elko District 60 558 miles (2000 to 2012) 1 Winnemucca District 55 891 miles (1993 to 2012) 2, 3 Battle Mountain 47 752 miles (1994 to 2012) 2, 3 Alturas Field Office 81 51.5 miles (1995 to 2012) 2, 3 Eagle Lake Field Office 90 109 miles (1995 to 2012) 2, 3 Lentic Riparian Areas Elko District 30 2,237 assessments (1996 to 2012) 4, 5 Winnemucca District 38 2, 1 03 acres ( 1 993 to 20 1 2) 4, 5 Battle Mountain 27 2,2 1 3 assessments ( 1 994 to 20 1 2) 4, 5 Alturas Field Office 95 737 acres (1995 to 2012) 4, 5 Eagle Lake Field Office 71 146 acres (1995 to 2012) 4, 5 Surprise Field Office 14 398 assessments (1993 to 2012) 4, 5 Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Combined Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 21 553 assessments ( 1990 to 2012) 6 'Goals are defined here as: proper functioning condition (PFC) or functional-at-risk with an upward trend (most BLM district data); good to excellent riparian habitat condition (Elko District data); or high ecological condition (Forest Service data). 2l=Stream Survey (Elko District, BLM 2002d); 2=Lotic Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard et al. 1993); 3=Lotic Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard et al. 1998); 4=Lentic Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard et al. 1994); 5=Lentic Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard et al. 1999, Revised 2003); 6=Forest Service Ecological Scorecard System. Some of the data in Table 3-13, Lotic and Lentic Riparian Areas Meeting Riparian Goals, are from stream surveys (Elko District, BLM 2002d) or from a scorecard system used by the Forest Service to determine ecological condition based on riparian community types and attributes such as frequency, cover, root depths, and soil characteristics. High ecological condition indicates that the site is functioning within physical and biological capability of the ecosystem. Moderate ecological condition indicates the site has one or more disturbances to the biological and physical features that limit the capability of the site. Low ecological condition indicates that the site has crossed a biological or physical threshold where site disturbance has resulted in the loss of the ability to sustain the ecosystem. Condition of riparian habitats varies throughout the planning area. In many portions of California, a high percentage of both lotic and lentic riparian habitats are functioning properly or functioning-at-risk with an upward trend. For some portions of California and most of Nevada, September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Riparian Areas and Wetlands 440 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmentai Impact Statement riparian management goals have not been met for a majority of assessed lentic riparian habitats (or for both lentic and lotic areas for Forest Service-administered lands). On BLM-administered lands in Nevada, results are more positive for lotic riparian habitats in comparison to lentic riparian habitats. This is likely the result of management strategies that have been focused on priority stream habitats within the last 15 to 20 years. In addition, lentic areas are characteristically small in size, widely scattered, and typically less resilient to grazing impacts than stream systems. Consequently, these areas tend to be disproportionally impacted by grazing animals, including both livestock and wild horses. For remaining management units in the planning area, including the Ely and Carson City districts of BLM, information on condition and trend of riparian areas has not been summarized. However, available information generally indicates many of these areas are not functioning properly. Where riparian habitats in the planning area are not meeting goals, grazing by livestock and wild horses is often identified as the primary causal factors. Overgrazing riparian vegetation makes streambanks more vulnerable to destabilizing effects of livestock trampling and the erosive force of water, exposes soils to drying out by wind and sunlight, reduces water storage capacity of the riparian area, reduces shade and thereby increases stream water temperature, encourages invasion of undesirable plants, speeds up runoff, and reduces filtration of sediment necessary for building streambanks, wet meadows, and floodplains (Chaney et al. 1993). Where riparian habitats are meeting goals, this is often the result of protective fencing or implementation of prescriptive livestock grazing practices to reduce frequency and duration of hot season use on riparian areas. Many of these efforts have been undertaken in cooperation with the livestock industry as well as other agencies and entities and have included both public and private lands. Besides grazing impacts from livestock and wild horses, riparian areas and wetlands in the planning area are impacted by a wide range of land uses that have occurred and continue to occur throughout the western US. These can include recreation, water diversions, mining, roads, agricultural encroachment, channelization, flood control, urbanization, and railroads (Meehan 1991; Williams et al. 1997; Sada et al. 2001; Prichard et al. 1998). Impacts including accelerated erosion, concentration of stream energy, loss of floodplain access, reduced water supplies, sediment loading, and degradation of water quality all affect functionality and condition of riparian ecosystems. Although identified as the number one threat to the GSGR by the USFWS, impacts on riparian areas from wildfire are highly variable depending on a host of factors, including but not limited to elevation, precipitation, timeframes, habitat conditions, grazing impacts, and fuel moisture levels. Especially during periods of drought or in areas of low average annual precipitation, wildfires can result in complete destruction of riparian communities resulting in loss of hydrologic function or in plant community shifts from mesic species to invasive weed species. Riparian areas in the planning area, in general, are inherently resilient to the impacts from fire due to the persistence of soil moisture. However, habitat conditions (often tied to livestock grazing practices) can also be determinants of riparian response to fire. In an analysis of 81 streams on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in northern Nevada, Dalldorf et al. (2013) found that the occurrence of wildfires between 1999 and 2001 played a non-influential role in the response of selected stream survey attributes when coupled with livestock grazing attributes. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Riparian Areas and Wetlands September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 441 Climate change also has the potential to negatively impact lotic and lentic riparian habitats in the planning area. Increases in water and air temperatures and decreases in precipitation rates predicted as a result of climate change can fuel expansions of invasive species, lead to increased stream temperatures, and create higher potential for floods and erosion (Karl et al. 2009). 3.5. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species This section describes the existing conditions of special status and non-special status fish and wildlife resources, including aquatic and terrestrial animal species and their habitats, in the planning area. Fish and wildlife resources include big game, upland game, waterfowl, raptors, migratory birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. NDOW, CDFW, and USFWS have primary responsibilities for management of fish and wildlife species in the planning area. The BLM and Forest Service are responsible for land management. Therefore, on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in the decision area, the agencies are directly responsible for the management of habitat for fish and wildlife species and indirectly responsible for the health of fish and wildlife populations that are supported by these habitats. The ESA mandates the protection of species listed as threatened or endangered of extinction and the habitats on which they depend. Section 7 of the ESA clarifies the responsibility of federal agencies to utilize their authority to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. In addition, federal agencies must consult with USFWS to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is “...not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” 3.5.1. Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands Within the planning area, the major ecoregions are the Great Basin and Modoc Plateau and the westernmost edge of the Sierra Nevada. Sagebrush generally occurs throughout the Great Basin and Modoc Plateau and is most common in valleys and mountain ranges north of the Mojave Desert. Sagebrush does occur in the ecotone between the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin ecoregions, mostly in mid-elevation drainages and old burn scars of blackbrush shrublands and higher on mountain ranges. Because sagebrush is a dominant vegetation type in the planning area, a high number of species have evolved specifically to thrive in sagebrush habitat. Sagebrush types are generally found in a mosaic with other habitat types but can occur as large monotypic expanses. Sagebrush habitats generally occur between 4,500 and 10,000 feet and are widespread throughout the valley, foothill, and mountain environments (NDOW 2012b). Annual precipitation ranges from 8 to 30 inches, mostly in the form of snow. Temperatures range from -30 to 1 10°F (NDOW 2012b). Sagebrush overstory structure can range from less than 6 inches on exposed, rocky slopes, up to 9 feet in drainages where basin big sagebrush has extended its roots into the water table. Sagebrush canopy, however, is generally between 2 and 3 feet high. Crown cover varies from 1 to 70 percent but commonly is between 20 and 40 percent (NDOW 2012b). There are 27 recognized species and distinct subspecies of sagebrush in the planning area. Dominant species include basin big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and black sagebrush (Cronquist et al. 1994). Co-dominant plant species include bitterbrush, snowberry, rabbitbrush, snakeweed, white sage, spiny hopsage, bluebunch wheatgrass, bluegrass, needle and thread, Idaho fescue, Indian ricegrass. Great Basin wildrye, Indian paintbrush, lupine, buckwheat, globemallow, and penstemon. The altitudinal distribution September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species 442 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement of sagebrush generally follows a pattern of basin big sagebrush in the valley floors or lower alluvial fans, Wyoming big sagebrush at mid-elevations, and mountain big sagebrush above 6,500 feet. Low and black sagebrush are both low-growing shrubs that rarely exceed heights of 1 5 inches (38 centimeters), primarily on shallow or poorly drained soils with a root restricting layer, interspersed throughout the greater sagebrush expanse in many elevation bands. Commonly occurring trees in the planning area include Utah juniper, western juniper, mountain mahogany, and pinyon pine. Aspen communities are dispersed throughout the planning area. Conifer forests dominate the higher elevations. The planning area has a diverse aquatic environment from wetland, spring, meadow, seep, vernal pool, stream/river, and riparian communities providing invaluable water sources across the arid cool desert landscape. The planning area is an outstanding region for wildlife, providing habitat for characteristic megafauna such as mountain lion, mule deer, elk, black bear, and pronghorn antelope as well as an abundance of avian species such as hawks, peregrines, golden eagles, pinyon jay, burrowing and other owls, and various shorebirds and waterfowl. The area boasts at least eight sagebrush-dependent species such as pygmy rabbit. Great Basin pocket mouse, sagebrush vole, sagebrush lizard. Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage Sparrow, and GRSG. The varied aquatic habitats and natural barriers have resulted in the evolution of several unique communities of endemic fish and invertebrates. Sagebrush range in good condition supports an abundant understory of protein rich bunchgrasses and forbs. The presence of this understory is critical to the needs of other wildlife species, including the sagebrush vole. The various shrew species that live in sagebrush are invertivores, but they depend on the productivity of the herbaceous component for the abundant production of their prey items, as well as for cover. Much of the planning area has been substantially altered or degraded since the 19th century by a combination of change agents. Despite being in one of the least-developed regions of the country, the Great Basin and Modoc Plateau are one the most threatened ecosystems in the country (TNC 2001). Major change agents that negatively affect terrestrial wildlife in the planning area, including GRSG, include increases in both the frequency and intensity of wildfire, invasive annual grasses, the expansion of native pinyon and juniper, development, and livestock and wild ungulate grazing that exceeds land health standards. The aggregate effects of these change agents have altered the planning area’s sagebrush, riparian, and forest habitats (Miller et al. 1994; Schaeffer et al. 2003). For example, much of the basin big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush range in Nevada currently lacks understory of native bunchgrasses and forbs that were historically present. Shrub cover has increased from what are generally regarded as the conditions prior to Euro American contact. Nonnative annual grasses, most notably cheatgrass, have invaded big sagebrush range, bringing with them an accelerated fire interval for which sagebrush regeneration cannot compensate. Low and black sagebrush are being similarly invaded by cheatgrass throughout the state and by medusahead in northern Nevada, which is an aggressive exotic grass that can tolerate the shallow clay soils of these ecological sites and can cause a similar negative impact through altered fire regime and is threatening the low sagebrush landscape. Overall, a temporal conversion from shrubland with high species diversity to annual grassland with drastically reduced wildlife value is occurring (NDOW 2012b). Pinyon and juniper expansion into shrubland has thrived due to range overgrazing in the 19th century and continuing in the first half of the 20th century (Young and Sparks 2002), and fire Chapter 3 Affected Environment Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 443 suppression after the 1920s (Blackburn and Tueller 1970; Pyne 2004). Many true woodlands within a few miles of mines were harvested or thinned during the historic mining era of the late 19th century, but many woodlands have repopulated the soils that supported them and continue to aggressively contribute to the expansion of trees into sagebrush range. Pinyon and juniper expansion into sagebrush range drastically alters range structure and creates conditions difficult to restore to pre-encroachment expression. Pinyon and juniper expansion is also generally facilitated by regional warming (Grayson 1993; Tausch and Nowak 1999). Currently, there is considerable discussion in Nevada concerning the need to manipulate the balance between woodland expansion and healthy sagebrush communities in light of the recent efforts to conserve GRSG and the habitat needs of pinyon and juniper obligates such as pinyon jay, which are currently experiencing a 4 to 6 percent decline in population per year (GBBO 2010). New road development, existing road improvement, and urban, suburban, and industrial development are also contributing to depletion and fragmentation. Increased human population in several areas of the sub-region has exerted increased pressure on the landscape, and thus sagebrush community integrity will continue to be challenged over time. Loss of habitat reduces living space for wildlife. Where sagebrush habitat has been depleted of its understory, it lacks the ability to provide nesting cover, escape cover, and sources of food to herbivorous and granivorous animals. Lack of nesting and escape cover, coupled with increasing human infrastructure (e.g., roads and utility ROWs), creates travel lanes for mammalian predators and perch sites for avian predators (Knight et al. 1995) and serves to fragment the landscape into smaller and smaller patches. This interaction may increase the success of predators at the expense of species such as ground-nesting birds. Predation pressure may be reaching effect levels on a suite of sagebrush residents, including GRSG. Increased human activity on the land can leave in its path a footprint of habitat degradation in the form of a broken-down shrub layer, loss of species diversity, and increased soil erosion that reduces site restoration capability. The US Breeding Bird Survey documented a population decline of 50 percent or greater for Brewer’s sparrow between 1966 and 1999. The Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan has identified Brewer’s sparrow as a Watch List Species in need of management action in the Intermountain Bird Conservation Region due to the significant population decline (Rich et al. 2004). Loggerhead shrike continues to decline significantly across its range in North America, and the sage thrasher continues to exhibit significant declines in neighboring states, although it is showing signs of stabilizing in Nevada and throughout the Great Basin. Declining populations for most fish and wildlife species are attributable to habitat loss and fragmentation as the primary cause. Tables 3-14 through 3-16, under Current Condition , below, list species federally recognized as threatened or endangered, and those recognized by the Forest Service and BLM as sensitive. The BLM designates as sensitive species all federally designated candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the first five years following their delisting. Additional species may be designated as sensitive if they are native species found on BLM-administered land for which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management and either: 1) there is information that a species has recently undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward trend, such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the species range; or 2) the species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitat on BLM-administered lands and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands 444 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk. The BLM coordinates the potential listing of species as sensitive in consultation with their respective state wildlife agencies and the Nevada Natural Heritage Program. The following species accounts are a selection of Forest Service indicator species or are considered strongly dependent upon a sagebrush-dominated ecosystem for their persistence. Alternatives for various land management scenarios affecting the sagebrush ecosystem are likely to positively or negatively impact these species. 3.5.2. Conditions on Forest Service-Administered Lands The Forest Service-administered lands within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and within the project area provide a diversity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, similar to what is described above for BLM-administered lands. For management purposes, the Forest Service categorizes species into four main group: Federally listed threatened and endangered species, designated by the USFWS under the ESA; sensitive species, designated by the Regional Forester with each Forest Service region; management indicator species, designated for each forest unit within the individual LUPs during the planning process; and other wildlife species. Other wildlife species are those that are not included in the special status species categories (federally listed threatened or endangered, or sensitive). They include mammals (e.g., deer and elk), birds (e.g., raptors and migratory birds), fish, amphibians, insects, and other taxa. 3.5.3. Species Accounts Mule Deer Mule deer occur in a diversity of habitat types throughout the sub-region but occur in highest densities in montane shrub-dominated communities. They are often associated with successional vegetation. They are often found on open or “bared off’ south-facing slopes in winter. Mule deer browse on a wide variety of woody plants and graze on grasses and forbs. Throughout the year, most activity occurs at dawn and dusk, though nocturnal and daytime activity is common. Mule deer are a secondary successional species, taking advantage of plant species that are often the result of some type of disturbance. They have a high degree of selectivity, not only for the plant species they choose to eat, but also for the specific parts of the plant and the time of year that a particular plant may be eaten. Browse species include sagebrush, bitterbrush, serviceberry, snowbrush, and snowberry. When deer are feeding on browse, they prefer the most tender parts, the new shoots and tips or leaders. Leaders are the most nutritious, most easily bitten off, most flavorful, and most easily digested part of the browse. Seasonally, home range size is extremely variable and may be 74 to 593 acres or more and is directly correlated with the availability of food, water, and cover. In mountainous regions, mule deer tend to migrate (up to 120 miles) from high summer range to lower winter range. In the intermountain west, deer often migrate in response to snowfall patterns. They exhibit high fidelity to individual seasonal ranges (Kucera 1992). Mule deer populations were estimated at all-time highs in the late 1980s. Habitat loss and degradation are the primary concerns for this species. Invasive weeds, increase in number and frequency of large-scale fires, pinyon-juniper encroachment, shrubland decadence, urban development and expansion, and drought all contribute to habitat degradation and loss. Decreases in quality of summer range and loss of critical wintering habitat in particular have been the biggest challenges to the species. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Conditions on Forest Sendee- Administered Lands September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 445 Pygmy Rabbit This species is found primarily on big sagebrush-dominated plains and alluvial fans where plants occur in tall dense chimps (Green and Flinders 1980). Deep, friable, loamy-type soils are required for burrow excavation. They may occasionally use burrows excavated by other species (e.g., yellow-bellied marmot) and, therefore, may occur in areas that support shallower, more compact soils as long as sufficient shrub cover is available (USFWS 2010b). Dense stands of sagebrush growing adjacent to permanent and intermittent streams, along fence rows, and in ditches may be avenues of dispersal (Green and Flinders 1980). Cover and height of woody vegetation appear to be critical habitat features (Green and Flinders 1980); however, Larrucea and Brussard (2008) found that pygmy rabbits occupied clusters of sagebrush that were taller than the sagebrush shrubs in the surrounding area (i.e., sagebrush islands that range from 12 to 117 centimeters [4.7 to 46 inches] in height). Big sagebrush is the primary food and may comprise up to 99 percent of food taken in winter and 5 1 percent of food taken in the summer. Wheatgrass and bluegrass were highly preferred foods in the summer, while forbs were eaten only occasionally (Green and Flinders 1980). This is the only native leporid in the sub-region to excavate its own burrows (Weiss and Verts 1984; Janson 1946). Dispersal abilities are limited; this species is reluctant to cross open areas such as roads or areas cleared of sagebrush (Weiss and Verts 1984). The size of pygmy rabbit home ranges fluctuates with the seasons; they tend to have smaller home ranges during winter and larger home ranges during the spring and summer. Individuals generally remain near their burrows during the winter. Annual home ranges in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada differed between the sexes and ranged from 1.2 to 25.8 acres for males and 0.27 to 18.7 acres for females. Male home ranges tend to be larger than females during the spring and summer, as males travel further among a number of females. In the southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada study, home ranges for males ranged from 0.27 to 18.5 acres and from 0.15 to 17.5 acres for females during the breeding season. Juvenile dispersal in Nevada and Oregon was reported greater than 0.3 mile, with a maximum long-distance movement of 5.3 miles recorded by a juvenile female (Weiss and Verts 1984). Livestock grazing at inappropriate levels can be detrimental to sagebrush habitat. Recent studies show that grazing is compatible with pygmy rabbits if grazing occurs at levels that leave sagebrush plants intact and soils not overly compacted. Fire was found to be the strongest predictor of loss of pygmy rabbits in Nevada and California. Cheatgrass invasion is detrimental to pygmy rabbits. Shrub cover is necessary for protection during dispersal, and cheatgrass monocultures may provide a barrier to dispersal. Pinyon-juniper encroachment decreases understory species and, in turn, decreases suitable pygmy rabbit habitat. Climate change has been attributed to an upward elevational shift in pygmy rabbit occurrences. Extant historical pygmy rabbit sites averaged 515 feet higher than extirpated sites. With local downward shift effect accounted for, overall upward elevation shift of extant sites was 722 feet; the researchers attributed this to climate (USFWS 2010b). Sage Thrasher In the northern Great Basin, the sage thrasher breeds and forages in tall sagebrush/bunchgrass, juniper/sagebrush/bunchgrass, mountain mahogany/shrub, and aspen/sagebrush/bunehgrass communities (Maser et al. 1984). The species is positively correlated with shrub cover, shrub height, bare ground, and horizontal heterogeneity (patchiness) and negatively correlated with spiny hopsage, budsage, and grass cover (Rotenberry and Wiens 1980; Wiens and Rotenberry 1981). The species usually nests within 1 meter (3.3 feet) of the ground in the fork of shrubs (almost always sagebrush) and sometimes nests on ground (Harrison 1978; Reynolds 1981; Rich September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Species Accounts 446 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1980). In winter, the sage thrasher uses arid and semi-arid scrub, brush and thickets. The species feeds on a wide variety of insects, including grasshoppers, beetles, weevils, ants, and bees, as well as fruits and berries. The Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO 2012) analysis of bird population responses to projected effects of climate change indicates Sage Thrasher is expected to be most affected by projected losses in mountain sagebrush/mid-closed, big sagebrush/mid-open, and salt desert shrub/late covers, and is expected to gain some birds in salt desert shrub/annual, Wyoming big sagebrush/late, and greasewood/shrub/annual covers, for a total projected statewide population loss of 21 percent. Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of high-quality sagebrush shrubland suitable for sage thrasher is attributed to fire, invasive plants, expansion of pinyon-juniper woodland into sagebrush, heavy livestock grazing, and heavy OHV use (GBBO 2010). Sage Sparrow Strongly associated with sagebrush for breeding, sage sparrow is also found in saltbush brushland, shadscale, antelope brush, rabbitbrush, mesquite, and chaparral (AOU 1998; Green and Smith 1981; Martin and Carlson 1998; Paige and Ritter 1998; Reynolds 1981). The species prefers semi-open habitats with shrubs 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) tall (Martin and Carlson 1998). Sage sparrow nests on the ground or in shrubs, up to about 1 meter (3.3 feet) above ground (Terres 1980). In the Great Basin, the species usually nests in living sagebrush, where cover is sparse but shrubs are clumped, and avoids the southwestern side of plant (Petersen and Best 1985). Placement may be related to density of vegetative cover over the nest, as sage sparrow will nest higher in a taller shrub (Rich 1980). In-migration and wintering for the species also occurs in arid plains with sparse bushes, grasslands, and open situations with scattered brush, mesquite, and riparian scrub, preferring to feed near woody cover (Martin and Carlson 1998; Meents et al. 1982; Repasky and Schluter 1994). The GBBO analysis of bird population responses to projected effects of climate change indicates sage sparrow populations are projected to be most affected by reductions in mountain sagebrush/mid-closed and salt desert/mid-late covers, but are expected to see population gains in salt desert/shrub/annual covers, for a projected statewide population reduction of 20 percent (GBBO 2012). Sage sparrow is negatively affected by many factors that fragment its habitat or alter its basic structure, including fire, cheatgrass invasion, heavy livestock use, nest predation, expansion of pinyon-juniper woodland into shrubland, heavy OHV use (GBBO 2010), urban and suburban development, and road and power line ROWs. Pinyon Jay The pinyon jay is found in pinyon-juniper woodland and less frequently in pine; in nonbreeding season, it also inhabits scrub oak and sagebrush (AOU 1983). The species nests in shrubs or trees (e.g., pine, oak, or juniper) about 5 to 30 feet above ground, when and where adequate numbers of pine seeds are available. The species eats pinyon and other pine seeds, berries, small seeds, and grain, as well as insects such as beetles, grasshoppers, caterpillars, and ants. Pinyon jay may also eat bird eggs and hatchlings. The species lives in loose flocks of multiple breeding pairs and their offspring from previous nesting seasons and communally stores large numbers of seeds. The flock has an established home range but may wander to other areas in search of food. During nesting season, flocks of yearlings may form. A GBBO radio-telemetry study found that foraging pinyon jays appeared to favor transitional areas where pinyon-juniper woodland is interspersed with sagebrush (GBBO 2012). During the daytime, jays were usually found within 2,600 feet of woodland edge, and always within 1.2 miles of the edge. Roosting and nesting jays went deeper, but usually no more than 1.8 miles into the woodland interior to denser tree stands. Jays were Chapter 3 Affected Environment Species Accounts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 447 nearly always found in areas with diverse woodland canopy closure and age structure; they were not observed in large contiguous areas of mature, dense woodland. Although very large flocks have been reported elsewhere, telemetry studies most often observed smaller sub-flocks (fewer than 30 birds) that periodically joined other subflocks to form flocks of 50 to 100 birds. Sub-flock home ranges were less than 5,000 acres) in all cases. The GBBO analysis of bird population responses to projected effects of climate change indicates pinyon jay populations are projected to experience losses from habitat change in mountain sagebrush/mid-closed, big sagebrush/shrub/annual, and pinyon-juniper, and they are expected to gain in Wyoming big sagebrush/late, piny on-juniper/late, and mountain sagebrush/late-open, for an overall projected population decline of 19 percent (GBBO 2012). Preliminary data suggest that pinyon jay declines may be at least partly related to substantial increases in the acreage of closed-canopy mature (or senescent) woodland with a poor shrub understory, coupled with a corresponding loss of mixed-age woodland mosaics with openings and a complex shrubland edge. These landscape-scale changes are largely the result of altered fire regimes, although grazing pressure and invasive plants may be contributing factors. 3.5.4. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species Current Conditions Table 3-14, Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species, and Table 3-15, Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species Minimal Overlap with Planning Area, show federally listed, proposed, and candidate species in the planning area. There are also several species of BLM and Forest Service sensitive species in the planning area. Table 3-16, BLM and Forest Service Sensitive Species, lists BLM and Forest Service sensitive species in the planning area. Table 3.14. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat in Planning Area Birds Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Greater Sage-Grous eCentrocercus urophasianus Candidate Reptiles and Amphibians Columbia spotted frog ( Rana luteiventris) Candidate Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis Threatened Cui-ui Chasmistes cujus Endangered Desert dace Eremichthys acros Threatened Yes September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species 448 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat in Planning Area Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Threatened Clover Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus Endangered Bull trout Salvelinus contiuentus Threatened Plants Steamboat buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae Endangered Sources: BLM 201 Id; Forest Service 2011c Table 3.15. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species Minimal Overlap with Planning Area1 Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat in Planning Area Birds Southwestern willow flycatcher 1 Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Yes Yuma clapper rail 1 Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered Reptiles and Amphibians Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa Candidate Columbia spotted frog {Rana Inteiventris) Candidate Yes Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish Cyrpinodon nevadensis mionectes Endangered Warm Springs pupfish Cyrpinodon nevadensis pectoralis Endangered White River spinedace Lepidomeda albivalis Endangered Yes Ash Meadows speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis Endangered Hiko White River springfish Crenichthys baileyi grandis Endangered Yes Insects Chapter 3 Affected Environment Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 449 Species Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat in Planning Area Carson wandering skipper Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Endangered Sources: BLM 201 Id; Forest Service 2011c 'Species range either hypothetically or marginally overlaps with planning area boundary and/or range of GRSG. Species will be excluded from further analysis. Table 3.16. BLM and Forest Service Sensitive Species Common Name Scientific Name BLM Forest Service Mammals Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans X Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii X Eloary bat Lasiurus cinereus X Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus X Pale kangaroo mouse Microdipodops pallidus X Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum X Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis X Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus X Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes X Long-legged myotis Myotis volans X Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis X Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis X Pika Ochotona princeps X Western pipistrelle Parastrellus hesperus X Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei X Spotted bat Euderma maculatum X X Fish Spring pocket gopher Thomomys sp X San Antonio pocket gopher Thomomys sp X Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus X Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis X X Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii X Townsend’s western big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii X Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus X Spotted bat Euderma maculatum X X California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana X Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis X Birds Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis X Northern goshawk Accipiter gent His X X Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus X X Peregrine falcon Fatco peregrinus anatum X X Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X X Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus X Flammulated owl Otus ftammeolus X Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos X Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia X Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis X Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni X Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus X Chapter 3 Affected Environment Federal Endangered , Threatened, Proposed, September, 2013 and Candidate Species 450 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Common Name Scientific Name BLM Forest Service Pinyon jay Gym norh i n us cy anocepha 1 us X Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus X Juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi X Bank swallow Riparia riparia X Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus X Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri X Reptiles and Amphibians Yosemite toad Bufo canorus X Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Rana sierrae X Northern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus graciosus X Fish Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhvnchus clarki Utah X X Meadow Valley wash desert sucker Catostomus clarkii ssp. 2 X Wall Canyon sucker Catostomus murivallis X Cui-ui Chasm istes cujus X White River springfish Crenichthys baileyi baileyi X Desert dace Eremichthys acros X Independence Valley tui chub Gila bicolor isolata X Newark Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp X Hot Creek Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp X Railroad Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp. 7 X Northern leatherside chub Lepidomeda sp.+ X Inland Columbia Basin redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. X Relict dace Rel ictus sol itarius X Moapa speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus moapae X Monitor Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 5 X Meadow Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 1 1 X White River speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 7 X Oasis Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 6 X Pahranagat speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus velifer X Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus X Plants Meadow pussytoes Antennaria arcuata X Eastwood milkweed Asclepias eastwoodiana X Broad-pod freckled milkvetch Astragalus lentiginosus var. lotus X Lamoille Canyon milkvetch Astragalus robbinsii var. occidentals X Toquima milkvetch Astragalus toquimanus X Currant milkvetch Astragalus uncialis X Grouse Creek rockcress Boechera ( =Arabis ) falcatoria X Ophir rockcress Boechera (=Arabis) ophira X Upswept moon wort Botrychium ascendens X Dainty moonwort Botrychium crenulatum X Slender moonwort Botrychium lineare X Moose wort Botrychium tunux X Goodrich biscuitroot Cym opterus good rich i i X Arid draba Draba arida X Serpentine draba Draba oreibata var. serpentina X Pennell draba Draba penned ii X Nevada willowherb Epilobium nevadense X Snake Mountain erigeron Erigeron cavernensis X Sunflower Flat buckwheat Eriogonum douglasii var. elkoense X Chapter 3 Affected Environment Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species September, 2013 451 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Common Name Scientific Name BLM Forest Service Toiyabe buckwheat Eriogonum esmeraldense var. toiyabense X Lewis’s buckwheat Eriogonum lewisii X Basin jatnesia Jamesia tetrapetala X Grimes lathy rus Lathyrus grimesii X Maguire lewisia Lewisia maguirei X Elegant penstemon Penstemon concinnus X Mt. Moriah penstemon Penstemon moriahensis X Bashful penstemon Penstemon pudicus X Rhizome beardtongue Penstemon rhizomatosus X Inconspicuous phacelia Phacelia inconspicua X Small-flower phacelia Phacel ia m inutissima X Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis X Marsh’s bluegrass Poa abbreviata ssp. marshii X Williams combleaf Polycten ium w id iams i i X Sagebrush cinquefoil Potenti 1 la johnstonii X Nevada primrose Primula cusickiana var. nevadensis (=P nevadensis ) X Nachlinger silene Silene nachlingerae X Railroad Valley globemallow Sphaera/cea caespitosa var. wi/liamsiae X Alpine goldenweed Tonestus (=Haplopappus) alpinus X Charleston ground daisy Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa X Currant Summit clover Trifolium andinum var. podocephalum Leiberg’s clover Trifolium leibergii Rollins clover Trifolium macilentum var. rollinsii X Sources: BLM 201 Id; Forest Service 2011c 3.5.5. Management Indicator Species (Forest Service) The NFMA directs the Forest Service to select appropriate species of plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates as management indicator species to manage for maintenance and improvement of important habitats on the forest. Requirements to identify and utilize management indicator species in the decision area and project-level planning were identified under NFMA planning regulations in 1982-2 19. 19(a) (1). Management indicator species are species that respond to habitat changes, are scarce or unique, are of high economic interest, or are listed as federal or state threatened or endangered species. By monitoring and assessing population trends of management indicator species, managers can determine if management actions are affecting species populations and thereby habitats. A Forest Service-specific Management Indicator Species Report is included in Appendix J, Forest Service Draft Management Indicator Species Report and Draft Wildlife and Sensitive Plant Specialists Report, of this document. 3.6. Wild Horses and Burros The BLM and Forest Service protect, manage, and control wild horses and burros in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (PL 92-195, as amended by Congress in 1976, 1978, 1996, and 2004; the Act). The Act mandates the BLM and Forest Service to “prevent the range from deterioration associated with overpopulation” and “remove excess horses in order to preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use relationships in that area.” FLPMA directs the BLM and Forest Service to manage wild September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Management Indicator Species (Forest Service) 452 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement horses and burros as one of numerous multiple uses and resources, including mining, recreation, domestic grazing, and fish and wildlife. Wild horse and burro management is governed by 43 CFR Part 4700 (BLM) and 36 CFR Part 222 Subpart B (Forest Service). One of the BLM’s and Forest Service’s top priorities is to ensure the health of the public lands so that the species depending on them, including the nation’s wild horses and burros, can thrive. BLM and Forest Service policies and regulations also direct that wild horses and burros are to be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals at minimal feasible levels. Following passage of the Act, BLM HAs and HMAs and Forest ServiceWHBTs were identified in the planning area as displayed on Figure 3-9, Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas, Herd Management Areas, and Territories. Herd areas and territories are locations where wild horse and burro populations were found when the Act was passed. HMAs and WHBTs are areas within these identified herd areas, in their entirety or part, where it was established and affirmed through LUPs that sufficient forage, water, cover, and space existed to support the long-term management of healthy wild horse or burro populations. (PDF Map 3-9) Figure 3.9, Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas, Herd Management Areas, and Territories Since the passage of the Act in 1971, management knowledge regarding wild horse population levels has increased. For example, it has been determined that wild horses are capable of increasing their numbers by 18 percent to 25 percent annually, resulting in the doubling of wild horse populations about every 4 years (Wolfe et al. 1989; Garrott et al. 1991). This has resulted in the BLM shifting program emphasis beyond just establishing an AML and conducting wild horse gathers to include a variety of management actions that further facilitate the achievement and maintenance of viable and stable wild horse populations and a “thriving natural ecological balance.” Management actions resulting from shifting program emphasis include increasing fertility control, adjusting sex ratio, and collecting genetic baseline data to support genetic health assessments. The Forest Service has been a cooperating agency to these additional management efforts. Wild horses are a long-lived species with survival rates estimated between 80 and 97 percent (Wolfe 1980; Eberhardt et al. 1982; Garrott and Taylor 1990). Wild horse numbers appear to be limited principally by water availability and winter forage. Predation and disease have not substantially regulated wild horse population levels within or outside the planning area. Throughout the HMAs few predators exist to control wild horse populations. Some mountain lion predation occurs but does not appear to be substantial. Coyotes are not prone to prey on wild horses unless they are young or extremely weak. Being a non-self-regulating species, there would be a steady increase in wild horse numbers for the foreseeable future, which would continue to exceed the carrying capacity of the range. Animal movement and distribution are controlled by fencing and the distribution of watering sources. 3.6.1. Current Conditions Within the planning area, there are 6,373,200 acres of wild horse and burro herd areas, HMAs, and WHBTs within PGH and PPH in the planning area. Table 3-17, Acres of Wild Horse and Burro Areas and Territories in GRSG Habitat, displays data compiled in a baseline environmental report produced by the US Geological Survey (USGS) for the BLM (Manier et al. 2013). Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Current Conditions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 453 Table 3.17. Acres of Wild Horse and Burro Areas and Territories in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Management Acres Acres within Acres Acres within Agency within PGH PPH within PGH PPH BLM III 1,463,200 2,199,200 1,463,200 2,017,600 IV 601,400 1,177,200 257,800 701,100 V 1,399,600 2,002,900 139,500 1,447,800 Forest Service III 136,100 210,100 136,100 210,100 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Source: Manier et al. 2013 There are 70 herd areas and territories in the planning area. These areas overlap 2,232,500 acres of PGH and 5,137,500 acres of PPH. These identified herd areas, in their entirety or part, were the basis for current identified HMAs as established and affirmed through LUPs. The BLM manages 62 HMAs and the Forest Service manages 14 active WHBTs in the planning area, which overlap both PGH and PPH. Wild horse and burro populations in HMAs and WHBTs are managed within AMLs and corresponding forage allocations (AUMs). The AML is defined as the maximum number of wild horses that can be sustained within a designated HMA or WHBT that achieves and maintains a thriving natural ecological balance. The AML for each HMA and WHBT, in most cases, is expressed as a range with an upper and lower limit. The AUM allocation for wild horses and burros in HMAs and WHBTs is based on the upper limit of the AML range. Initial AMLs and the boundaries of each HMA and WHBT were established through previous LUPs to ensure that public land resources, including wild horse habitat, are maintained in satisfactory, healthy condition and that unacceptable impacts on these resources are minimized. The AML ranges are based on best available science and rangeland monitoring studies. HMA and WHBT acreages by habitat type along with current AMLs are shown in Table 3-18, Herd Management Areas and Forest Service Territories in GRSG Habitat. The HMAs, WHBTs, and associated wild horse and burro populations in the planning area are managed within the established AML and management objectives identified within the LUP, herd management area plan, or Territory Management Plan. The AML, objectives, and management actions may be modified in future multiple-use decisions for the grazing allotments contained within an HMA or WHBT. Table 3.18. Herd Management Areas and Forest Service Territories in GRSG Habitat Herd Management Area or Wild Horse and Burro Territory BLM Field Office or Forest Service Ranger District Acres Appropriate Management Level 1 Est. Pop. No. 2 Total PGH PPH BLM California Bitner Surprise 53,700 0 47,500 15-20 19 Buckhorn Surprise 76,300 0 57,900 59-85 172 Carter Reservoir Surprise 23,400 16,400 5,199 25-35 66 Coppersmith Surprise 73,100 3,300 56, 1 00 50-75 75 Fort Sage 3 Eagle Lake 1 5,600 0 0 55-65 47 Fox Hog Surprise 127,100 0 120,600 120-220 162 High Rock Surprise 94,700 0 94,500 78-120 107 Massacre Lakes 4 Surprise 39,900 5,800 29,900 25-35 192 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Conditions 454 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Herd Management BLM Field Office Acres Appropriate Est. Pop. No. 2 Area or Wild Horse or Forest Service Total PGH PPH Management and Burro Territory Ranger District Level 1 New Ravendale Eagle Lake 32,200 0 23,600 10-25 44 Nut Mountain Surprise 40,200 0 38,200 30-55 41 Twin Peaks Eagle Lake 756,300 45,300 529,900 448-758 H 1238 H 72-116 B 268 B Wall Canyon Surprise 41,200 100 36,00 15-25 49 BLM Nevada Antelope Schell 327,300 54,200 113,400 155-324 344 Antelope Valley Wells 504,100 67,00 94,100 150-259 662 Augusta Mountains Humboldt 177,600 31,000 6,800 185-308 387 Bald Mountain Mount Lewis 139,900 36,400 28,400 129-215 211 Black Rock Range East Black Rock 93,400 8,200 67,100 56-93 91 Black Rock Range West Black Rock 93,200 29,200 33,400 56-93 94 Buffalo Hills Black Rock 131,900 2,600 72,100 188-314 360 Calico Mountains Black Rock 160,800 9,700 135,700 200-333 329 Callaghan Mount Lewis 156,200 30,600 106,600 134-237 322 Clan Alpine Stillwater 302,200 9,800 49,300 619-979 600 Desatoya Stillwater 161,700 13,600 89,800 127-180 174 Diamond Mount Lewis 165,600 62,700 28,700 151 78 Diamond Hills North Tuscarora 71,600 8,400 17,300 37 37 Diamond Hills South Egan 19,300 4,500 9,600 10-22 46 Dogskin Mountains Sierra Front 6,500 5,100 0 10-15 26 Eagle Schell 660,300 88,700 137,400 100-210 626 Fish Creek Mount Lewis 252,800 48,100 52,700 107-180 256 Flanigan Sierra Front 17,100 0 13,400 80-125 119 Fort Sage 2 Sierra Front 2,000 0 1,600 36 80 Goshute Wells 267,300 17,300 0 74-123 398 Granite Range Black Rock 103,800 8,800 65,800 155-258 251 Hickison Mount Lewis 57,300 11,600 23,400 45 B 48 B Hot Creek Tonopah 54,700 0 0 41 25 Jackson Mountains Humboldt 283,800 33,100 6,900 130-217 295 Little Fish Lake Tonopah 28,700 5,700 22,500 39 183 Little Humboldt Tuscarora 17,200 7,800 7,900 32-80 23 Little Owyhee Humboldt 457,800 101,200 345,700 194-298 289 Maverick-Medicine Tuscarora 323,500 112,600 101,400 166-276 586 New Pass-Ravenswood Mount Lewis 285,900 47,500 40,300 545-566 515 North Monitor Mount Lewis 11,500 0 6,800 8 22 Owyhee Tuscarora 339,100 70,700 264,00 139-231 142 Pancake Egan 849,600 233,900 90,100 240-493 1,081 Reveille Tonopah 105,500 23,500 0 83-138 137 Roberts Mountain Mount Lewis 100,000 5,000 81,800 150 307 Rock Creek Tuscarora 121,400 39,200 58,900 150-250 424 Rocky Hills Mount Lewis 84,000 35,900 25,300 86-143 97 Sand Springs West Tonopah 152,300 8,000 0 34-56 120 Saulsbury Tonopah 135,100 1,700 0 24-40 145 Seven Mile Mount Lewis 97,600 9,200 37,800 30-50 154 Seven Troughs Humboldt 148,900 26,500 9,800 94-156 H 366 H 28-46 B 98 B Silver King Schell 575,500 129,700 34,500 60-128 314 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Conditions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 455 Herd Management Area or Wild Horse and Burro Territory BLM Field Office or Forest Service Ranger District Acres Appropriate Management Level 1 Est. Pop. No. 2 Total PGH PPH Snowstorm Mountains Humboldt 1 17,100 38,000 24,00 90-140 537 South Shoshone Mount Lewis 133,100 300 102,900 60-100 282 South Stillwater Stillwater 9,800 1,900 3,700 16 19 Spruce-Pequop Wells 240,700 83,600 14,800 48-82 380 Stone Cabin Tonopah 406,300 45,600 22,700 219-364 316 Tobin Range Humboldt 198,200 40,200 49,400 22-42 40 Triple B Egan 1,232,400 1 13,600 599,500 250-518 498 Warm Springs Canyon Black Rock 91,700 1 9, 1 00 68,500 105-175 H 168 H 14-24 B 38 B Whistler Mountain Mount Lewis 43,200 18,400 9,700 24 20 Forest Service Butler Basin Austin 53,500 4,600 15,800 60-100 294 Cherry Spring Ruby Mountains 23,000 5,600 400 40-68 66 Dobbin Summit Austin 48,600 1,800 1 1,700 1-3 0 Hickison Austin 1 6,600 4,200 12,400 16-45 B 108 B Kelly Creek Austin 20,800 200 3,100 8-16 34 Little Fish Lake Tonopah 84,800 4,500 39,900 81-93 251 Monitor Tonopah 338,900 45,300 13,100 51-90 330 Monte Cristo Ely 93,500 1 1 ,600 10,100 72-96 420 North Umberland Austin 12,400 2,900 2,100 3-8 17 Seven Mile Tonopah 6,000 100 600 1-3 35 Stone Cabin Tonopah 1,400 1,100 0 1-3 0 Toquima Tonopah 143,500 29,100 32,500 1 5-30 288 Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 Notes: H = Wild Horse B = Wild Burro 'AML and Population number refers to wild horses unless noted. 2Estimate population numbers as of February 2013. 3Fort Sage HMA lies in both CA and NV, each with separate established AML. 4Massacre Lakes HMA does not have an established AML. The plan is in progress but is not final. The estimated population size of wild horses and burros within each HMA/WHBT is based on helicopter inventories, which occur every two to three years. WHBTs within HMA/WHBT Complexes are generally inventoried on the same schedule under cooperative agreement. These population inventory flights provide information pertaining to population numbers, foaling rates, distribution, and herd health. Population estimates in the planning area (February 2013) show a total estimated population of over 1 7,300 horses and burros. Population estimates indicate that the number of horses and burros substantially exceeds the aggregated AML (approximately 50 percent higher than established AML). Horse populations in 2013 were exceeding the AML in 35 of 62 HMAs and 10 of 14 active WHBTs. Various factors, including drought conditions, historic grazing, wildfires, and uncontrolled wild horse and burro population growth, may adversely affect habitat and, in some instances, herd health. As the populations of wild horses and September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Current Conditions 456 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement burros continue to increase they tend to spread outside the boundaries of the HMA/WHBT in search of sufficient water and forage resources and space which increases the habitat needs and impacts within those areas. Wild horses also compete with wildlife species for various habitat components, especially when populations exceed AML, they expand beyond the boundaries of the HMA/WHBT, or when habitat resources become limited (e.g., reduced water flows, low forage production, or dry conditions). Although determined by population monitoring, it is generally necessary to gather horses and burros on a three- to four-year schedule to ensure that numbers remain within the AML. Unfortunately, this has not been consistently possible because of insufficient funding and holding space; therefore, AMLs are frequently exceeded. Following gathers, some animals are selected for return to the HMA or WHBT; excess horses or burros are placed in the adoption program, made available for sale, or in long-term holding. Wild horses that establish home ranges outside of HMA, WHBT, or herd area boundaries are removed during gathers. Wild horses are removed from private lands at the request of the landowner and after reasonable efforts to keep the animals off private lands have failed. Trends Current conditions in the planning area show that wild horse populations continue to grow, often exceeding AMLs, and continue to expand into areas outside of established boundaries. Wild horses will continue to be removed to maintain AMLs and rangeland health. 3.7. Wildland Fire and Fire Management Fire is an inherent component of ecosystems and historically has had an important role in promoting plant succession and the development of plant community characteristics. Control of fires and other land use practices during the last century has changed plant communities by altering the frequency, size, and severity of wildfires. The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed by the Secretaries of the DOI and the USDA in 1995 in response to dramatic increases in the frequency, size, and catastrophic nature of wildland fires in the US. The 2001 review and update of the policy consisted of findings, guiding principles, policy statements, and implementation actions, and replaced the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Known as the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (DOI et al. 2001), this update “recommends that federal fire management activities and programs are to provide for firefighter and public safety, protect and enhance land management objectives and human welfare, integrate programs and disciplines, require interagency collaboration, emphasize the natural ecological role of fire, and contribute to ecosystem sustainability.” The policy provides nine guiding principles fundamental to the success of the federal wildland fire management program and the implementation of review recommendations. The Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Forest Service 2009d) is the most recent guiding principle for these documents. These umbrella principles compel each agency to review its policies to ensure compatibility. The management of BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands include the control of wildfires, the use of fire through prescribed burning, or the use of fire through the management of wildfires in order to meet land management goals. Wildland fire management on BLM-administered and Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 457 Forest Service-administered lands is guided by a Fire Management Plan (FMP) that considers the three elements mentioned and includes firefighter and public safety and cost effectiveness. Wildland fires occur from natural causes, such as lightning, or are human caused. Prescribed fire is used for beneficial purposes (such as reducing hazardous fuel accumulation or restoring ecosystem health) in a controlled manner under a specific prescription and planned effort. Wildland fires can be managed for multiple objectives either by a full suppression response or to achieve land management objectives or combinations of both. The response to a wildland fire is based on an evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety; the circumstances under which the fire has occurred, including weather and fuel conditions; natural and cultural resource management objectives; and resource protection priorities. Fire is a management tool used to maintain or increase age class diversity within vegetation communities (e.g., big sagebrush/grassland); rejuvenate fire-dependent vegetation communities (e.g., aspen); maintain or increase vegetation productivity, nutrient content, and palatability; and maintain or improve wildlife habitat, rangeland, and watershed condition. Fire is also considered a management tool for disposal of timber slash, seedbed preparation, reduction of hazardous fuel, control of disease or insects, grazing management, thinning, or species manipulation in support of forest management objectives. Management activities utilize collaborative planning, fuels project prioritization and selection, and community assistance actions to help mitigate wildland fire risks to communities and their values; to protect and enhance threatened and endangered species and their habitat; and to ensure that hazardous fuels reduction treatments and projects conform to and support Forest Management Plan and LUP objectives. The actions that the BLM and Forest Service undertake and conduct will be with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and documentation. BLM and Forest Service staff must also determine whether such actions may affect cultural resources and endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If the agency review reveals the potential for impacts, the agency will follow proper consultation procedures; ensure the appropriate use of Fire Regime Condition Class, LANDFIRE (USGS 2006a), or other local data to describe existing vegetative condition; and ensure priority is given to planning those activities, projects, treatments, and community assistance actions that best meet DOl and USDA priorities. All hazardous fuels reduction activities include the following guiding principles: • Employee and public safety is the first priority in every hazardous fuels reduction and Community Assistance activity. • The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent will be identified and incorporated into the land use planning process and the fire management program. • Education and outreach efforts on wildfire risk mitigation will be developed and targeted toward the public with emphasis on communities with high risk. • Fire program managers will work with Line Managers, resource specialists, and cooperators to identify treatment areas, develop plans, and implement fuels treatments and conduct community assistance activities. • The hazardous fuels reduction and Community Assistance program will comply with applicable national, state, and local laws and regulations, and Departmental and BLM manuals, policy, and direction. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management 458 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement • Education plans and marketing strategies will be developed to increase awareness of, and the need for, prescribed fire and other fuels treatments with internal and external audiences. • Hazardous fuels reduction treatments are monitored to determine whether short- and long-term (beyond three years) objectives are being met (effectiveness monitoring). • Report on effectiveness of treatments when intersected by a wildfire. • Community Assistance grant funding provided through Assistance Agreements and Contracts to cooperating entities will be open to all eligible recipients. Current Condition In sagebrush ecosystems, fire has been identified as one of the primary factors linked to loss of sagebrush-steppe habitat. Wildfire has been increasing the loss of habitat due to an increase in fire frequency. This increase in fire frequency has been facilitated by the incursion of nonnative annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass, into the sagebrush ecosystems (Miller and Eddleman 2000). In areas where cheatgrass invasion has occurred, fuel profiles have changed, resulting in increased surface fire intensities, shorter fire return intervals, and larger fire sizes (Knapp 1996; Epanchin-Niell et al. 2009; Rowland et al. 2010; Baker 2011; Condon et al. 2011). Without sufficient rehabilitation efforts, these larger burned areas are prone to even more cheatgrass invasion. This interaction of annual grasses and fire is apparent by the increase in the average decadal acres burned within GRSG habitat. In addition, suppression actions and some grazing practices in the early late 1800s and early 1900s have facilitated the expansion of native conifers into GRSG habitat by decreasing the fire return interval (Miller and Rose 1999)., and Table 3-19, Acres of Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Interface in GRSG Habitat, and Figure 3-10, Areas with Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Conifer Interface, display the extent of pinyon-juniper interface within GRSG habitat. Table 3.19. Acres of Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Interface in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Acres 1 within PGH Acres 1 within PPH Ac rest within PGH Acresl within PPH BLM 111 394,000 751,400 394,000 539,200 IV 311,300 938,700 47,700 364,700 V 346,600 597,500 51,200 448,800 Forest Service III 86,800 247,000 86,800 124,000 IV 228,100 248,200 29,500 92,000 V 29,200 1 1,300 700 2,600 Tribal and Other Federal III 4,600 29,400 1,500 1,600 IV 1 1,100 10,000 100 200 V 8,100 44,000 1,500 33,400 Private III 32,000 217,400 32,000 48,800 IV 295,200 427,500 31,900 138,400 V 132,300 106,800 6,600 25,900 State III 0 47,100 0 400 IV 69,600 67,700 0 0 V 7,300 2,700 600 900 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 459 Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Acres 1 within PGH Acresl within PPH Acresl within PGH Acresl within PPH Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 2,900 6,400 0 0 V 10,100 61,200 10,100 61,200 Source: Manier et al. 2013 1 Includes the number of acres where sagebrush land cover occurs within 120 meters of pinyon-juniper land cover. Fire Regime Fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across the landscape in the absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993; Brown 1995). The natural or historical fire regimes are classified by number of years between fires (frequency) and the severity of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. National and state BLM fire policy requires that current and desired resource conditions related to fire management be described in terms of three condition classes and five fire regimes (Table 3-20, Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions, and Table 3-21, Fire Regime Condition Classes). (PDF Map 3-10) Figure 3.10. Areas with Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper Conifer Interface Table 3.20. Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions Group Frequency Severity Severity Description I 0-35 years Low/mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixed-severity fires that replace up to 75 percent of the over story II 0-35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75 percent of the dominant over story vegetation III 35-200 years Mixed/low Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity fires IV 35-200 years Replacement High severity fires V 200+ years Replacement/any severity Generally replacement-severity; can include any severity type in this frequency range Source: Harm et al. 2008 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management 460 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.21. Fire Regime Condition Classes Fire Regime Condition Classes Attributes Condition Class 1 • Fire regimes are within or near an historical range. • The risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. • Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by no more than one return interval. • Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioning within an historical range. Condition Class 2 • Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. • The risk of losing key ecosystem components has increased to moderate. • Fire frequencies have departed (either increased or decreased) from historical frequencies by more than one return interval. This results in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns. • Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range. Condition Class 3 • Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. • The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. • Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns. • Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical range. Source: Hann et al. 2008 The Fire Regime Condition Classification System measures the degree to which vegetation departs from reference conditions, or how the current vegetation differs from a particular reference condition. Departures from reference condition could be a result of changes to key ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, fire frequency, fire severity, and pattern, as well as other associated disturbances such as insects and disease mortality. The classification system is used to categorize existing ecosystem conditions and to determine priority areas for treatment as mandated by national direction (Hann and Bunnell 2001). While the fire regime of a particular area is not likely to change except in the very long term, the condition class can be changed through fire management and other vegetation management actions. Extreme departure from the historic fire regime results in changes to one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). Vegetative condition class quantifies the amount that current vegetation has departed from the simulated historical vegetation reference conditions. Three condition classes describe low departure, moderate departure, and high departure. Vegetative condition class is calculated based on changes to species composition, structural stage, and canopy closure using methods described Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 461 in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook (Harm et al. 2008). LANDFIRE vegetative condition class (USGS 2006b) is based on departure of current vegetation conditions from reference vegetation conditions only, whereas the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook approach includes departure of current fire regimes from those of the reference period. Table 3-22, Fire Regime Groups in PPH and PGH, and Table 3-23, Condition Class in PPM and PGH, summarize the current fire regime classification of all lands within GRSG habitat in the planning area. Approximately 28 percent of the vegetation in GRSG habitat is Condition Class 111 - highly departed, and 70 percent is Condition Class II - moderately departed. Fuels Treatments Prescribed fires and other fuels treatments have also occurred throughout the planning area as a management tool for fuels, as well as to help meet resource management goals for other land and resource uses such as vegetation and range management. Table 3-24, BLM Hazardous Fuels Treatment (2008-2012), lists the amount of BLM treatments by type and how many acres were treated, while Table 3-25, Forest Service Fuels Treatment (2008-2012), lists the amount of Forest Service treatments by type and how many acres were treated. Table 3.22. Fire Regime Groups in PPH and PGH (acres) Fire Regime 1 II III IV V PPH - BLM 39,490 21,288 3,937,121 6,484,328 806,379 PGH - BLM 28,981 10,319 1,342,977 2,415,454 600,523 PPH - Forest Service 20,237 14,680 393,007 693,884 *■> O Oil J 1 1 PGH - Forest Service 5,208 2,092 186,280 291,643 42,169 PPH - Other 25,612 3,982 1,016,606 1,729,375 225,535 PGH - Other 17,535 982 240,848 554,261 141,062 Source: LANDFIRE Fire Regime Groups Layer (USGS 2006a), BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 Note: Other represents tribal, other federal agencies, state, and private lands Table 3.23. Condition Classes in PPH and PGH (acres) Population Area Condition Class 1 Condition Class II Condition Class III PPH - BLM 2,738,714 6,1 12,877 2,466,204 PGH - BLM 709,390 2,747,367 954,754 PPH - Forest Service 439,012 625,637 1 19,476 PGH - Forest Service 126,557 360,075 52,572 PPH - Other 745,562 1,420,459 792,305 PGH - Other 101,020 548,300 301,679 Source: LANDFIRE Vegetation Condition Class Layer (USGS 2006b), BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 Notes: Other represents tribal, other federal agencies, state, and private lands. Table 3.24. BLM Hazardous Fuels Treatments (2008-2012) Treatment Type Number of Treatments Acres Treated Prescribed Fire 72 1 1 ,940 Mechanical 351 98,459 Chemical 48 1 8,642 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management 462 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmenta! Impact Statement Treatment Type Number of Treatments Acres Treated Total 471 129,041 Source: National Fire Planning Operations Reporting System. Data includec Forest Service GIS 2013 Note: A l-mile buffer was used on the coordinates of the treatments 2008-2012; BFM and Table 3.25. Forest Service Fuels Treatments (2008-2012) Activity Treatments Acres Prescribed fire treatments 2,038 129,862 Mechanical treatments (not including pre-commercial or commercial thinning activities) 1,656 100,71 1 Total 3,694 230,573 Source: Forest Service 2013b Fire Occurrence Between 2000 and 2012, over 2 million acres of GRSG habitat in the planning area were affected by wildland fire (see Table 3-26, Acres of Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat). Table 3.26. Acres of Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat Su rfaee Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Acres' within PGH Acres' within PPH Acres' within PGH Acres' within PPH BFM 111 120,400 96,400 120,400 55,400 IV 965,900 1,809,400 450,900 755,100 V 157,400 210,100 7,400 113,400 Forest Service III 5,800 3,700 5,800 200 IV 161,500 33,900 124,800 31,100 V 13,000 2,600 400 600 Tribal and Other Federal III 0 600 0 500 IV 82,400 58,100 1,200 0 V 600 14,000 500 1,300 Private III 97,000 24,600 97,000 15,800 IV 190,300 417,400 113,400 282,800 V 26,000 46,600 1,300 9,500 State ill 0 7,500 0 0 IV 30,900 53,100 0 0 V 2,700 1,200 0 1,000 Other2 III 0 0 0 0 IV 100 700 0 100 V 900 1 5,900 900 15,900 Source: Manier et al. 2013 'Acres calculated from wildland fires occurring between 2000 and 2012 2Other tribal and other federal Wildfire has historically occurred in the planning area and tends to occur between late April and September. Of the fires in PPH and PGH in the planning area, 83 percent were started by lightning, and 91 percent of the acreages affected by fire were caused by lightning. Table 3-27, Fire Occurrence (1992-2011), displays the size and number of fires by size class that have occurred in the GRSG habitat in the planning area over the past twenty years. Table 3-28, Causes Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 463 of Fires (1992-2011), displays the percent of human and lightning caused fire starts and acreage burned by agency and habitat type. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management Table 3.27. Fire Occurrence (1992 - 2011) 464 5/5 + © o o o © 0 cn ri OO CO ri »o C/5 00 O" *— < OO do ON ON r-H n CO a Lh C3 CO o oo" oo in O of ON ri so" CO C/3 *— i no' o NO ri NO cl © co ri r i CO ri ON ON ON C/i © 'T © © < o o C/5 +■> !- of do of o 53 of co o o - — i p=l 55 ON of in © ON © ON NO. r i do" CO o" Uh 1 00 o' of CO co oo ON CO of do co of n ri ON ON oo NO ON o 00 n NO o oo NO CO NO ri CO w 53 hh C/3 o' co oo no' On in CO r- oo o © of do ri NO CO ri ON ON 5/5 © ON ri o © < o c/i NO © ON OO of ON © OO n OO o . . 55 co ON OO in CO r”^ Q T— 1 DO CO in do" r i oo ri Os f"l r- co NO r— ' CO ON tf) ON © © © < © C f) co co ON ri of u co oi r- ON © © © ■+=< < NO C f) CN 00 OO Of © © © NO DO NO oo © 4-* oo Of i— t NO Of ri SQ C/3 ON Of DO o co r— I of r- DO r i i— c of ri of ri CN •o 5/5 CN © © © © < J/5 © H— > ©< C3 n o ri CN © • • 1—1 r- o CO i-H < C/3 r: 5 © r- ON in On ON of ON NO oo CO (N f) a © < s © S hJ t/5 © 5- o IT) © i-P o © 5-h © 53 PQ PQ Ph © PH © 6 o i 1 i O ' © i 1 © ©■ X X SC "> sc X o Cl, a Oh Cl J a © CP o 0- Oh PC CP CO Ph CO CP © o ri C/3 O S— < P I- O © SO o O Z Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 465 Table 3.28. Causes of Fires (1992 - 2011) Population Areas Human Starts/ Acres Natural Starts/Acres Percent of Human Starts/Acres Percent of Natural Starts/Acres PPH - BLM 214/77,515 1,590/1,129,250 1 2%/4 1 % 88%/59% PGH - BLM 148/54,434 997/846,364 1 3%/6% 87%/94% PPH - Forest Service 34/7,434 134/23,326 20%/24% 80%/76% PGH - Forest Service 16/3,968 67/113,081 1 9%/3% 8 1 %/97% PPH - Other 206/23,675 477/669,243 30%/3% 70%/97% PGH - Other 1 14/31,665 231/243,474 33%/67% 67%/88% Total 732/198,691 3,496/2,008,413 Source: Short 2013; BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 Note: “Other” represents other federal agencies, tribal, state, and private lands. Trends Recent scientific research has shown a trend towards increased large fire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons since the mid-1980s (Westerling et al. 2006). The authors suggest that this may involve both climate change and previous land-use effects in California. The spread of cheatgrass and other continuous annual grasses will continue to serve as a catalyst for non-historic large fire growth in the planning area. Climate change may also alter the range of invasive plants, potentially expanding this threat into more GRSG habitat. In the absence of vegetation management, there is an increased potential for further loss of biological diversity in the advent of future high-severity large fires that damage or eliminate components of the ecosystem (Martin and Sapsis 1991 ). “No treatment” or “passive management” can perpetuate the potential for high severity fire (Stephens et al. 2009), thereby increasing the loss of habitat. Funding for the hazardous fuels reduction program continues to fall. For fiscal year 2014, a significant reduction will be seen in Nevada. The anticipated reduction in the hazardous fuels program is between 47 and 56 percent. This lack of funding will result in Nevada not being able to maintain full-time staff at current levels, allow for maintenance of ongoing fuels projects, or start new projects. As such, projects to enhance GRSG habitat will be significantly reduced. There is a cumulative fiscal impact of the combined costs of suppression, emergency rehabilitation, and restoration of new large fire areas in combination with previous large fires. Federal wildfire policy directs fire management programs to be economically viable based upon values to be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. Federal agency administrators are directed to reduce costs and increase efficiencies (Forest Service 2009d). Figure 3-11, Areas with High Fire Probability, shows those areas of the sub-region with the highest fire potential, while Table 3-29, Acres with High Probability for Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat, shows the acreage with a high probability for wildland fire within GRSG habitat in the planning area. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Wildland Fire and Fire Management 466 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Tabic 3.29. Acres with High Probability for Wildland Fire in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Acres 1 within PGH Acres' within PPH Acres' within PGH Acres' within PPH BFM III 1,990,900 4,583,100 1,990,900 3,590,800 IV 4,438,100 11,904,200 742,500 3,581,200 V 2,801,300 3,545,800 322,100 1,788,000 Forest Service III 78,900 280,500 78,900 124,600 IV 621,400 1,163,200 183,100 548,900 V 40,300 29,900 1,100 8,400 Tribal and Other Federal III 6,500 120,000 6,500 37,100 IV 301,900 487,200 1,900 1,700 V 77,000 351,100 19,700 258,600 Private III 315,200 1,137,600 315,200 416,800 IV 2,268,400 4,068,100 390,900 1,487,400 V 689,500 589,400 44,800 104,100 State III 100 191,000 100 2,900 IV 649,700 738,700 400 800 V 74,200 49,300 2,700 10,800 Other III 0 100 0 100 IV 26,300 62,000 0 100 V 47,100 293,200 46,700 293,200 Source: Manier et al. 2013 'Derived from Forest Service FSim Burn data Note: Other includes other federal agencies, tribal, state, and private lands. (PDF Map 3-11) Figure 3.11. Areas with High Fire Probability 3.8. Livestock Grazing BLM The primary laws that govern grazing on public lands are the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The BLM manages grazing lands under 43 CFR Part 4100 and BLM Manuals and Handbooks. In addition, the BLM must meet or ensure progress is being made toward meeting the BLM Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Administration (Appendix K, Livestock Grazing) for each allotment. Four fundamentals of rangeland health are listed in 43 CFR 4180.1. They combine the basic precepts of physical function and biological health with elements of law relating to water quality and plant and animal populations and communities. The fundamentals provide the basis for the development and implementation of the standards for land health. Standards and guidelines establish conditions needed to sustain public land health for soils, riparian systems, upland vegetation, wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, and water quality. Guidelines are livestock grazing management tools, methods, strategies, and Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 467 techniques designed to maintain or achieve healthy public lands as defined by the standards. The S&Gs have been implemented through land health assessments, determination documents, environmental assessments, permit renewals, and other permit changes. These standards not only pertain to impacts associated with livestock grazing, but also to other rangeland impacts from such activities as recreation, development activities, wildlife grazing, and wild horse management. Sustainable livestock grazing and desired rangeland condition requires the collective management of forage, water, soil, and livestock by the BLM and the livestock owners and operators. Forest Service The primary laws that govern grazing on lands administered by the Forest Service are the Organic Administration Act of 1897, Granger-Thye Act of 1950, Multiple Sustained Yield Act of 1960, FLPMA, Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources and Planning Act of 1974, NFMA, and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The Forest Service manages livestock grazing under direction in 36 CFR Part 222, Forest Service Manual 2200, and Forest Service Handbook 2209. In addition, LUPs identify the suitability of land on Forest Service-administered units to produce forage for grazing animals and establish programmatic direction for grazing activities, including goals, objectives, desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements. Although an area may be deemed suitable for use by livestock in a LUP, a project-level analysis evaluating the site-specific impacts of the grazing activity, in conformance with NEPA, is required in order to authorize livestock grazing on specific allotments. Current Condition Cattle are the primary grazers on Nevada BLM-administered lands of the planning area, in identified or potential GRSG habitat; secondary grazers are sheep and some domestic horses. The season of use within the planning area varies from seasonal to year-long. Range improvements are present on public lands in the planning area. Structural range improvements are fences and water developments, along with vegetation treatments, such as seedings and invasive weed control. Fences are typically three- to four-strand barbed wire, although other types of approved fences are present. Water developments are reservoirs, developed springs, and wells. Developed springs and wells commonly include pipeline systems that distribute water to one or more metal, fiberglass, or rubber-tire tanks. Reservoirs and developed springs are typically located in drainages and depressions, while wells and their associated delivery tanks are typically located on uplands. Noxious and invasive weeds are controlled through IMP measures over the planning area. Active grazing use, management actions, and long-term rangeland health in each allotment are monitored and evaluated on an ongoing basis. Adjustments are made by agreement or decision, in accordance with legislation, regulations, and policy, to ensure that public land resource values are maintained or improved to meet LUP goals and objectives. The primary management objectives for livestock grazing have been to improve rangeland health, improve riparian functioning condition, and restore native plant communities. The BLM is improving rangeland health by controlling animal numbers and season-of-use and by resting severely damaged rangeland (principally caused by wildfires). Livestock grazing is monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that BLM land health standards are being achieved. Where progress is lacking or inadequate, grazing practices are altered or other conditions are corrected to achieve compliance. As elsewhere, forage production and availability are subject to substantial yearly fluctuations. Droughts in particular necessitate use restrictions on annual grazing permits. Factors September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing 468 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement of human and natural origin that interfere with land health restoration and threaten efforts to achieve the desired future condition are as follows: • Juniper encroachment in low sagebrush, big sagebrush, and oak woodland plant communities • Sheet erosion and pedestal formation (formed where individual plants or plant clumps retain soil while the intervening spaces are eroded) • Competition from invasive weeds • Decline in watercourse health and hydrologic function • Decline in riparian vegetation, health, and function • Soil trampling by feeding and traveling livestock, particularly along streambanks and in riparian areas, and erosion from roads and trails (especially near watercourses and riparian areas) • Forage shrub decline due to drought • Proliferation of exotic weeds, which are already established in most pastures (management actions, including altered grazing practices, would increase the extent and health of native perennial species, but they are not likely to restore complete dominance) Current Livestock Management Present management involves carefully adhering to permit stipulations, particularly regarding livestock numbers and season-of-use restrictions. Grazing pressure is controlled with fencing, herding, and strategic placement of water. Many allotments are managed with a combination of rest and deferred grazing. This can include early-on and early-off grazing, delayed turnout, or a modified annual season-of-use. Annual adjustments are made according to forage availability and the prevalence of drought or above-average precipitation. Livestock are trucked or driven overland to and from allotments and between pastures. The BLM and its grazing permittees are maintaining or improving rangeland health so that forage production is sustainable and ranching remains a viable occupation. Despite some inherent difficulties, local ranchers have begun to employ new grazing strategies that are beginning to show improvements in rangeland health. These changes have increased the extent and health of sensitive riparian and upland vegetation. Techniques include shorter grazing seasons, modified spring and summer grazing use, and intensive management of riparian areas and livestock pastures. Livestock exclosures and riparian pastures (riparian areas fenced out to promote riparian function) have been created to protect streams and riparian habitats. Improved fencing, frequent herding and moving, and season-of-use adjustments have been used to protect sensitive areas and to improve rangeland condition. Leaving greater amounts of residual vegetation has enhanced hydrologic function and watershed condition by slowing runoff, increasing infiltration, reducing erosion, and improving seedling establishment and ground cover. BLM rangeland health information is separated into the Northeast California District and Nevada BLM sections. The Northeast California District had access to more detailed information, while the Nevada BLM information is more general. As an example, the data sets used for rangeland health assessments are different, so the category definitions are also different. BLM California Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 469 Rangeland Health Assessments Rangeland health assessments are used to compare the current condition of grazing allotments to rangeland health standards. Some factors of major importance to rangeland health are current and historic grazing practices, juniper encroachment, and proliferation of noxious weeds. Once evaluated, allotments are placed in one of four condition categories. Northeastern California BLM currently permits approximately 172,231 AUMs on allotments in GRSG habitat (Table 3-30, Northeastern California BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat). September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing Table 3.30. Northeastern California BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat 470 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 471 BLM Nevada Of the grazing allotments on BLM-administered land in the Nevada portion of the planning area, 555 contain some acreage of identified or possible GRSG habitat. Nevada BLM currently permits approximately 1.8 million AUMs on allotments in GRSG habitat (Table 3-31, Nevada BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat). September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing Table 3.31. Nevada BLM Allotments in GRSG Habitat 472 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement rn in *r> oc © Dl> * c/5 © © © ri rn 00 o' © < 53 U O i co . © C 353 No. All me NO * ON *N Sr a* © © o a © ON §JJJ a» < -4 3 « u ©N 6 u O i co on © o . © e .p OS© 2; < S 75 N 03 © a © 03 |Jh © 03 C/D (N © 03 C/D CJ * 'O o 03 © NO Oh © © ON o © © NO © Z on a> < © c3 © '-3 55 4—* © © O U ©H 03 ri O i co (j-i M © No. Allot ment 37 13 C/D © 03 P O 3 > '3 -rs © U 03 s <2 © > © r- p h4 X> "O ij . © e © © © © © © 3 © c3 03 03 Z < £ "sf u CJ CJ u U © £ 5 j Oh C a > £ 3 13 Oh © CD 03 a > © © 03 JO 03 a on a 03 g 'x o © Oh Qh 03 © h— » £ © Oh © © © © CJ < ri o ri S m aJ o o C/2 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 473 Forest Service The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest manages 225 grazing allotments in the planning area. Of these, 219 allotments, or about 97 percent, contain GRSG habitat totaling about 1,664,568 acres. Livestock are permitted on Forest Service-administered lands under term grazing permits, which cannot be leased in whole or part. A term grazing permit authorizes the number, kind, and class of livestock as well as the period of use and grazing allotment on which livestock are permitted to graze. Mostly cattle and sheep graze on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest from early June to late September. Currently the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest permits 276,191 AUMs (386,570 Head Months), in the planning area, including 214,103 (165,297 Head Months) for cattle, 61,600 (220,867 Head Months) for sheep and goats, and 488 (406 Head Months) for horses and burros. All allotments on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are managed under allotment management plans or annual operation instructions that implement livestock grazing S&G of the Humboldt or Toiyabe Forest LUPs, including forage utilization standards. Structural range improvements help distribute livestock across the allotments and include fences, cattle guards, corrals, pipelines, water troughs, wells, reservoirs, and ponds. Planning Area Table 3-32, Acres of Grazing Allotments in GRSG Habitat; Table 3-33, Acres of Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards in GRSG Habitat; and Table 3-34, Miles of Fences in GRSG Habitat, describe the current conditions affecting livestock grazing within the planning area. Figure 3-12, Existing Lands Open to Livestock Grazing shows BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands open to grazing and the relationship of PGH and PPH to existing grazing allotments. Table 3.32. Acres of Grazing Allotments in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Acres within PGH Acres within PPH Acres within PGH Acres within PPH BLM III 3,191,900 6,282,000 3,191,900 4,935,600 IV 4,670,700 13,408,800 763,800 3,566,300 V 4,051,000 5,056,400 473,000 2,806,900 Forest Service HI 345,100 1,185,600 345,100 581,300 IV 1,050,800 1,566,700 1 64,200 587,000 V 109,800 60,000 7,500 22,700 Tribal and Other Federal III 5,500 5,300 5,500 3,500 IV 153,800 266,200 0 900 V 4,000 1,500 800 400 Private III 299,400 714,000 299,400 402,100 IV 1,201,300 3,044,600 306,700 1,255,200 V 768,400 575,700 39,300 125,000 State III 200 236,000 200 5,600 IV 257,900 693,600 400 800 V 21,100 25,300 500 7,200 Other 111 0 100 0 100 IV 400 1,500 0 100 V 43,500 252,300 39,900 252,300 Source: Manier et al. 2013 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Livestock Grazing 474 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.33. Acres of Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Plannin g Area Acres 1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH BLM III 654,600 965,400 654,600 877,700 IV 968,900 2,617,200 242,700 550,600 V 158,700 417,000 93,800 353,600 Source: Manier et a . 2013 'Only includes allotments not meeting Land Health Standards with grazing as the causal factor. *The Forest Service does not use the Land Health Concept. Table 3.34. Miles of Fences in GRSG Habitat Su rface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Miles" within PGH Miles1 within PPH Miles1 within PGH Miles1 within PPH BLM III 2,000 4,700 2,000 3,200 IV 7,200 16,100 400 2,400 V 3,600 4,000 500 1,900 Forest Service III 600 1,700 600 1,000 IV 1,900 2,800 200 700 V 200 100 0 100 Tribal and Other III 0 100 0 0 Federal IV 400 400 0 0 V 100 100 0 0 Private III 300 1,100 300 400 IV 3,900 7,400 300 1,400 V 1,400 1,000 100 200 State III 0 300 0 0 IV 500 1,200 0 0 V 100 100 0 0 Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 100 300 100 300 Source: Manier et al. 2013 'Derived from a dataset that identifies pasture and allotment borders on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands as potential fences. Current use patterns vary based on local and regional plans, conditions, and grazing allotments. Pastures on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands (management units) represent the typical planning, leasing, and evaluation units used in grazing management across GRSG range. Based on field office records of grazing allotments, allotments “not meeting wildlife land health standards due to livestock grazing” influence GRSG habitats throughout Management Zone IV and western portions of Management Zone 111, although BLM-administered lands not meeting wildlife land health standards due to livestock can be found throughout the range of GRSG. Importantly, assessments for some lands were not available (some federal and all state, private, and tribal lands), and conditions have changed since the data were gathered (assembled in 2008 using available data), so regional scale comparisons may be misleading. Contemporary, local data should supersede this information in most cases. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Livestock Grazing September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 475 Approximately 6.6 million acres (10.42 percent) of BLM-administered GRSG range did not meet land health standards, and 17.9 percent of priority habitats in Management Zones 111 and IV did not meet these standards (Manier et al. 2013). (PDF Map 3-12) Figure 3.12. 3.9. Recreation Conditions on BLM-Adniinistered Lands Management of recreation is guided by BLM regulations and policies, federal and state laws, current and emerging trends in public demand for recreational activities and opportunities, and an area’s physical and natural surroundings. Current management direction is based on objectives in LUPs and LUP amendments, activity-level plans, and recreation management guidance, including Manual 8320 (BLM 201 le). The intent of the BLM’s recreation-focused laws, policy, and guidelines is to meet public demand for outdoor land- and water-based recreation opportunities while preventing or minimizing adverse impacts on the natural and cultural resources on BLM-administered lands. Recreation Management Areas Recreation planning guidance and the definitions for recreation management areas (i.e., SRMAs and extensive recreation management areas [ERMAs]) have changed since most LUPs in the planning area were written. Special Recreation Management Areas Current BLM guidance identifies SRMAs as administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, or distinctiveness, especially as compared with other areas used for recreation. SRMAs are managed to protect and enhance a targeted set of activities, experiences, benefits, and desired recreation setting characteristics. SRMAs may be subdivided into recreation management zones to further delineate specific recreation opportunities. Within SRMAs, recreation and visitor service management is recognized as the predominant land use planning focus, where specific recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are managed and protected on a long-term basis. SRMAs and recreation management zones must have measurable outcome-focused objectives. Supporting management actions and allowable use decisions are required to sustain or enhance recreation objectives, protect the desired recreation setting characteristics, and constrain uses, including non-compatible recreation activities, that are detrimental to meeting recreation or other critical resource objectives (e.g., cultural or threatened and endangered species). There are six SRMAs in the planning area. The largest single SRMA is the Black Rock High Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), encompassing 1,205,040 acres. The Loneliest Highway SRMA that follows US Highway 50 in the Ely District is 675,123 acres. The Egan Crest SRMA, also in the Ely District, is 53,445 acres. There are three SRMAs in the Elko District: Wilson Reservoir with 5,440 acres, South Fork Owyhee River with 3,500 acres, and Zunino/Jiggs Reservoir with 800 acres. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Recreation 476 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Extensive Recreation Management Areas Current BLM guidance defines ERMAs as administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or recreation and visitor service program investments. ERMAs are managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMAs is commensurate with the management of other resources and resource uses. Supporting management actions and allowable use decisions must facilitate the visitors’ ability to participate in outdoor recreation activities and protect the associated qualities and conditions. Non-compatible uses, including some recreation activities, may be restricted or constrained to achieve interdisciplinary objectives. Planning guidance in place when most LUPs in the planning area were written directed that all BLM-administered land not designated as an SRMA should be designated as an ERMA. However, under current recreation guidance (BLM Manual 8320 - Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services [BLM 201 le]), what were formerly the ERMAs would now be considered “undesignated” (i.e., neither an ERMA nor an SRMA). As such, there are no areas in the planning area designated as ERMAs. BLM-Administered Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas As described above, current recreation guidance (BLM 201 le), directs that what were formerly ERMAs would now be considered “undesignated” (i.e., neither an ERMA nor an SRMA). As such, approximately 36,062,995 acres in the planning area are “undesignated”. These BLM-administered lands that are not designated as recreation management areas are managed to meet basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs. Recreation is not emphasized, but recreation activities may occur. The recreation and visitor services are managed to allow recreation uses that are not in conflict with the primary uses of these lands. Management actions and allowable use decisions may still be necessary to address basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs. Forest Service The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 USC 528, Public Law 86-517) directs the Forest Service to manage recreation as a resource on par with timber, water, and wildlife resources. As the science of outdoor recreation management has evolved, managers have placed more emphasis on providing for experience opportunities rather than specific recreation activities. Accordingly, a primary objective of Forest Service recreation management is to provide and secure an environment for visitors to achieve desired experiences while balancing other social, economic, and environmental factors. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a widely used planning and management tool used to delineate and define outdoor recreation settings and related experience opportunities. The ROS arrays recreation settings on a spectrum from primitive to urban. A given ROS class or category describes the level of development, use, and management that exists or is desired for the area where that class is prescribed. There are six ROS classes described in the LUPs: primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. For each of these classes, the LUPs also describe maximum-use level guidelines defined in terms of people at one time per trail mile and per acre. For winter recreation (activities that require snow cover), two general ROS classes are used: motorized and nonmotorized. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Recreation September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 477 Table 3-35, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes, summarizes the various ROS classes within the planning area and in PGH and PPH. Table 3.35. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes ROS Class Acres within PGH Acres within PPH Acres within Other Total Acres in Planning Area Primitive 22,824 67,316 413,732 503,873 Rural 1,633 8,756 739 1 1,129 Roaded Natural 113,885 276,588 478,171 868,645 Semi-Primitive Motorized 132,154 331,239 217,210 680,604 Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized 268,795 498,903 1,671,839 2,439,538 Urban 0 198 0 198 Total 539,292 1,183,003 2,781,693 4,503,989 Source: BLM and Forest Service G1S 2013 3.10. Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Travel and Transportation Management on BLM-Administered Lands Travel and transportation are integral parts of virtually every activity that occurs on BLM-administered lands. The BLM has taken a holistic approach to comprehensive travel and transportation management (CTTM). It is an interdisciplinary approach to travel and transportation planning and management that addresses resource uses and associated access to public lands and waters, including motorized, non-motorized, mechanical, and animal-powered modes of travel. Travel and transportation management planning means providing clear and specific direction that addresses public and administrative access needs on the proper levels of land and water for all modes of travel. The CTTM process addresses variability among landscapes, users’ interests, equipment options, and cultural and biological resource constraints. The primary goal of CTTM is to develop a systematic network of routes with appropriately designated uses that provides opportunities for a diverse set of activities to occur on public lands, such as recreation, energy development, grazing, and wildlife management. Travel management objectives serve as the foundation for appropriate travel and access prescriptions. There is considerable overlap between travel management and all other uses on BLM-administered lands. For example, many people visit BLM-administered lands for recreation purposes. For these visitors, a route system may serve as either a means to reach a destination where the activity occurs (e.g., a road to a trailhead or parking area) or as the focus of the recreation activity itself (e.g., a four-wheel driving, hiking, or horseback riding trail). To reduce the duplication of narrative between travel management and the other sections of this document, this section addresses only public travel and access (i.e., OHV management area designations, route designations, types of travel, and seasonal area limitations). The interrelated recreation components, such as OHV use, are addressed under Section 3.9, Recreation. Modes of Travel Visitors to public lands use roads and trails for a variety of activities involving various modes of travel. Motorized travel in the planning area ranges from standard passenger vehicles driving on Chapter 3 Affected Environment Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management September, 2013 478 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement maintained roads to OHVs operating on primitive roads and trails. OHV is synonymous with off-road vehicle, as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a): Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: 1) Any nonamphibious registered motorboat; 2) Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; 3) Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer or otherwise officially approved; 4) Vehicles in official use; and 5) Any combat or combat-support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies. OHVs commonly used in the planning area include off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, utility terrain vehicles, jeeps, specialized 4-by-4 trucks, and snowmobiles. Other modes of travel include mountain biking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, horseback riding, pack animal driving, hiking, boating, hang-gliding, paragliding, ballooning, and wheelchairs. The type and amount of use and the location of roads and trails influence physical, social, and administrative recreation setting and the overall quality of the recreation experience. Travel Designations Executive Order 11644 and 43 CFR Part 8340 both require the BLM to designate all BLM-administered lands nationally as open, closed, or limited for OHV use. Open Areas designated as Open are areas where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times anywhere in the area. Use is subject to any operating regulations and vehicle standards established in other parts of the CFR. Limited Areas designated as Limited are areas restricted at certain times, in certain areas, or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within the following categories: numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; and other restrictions. Closed Areas designated as Closed are where cross-county motorized vehicle use is prohibited. OHVs may be allowed in closed areas for certain reasons, but only with the approval of the authorized officer. Federal Regulations Route designation criteria are described in 43 CFR 8342.1 and state: The authorized officer shall designate all public lands as open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicles. All designations shall be based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the public lands; and in accordance with the following criteria: (a) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management September, 2013 479 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (b) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. (c) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors. (d) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic, or other values for which such areas are established. National Guidance On a national level and in response to increasing demand for motorized and mechanized recreation trails on public lands, the BLM first developed an OHV strategy and then a mountain bike strategy. These strategies emphasize that the BLM should be proactive in seeking travel management solutions that conserve natural resources while providing for ample recreation opportunities. The BLM released the current version of the Land Use Planning Handbook (H- 160 1-1, BLM 2005a) in March 2005. Guidance on determining Open, Limited, and Closed OHV Area designations during the planning process was incorporated into the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management Section (Appendix C, Section II D). Additional TTM guidance continued to be developed and culminated with the release of the Travel and Transportation Management Manual (1626, BLM 20 Ilf) in July 2011. Current policy states that Open areas will be limited to a size that can be effectively managed and geographically identifiable and that expansive open areas allowing cross-country travel will not be designated in LUP revisions or new travel management plans. The Travel and Transportation Handbook (H-8342, BLM 2012m) was released in March of 2012. It provides detailed guidance using the designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1 for area and route selection. It includes guidance for developing other implementation plans including but not limited to sign plans, education and outreach plans, law enforcement plans, and maintenance plans. Travel Management on Forest Service-Administered Lands The Forest Service published its Travel Management Rule in 2005 (Forest Service 2005). It required each national forest to designate roads, trails, and areas open or closed to motor vehicles. Designations were made in accordance with criteria described in Executive Order 1 1 644 and included the type of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year for motor vehicle use. A given route, for example, could be designated for use by motorcycles, ATVs, or street-legal vehicles. Once designation was complete, the rule prohibited motor vehicle use off the designated system. In addition to the CFR, the Forest Service developed CTTM planning guidance, including the Travel Management Manual, FSM 7700 (Forest Service 2009e), and the Travel Planning Handbook, FSH 7709.55 (Forest Service 2009f). Federal Regulations September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management 480 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement The criteria for Forest Service route designation are found in 36 CFR 212.55 (a). General criteria for designation of Forest Service-administered roads, Forest Service-administered trails, and areas on Forest Service-administered lands and state: In designating National Forest System roads. National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration. (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: ( 1 ) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; (4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands. In addition, the responsible official shall consider: (5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors. Current Condition Travel planning is complete for all lands administered by the Forest Service in the planning area. Forest Service-administered lands with a designated route system are considered the same as the Limited designation on BLM-administered lands. Current Closed areas in the planning area are generally designated Wilderness and some ACECs. Current acreage for Open, Closed, and Limited OHV area designations for the planning area are listed in Table 3-36, Travel Area Designations on BLM and Forest Service Lands. The majority of acres in both PPH and PGH have an Open OHV area designation. Miles of roads, including interstate and state highways, secondary roads, and local roads are listed in Table 3-37, Miles of Roads in GRSG Habitat, and Table 3-38, Miles of Roads in GRSG Habitat. This does not include two-track primitive roads. Inventory data for two-track primitive roads are incomplete at this time. Miles and acres of railroads are shown in Table 3-39, Miles of Railroads in GRSG Habitat, and Table 3-40, Acres of Railroads in GRSG Habitat. Table 3.36. Travel Area Designations on BLM and Forest Service Lands1 Planning Area (acres) PPH (acres) PGH (acres) Open 37,058,100 8,878,900 3,866,000 Closed 2,783,500 731,000 143,600 Limited 10,021,200 3,083,600 1,029,700 Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 481 Planning Area (acres) PPH (acres) PGH (acres) TOTAL 49,862,800 12,693,500 5,046,300 Source: BLM and Forest Service G1S 2013 'Acres rounded to nearest 100 acres Table 3.37. Miles of Roads in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Agency Zone Miles within PGH Miles within PPH Miles within PGH Miles within PPH BLM III U> o o 10,400 5,300 8,000 IV 6,500 18,900 900 3,400 V 5,900 5,200 400 1,900 Forest Service III 400 1,900 400 700 IV 1,200 1,900 200 500 V 400 200 0 0 Tribal and Other III 100 900 0 100 Federal IV 700 1,000 0 0 V 200 600 0 300 Private HI 900 4,300 900 1,000 IV 7,200 8,700 800 2,000 V 2,900 1,600 100 300 State III 0 800 0 0 IV 1,300 1,800 0 0 V 200 100 0 0 Other 111 0 0 0 0 IV 100 100 0 0 V 100 500 100 500 Source: Manier et al. 2013 Table 3.38. Acres of Roads in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Plan n in l> Area Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH BLM III 56,900 1 1 5,700 56,900 85,800 IV 68,500 199,400 9,300 36,500 V 59,900 54,300 5,100 20,600 Forest Service III 4,400 20,900 4,400 7,300 IV 12,900 20,100 1,800 5,500 V 3,600 2,000 100 700 Tribal and Other III 600 8,800 400 1,400 Federal IV 8,000 11,200 0 100 V 2,200 6,900 200 4,300 Private III 9,800 56,800 9,800 12,200 IV 83,500 100,900 10,300 24,000 V 29,400 17,400 1,200 3,400 State III 0 9,400 0 200 IV 14,100 18,800 0 0 V 2,100 1,300 100 200 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Comprehensive Travel and Transportation September, 2013 Management 482 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Plannin ? Area Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 800 1,200 0 0 V 1,900 6,200 1,900 6,200 Source: Manier et al. 2013 'Assumes footprint of 73.2 meters for interstate highways, 25.6 meters for paved primary and secondary highways, and 12.4 meters for other roads, such as graded county roads. This does not include two track primitive roads. Table 3.39. Miles of Railroads in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Zone Miles Miles Miles Miles Agency within PGH within PPH within PGH within PPH BLM III 22 100 22 26 IV 100 100 40 45 V 0 27 0 27 Forest Service III 0 0 0 0 IV 1 0 0 0 V 1 0 0 0 Tribal and Other III 0 100 0 0 Federal IV 14 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Private III 1 1 100 1 1 7 IV 300 too 100 60 V 17 0 0 0 State III 0 0 0 0 IV 12 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 2 Other 111 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 3 0 3 31 Source: Manier et al 2013 Table 3.40. Acres of Railroads in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Zone Acres1 Acres1 Acres1 Acres1 Agency within PGH within PPH within PGH within PPH BFM III 400 82 97 400 IV 400 100 200 400 V 100 0 100 200 Forest Service III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Tribal and Other III 400 0 0 400 Federal IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 483 Su rface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPM Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPM Private III 400 40 28 400 IV 400 400 200 400 V 0 0 0 0 State III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 7 0 Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 1 1 100 0 Source: Manier et al. 2013 'Assumes footprint of 9.4 meters 3.11. Land Use and Realty The Lands and Realty Program secures and protects the American public’s rights, title, value, and interests in its public lands, and authorizes a variety of uses on those public lands in order to meet the needs of present and future generations. Lands and realty actions ensure that public lands are managed to benefit the public. Lands and realty actions can be divided between land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations. Land tenure adjustments focus primarily on land acquisition and disposal (including easement acquisition), while land use authorizations consist of ROWs, communication sites, and other leases or permits. Wind and solar renewable energy development are also authorized by ROW grants through the Lands and Realty Program but are addressed separately in this document. Forest Service forest plan prescriptions are similar to BLM ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Prescriptions can restrict or prohibit certain uses in a planning area. It should also be noted that the Forest Service grants special use authorizations (granting ROWs, permits, easements, and leases), while the BLM grants ROWs on their respective agency lands. Lastly, the Forest Service completes land ownership adjustments (purchase, exchange, donation, and ROW acquisition), while the BLM conducts land tenure adjustments (disposals and acquisitions). LUP decisions related to land designations and land classifications, as well as limitations or restrictions on land use authorizations, stipulations, or land tenure changes (acquisition or disposal of BLM- or Forest Service-administered lands) in the planning area, could affect the Lands and Realty Program. Current Condition The planning area includes land in Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, and Alpine Counties in northeastern California, as well as 16 of 17 counties in Nevada, except Clark County in the southern part of the state. These lands are owned or administered by multiple tribes; federal, state, and local agencies; and private landowners. The configuration of land ownerships and their proximity to each other is an important factor when considering land tenure adjustments and evaluating ROW applications. Table 1-1 shows the acreage and overall percent ownership for each land owner in the planning area. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty 484 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 3-41, Acres of GRSG Habitat within City Limits, through Table 3-46, Acres of ROW Exclusion/Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat, list data compiled in a baseline environmental report produced by the USGS and the BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acreages and mileages are presented by surface management agency and their presence in PGH and PPH in the planning area. Table 3.41. Acres of GRSG Habitat within City Limits Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Planning Area Acres within PGH Acres within PPH Acres within PGH Acres within PPH BLM HI 2,200 4,100 2,200 100 IV 19,700 1,100 1,000 0 V 0 0 0 0 Forest Service 111 0 0 0 0 IV 700 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Tribal and Other Federal III 0 100 0 0 IV 100 0 100 0 V 100 0 0 0 Private III 12,300 51,500 12,300 1,100 IV 43,400 4,100 1,700 0 V 4,500 300 4,200 OJ o o State III 0 1,500 0 0 IV 2,800 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Source: Manier et al. 2013 Table 3.42. Number of Communication Towers in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Zone Number1 Nu mber1 Nu mber1 Number1 Agency within PGH within PPH within PGH within PPH BLM 111 53 116 53 77 IV 163 182 39 30 V 44 59 10 47 Forest Service 111 "> 38 3 19 IV 36 22 1 1 1 V 16 0 0 0 Tribal and Other HI 0 3 0 0 Federal IV 51 1 1 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Private III 41 258 41 35 IV 199 162 18 66 V 28 9 1 1 3 State HI 0 13 0 0 IV 23 17 0 0 V 7 0 4 0 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty > September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 485 Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Zone Number1 Number1 Number1 Number' Agency within PGH within PPH within PGH within PPH Other III 0 0 0 0 IV o 3 0 0 0 V 12 13 12 13 Source: Manier et al. 2013 'Displays the number of Federal Communication Commission communication towers Table 3.43. Acres of Transmission Lines in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Zone Acres' Acres' Acres' Acres' Agency within PGH within PPH within PGH within PPH BLM III 14,500 37,900 14,500 23,100 IV 42,000 83,600 4,900 19,000 V 29,400 28,200 4,300 1 1,800 Forest Service III 400 2,600 400 1,400 IV 3,500 5,800 1,500 1,300 V 1,300 0 0 0 Tribal and Other III 0 800 0 0 Federal IV 4,700 10,700 0 0 V 900 0 100 0 Private III 3,500 43,600 1 3,500 2,800 IV 57,900 47,000 6,200 1 7,500 V 8,100 5,900 1,200 1,500 State III 0 6,500 0 0 IV 11,200 6,500 0 0 V 200 300 0 200 Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 900 2,800 0 0 V 500 4,100 500 4,100 Source: Manier et al. 2013 'Includes transmission lines greater than 1 15-kV Table 3.44. Miles of Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Plan n in g Area Miles within PGH Miles within PPH Miles within PGH Miles within PPH BFM III 100 100 58 69 IV 200 200 26 102 V 100 100 19 56 Forest Service III 0 1 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Tribal and Other Federal 111 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty 486 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmenta! Impact Statement Surface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone Plannin g Area Miles within PCM Miles within PPH Miles within PGH Miles within PPH Private III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 State III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Source: Manieretal. 2013 Table 3.45. Acres of Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat Su rface Management Agency Management Zone Management Zone1 Planning Area1 Acres2 within PGH Acres2 within PPH Acres2 within PGH Acres2 within PPH BLM III 39,100 101,600 39,100 45,300 IV 90,200 131,900 8,900 54,000 V 57,900 79,300 9,500 40,100 Forest Service III 300 900 300 500 IV 300 900 100 0 V 5,700 100 0 0 Tribal and Other Federal III 0 300 0 0 IV 700 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Private III 2,000 19,900 2,000 3,300 IV 21,900 34,000 5,500 18,000 V 7,900 6,700 1,700 1,700 State HI 0 3,900 0 100 IV 6,800 4,100 0 0 V 0 1,900 0 200 Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 10,700 0 10,700 Source: Manieretal. 2013 'Includes Section 368 energy corridors 2Acreages calculated by buffering corridor centerlines with varying widths based on the corridor width itself. Acreages may appear in ownership with no miles due to size of buffers. Table 3.46. Acres of ROW Exclusion/Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH BLM and Forest Service ROW Exclusion Areas 3,229,500 167,200 453,500 BLM and Forest Service ROW Avoidance Areas 190,900 13,200 101,000 Source: BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013 Conditions on BLM-Adininistered Lands Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 487 Land Tenure Land ownership (or land tenure) adjustment refers to those actions that result in the disposal or exchange of public land or the acquisition by the BLM of nonfederal lands or interests in land. The FLPMA requires that public land be retained in public ownership unless, as a result of land use planning, disposal of certain parcels is warranted. The FLPMA also requires that lands disposed of through sale are specifically identified in the relevant LUP. California BLM has historically processed more Land Exchanges than Land Sales. However in recent planning efforts, California BLM has identified numerous parcels for disposals by sale. Since land sales take considerably less time to process, the BLM has been using sales to dispose of land that is difficult to manage. Since the mid-1990s Nevada BLM also moved to completing land sales instead of land exchanges because of the reduced time and costs. The Ely RMP currently identifies 45,000 acres of public land for sale in potential GRSG habitat, pursuant to the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of December 20, 2006. Acquisition of land and interests in land are important components of the BLM’s land tenure adjustment strategy. Land and interest in lands are acquired for the following purposes in the public interest: • To improve management of natural resources through consolidation of federal, state, and private lands • To secure key property necessary to protect endangered species, promote biological diversity, increase recreational opportunities, and preserve archeological and historical resources • To implement specific acquisitions authorized or directed by acts of Congress BLM-administered lands determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM. The lands are not sold at less than fair market value. Lands suitable for sale must be identified in a LUP. Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not identified in the current LUP require a LUPA before a sale can occur. Disposal Disposal areas include tracts of land that are economically difficult to manage and parcels that could serve important public objectives such as expansion of communities and economic development. These lands are usually disposed by land sales or with public or private partners that allow the surrounding lands to be managed more effectively. Land exchanges are generally initiated in direct response to public demand or by the BLM to improve management of the public lands. Lands need to be formally determined as suitable for exchange. In addition, lands considered for acquisition would be those lands that meet specific land management goals identified in the LUP. Nonfederal lands are considered for acquisition through exchange of suitable public land on a case-by-case basis where the exchange is in the public interest and where acquisition of the nonfederal lands will contain higher resource or public values than the public lands being exchanged. Acquisition Acquisition of other agency or private lands can be pursued to facilitate various resource management objectives. Acquisitions, including easements, can be completed through exchange. Land and Water Conservation Fund purchases, condemnation, or donations. Withdrawals September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty 488 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Withdrawn lands are lands that are reserved and set aside from application of some, or all, of the public land and mining laws in order to provide for a specific designated use or to protect specific resource values such as waterpower, reservoir sites, designated recreation areas, and Federal Reserve water rights (which may include a land withdrawal). The segregation effects of withdrawals can vary in time and which agency is responsible for administrative jurisdiction. The withdrawal may be extended, modified, or eliminated through revocation or relinquishment. Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major federal investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public health and safety. Withdrawals that are authorized pursuant to FLPMA are limited to a 20-year term, after which the holding agency must reapply for the withdrawal to be extended. Terms established for legislative withdrawals are made at the discretion of Congress. Land Use Authorizations The most common form of authorization to permit uses of BLM-administered lands by commercial, private, or governmental entities is the Title V FLPMA ROW. A ROW grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for projects such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, or communication sites. The ROW grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use of the land for a specific period of time. Leases may also be authorized pursuant to FLPMA. ROWs and leases are generally authorized for long-term land uses (three years or more), and some ROWs, depending on the use, and permits (e.g., filming permits) are used to authorize short-term uses (less than three years). All ROW applications will be reviewed using the criteria of following existing corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs. ROWs The BLM’s objective is to grant ROWs to any qualified individual, business, or government entity and to direct and control the use of ROWs on public lands in a manner that: • Protects the natural resources associated with public lands and adjacent lands, whether private or administered by a government entity • Prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands ® Promotes the use of ROWs in common, considering engineering and technological compatibility, national security, and area LUPs • Coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions with local, state. Native American, and other federal agencies; interested individuals; and appropriate quasi-public entities (43 CFR 2801.2) Private individuals and groups, as well as various businesses and government entities, can hold these authorizations. ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas ROW exclusion and avoidance areas are established and designated in the governing LUP to protect or minimize development of specific lands. See Table 3-46, Acres of ROW Exclusion/Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat. Exclusion areas are closed to any ROW development. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Land Use and Realty September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 489 Avoidance areas are open to ROW development as long as the project meets the ROW avoidance stipulations in the governing LUP that identifies the criteria that must be met for the project to be authorized on or across those lands. Corridors Utility corridors are identified during the planning process with the intent of concentrating utility lines in manageable locations on BLM-administered lands. The corridors may contain power lines, fiber-optic communication cables, and gas pipelines; they may also hold other ROWs that may be pertinent to the operations, such as substations or regeneration stations. Identifying corridors does not necessarily mandate that facilities be located within the corridor, especially if they are not compatible with other resource uses, values, and objectives in and near the corridors, or if the corridors are already at maximum capacity with existing structures. See Table 3-45, Utility Corridors in GRSG Habitat, for an overview of the number and acreages of utility corridors. Communication Sites Communication sites contain equipment for various public and private tenants, including phone companies; local utilities; and local, state, and other federal agencies. Leases and Permits Leases may be authorized for use, occupancy, and development pursuant to Section 302 of FLPMA as well as 43 CFR 2920. These are generally used for activities that cannot be authorized as a ROW or a withdrawal. Forest Service-Administered Lands Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Several aspects of public land management must be considered in the Land and Resource Management Planning process, including land tenure adjustments (i.e., disposals, acquisitions, and withdrawals), ROWs, and permits and leases. Land Ownership Adjustment Forest Service-administered lands are exchanged to achieve a desired national forest land ownership pattern that supports forest land and resource goals and objectives, addresses fragmentation, reduces future management costs, and responds to urban and community needs. Lands are purchased primarily through revenues generated from sale of BLM Lands deposited into a special account known as the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act account or other similarly legislated land acts within the State of Nevada to protect critical resource areas and provide increased public recreation opportunities. Land donations, when determined to be in the public interest, are to consolidate Forest Service-administered lands and protect critical resource areas. Acquisition of road and trail ROWs often provides legal public access to Forest Service-administered lands that are otherwise inaccessible. Opportunities for land ownership adjustments are equally distributed across the affected Ranger Districts on Forest Service-administered lands. The landowner must be willing to engage in a land ownership adjustment, and the Forest Service ensures that market value is obtained for lands or interests in lands to protect the public and private property owner’s interests. The Forest Service has identified parcels that meet the criteria September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty 490 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for land adjustment. Other parcels not presently identified are evaluated under the merits of each proposal. Nonfederal lands are considered for acquisition through exchange of suitable public land on a case-by-case basis. The objectives of the Forest Service land ownership adjustment program are to achieve the optimum land ownership pattern for the protection and management of resource uses, settle land title claims, and provide resource administrators with title information about the use of and resources on the land they administer. One of the objectives in all land exchanges is keeping the surface and subsurface or mineral estate intact on both the disposed and acquired lands to benefit future owners and use of their land. Purchase. Land purchase can be pursued to facilitate various resource management objectives. Lands considered for purchase would be those lands that meet specific land management goals identified in the Forest Plan. Most funding for purchases comes from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and similarly enacted lands acts generated funds in the State of Nevada. Special Use Authorizations. SUAs (granting ROWs, pennits, easement, and leases) on Forest Service-administered lands are necessary for all improvements such as roads, trails, telephone lines, power lines, pipelines, ditches, and fences over private or other lands not administered by the Forest Service. The Forest Service grants special use authorizations on Forest Service-administered lands and acquires ROWs acquisitions across private property when there are willing private property owners. To the extent possible, linear ROWs, such as roads and pipelines, are routed where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources, taking into account the point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and need of the project. Although established corridors exist, this does not preclude the location of transportation and transmission facilities in other areas if environmental analysis indicates that the facilities are compatible with other resource values and objectives. Further identification of corridors may not necessarily mandate that transportation and transmission facilities be located within these areas if they are not compatible with other resource uses, values, and objectives in and near the corridors or if the corridors are saturated. SUAs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other mitigating measures. Restrictions and mitigating measures may be modified on a case-by-case basis, depending on impacts on resources. Areas closed to mineral leasing, having an NSO restriction, or otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy are generally avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs. SUAs authorize and administer use of public lands by individuals, companies, organized groups, other federal agencies and state or local levels of government in a manner that protects natural resource values and public health and safety. They authorize uses that contribute to the nation’s infrastructure for generating and transmitting energy resources, including electric transmission facilities, oil and gas pipelines, hydropower facilities, and wind and solar facilities. They authorize uses for communications, commerce, public health and safety, and homeland security, including fiber-optic and wireless telecommunications, water development systems, and federal, state, and local highways. Table 3-47, Number of Special Use Authorizations on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, lists the number of each type of special use permit on the National Forest. Table 3.47. Number of Special Use Authorizations on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Use Number of Permits Power lines 73 Road permits 103 Ditches 23 Communication permits 158 Transmission lines 121 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty September. 2013 491 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Use Number of Permits Dams and reservoirs 15 Recreation residences 98 Club/cabins 4 Cultural Use 3 Oil and gas pipelines 6 Monument 2 Ski area 2 Target range 2 Concession campground 5 Resorts 6 Group use 8 Filming 15 Telephone 59 Weather monitoring stations 9 Water monitoring 6 Wells of spring developments 10 Stream gauging stations 5 Stock water 2 Research/education 35 Outfitters and guides 63 Recreation events 18 Organization camps 5 Fences 8 Other Improvements/permits 1 1 Warehouse/storage yards 6 Weir 4 Water Treatment 1 Visitor Center/museum 3 Military training 5 Hydroelectric project 1 Airport 1 Railroad 1 Water storage 17 Tramway 1 Debris/si Itation impoundment 5 Disposal site 4 Total 924 Source: Forest Service 201 3c The 1986 amendment to FLPMA, known as the Ditch Bill, provides for permanent easement for agricultural water systems in use before 1976. Water users had 10 years from passage of the bill to apply for existing structures located on Forest Service-administered lands. Currently, 23 easements have been issued under this law, with an estimated 7 additional applications being processed. Recreation Residence Permits. There are three summer home groups with a total of 98 cabins located on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. In many areas, this use has existed since 1925. Permits for the recreation residences are issued for 20 years. The purpose was to encourage use of the National Forests by allowing individuals to build cabins and occupy them for a portion of the year. Several thousand permits were issued nationwide. The current national policy is not to issue any additional permits but to continue to acknowledge the recreational values associated with the existing recreation residences and to reissue existing permits when the current permit September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Land Use and Realty 492 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmenta! Impact Statement tenure expires. It is the intent of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest to conduct the proper environmental analysis and reissue existing permits when the current permit tenure expires. Trends on BLM-Ad ministered Lands Land Tenure Adjustments Field offices in California and Nevada have been consolidating their lands to benefit the public and increase the economic viability of local communities. This includes acquiring lands to create a more contiguous land base and disposing of lands that are difficult to manage and serve no benefit to the public or the agency. Because of the large percentage of federal lands compared with state, local government, or private lands, this is expected to continue well into the future. Trends on Forest Service-Administered Lands Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest As opportunities for land adjustments become available and there is a willing seller, these cases will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with consideration for resource values and land adjustment priorities within the state given the limited funding available. Two land adjustments in GRSG habitat are currently being evaluated on the Mountain City Ranger District - the disposal of the Mountain City Administrative Site, and the Small Tract Sale at the Rizzi Ranch. Special land use applications are increasing as more people make use of Forest Service-administered lands. Recreational residence permits are anticipated as a flat trend because current national policy is not to issue any additional permits, and to reissue existing permits when the current permit tenure expires. 3.12. Renewable Energy Resources The BLM and the Forest Service are working with local communities, state regulators, industry, and other federal agencies in building a clean energy future by providing sites for environmentally sound development of renewable energy facilities on public lands. Renewable energy on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands includes solar, wind, and biomass resources and siting of transmission facilities necessary to deliver this renewable energy to the consumer. As demand has increased for clean and viable energy to power the nation, consideration of renewable energy sources available on public lands has come to the forefront of land management planning. Renewable energy resources all have different requirements related to economic development; however, some issues are common to all renewable energy resources, including distance to existing power transmission facilities and compatibility with existing federal land use. Wind and solar resource facilities are permitted with ROWs through the Lands and Realty Program. In cooperation with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the BLM assessed renewable energy resources on public lands in the western US (BLM and DOE 2003). The BLM reviewed the potential for concentrated solar power, photovoltaics, wind, and biomass energy on BLM-, Bureau of Indian Affairs-, and Forest Service-administered lands in the western US, except in Alaska. In December 2005, the BLM signed a ROD for the Wind Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005b), and in October 2012, the BLM signed a ROD for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (BLM 20 1 2h). Chapter 3 Affected Environment Renewable Energy > Resources September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 493 Although geothermal is a renewable energy source, it is managed as a leasable fluid mineral and therefore is discussed in Section 3.12, Mineral Resources. As of 2010, the BLM’s renewable energy policy is directed by the following regulations and executive orders: • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title II, Sec. 211), which requires the DOI to approve at least 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2015 • Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects, which requires federal agencies to expedite review of energy project applications • Secretarial Order 3285, which requires the DOI to identify and prioritize specific locations best suited for large-scale renewable energy production Additionally, the BLM has specific guidance for certain types of renewable energy. The primary Instruction Memoranda are summarized here: • IM 2011-061, Solar and Wind Energy Applications - Pre-Application and Screening provides updated guidance on the review of ROW applications for solar and wind energy development projects on public lands administered by the BLM. This IM updates the Solar Energy Development Policy (IM 2011-003), issued October 7, 2010, and the Wind Energy Development Policy (2009-043) issued December 19, 2008 (BLM 2010b). • IM 201 1-060, Solar and Wind Energy Applications - Due Diligence, provides updated guidance on the due diligence requirements of ROW applicants for solar and wind energy development projects on public lands administered by the BLM, and updates the Solar Energy Development Policy (IM 201 1-003) and the Wind Energy Development Policy (IM 2009-043) (BLM 2010c). • IM 2011-059, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Right-of-Way Authorizations (BLM 201 lg). The purpose of this IM is to reiterate and clarify existing BLM NEPA Policy to assist offices that are analyzing externally-generated, utility-scale renewable ROW applications (BLM 201 lg). • IM 2011-003, Solar Energy Development Policy (BLM 201 lh), establishes updated policy for the processing of ROW applications for solar energy development projects on BLM-administered lands and evaluating the feasibility of installing solar energy systems on BLM administrative facilities and projects. • IM 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy (BLM 2008i), provides updated guidance on implementing the ROD for the Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development (BLM 2005b) and processing ROW applications for wind energy projects on BLM-administered lands. • IM 2004-227, Biomass Utilization Strategy (BLM 2004e), updated in July 2005, provides sets of goals to help focus and increase utilization of biomass from BLM-administered lands. In June 2005, the final rule in the Federal Register revised the authority of 48 CFR Part 1452 by adding 1452.237-71, which is a new contract clause for removal and utilization of woody biomass generated as a result of land management service contracts whenever ecologically and lawfully appropriate. The BLM issued IM 2009-120 in May 2009, which updated the contract clause for utilization for woody biomass (BLM 2009c). September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Renewable Energy > Resources 494 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Section 501(a)(4) of the FLPMA, 43 USC 1761(a)(4) (FSM 2701.1, para. 15), authorizes the Forest Service to issue ROWs for the use and occupancy of Forest Service-administered lands for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognizes the Forest Service’s role in meeting the renewable energy goals of the United States. Consistent with Forest Service policies and procedures, the use and occupancy of Forest Service-administered lands for renewable energy production, such as wind energy development, are appropriate and will help meet the energy needs of the United States. Permits for solar energy power facilities are issued only if non-Forest Service-administered lands are not available and if adverse impacts can be minimized. Permits for geothermal energy power facilities are issued only if feasibility studies have determined that it is not feasible to transmit geothermal water to a power-generating facility on non-Forest Service-administered lands and if adverse impacts can be minimized. For BLM-administered lands, solar and wind projects are authorized via the ROW process. Wind and solar renewable resource production are permitted with special use authorizations in the Forest Service. ROW applications are generally accepted and processed on a first-come, first-served basis. The ROW regulations (43 CFR 2804.23 [c] ) provide authority for offering public lands under competitive bidding procedures for ROW authorizations. The BLM initiates a competitive process if a land use planning decision has specifically identified an area for competitive leasing. The BLM may also consider other public interest and technical factors in determining whether to offer lands for competitive leasing. Competitive bidding follows procedures required by 43 CFR 2804.23(c). Current Condition California and Nevada are at the forefront for permitting renewable energy on public lands. The DOI has approved 91 renewable energy projects within California and Nevada, 21 of which are located in the planning area. Renewable energy facilities in the planning area are shown on Figure 3-13, Renewable Energy. (PDF Map 3-13) Figure 3.13. Renewable Energy Wind Energy California and Nevada have more than 150 megawatts of developed wind capacity. An additional 828 to 1,080 megawatts are slated for development by 2014. California and Nevada have the potential to contribute nearly 1,080 megawatts of wind-generated energy. This amount of energy would provide enough energy for over 250,000 homes in California and Nevada. There are 1 14,936 acres of wind energy ROWs in the planning area (see Table 3-48, Acres of Wind Energy Rights-of-Way in GRSG Habitat); however, there is currently one active industrial-scale wind energy generation facilities in the planning area. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Renewable Energy Resources September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 495 Table 3.48. Acres of Wind Energy ROWs in GRSG Habitat Surface Management Management Zone Planning Area Management Agency Zone Acres within PGH Acres within PPH Acres within PGH Acres within ITS! BLM III 67,000 136,600 67,000 65,300 IV 296,500 580,600 700 900 V 138,000 300,300 41,500 1 99,700 Forest Service III 200 200 200 200 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Tribal and Other III 0 0 0 0 Federal IV 200 1,700 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Private III 3,800 5,500 3,800 5,400 IV 2,300 1 13,900 400 800 V 3,400 6,500 200 5,000 State III 0 100 0 0 IV 400 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Other III 0 0 0 0 IV 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 100 100 Source: Manier et al . 2013 In recent years, there has been new interest in wind-site testing, monitoring activities, and development on public lands in California and Nevada. Since 2008, California and Nevada BLM have received nine wind meteorological tower testing ROW applications. Most wind test ROWs are located throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. These ROWs have an authorized term of three years. When added together, the wind test ROWs encompass approximately 55,100 acres of BLM-administered lands. Wind energy developments on Forest Service-administered lands have not been proposed as of this time. Although the potential in the forest area for wind energy development is high in many locations, the terrain and lack of accessibility to the grid makes it generally unsuitable for development. California and Nevada have received five wind energy turbine development ROW applications. These application are in the planning process, have been rejected, or the applicant has withdrawn. Solar Energy Although there are solar projects located in California and Nevada, there are no solar energy ROWs in the planning area (Manier et al. 2013). Biomass Currently, there is no significant commercial biomass energy economy for piny on-juniper biomass in the planning area other than for incidental use as a firewood fuel, for heating of a school in White Pine County (BLM 2007d), and for a cogeneration biomass and geothermal plant in Lassen County. An emerging market may exist within five to ten years as field portable energy concentrating technology becomes available, longer-term and larger area land treatment contracts are established that provide a commercially reliable source of pinyon-juniper feedstock, an September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Renewable Energy Resources 496 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement adequate land treatment and biomass transportation service industry is established, the creation of a sustained pinyon-juniper biomass feedstock demand to support, and commercially viable stationary plant or field mobile bioenergy generation facilities are developed. Trends Within California and Nevada, greater pressure to develop renewable energy resources on public lands is expected to occur as a result of public energy policy coming from individual states or the federal government. The development of more energy-efficient technologies for wind, biomass, and solar power will continue to grow because of increasing regulation of other energy sources, increased price of fossil fuels, and the increasing demand for energy products. The development of these resources can diversify and improve the area’s energy reliability and will increase the demand for more ROWs and facility authorizations. The demand for renewable energy-related ROWs will likely increase nationally. The most likely trend for using solar, wind, and biomass energy resources will be to continue to develop more of these types of alternative sources and to develop ways to make them more efficient to take the pressure off the fossil fuel resource and to be less dependent on nonrenewable energy sources. 3.13. Mineral Resources Leasable Minerals Leasable minerals, as defined by the Mineral Leasing Act (February 1920) and 43 CFR Parts 3000-3599 (1990), include leasable solid and leasable fluid minerals. Leasable fluid minerals include oil, natural gas (including methane, coal bed natural gas, and carbon dioxide), and geothermal resources. Leasable solid minerals include coal, native asphalt, phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. The rights to explore for and produce these minerals on public land are acquired through leasing. In addition to the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 regulates oil and gas leasing activities on Forest Service-administered lands. This act expands the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in the management of oil and gas resources on Forest Service-administered lands. Without Forest Service approval, the BLM cannot issue leases for oil and gas on Forest Service-administered lands. With the exception of geothermal activities on unleased lands, the BLM must approve all surface-disturbing activities on Forest Service-administered lands before operations commence. The BLM and Forest Service reserve the right to require additional mitigation measures, in the form of COAs, at the time an APD is approved if doing so is necessary for protection of other resources. Fluid Leasable Minerals Fluid leasable minerals are oil (including oil shale) and gas (including shale gas) and geothermal. Leasable minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing system. Geothermal is also governed by the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. The rights to explore for and produce fluid minerals on public land may only be acquired through leasing. Not all lands are open to fluid mineral leasing; BLM will not issue leases for lands within the National Park System, National Recreation Areas, fish hatcheries or wildlife management areas administered by the DOI, Indian trust or restricted lands within or outside the boundaries of Chapter 3 Affected Environment Mineral Resources September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 497 Indian reservations, Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas administered by BLM, Forest Service, or other surface management agencies, or lands designated by Congress as wilderness study areas. In addition, leases are not issued if it is determined by the BLM or Forest Service that issuing the lease would cause unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands and resources. Leases are issued through a competitive or noncompetitive process. Competitive leases are offered through a bid process in areas nominated by interested parties. Noncompetitive leases are issued over the counter after the competitive bidding process, if the parcels are not sold during the competitive bid process. BLM leasing authority is in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and associated 43 CFR Part 3100 for oil and gas and Part 3200 for geothermal. During the leasing process, the BLM may apply lease stipulations. The Forest Service may also provide stipulations to be added to a lease as a condition of their consent to leasing. A lease stipulation is a provision that modifies standard lease rights. Stipulations are in addition to restrictions applied to field operations by federal regulations and become part of the lease, superseding any inconsistent provisions of the standard lease forms. Fluid Mineral Stipulations During the leasing process, the Forest Service and BLM may apply stipulations to leases in order to provide protections for other resource values or land uses (e.g., cultural resources and wildlife) by establishing authority for timing delays, site changes, or the denial of operations within the terms of the standard lease contract. There are three types of stipulations: NSO, CSU, TL. These are defined as follows: • No Surface Occupancy (NSO). On lands covered by the NSO stipulation, use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is prohibited to protect identified resource values. Fluid minerals could be leased, but the leaseholder/operator would have to use off-site methods such as directional drilling to access the mineral resource. NSO is the most restrictive type of stipulation. • Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Under the CSU stipulations, use and occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. While less restrictive than an NSO, a CSU stipulation allows the BLM or surface managing agency to require special operational constraints, to shift the surface-disturbing activity, or to require additional protective measures (e.g., special construction techniques for preventing erosion in sensitive soils) to protect the specified resource or value. • Timing Limitations (TLs). A TL stipulation prohibits surface use during specified time periods to protect identified resource values. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless the findings of analysis demonstrate the continued need for such mitigation and that less stringent, project-specific mitigation measures would be insufficient. Most but not all stipulations attached to leases at the time of sale have a provision, specified in the individual LUP, for granting exceptions, modifications, or waivers. An exception is a case-by-case exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation continues to apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criterion applies. A modification is a fundamental change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease. A modification may, therefore, include an exemption from or alteration to a stipulated requirement. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all other sites within the September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Mineral Resources 498 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement leasehold to which the restrictive criteria applied. A waiver is a permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere within the leasehold. In addition to the designations and stipulations described above, federal regulations give the BLM the authority to ensure that oil and gas activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts on other resources and resource uses and protects human health and safety. These protections are accomplished through the BLM’s inspection and enforcement program, as well as through the attachment of COAs to each APD approved. This is in conjunction with the NEPA process and during review of individual applications for permit to drill and of sundry notices submitted in conjunction with proposed changes in well pad design and operation. These COAs typically include BMPs and other required mitigation measures, including attachment of TLs up to 60 days in duration. The federal fluid mineral regulations do not allow the BLM to attach new stipulations to a lease after its issuance, without the consent of the lessee. Similar, the BLM may not apply COAs and other post-leasing restrictions that result in de facto application of a new lease stipulation. Thus, for example, the BLM cannot apply a project-specific COA that is equivalent to an NSO on the lease since such restriction would violate the valid existing property rights conveyed with the leasehold. Table 3-49, Stipulations Related to GRSG and Its Habitat, shows stipulations applicable to actions on BLM- and forest Service-administered lands. Solid ( Non-energy ) Leasable Minerals Solid leasable minerals are coal, sodium, potash, and phosphate. Similar to fluid leasable minerals, discussed above, non-energy leasable minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing system. The basic process starts with a prospecting permit under 43 CLR Part 3500 that allows surface disturbance to determine if a valuable mineral exists. If the permittee demonstrates the discovery of a valuable deposit of the leasable mineral for which the BLM issued the permit, the BLM may issue a preference right lease to that permittee without competition. The rules for leasing coal (43 CLR Part 3400) are significantly different from those of the other solid minerals but will not be discussed further in this LIJPA/EIS because there are no leasable coal deposits in the planning area. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Mineral Resources • September, 2013 Table 3.49. Stipulations Related to GRSG Habitat Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 499 = 1 2 o 3 is G. C *s o C/3 U O -r '-P 49 o 9 03 £ G G (D X5 d> G CJ '3 2 aT _o Vh X 2d d> op C/5 0> X QJ X QJ N 3 c 'g j-. o ' CJ Si ,qj o E O. oj QJ O X C/3 ~ ai — ' ft C_3 co c+-< „ O > 3 ^ 03 d> x G O *g 2d CD CJ ,d> X <4— < G d> G o z Z 0/ > '3 £ 0J C O Z G _o D. o» o X W qj <« ll 1| "o £ 5 ° S £ 03 .4— * cd IS X G 3 £ H cj c c o E G c/5 O \p c/5 5^ q cj r* o o 3 &X ^ « ft ft X • ■< — ’ ft Cl G qj o 03 co 2 .a > ^ 2 5 ~ | . (— i C4_^ C/5 OX) C/5 CO O £ C Q. o3 G O ft o .G ft Xi O G C X ° 3 5l* ° r, h2 cq a .52 c/3 g c x < O p C/3 7 z 2 33 _QJ a C/3 a G G O c/3 G aj CO £ a d> OJ o o C/3 X C/3 23 o x X CD G C/3 a r in D QJ X d ) Gs X d) CJ 03 OJ E C/3 c p o _G CJ Vh 03 aj CJ o3 o X 23 C G 'o Gh £ £ o CJ X X c3 S G G OJ c X d) £ ft C/3 G P Gh d> X *n C/3 d) CJ c3 ‘1 >X X 03 X £ o S-. X O G 3 3 O £ 1 (D G- o o rn am. 03 "1 w B o X X C/3 £ O in r- 2d CL) d) CJ X d> O 2d d> 5— H d) X *CJ d) 2d d) CJ Jh G O C/3 d> X C/3 g _o a, d> CJ X W aj C/3 ’o g s g 4 qj o 3 G O c/3 X CO G C O ^ £ -o 0X) G <3 • ^ aj g tj G- o o 5-1 a> .52 Xj C/5 G CD S-H G Vh <2 £ -S o G - 2 O to 03 IS 03 a-) a> 03 0X) G w >5 Jn CJ G Q 0 0 H 2d G 0) X 0 G 0 X OJ X in a +-* 3 G O C/3 G X 0 G 2d C/3 p 3 d) QJ ’ £h X X 2d 0 c2 (^5 G O C/3 X d> X C/3 X G G 5-h X O 2 2 C/3 G ft CJ CJ 3 E .5 £ £0 G O 5— t O aj C/3 aj C/3 G G ’ £h X G OJ 'X .2 aj aj O G G CD G G Id c at C/3 C/3 OJ O G O * 1 ° cj CQ 33 aj 5S g cv £rj g H G o O Oh gj *=. cS 23 ^ ^ S J= o G G ^ . O Xi G G X X 'C c« o a G g X 'O 5 £ CH G Q o > '— ft O «r c o « G OX) G "G gal +X £ 22 G O X •- — O X X ^ X - a J-H C P cj . C G "£ X3 '0 s G C/3 d> g X) -s 03 JI3 OJ 03 H G X aj CO ° 5 o o G Oh X QJ £ ft w HQ Z QJ r- x .£ o ^ QJ Si 9- £ 2 x OJ ^ cS £ § O x ^ C/5 ^G ^-H ss = QJ £ 2 S rS 'S O T3 G g qj G cj 9 2 2 X QJ O Oh X ^h G S X £J G -J X Of) X x .g 60 03 ^ J23 03 O ox) 2 x .£22 to 9 n QJ o Oh Z x < #o ‘’Z CO 5 UJ 2 ' -Q x G 2 2 cs ~ QJ G rn X CJ Lh G o M x QJ Oh p G 2 QJ •> I- > 2 g ,o 2 - c ^ Z ^ G X OX) g O O X G o Z £ £ 2 43 a x Lh G X oo o £ (1 i *T— ^ _Q X 5 m E£ X o £ X ° = £ G On'S o g .o x ft ■ ■ h X -rl X G X •- .N — 2 o ft QJ G g X JC 2 .& ft g ^ qj to ob QJ G -T3 X O Qj 2 'X X S-( CJ • >-H c° -c 73 x x o co G qj Qj ~ oo x •| >5 G G •S G ft ft — Qj o QJ ^ £ w O C/3 _o CJ ' •— C/3 OJ i-H £ o OJ CJ C 03 X) 5— CJ p X C 03 <-> X too Sx 3 O o c/) d2 CO . X b 2 -HH X ft X 73 3 £ S P On x QJ X > O co o coPh.g 5£qj o+^x 2axO^§-2z-2^ o> X X G . -HH o G G co x 2 o X ft St '-H 2 QJ x GhX ° o 2 a 3 0J a. a r’P C/3 H September, ; 20 /J Chapter 3 Affected Environment Mineral Resources 500 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement U u •— 0) C/5 U S-l O U, oo. 3 «-■ TO o 3 2 m ® S P c sd a £ _ o3 c/i U 3 . O. U O ^ U - T3 O > -3 £ S , i-i 03 U u 3 o Z u £ o Z a. 04 o X UJ ^ . C/3 3 J! A’ |S3i .2 c S 3 ° ° • > c3 •'- o g o 00* * O ^ > -S 00 Z * a o S •§ 2 .g 5 g S > 3 2 * a •3J 3 ^h U o3 g u O O S £ * 2 * c/i O Z 3 . 3 o . co 3 C3 _j * oo 3 W < z C/5 u o 5* & 3 3 3 .3 O Q 3 .2 C/5 O z .2 3 gj e ^ 5 cc 2 2 O 3 .3 £0 Q 2 .2 3 ts oZ o 3 3 Oh u g 3 dJ C/5 00 r~| c/5 ^3 ll 2 o 4-> C/5 £ 3 o £o .o 3 2 00 .s 0 _, ;o 3 ' s_ 2 ^ c +_; o 2 °*x> g a > C/5 3 * 2 a d> C/5 Lh 2 o ^ * CQ cu 3 -a 22 aO 3 ^ *-1 3 o ll 2| 2 o O T3 ■ CU > T3 3 L 3 3 cu S ® ll ~ +s £ Op 3 O Ch <—' L 3 g 3 3 3 "3 o * Q 5 3 O 3 g 2 a a> <3 c/5 zz; cd • S ?3 ^ CU ^ -3 3 13 2 P 4-1 H-H O O h3 3 "S £ 33 iU _ N * Lh O CU 4C Oh ^3 ~ < 3 ^ s U * 3 ffl 3 3 .O „ 3 3 U3 3 O U 3 u o 2 O >r * M § h, osgr e-l J §> ^ H u £ ,3 u . 2 * •3 U c O > 33 u 3 u a H C/5 2 * £ O 3 .Oh "h-h C/5 O Z o © a> u * * 3 3 .2 w 0 3 o U 2 C^ Oh O S U 3 .2 -O 3 -g 5— ( O .X P ^ H o S S oo H -tn •— * "3 c/5 2*'r3 oZ 3 ^ 2 'Lh u o a 2 O o TD Lh 3 (jj cl 3 hO u C43 oo • H r- U .2 CL .3 T -O U 3 .3 O oo O i/-> 3 OC c2 o 2 5 H s .2 J2 3 u a » c/5 C/5 a> s- o U< T3 OJ O O ^ J-h Vh X) O 03 t=J O hO G 5.3 |j ip c/5 ex 3 cx 03 ~ 3 •r p ft ft tL> h-h 'B.2 §1 o £ >> 2 • s 2 ft 03 £ P D-. =3 £ ft U ID C oil y o 2 G rn ^ C/5 i X) S ft a -a a ft 33 (LI tp _ ft ft ft j , m ft 0^5 C !> CD r ^ rG H 03 CJ G £3 Oh C/5 OJ oo 2 t)/J c/5 OJ 'Tj > OJ T3 c/5 cj G 33 3 2 4—* P 3 O P P 3 ft >4 ft C/5 XI >4 CX Cx 03 3 XI ft < U c "3 E ~ «,2 o> CJ = £ « O £ -a S5 Z ft 03 O 3— 1 _ (L> ^ ft 3 a o .p ^ oft > .3 &b _ ft p ft g .3 2 O ^ 3 O 3 , — i c e £ ft o ,S-h 4-( ft p | >> ■ ■ — 3 O ft (LI x> o - . S— I H 2 c3 J—> __ 2 2 in 03 3 O co 03 (L> C/5 OJ O S C/5 ►a 2 o o ^ .2 '— 1 ft ft ft p > ft 03 ft ft CJ O 5— i (ft P OJ ft CJ G i— * s 2 3 c a ft a a a o a £ p o OJ o '•$■ On 4—* CD ft 3 ft 03 a g ft 2 2 o . Sag CX ft 03 I-' ; , ft ft o a .a a a cx g a « 33 OJ CXft 03 <-h ■*—• a 1/1 a o 2 was ft OJ CD CJ X OJ o rn CJ c OJ £ "3 03 o ^ c/5 r o ^ OJ 3 2 ft 3 a s 03 4-> XI XI a a: XI ft ft u o g-s '_ 03 ft U Q on (/i ft on c cx- C/5 . ft Xl (LI S-i CJ 2 O s a c/5 Q. to |ft £ a o Q^j ft 03 CD J-H < O XI U a ft 03 ^ ft ft ft bn O ft W > xi ^ CJ .S , 03 <— ( o ft z a < 03 CO 2 03 CX O " c t2 OJ C •a a ij XI 03 ft < Qj OJ ' 1 is 4 _4 ft ^ > DQ H c . C/5 03 OJ CD O h ^ CD O cj • ra H "rrt gn (U ° s 2 '3 >4 a Cx ft CX c 03 03 O XI >4 2 • - ^ O o ft _o o 3 ft o s-. CX cj c3 XI o r33 MH Xh 3 co O z r- ^ •3 Cg ft a 03 Pi ft O XI £ O a XI ft 4- H o ft in m cj . — XI £ . o ft ft ft c - ft o 2 ft ft p on 3 _ Ca £ cn .G CD O IS ; £ : ^ i ■° : ft . XI c i a < XI ' ft ! -a 3 3 ft 3 ft 3 ft £P 33 Jj ft < on ft c on ft CJ ft on cx x> 2 2 Xh XI Cx Xi z o Xj ft cx < ft O ft 3 3 ft a X- P XI ft 3 2 ft CJ ^ o C/I ft 2 3 £ o ft ^ cj op <2 ft o c/5 OJ O -ti ^ Z £ XI CJ ft _o "C C/5 5 _>% W -Q O p XI (Li J 33 3 2 2 x. a mi ^ X> 4. Ol — 2 ft o o 3 ft 3 J] ft ^ f o ^ 3 fl I ( Xh a ft xi 5s^“e < o ilo C >^3 O .2 ^ N ■ a a fc s o c/5 b3 O a. Xl XI >< UJ P o 3 g ft a- s a ft Xh 3 to on p > a p 2 3 ft 0p 00 b, • 3 p 33 33 aj ^ p g. Xh O ft 3 ft 33 P P "~ 3 O ■?i V3 Xh 3 on .ft p ft 3 33 4U h. ft > _P ’LL 2 o C/5 P£ a September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Mineral Resources 502 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement CD o '> ■- CD C / ) a* s. o U- j a> o c £ a> O o .2d Z o ~ S3 c/i t+-i g o .2 H "a S s S c/5 CJ £ - O =3 O of X 00 T3 -5 .2 £ Oh S3 S3 CJ • — CJ § § ^ X 'hh C3 ' X 3 h-l oo a3 w S3 .& C/0 o z C/2 o ro o 05 £ S3 X TO O 00 43 S3 03 00 g aj T > . cf; u o o £ « .2 U Q 5-S to .2 CO Q TO *5 cz ^ 03 £ 5 X r- o o (N CD CJ a> CJ cc .Si c/i 5 2 M £ w O ^ O c U C/2 *S g 3 3 -? 3 ,Q 0» 3 23 C/2 ^ C OJj •= c '2 1 = X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 <3 O 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c 1 O' 0 O' n r- n ’ — 1 ri ri to ro (O O' ’ — 1 O' 0 X to O' O) ro CO (N X cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 to ’ — 1 O" rn ca r- 1 — 1 O' to »— 1 ON O' ON n X 0 ro X X CO r- rn to ON Cl 0 O' 00 r-~ Cl to in ’ > CD JJ C/) 4-* < CD X S“H O ureka-Saline Valleys tJ2 3 (D C/2 > X CL) "5 S-H O 4—* '2 0 S ■ "O 3 O g 3 ixie Valley ry Lake Valley (X X t: 0 z X 0 03 t-H m C/2 03 ast Little Owyhee t“H CD r^: ? C/2 C3 scalante Desert T3 Cl C/2 3 X 0 C/2 1 ong-Ruby Valleys C/2 0 m CQ u O O Q Q Q Q w w P-1 w w PH O O O 0 0 X X X X X X X X <« C o — 5 E 6X) os 3 4> at J £ _ C5 s a» — ' Sx .s < 3T c/2 OX) & 5 c ss A = £ ■§ sw ^ s 01 o X. at c/2 "C e 3 -J "w a> 3 E 53 a> s £ C/2 ^ s ^ ox) <» ..ill := ^ g - Sc&, „ 3 o> a> N C/2 < 53 X) OX) ^ e o> S3 S 3 3 -O g 3 X C/2 e .3 C/3 /— s i w cu 00 > m 2 Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Water Resources September, 2013 Draft Resource Management 523 Plan/Environmental Impact Statement -o c/5 “ ^ - o «j 2 to v> i 5 !s s ° » -O 6D 7 C 4) tDD-~ 4) C — 4> o x £ > u 5U U c/5 C3 4) < OX £= © o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © o o o o © © © © DO © © © © © X Cl ro or ro Cl r- or ro © © or or or Cl © o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © O o o © © © © © © © © © © X r- DO X r- © oo oo ’ — 1 © r- © X ro or Oj- or Cl o o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © o o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © oo oo r~- DO ro or Cl © ’ — 1 © X r- © r~ © or , — 1 Os Cl X or © Cl Cl ro ro DO or r) (N X 1—1 X i— ( Cl Cl r-H © ro © X X 00 ' — 1 o DO Cl c- oo m ’ — 1 or ro r- ’ — 1 co o o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ' — 1 1— ' OS ’ — 1 © X DO © r- DO © ' — 1 r- ro as 1 or X o or DO , — 1 oo © DO © , — i Of r- T— H oo X © © , — : r- X DO os ro (N r- r- ro ro or i^ 1— < DO ro (N DO X o o OT do oo DO DO r- © ro DO X Cl Cl Cl Cl o o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © o o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © Cl DO or oo © DO © © © © ’ — 1 c~ Cl OO oo or DO OS X DO o © © © 1 DO DO oo X ro oo © ro DO DO os r- ro Cl r- ro ro or T-H DO ro Cl DO X o o or DO oo DO DO c- © ro DO X Cl Cl Cl Cl oo ro Cl © Cl '“1" ro Cl ro DO Cl oo r-H Cl or OO o o o - — 1 © © © T— 1 © Cl © © © r-H c 1 Cl © © © r-H o Cl © © Cl © © Cl 1— H 1 »-H t-H © 1— < ' 1 ' — 1 © ro O o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © OT Cl or y—i oo or Cl r— H DO C) or DO © y—l Cl Cl or X Cl o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © X oo X DO oo X oo DO X 00 X OO DO OO OO X X X X 0> D X © o X 3 _3 C/5 ^2 CD 03 C/3 hO 2h 1 & o © 3 O V) Lh D 4h 03 D Ph jz: © "o X 3 D D 43 a ccj o ’C D S < Jh D ts D Ph X o X a 3 X £ X X o s C/5 _b0 03 hP 13 C/) 03 a £ I—* X CD £ J— 1 CL) ’5 a in CL) orj Lh > J— < CL) Ph CL) #g 1j t-l D $H D 03 © 3 jD Sh 03 (J JU T3 o Ph D 3 X D 03 $ o D 03 a> X 03 H o kO 03 X V-i O X X X S-i O X X X 1— 1 o X X PQ B c u X o e CL) X £ o X £ o X £ o X £ o x "O 03 s C/3 03 S O D 03 D S © % © S © S © s 3 O s oj =5 tJ o t: o Z t: o Z t: o Z C o Z © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © r- DO © » — 1 © r- © r- Cl © © or Cl C) ro ro © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © Cl oo or r- OO or © DO r- or DO DO Cl ro ro Cl ro © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © or X © or © or © Cl © or © 'TO Cl © oo r \ or or Cl Cl or r- T 1 ro or © X r- © ro ro or oo C— H DO DO ro or © ro X OO or DO © ro © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © X or ro DO oo © © © © ’ — 1 ro X X Cl © , — 1 © DO DO © Cl , — i or oo X Cl OO oo r-H t— ro ro i-H ro X oo r DO DO Cl DO oo © ro or © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ro © © ’ — 1 ' — 1 Cl DO DO DO Cl » — 1 or ro X DO , — i © , — 1 © DO DO r- ( © or oo X Cl OO oo © r- ro ro 1 Cl X oo r- DO DO r- Cl DO OO © ror or or ro i— H X ro or ro ro DO ro X © © 1 © © i — i r-H © © © © © *— < y— 1 © t-H y—i C| © Cl r-H r-H © ro © © © © © © © © © © © © or DO X or or or X or or DO X Cl © © O © © © © © © © © © X X X X X r- X X X P- X X C/3 D 44 C/3 cO CL) C/5 cO CD hO CD CD h-1 03 2 1 X 03 X O D 4 £ _g X C3 o o X C3 t: (D C/5 2 o X C-) D 44 kO 44 O 4— » 13 C/} D CJ 41 — -J 55 C ai — s~ .S *2 Si* cs r- : 2 *s ■= s T5 r ' V) O S a > « — 41 X C T5 T3 *55 0«) C3 C/5 i- _Q a> a> i o .ffl ■§ ^ .5 C/5 E <*5 03 a> u < OX) .s| I 5 "3 oj x Z ■e (L) September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Water Resources 524 ej 4> C in ^ So" S 2 p s ^ CO G5 ^ G 0> exi — < o e 5/1 «-5 *" O g P -1 o> U n t a> « j £ es a> < v DD 4) S “ •S E e w 03 E O o ri o o o o ro Cl o ® oo VO Os O O OO o o o o o Os o o in d- ® ® Os 00 VO (*) “ s e 03 — -4 s "C "(/) 4) 03 1- XJ 4) i l * .s bl a» .S G s « s 03 O O O cf' in o o VO o' Ct- rl in cl o o (N cf vo .S C4 o o -r Cl o 00 03 01 O) tN in rl -r © r- « Sf! .o £ 3 H 2 G > T3 H o on 3 g < S-i CD OJ & C o C/S S-i 3 u S-i £ QJ C3 548 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement In the planning area, there is only one locality that is not in compliance with the NAAQS (federal standards). The WCAQMD is classified as nonattainment (at or above the regulatory level) for the federal and Nevada PM 10 standards (150 pg/m3 concentration in ambient air). The WCAQMD encompasses all of Washoe County, Nevada; however, the actual sub-area which is in nonattainment is the smaller Reno Planning Area (see Figure 3-18, Designations for the Particulate Matter PM 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards). The balance of the WCAQMD is in attainment of the federal and Nevada standards. The two California counties in the planning area are in attainment (below the regulatory level) for all of the NAAQS. However, they are in nonattainment of the California PM 10 standard of 50 grams per cubic meter. Figure 3.18. Designations for the Particulate Matter PM10National Ambient Air Quality Standards The northern three-quarters of the WCAQMD (Washoe County) contains GRSG habitat, but does not show any significant levels of the federal or Nevada regulated pollutants. The Reno Planning Area portion of the WCAQMD does not contain any GRSG habitat and, consequently, the elevated levels of PM 10 will not impact any known habitat of concern. Portions of LCAPCD and MCAPCD (California counties of Lassen and Modoc) do contain GRSG habitat, but since these air pollution control districts meet the NAAQS (federal standards), the measured PMjq levels are not considered harmful to the GRSG habitat in these areas. Ozone and particulate matter (PMjq and PM2 5) are the most common air pollution emissions of concern in the planning area. Significant levels of these emissions commonly occur at or Chapter 3 Affected Environment Air Quality September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 549 downwind of major metropolitan areas and industrial developments (e.g., mining, oil and gas operations, etc.). Their concentrations, although oftentimes significant onsite, are generally mitigated through dispersion downwind before reaching significant amounts of GRSG habitat. There is little information concerning the effects of particulate matter (PM |() and PM2.5) or ozone on GRSG habitat. 3.22. Climate Change Climate represents the long-term statistical characterization of daily, seasonal, and annual weather conditions such as temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, cloud cover, solar radiation, and wind speed and direction. Climate is the composite of generally prevailing weather conditions of a particular region throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. A region’s climate is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents. Climate is both a driving force and a limiting factor for biological, ecological, and hydrologic processes, as well as for resource management activities such as disturbed site reclamation, wildland fire management, drought management, rangeland and watershed management, and wildlife habitat administration. Climate also influences renewable and nonrenewable resource management, affecting the productivity and success of many management activities on public lands. Incorporating effective application of climate information into public lands programs, projects, activities, and decisions authorizing use of the public lands is critical for effective management. In January 2009, the DOI issued Amendment 1 to Secretarial Order 3226 to provide guidance on how bureaus and offices can respond to emerging climate change issues. One of the tasks within the Order requires each bureau and office within the department to consider and analyze the potential climate change impacts in planning exercises and when making decisions affecting department resources (Kempthome 2009). The BLM is currently developing its climate change adaptation strategy to provide guidance on how to fulfill the mandate of amendment. This strategy is due to the DOI in September 2013. The current proposal would require additional strategies to be set at the ecoregional scale. USDA Departmental Regulation 1070-001 establishes a department-wide policy to integrate climate change adaptation planning and actions into USDA programs, polices, and operations. The Forest Service has established a national strategy for dealing with climate change. The strategy has two components: 1) Facilitated Adaptation, which refers to actions to adjust to and reduce the negative impacts of climate change on ecological, economic, and social systems; and 2) Mitigation, which refers to actions to reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases so as to decrease inputs to climate warming in the short term and reduce the effects of climate change in the long term. To implement this strategy, the Forest Service is integrated these two components into all its programs. The Forest Service has established a Climate Change Resource Center to assist Forest Service resource managers and decision makers who need information and tools to address climate change in planning and project implementation on national forests. Current Condition The CBR Ecoregion is a large arid and semi-arid area covering approximately 10,855,900 acres of PPH and PGF1 within the decision area in Nevada, Utah, and California. Considered a cool September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Climate Change 550 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement or high elevation desert ecoregion, the CBR receives low annual precipitation with an average ranging from 7 to 12 inches per year (WRCC 2013; Fiero 1986). Precipitation typically falls during the winter as snow in higher elevations, with occasional rain storms during the summer and fall. The amount of precipitation can vary widely throughout the seasons, where a few wet seasons will be followed by several years of drought. Climatic conditions of the eastern Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin are influenced by the rain shadow effect. The rain shadow effect results in relatively little precipitation due to the topography of the Sierra Nevada mountain range causing the prevailing winds to lose their moisture before reaching the Sierra Front. This topography-influenced weather pattern is repeatedly seen on the leeward side of other mountain ranges. Occasional summer thunderstorms can cause flash flooding and debris flows. Temperature ranges within the ecoregion typically depend on elevation, where higher elevation areas tend to be cooler than lower elevation areas. Fall precipitation influences the soil moisture conditions prior to formation of the snowpack and explains, in part, the effectiveness of the snowpack in producing runoff. The daily diurnal temperature variation can range in excess of 50°F (Fiero 1986). The wide daily ranges in temperature are a result of strong surface heating during the day and rapid nighttime cooling because of the dry air. Wind conditions reflect the elevation change and temperature gradient between basin and range. Predominately westerly winds disperse air pollution (e.g., wildland and prescribed fires from California and poor air quality from the Truckee Meadows population center) over the Great Basin. Over the past 1 00 years, this ecoregion has observed vast changes in weather, vegetation cover, and wildfire, suggesting a change in the ecoregion’s climate regime. Tang and Amone (2013) studied trends in surface air temperatures and extreme temperatures between 1901 and 2010. The analysis showed that the annual average daily minimum temperature increased considerably between 1901 and 2010, while the daily maximum temperature increased only slightly, resulting in a considerable decrease in the daily diurnal temperature during the study period. Precipitation in the CBR has increased overall over the past 100 years; however, timing of precipitation has changed, resulting in increased streamflows (Baldwin et al. 2003; Chambers 2008). Additionally, there has been a decline in the snowpack within the area since the 1950s, with less precipitation coining as snow and an earlier spring resulting in higher streamflows and impacting plant phenology (Mote et al. 2005; Chambers 2008). Changes in temperature and precipitation across the CBR have resulted in changes to vegetation cover and wildfire regimes. Much of the area has seen changes in species composition, moving from one vegetation type to another and increasing quantities of invasive species. Many areas once dominated by sage-brush have seen increasing stands of piny on-juniper as well as cheatgrass (see Section 3.3, Vegetation). Changes in wildfire regimes throughout the CBR are considered to be a result of changing vegetation communities as well as years of fire suppression by humans. With increasing invasive species, fires in the area tend to be flashy and large in size (see Section 3.7, Wildland Fire and Fire Management). Climate Change Forecast Nevada and eastern California are home to some of the driest and wannest climates, most mountainous regions, and fastest growing metropolitan areas of the United States. Throughout Nevada and eastern California snow-dominated watersheds provide most of the water supply for both human and environmental demands. Increasing demands on finite water supplies have resulted in the need to better monitor drought and its associated hydrologic and agricultural impacts (McEvoy et al. 2012). The sequence of climate conditions presents variability amongst water years. Current climate conditions will depend on the continued annual variability in Chapter 3 Affected Environment Climate Change September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 551 precipitation as it relates to groundwater recharge and soil stabilization due to the duration of snow cover and the vegetation’s response (Germino 2012; Wilcox et al. 2012). The USDA provides water supply outlook for the western United States, including selected Streamflow forecasts, summary of snow accumulation to date, and storage in larger reservoirs. These data are monitored and utilized as a tool for projected forecasts of the Great Basin. Most of the usable water in the western states originates as mountain snowfall and accumulates during winter and spring, several months before the snow melts and appears as streamflow. Since the runoff from precipitation as snow is delayed, estimates of snowmelt runoff can be made well in advance of its occurrence. The forecasts of natural runoff in this outlook are based principally on measurements of precipitation, snow water equivalent, and antecedent runoff. Forecasts become more accurate as more of the data affecting runoff are measured. All forecasts assume that climatic factors during the remainder of the snow accumulation and melt season will interact with a resultant average effect on runoff. Early season forecasts are therefore subject to a greater change than those made on later dates (USDA 2013). Current conditions show most of the planning area within drought conditions for seven of the past ten years (Redmond 2013; Drought Monitor Archives 2013). Precipitation during this period was below average with the exceptions of 2004, 2005, and 2010, which all had higher than average precipitation. Mean average temperature has also been above average for nine of the past ten years with the exception of 2011, which was below average. The year 2012 was the second warmest year on record, with average daily temperatures around 51 .8°F. The 2013 water year is proving to be one of the driest years on record, with no major winter snow accumulations since early January. Current stream flow forecasts show most of the major river systems in the planning area will be at 25 to 50 percent of average for 2013 (USDA 2013). Climate change was analyzed in the CBR REA (Comer et al. 2012a) based on the current conditions within the area. This assessment consisted of a trend analysis using PRISM and EcoClim datasets to describe natural climate variability over a baseline, from 1900 to 1980, producing 80 years of climate data, and the use of several global climate models analyzed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (1PCC 2007; Comer et al. 2012a) to project if future climate change values exceeded natural variability. These models were run at two different timescales to display future forecasts, near term (2025) and future (2060). Although climate models have improved over the past few decades, understanding of climate processes is still lacking, resulting in the use of various assumptions during model construction. Public criticism regarding the use of modeled predictions from climate change models still occurs, with most frequent dispute being that the models are unreliable for use in public policy and project impact analysis. Reichler and Kim 2008 compared 57 different climate models and measured model performance and ability to predict current climate regimes. The study concluded that current models, although not perfect, are much more accurate than their predecessors, and that an increased level of confidence can be places on their predictions (Reichler and Kim 2008). Results for precipitation suggest no strong trend toward either wetter or drier conditions in any month for the CBR. With the exception of a slight increase in summer monsoon rains toward the south and east, there were no significant forecasted trends in precipitation for any other months in either the near term (2020s) or midcentury (2050s) projections (Comer et al. 2012). Results for temperature showed increases in daily maximum temperature, particularly during the summer months from July to September for 2025 and in July and August for 2060. Table 3-68, Temperature Variations in the Planning Area, lists the summary of areal extent of climate change September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Climate Change 552 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for individual variables that have at least two standard deviations of projected change from the baseline (1900 to 1979) mean (Comer et al. 2012a). The greatest changes were typically seen at the southern end of the study area near the Great Basin/Mojave transitional area. Model forecasts for minimum temperatures show a considerable change in both rate and magnitude over most of the study area. July through September showed the greatest degree of change over most of the area (Figure 3-19, Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Change (degrees F) by the 2020s, for July, August, and September and Figure 3-20, Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Increases (degrees F) for 2060, for July and August). Potential effects of these forecasts on the landscape could include increased fuel loads in higher elevations, increased frequency and duration of droughts, expansion of invasive species in higher elevations, increased wind erosion, and changes in wildfire regimes (Comer et al. 2012a). Table 3.68. Temperature Variations in the Planning Area Variable (Month, 2060 Forecast) %of Area with Value > 2 Standard Deviation Departu re Mean Departure from Baseline (°F) Grid Cells > 2 Standard Deviation (StDev) Departure Forecast 2060 Min (°F) Max (°F) StDev January Min Temp 0.2% 7.67 6.24 8.77 0.57 March Min Temp 0.6% 5.62 4.67 6.97 0.50 April Min Temp 8.9% 4.94 3.68 6.71 0.39 May Max Temp 0.005% 5.57 5.57 5.57 NA May Min Temp 4.4% 4.52 3.79 6.26 0.31 June Max Temp 6.6% 6.52 5.43 9.06 0.39 June Min Temp 54.6% 5.42 4.24 8.22 0.47 July Max Temp 90.5% 5.51 4.25 8.70 0.45 July Min Temp 90.6% 6.03 4.17 9.47 0.59 August Max Temp 85.1% 6.14 4.46 8.59 0.39 August Min Temp 93.9% 6.76 4.71 9.76 0.55 September Max Temp 9.5% 6.09 5.07 7.46 0.42 September Min Temp 90.6% 6.77 4.98 10.12 0.56 October Max Temp 0.6% 7.16 5.68 8.33 0.46 October Min Temp 61.2% 5.76 4.33 8.27 0.58 November Min Temp 0.1% 5.39 4.57 5.87 0.36 December Min Temp 0.1% 6.05 5.43 7.57 0.62 Source: Comer et al. 2012a Chapter 3 Affected Environment Climate Change September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 553 Figure 3.19. Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Change (degrees F) by the 2020s, for July, August, and September (Comer et al. 2012a) Figure 3.20. Forecasted Monthly Maximum Summer Temperature Increases (degrees F) for 2060, for July and August (Comer et al. 2012a) In addition to the forecast modeling for temperature and precipitation, climate envelope models were also developed in the REA analysis to indicate magnitudes and directions of shifts in climate regimes based on current distribution of conservation elements. One of the specific conservation Chapter 3 Affected Environment September, 2013 Climate Change 554 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement elements analyzed in the REA was for GRSG occupied habitat for the timeframe of 2060. This analysis shows that most of the analysis area will see a loss in habitat, with only a relatively small proportion of current distribution forecasted to retain the climate regime close to that currently supporting this species (Comer et al. 2012a). Other climate change-related studies in the Nevada planning area are as follows: • NDOW recently completed a habitat assessment and species vulnerability assessment to climate change as part of their updated Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (NDOW 2013). NDOW contracted with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to complete predictive modeling of climate change effects on Nevada’s vegetative communities. • The Nevada Natural Heritage Program conducted a wildlife species vulnerability analysis using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index evaluation program (Young et al. 201 1) to determine which wildlife species exhibited characteristics that might uniquely hinder their adaptation to climate change, including but not limited to general mobility, physiological challenges, and dependence on certain vegetation types or plant species. • The GBBO developed data-supported climate change predictions for Nevada’s breeding birds using point-count data from the Nevada Bird Count, a 10-year database with georeferencing and coarse-scale habitat association capability. Avian Species of Conservation Priority occurrences in the Nevada Bird Count were geospatially attached to the LANDFIRE map used by TNC to generate the habitats analysis. Results from the TNC analysis were then evaluated regarding potential consequences for Nevada’s breeding birds, and avian species responses were predicted (NDOW 2013). • The Connectivity Assessment Group provided an avian climate change analysis to the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) revision process that evaluated possible patterns of movement on the landscape of priority birds based on the availability and connectivity of suitable habitats as currently understood versus climate change projections in habitat shifts (NDOW 2013). The results that follow are taken verbatim from the NWAP (NDOW 2013). Predicted Climate Change Effects Big Sagebrush Steppe The Big Sagebrush Steppe currently occurs predominantly in the northern regions: Black Rock, Owyhee, and Elko. In those regions, Big Sagebrush Steppe is relatively intact (more than 75 percent in characteristic classes), but in the Black Rock Plateau and Owyhee Desert regions, sagebrush steppe is heavily weighted in percentage toward the mid-closed class with shrub cover ranging between 31 and 50 percent. In the Elko region. Big Sagebrush Steppe occurs predominantly in the mid-open class under 30 percent shrub cover. The percentage that would roughly represent its mid-closed class in reference condition (18 percent) is currently classified as rabbitbrush (early shrub, 22 percent). The open bunchgrass-dominated stage is largely deficient under current conditions. The 50-year climate change projections predict increases in transition to uncharacteristic classes for these regions: 26 percent in Elko, 45 percent in Black Rock, and 54 percent in Owyhee. Increases in the annual grass class are predicted to stay below 20 percent for each of these regions and tree encroachment (above 20 percent cover) is predicted to occur in about 14 percent of the Black Rock and Owyhee regions, but only 1 percent in the Elko region. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Climate Change September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 555 TNC climate change modeling predicts the appearance of Big Sagebrush Steppe in several regions south of the Columbia Plateau in 50 years, including the Calcareous Ranges, Eastern Sierra, Eureka, Humboldt Ranges, Lahontan Basin, Toiyabe, Tonopah, and Walker Corridor. Predicted acreages gained in each region are presented in Appendix G of the NWAP. Big Sagebrush Steppe will be converted primarily from the Montane Big Sagebrush Mountain above what is now the 14-inch precipitation elevation. These converted acreages will be significantly invaded with annual grasses, ranging anywhere from 36 to 84 percent in uncharacteristic classes, mostly occurring in the shrub-annual-perennial class. All but Eastern Sierra (36 percent) will be over 50 percent invaded. Big Sagebrush Upland Big Sagebrush Upland occurred in all 13 regions evaluated by TNC. In reference condition. Big Sagebrush Upland should exhibit 84 to 86 percent of its total acreage in the early, mid-open, and mid-closed classes. The early class (10 to 80 percent grass, 0 to 10 percent shrub) is almost non-existent throughout its range, deficient anywhere from 75 to 100 percent in all regions. Most regions also exhibit a significant transition from the mid-open class to the mid-closed and late open/closed classes, indicating that sagebrush age in this biophysical setting is weighted toward the high end with little natural rejuvenation. This is because throughout most of this biophysical setting, stand-clearing events (e.g., fire) are almost always significantly followed by the invasion of annual grasses. Significant transitioning into uncharacteristic classes (U-classes) has already occurred in most of those regions (Appendix G of the NWAP), particularly the northern half of the state, where percentage in U-classes currently range from 41 to 81 percent, with the exception of the Owyhee (23 percent) and Eastern Sierra (20 percent) regions. In the three southern regions and the Walker Corridor, U-class percentages currently range from 8 to 34 percent. Climate change modeling indicated that the greatest increases in U-class percentages would occur in those southern regions not currently so advanced in transition, ranging from 13 to 57 percent. The remaining 8 northerly regions increased in U-class percentage less than 10 percent in 50 years with climate change. Low-Black Sagebrush The Low-Black Sagebrush biophysical setting occurs in all 13 regions evaluated by TNC. In reference condition, Low-Black Sagebrush should exhibit 15 to 20 percent in the early class, 40 to 50 percent in the mid-open class, and 30 to 40 percent in the late-open/closed classes. Typically, low-black sagebrush in current condition exhibit a healthy 40 to 75 percent in the mid-open class, but early and late classes are invaded by annual grasses with some tree encroachment occurring on the eastern and western borders of the state. Climate change modeling indicated that 4 of the 13 regions would increase in uncharacteristic class percentages over 10 percent in 50 years (Appendix C of the NWAP), four would increase over 20 percent, and 4 would increase over 30 percent, with the Mojave region transitioning to a 47 percent into U-classes. The eastern side of the state (Elko, Calcareous, and Clover regions) would experience relatively small increases but are largely transitioned to U-classes already (60 to 75 percent). The Black Rock and Owyhee regions would remain relatively intact, starting below 25 percent currently and experiencing 12 to 13 percent increases in U-classes in 50 years. Low Sagebrush Steppe September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Climate Change 556 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement The Low Sagebrush Steppe biophysical setting occurs at high elevations in 9 of the 13 regions, absent in the Lahontan Basin, Walker Corridor, Tonopah, and Mojave regions. Low Sagebrush Steppe currently exists in relatively good condition in its northern range (Black Rock, Owyhee, Elko regions) with less than five percent in uncharacteristic classes. Throughout the rest of its Nevada range, the type is already heavily invaded by annual grasses and/or tree-encroached. Climate change modeling indicated that the northern regions with good condition Low Sagebrush Steppe listed above would transition 12 percent or less to U-classes in 50 years (Appendix C of the N WAP). Across the rest of its range, the type would not transition much further into U-classes, but in the Eureka and Toiyabe regions where current U-class percentage already tops 80 percent, the remaining amount would transition to U-class, while the Humboldt Ranges are predicted to lose their Low Sagebrush Steppe acreages completely in 50 years. Montane Sagebrush Steppe Mountain The Montane Sagebrush Steppe Mountain biophysical setting occurs in all 13 regions above the 14-inch precipitation zone and constitutes the upper-elevation element of what is commonly referred to in Nevada as mountain big sage. The type is currently significantly departed from reference conditions in most regions throughout the state without a strong pattern of departure comparable between regions or regional trends (e.g., north, south, east, or west) that can be generally represented. U-class percentages range from 17 (Owyhee Desert) to 81 (Appendix C of the NWAP) percent. Characteristic classes which should be ranging around 45 percent in the mid-open class are weighted more in the mid-closed and late classes in 10 of 13 regions. Acreage in the early class is almost non-existent, reflecting the continued lack of enough fire activity. The biophysical setting is very productive and should easily recover from fire. Climate change projections predicted all but 2 regions (Owyhee and Eastern Sierra) would be over 40 percent transitioned to uncharacteristic classes in 50 years. The largest transitions tended to occur in the southerly regions (Mojave, Clover, Calcareous, Tonopah, and Walker Corridor). Climate change modeling predicted significant conversion of this to either Big Sagebrush Upland or Big Sagebrush Steppe. Predicted losses by region are reported in Appendix G of the NWAP. Predicted losses in the Montane Sagebrush Steppe mostly run between 18 and 22 percent of its current totals in all regions, with the exceptions of the Elko and Mojave regions (12 and 1 4 percent, respectively). Wyoming Big Sage Wyoming Big Sage occurs in all the evaluated regions except the Mojave. Currently the type is significantly departed from reference conditions in all regions except the Owyhee Desert, where only one percent was classified in any uncharacteristic class (Appendix C of the NWAP). With respect to the distribution of the type between characteristic classes in the Owyhee, there is no early class, and significant invasion by annual grass or juniper encroachment is not yet occurring. All other regions are currently exhibiting greater than 50 percent of their acreage of Wyoming Big Sage in uncharacteristic classes, some as high as 90 percent. For most regions, the bulk of the U-class acreage occurs in the tree-annual grass class. In the Elko region, most of the U-class acreage occurs in rabbitbrush. Both are rather unfriendly habitats to sagebrush-associated wildlife species. Eastern Sierra, Eureka, Humboldt, and Owyhee Desert regions were predicted to increase in U-class percentage over 10 percent in 50 years with climate change. Only Owyhee, Elko, and Eastern Sierra will remain under 60 percent transitioned to U-classes in 50 years. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Climate Change September 2013 557 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Possible Wildlife Responses to Climate Change Sagebrush communities in their characteristic forms provide essential habitat elements for wildlife in several critical ways. The shrub component provides essential nesting structure, protection from the elements (thermal cover), and protection from predators (escape cover). The native grass/forb understory provides food for herbivorous/granivorous species, including the important upland forbs for early GRSG brood-rearing immediately after hatch. Rodents such as sagebrush vole, pale and dark kangaroo mouse, and Wyoming ground squirrel are dependent on the herbage, fruits, and seeds of native grasses and forbs. The native understory is also important to the sustenance of abundant, diverse arthropod communities important as food sources for reptiles such as the greater and pygmy short-homed lizards, insectivorous mammals such as Merriam’s, Preble’s, and Inyo shrew, as well as all the brood-rearing songbirds including Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage Sparrow, and Loggerhead Shrike. In turn, several of these species are preyed upon by predators, including Burrowing Owl, Ferruginous Hawk, Bald Eagle, and Prairie Falcon. Predicted high ecological departure in sagebrush communities suggests disruption of many ecological processes required by wildlife species. Primary threats to ecological integrity are the invasion of annual grasses and exotic forbs via wildfire, land disturbance, and the encroachment of pinyon and juniper trees from their characteristic sites primarily through natural seed dispersal and fire suppression. Invasive grasses and forbs change the community through the eventual replacement of the native understory with species whose seeds and herbage are of less nutritional value and are available in nutritious form for a shorter period of time compared with the native understory. Eventually, through the change in fire regime facilitated by annual grass/exotic forb build-up and their better recovery advantage after fire, the shrub component can be lost and the site converted to annual grass/exotic forbs with little natural recovery potential. Tree encroachment will start a disruptive process that several sagebrush breeding birds, including Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, and Sage Sparrow, avoid in surprisingly early stages of advancement-as low as 6 percent tree cover for Sage Thrashers (Reinkensmeyer 2000) and around 15 percent for Brewer’s Sparrow (CalPIF 2005). GBBO bird response analysis predicted that among three species, Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, and Sage Sparrow, Sage Sparrow demonstrated the greatest negative sensitivity to presence of trees, with reductions in densities ranging between 87 and 89 percent from absence of trees to presence of trees (NDOW 2013). Similarly, the Connectivity Study Group Report predicted a 29 percent reduction in area occupied by Sage Thrasher, 1 8 percent reduction in area occupied by Sage Sparrow, and an 1 1 percent reduction in area occupied by Brewer’s Sparrow as pinyon-juniper woodland expanded (Fleishman et al. 2012). Small mammal and reptile response to tree encroachment into sagebrush has been less studied, but intuition would suggest that these species would maintain their occurrence as long as a native understory and some of the shrub component persist. Tree encroachment can reach a point to where the understory is deprived of sufficient water by the tree root systems and disappears, as reflected in the Uncharacteristic Tree-encroached class description for several sagebrush communities in this analysis. An evaluation of the relative values of the different classes of sagebrush leads to the identification of uncharacteristic classes that will have definite impacts on wildlife’s ability to stay on the landscape. For the purposes of this analysis, the following classes have been identified as unsatisfactory to sagebrush-associated wildlife: annual grassland, early shrub (rabbitbrush), tree-annual grass, and tree-encroached. The characteristic early classes (usually resultant from a stand-changing event such as wildfire or applied management) can be expected to be abandoned by shrub-associated wildlife species for the first 12 or so years, but since this is a natural rejuvenation process and the sagebrush community is on track for natural succession, it is a Chapter 3 Affected Environment Climate Change September, 2013 558 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement stage that results in long-term benefits for the sagebrush wildlife community. The depleted and shrub-annual grass-perennial grass classes will likely continue to hold the shrub-nesting birds such as Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, and Sage Sparrow which seem to be non-responsive to changes in understory condition as long as the shrubs persist, particularly in their mature stages. GRSG should conceivably find the depleted and shrub-annual grass-perennial grass classes acceptable as wintering habitat as the understory would be under the snow, but assign lower suitability to the depleted class during nesting summer foraging. The lack of understory impacts nesting success through increased nest predation (Coates and Delehanty 2010) and lack of herbaceous material and associated herbivorous insects would impact brood nutrition in the first few weeks after hatch (Klebenow and Gray 1968; Gregg et al. 2008). Ground-dwelling small mammals and reptiles may be negatively impacted by the loss of understory in the depleted classes, but necessary research is lacking. Cumulative increases in the annual grass, early shrub, and tree-encroached classes of sagebrush types after 50 years of climate change consistently averaged between 10 and 25 percent when determined for each region, with some notable exceptions. In the Mojave region where sagebrush types are more typically montane or associated with montane dry washes, and largely restricted to the Spring Mountains and Sheep Range, the cumulative increase in wildlife-unfriendly sagebrush classes reached 58 percent for Big Sagebrush Upland (affecting 9,200 acres), 64 percent for Low/Black Sagebrush (affecting 90,000 acres), and 65 percent for Montane Sagebrush Steppe Mountain (affecting 8,300 acres). The bulk of these increases were predicted to occur in the early shrub class (rabbitbrush), presumably following wildfire. The Lahontan region was predicted to transition an average of 46 percent of all its sagebrush communities to unsuitable classes in 50 years, while the Humboldt Ranges were predicted to transition 34 percent and the Clover region 30 percent to unsuitable classes. Large transitions in the Lahontan and Humboldt Ranges regions might particularly affect Sage Sparrow, a species associated more prevalent with Wyoming Big Sage biophysical setting than other types of sagebrush. Pygmy rabbits might particularly suffer range retractions in the 2 regions where nearly all types of big sagebrush were predicted to transition over 40 percent to unsuitable classes. Generally, sagebrush-associated species in Nevada could experience a 10 to 30 percent decrease in acres of suitable habitat over the next 50 years with climate change. GBBO bird population modeling predicted a 14 percent reduction in statewide population for Brewer’s Sparrow, 20 percent for Sage Sparrow, and 21 percent for Sage Thrasher based on the TNC climate change analysis. Whether or not populations will be able to adjust to greater densities in reduced suitable habitat, thus maintaining their current levels, remains to be seen and should be monitored. Evidence suggests that nesting sagebrush songbirds do have demographic capabilities to nest at densities higher than they typically do when unstressed for space (GBBO 2010). How mammals and reptiles might respond to such reductions is largely unknown and should be monitored. 3.23. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Due to the nature of social, economic, and environmental justice conditions, the social and economic analysis is based on a somewhat different area of analysis than is used for other resources. Specifically, the socioeconomic study area is made up of counties within the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region that contain GRSG habitat and within which social and economic conditions might reasonably be expected to change based on alternative management actions. In addition, the BLM reviewed the need to include additional counties that may not contain habitat, but are closely linked from an economic and/or social perspective to counties Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 559 that do contain habitat. This latter category includes what are sometimes called “service area” counties, or counties from which businesses operate that regularly provide critical economic services, such as recreational outfitting or support services for the livestock grazing sector, within the counties that contain habitat (METI Corp/Economic Insights of Colorado 2012). Including service area counties could be important because a change in economic activity in a county containing habitat may result in changes in economic activity within service area counties as well. The socioeconomic study area contains 12 counties, all containing GRSG habitat: 2 in California (Lassen and Modoc) and 10 in Nevada (Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, Pershing, Washoe, and White Pine). The BLM considered whether there would be a secondary study area, made up of counties providing services to the primary study area, or linked through commuter patterns. Table 3-69, Commuter Patterns in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010, shows the share of workers employed in a given county of the socioeconomic study area that reside in the same county. It also shows other counties that provide labor to the county. The table shows that no labor market in the socioeconomic study area relies on a county outside the socioeconomic study area for a considerable share of the workers employed. Some counties (not shown in Table 3-69) do depend considerably on Washoe County as a source of employment (e.g.. Storey County) but because this link is mostly to Reno, which is expected to be less impacted by management alternatives than rural areas of Washoe County, counties economically connected to Reno were not included in a secondary study area. Because the BLM also found no evidence of important service areas outside the counties already included in the study area, no secondary study area has been identified. Table 3.69. Commuter Patterns in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010 Geographic Area of Employment Live in Same Area of Employment Other Counties Where Considerable Share of Workers Live Primary Socioeconomic Study Area Lassen County, California 75.7% Shasta (3.4%), Plumas (3.1%), Washoe, Nevada (2.6%) Modoc County, California 63.3% Siskiyou (10.0%), Klamath, Oregon (7.5%), Shasta (4.7%), Lassen (2.5%) Churchill County, Nevada 70.6% Washoe (9.2%), Lyon (6.6%), Clark (2.1%) Elko County, Nevada 75.3% Washoe (2.9%), Humboldt (2.5%), Clark (2.4%), Tooele, Utah (2.4%), Twin Falls, Idaho (2.2%) Eureka County, Nevada 25.3% Elko (56.0%), Lander (10.6%) Humboldt County, Nevada 64.2% Elko (1 1.7%), Washoe (5.8%), Pershing (3.9%), Lander (3.8%) Lander County, Nevada 56.8% Elko ( 1 8.3%), Humboldt ( 1 1 .8%), Washoe (2.4%) Lincoln County, Nevada 73.2% Clark (15.1%), White Pine (2.2%) Nye County, Nevada 70.1% Clark (19.8%) Pershing County, Nevada 59.0% Washoe (9.6%), Humboldt (9.2%), Clark (5.1%), Lyon (4.7%), Churchill (3.4%), Carson City (2.7%) Washoe County, Nevada 80.6% Clark (4.0%), Lyon (3.1%), Carson City (2.8%), Douglas (2.0%) White Pine County, Nevada 75.7% Elko (9.3%), Clark (4.3%) Source: US Census Bureau 2012a Table 3-70, BLM and Forest Service Plans within the Socioeconomic Study Area, Management Units, and Counties, shows the planning documents that may be altered by the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region GRSG planning process and the counties containing GRSG habitat within the area encompassed by those plans. Although Table 3-70 shows additional September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 560 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement counties (other than the 12 counties listed above), the BLM’s analysis of habitat and cross-county labor flows indicates that any economic or social effects in these additional counties resulting from actions analyzed in this LUPA/EIS are likely to be small relative to the 12 study area counties. Table 3.70. BLM and Forest Service Plans within the Socioeconomic Study Area, Management Units, and Counties Agency Plan or Document Management Unit Counties BLM Battle Mountain RMP Battle Mountain District Office (Mountain Lewis and Tonopah Field Offices) Lander, Eureka, Nye, Esmeralda (Nevada) Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area RMP (2004) Surprise Field Office, Winnemucca District Office (Black Rock, Humboldt River Field Offices) Humboldt, Pershing, Washoe (Nevada) Carson City RMP Carson City District Office (Sierra Front, Stillwater Field Offices) Washoe, Storey, Carson City, Douglas, Lyon, Churchill, Mineral, Nye (Nevada); Sierra, Alpine, Plumas, Lassen (California) Elko RMP (1987) Elko District Office (Tuscarora, Wells Field Offices) Elko, Eureka, Lander (Nevada) Ely RMP (2008) Ely District Office (Egan, Schell, Caliente Field Offices) White Pine, Lincoln, Nye (Nevada) Wells RMP (1985) Elko District Office (Tuscarora, Wells Field Offices) Elko (Nevada) Winnemucca RMP Winnemucca District Office (Black Rock, Humboldt River Field Offices) Humboldt, Pershing, Washoe, Lyon, Churchill (Nevada) Alturas RMP (2008) Alturas Field Office Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou (California) Eagle Lake RMP (2008) Eagle Lake Field Office Lassen, Plumas, Sierra (California); Washoe (Nevada) Surprise RMP (2008) Surprise Field Office Modoc, Lassen (California); Washoe, Humboldt (Nevada) Forest Service Humboldt National Forest LRMP (1986) Ely, Jarbidge, Mountain City, Santa Rosa Ranger Districts Nye, Elko, White Pine, Humboldt, Toiyabe National Forest LRMP (1986) Austin, Bridgeport, Carson, Tonopah, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Ranger Districts Nye, Lander, Mineral, Lyon, Eureka, Washoe, Douglas, Clark, Lincoln, Carson City (Nevada); Mono, Alpine, Sierra, Nevada, Lassen, El Dorado (California) Current Condition Social Conditions Social conditions concern human communities, including towns, cities, and rural areas, and the custom, culture, and history of the area as it relates to human settlement, as well as current social values. Population and Demographics Table 3-71, Population Growth, 1990-2010, shows current and historic populations in the socioeconomic study area. While the population of California grew at nearly the same rate as the United States as a whole between 1990 and 2010 (24.1 percent and 25.0 percent, respectively), the population in Nevada increased by 124.7 percent over the same time period. Both states experienced a higher percentage of population growth from 1990 to 2000 than from 2000 to Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 561 2010. From 2000 to 2009, natural increase (births minus deaths) has accounted for 26 percent of Nevada’s population growth, and net migration has accounted for about 74 percent. In contrast, about 90 percent of California’s population growth is due to natural increase, while only 10 percent is due to net migration (US Census Bureau 2009). Population growth between 1990 and 2010 within the separate counties of the socioeconomic study area ranges from a low of negative 7.8 percent growth in Lander County, Nevada, to a high of 147.2 percent growth in Nye County, Nevada. Washoe County, Nevada, which is by far the most populated county in the socioeconomic study area, grew 65.5 percent over the 1990 to 2010 time period. Table 3.71. Population Growth in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 1990-2010 Geographic Area 1990 2000 2010 Percent Change (1990-2010) Lassen County, California 27,598 33,828 34,895 26.4 Modoc County, California 9,678 9,449 9,686 0.1 Churchill County, Nevada 17,938 23,982 24,877 38.7 Elko County, Nevada 33,463 45,291 48,818 45.9 Eureka County, Nevada 1,547 1 ,65 1 1,987 28.4 Humboldt County, Nevada 12,844 16,106 16,528 28.7 Lander County, Nevada 6,266 5,794 5,775 -7.8 Lincoln County, Nevada 3,775 4,165 5,345 41.6 Nye County, Nevada 17,781 32,485 43,946 147.2 Pershing County, Nevada 4,336 6,693 6,753 55.7 Washoe County, Nevada 254,667 339,486 421,407 65.5 White Pine County, Nevada 9,264 9,181 10,030 8.3 Socioeconomic Study Area 399,157 528,1 1 1 630,047 57.8 California 29,811,427 33,871,648 37,253,956 25.0 Nevada 1,201,675 1,998,257 2,700,551 124.7 United States 248,790,925 281,421,906 308,745,538 24.1 Sources: US Census Bureau 1990 , 2000, 2010a With a population of 225,221, Reno, Nevada, is the largest city in the socioeconomic study area (US Census Bureau 2010a). Reno is the county seat of Washoe County (NACO 2012) and the third largest city in Nevada, after Las Vegas and Henderson. Reno is serviced by three major highways, the Union Pacific railroad, and a number of trucking and airline carriers. Reno’s economy is based predominantly in the trade and service sector, with approximately 65 percent of the workforce employed in these occupations. In 2005, Inc. magazine named Reno number one on its list of the “Best Places to Do Business in America,” based on job growth figures from 274 metropolitan areas (City of Reno 2012). With a population of 90,264, Sparks, Nevada, is part of the Reno-Sparks Metropolitan Area. Sparks was reported as the fastest growing city in Nevada between 1999 and 2008. Two large suburbs, Sun Valley (population: 19,299) and Spanish Springs (population: 15,604), are north of Reno and part of the Reno-Sparks Metropolitan area. The GRSG habitat within Washoe County is predominantly found to the north of the Reno-Sparks Metropolitan area. With a population of 17,947, the largest California city in the socioeconomic study area is Susanville. Susanville, the county seat of Lassen County, California (NACO 2012), is a former mining town. Susanvi lle is also home to two California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facilities: High Desert State Prison and California Correctional Center. Communities of Place , below provides more information about additional cities and towns in the socioeconomic study area, as well as the character and history of the counties. Table 3-72, September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 562 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Demographic Characteristics, Share in Total Population (percent), 2010, shows age and gender characteristics of the population in each county of the socioeconomic study area. California, Nevada, and the socioeconomic study area generally follow the same trends as the country as a whole, with women comprising approximately 50 percent of the population and an age demographic of 20 to 64 for approximately 60 percent of the population. Of the counties within the socioeconomic study area, Lassen County, California, and Pershing County, Nevada, have the populations with the highest percentage of males, both at least 1 4 percentage points higher than the national average. Of the counties within the socioeconomic study area, Lassen County, California, and Pershing County, Nevada, also have the highest percentages of working age individuals, both at least 5 percentage points higher than the national average. On the other end of the spectrum, Lincoln County, Nevada, and Nye County, Nevada, have the lowest percentages of working age individuals, both at least 6 percentage points lower than the national average. Table 3.72. Demographic Characteristics of the Socioeconomic Study Area, Share in Total Population (percent), 2010 Geographic Area Women 20 to 64 Years of Age Under 20 Years of Age 65 Years of Age or Older Lassen County, California U> oc 69.4 20.6 10.0 Modoc County, California 49.6 56.5 23.8 19.7 Churchill County, Nevada 49.7 57.3 27.5 15.2 Elko County, Nevada 48.1 59.3 32.2 8.5 Eureka County, Nevada 47.3 61.1 26.0 12.9 Humboldt County, Nevada 47.6 60.0 29.8 10.2 Lander County, Nevada 49.3 57.9 30.3 11.8 Lincoln County, Nevada 46.2 52.4 29.5 18.1 Nye County, Nevada 49.5 53.9 22.7 23.4 Pershing County, Nevada 36.8 65.3 21.7 13.0 Washoe County, Nevada 49.5 61.3 26.6 12.1 White Pine County, Nevada 43.4 61.7 23.4 14.9 Socioeconomic Study Area 48.3 60.8 26.5 12.8 California 50.3 60.5 28.1 1 1.4 Nevada 49.5 60.7 27.3 12.0 United States 50.8 60.1 26.9 13.0 Source: US Census Bureau 2010 3 Interest Groups and Communities of Place There is a range of interest groups in the socioeconomic study area, and the positions advanced by these groups include both overlapping and divergent interests. These groups sometimes define or measure sustainable use or resource conservation differently, and these definitions and measures of sustainability sometimes result in different conclusions about how land and resources should be managed. There are also groups that represent coalitions of interest groups. Identification of these groups is intended to inform on the different interests in the study area and not to suggest that different interests necessarily conflict. Furthermore, groups and individuals often value various interests. A list of interest groups that have requested to receive a copy of the Draft LUPA/EIS is provided in Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination. Interest groups within the socioeconomic study area include, but are not limited to, the following: federal agencies, state agencies, county agencies, local agencies, congressional representatives, local representatives, academic institutions, civic organizations, local chambers of commerce, environmental groups, land conservation groups, Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 563 outdoors and sporting groups, local school boards, farm associations, Native American groups and tribal governments, and various business groups. Specific types of business interest groups include, but are not limited to, the following: real estate, tourism, mineral extraction, textile manufacturing, crop and livestock farming, and news media. Residents of Nevada’s cities and towns view federal lands as an invaluable open space resource for urban dwellers. For example, the Washoe Comprehensive Plan recognizes the numerous scenic, natural, and cultural values that make Washoe County an attractive and exciting place to visit (Washoe County 2005a). Convenient access to public lands for recreational purposes is one of the area’s most attractive features and forms an important element in the personal lifestyle of numerous county residents. The Policies and Action Programs section of the Washoe County Comprehensive Plan includes a policy statement that expresses the intention to maintain the rural character of the planning area and protect its scenic resources, wilderness areas, and natural habitats generally (Washoe County 2005a). Churchill County’s economy is primarily based on agriculture, while also having a strong military presence (BLM 2013c). Churchill County is home to the Naval Air Station Fallon, which hosts over 3,000 military, civilian employees, and Department of Defense contractors (CNIC undated). Churchill County is also an important producer of renewable energy, generating almost three quarters of the geothermal energy produced in the study area (see Table 3-80, Geothermal Electrical Generation: Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources). Churchill County’s Master Plan states that its natural areas, historical and archaeological sites, and developed recreational facilities are valued and used by the residents and provide significant potential for increasing the tourism economy (Churchill County 2010). A community needs survey was completed in 2004. Of the respondents, 52 percent indicated that parks and recreation were “very important,” while 38 percent ranked parks and recreation as “important.” Economic strategy workshops conducted for the BLM’s Carson City District LUP and EIS revealed the importance placed by participants on agriculture, military defense, and geothermal energy. They were also interested in maintaining the rural character of the area, although more health care and recreation infrastructure were identified as needed (BLM 2013c). According to the December 2010 Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan (Elko County 2010), open space and recreational opportunities are critical to Elko County’s economic, historical, and cultural identity. Elko County has a diversified economy built on mining, ranching, recreation, and tourism. Recreational opportunities include opportunities to camp, hike, fish, and hunt, among other activities. Elko County also hosts many annual recreational, historical, cultural, and ethnic special events and attractions. Elko County embraces the multiple use concept of public land management and expects federal land management agencies to maximize public access and usage of lands while still addressing environmental concerns. Mining and cattle ranching are two particularly important economic activities for the county (Elko County 2010). Nearly 73 percent of Elko County is under federal management (Elko County 2010). In 2010, Elko County prepared a study titled “The Impact of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County, Nevada,” presented as Appendix E of the Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan. This study shows that because a large share of personal income in the county is derived from activities on federal lands or directly from the federal government, changes in federal policies can have considerable impact on the economy of the county (Learning 2010). Humboldt County, which is located to the east of Elko County, is sparsely populated, with most of its population living in the only incorporated city, Winnemucca (BLM 201 Od). Public ownership September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 564 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement accounts for 80 percent of Humboldt County land use. Less than 1 percent of the land is urban or developed land. According to the Humboldt County Regional Master Plan, Humboldt County typifies a rural intermountain western county. Its economy is derived substantially from natural resource extraction, primarily mining and agriculture, with mining being the single greatest concentration of resources. Mining-related boom-and-bust cycles have dominated Humboldt’s history, and Humboldt’s County Regional Master Plan aims at a more diversified economy (Humboldt County 2002). The Pershing County economy is dominated by mining. The long-term goals of Pershing County, as indicated in the 2002 Master Plan, focus on maintaining a rural character while supporting the existing agricultural and mining industries. The plan advocates concentrating growth in existing developed areas and balancing growth with the desire to protect agricultural and open space land uses. Overall, Pershing County is in a similar position as surrounding rural Nevada and California counties in its desire to preserve a rural quality of life while promoting reasonable increases in population and economic diversity. Counties like Pershing County are highly susceptible to industry-specific fluctuations due to their less diverse economies. Local mines and the state prison account for nearly half of the county’s total employment base. A change in mining regulations could impact the county financially (TMRPA 2010). Within Eureka, Lander, and Nye Counties, specific groups to whom management of public lands is of particular interest include, but are not limited to, local governments and school districts, ranchers (including those with livestock grazing permits), local sportsmen, mineral claims holder and mineral estate owners, oil and gas leaseholders, and renewable energy leaseholders. Eureka and Lander are among the least populated counties in the study area. Mining is a particularly important part of Eureka and Lander’s economies. However, with mining jobs often filled by residents of neighboring counties, and with the boom-and-bust cycles common to mining-related economies, agriculture has been vital as a steady economic force for the local labor force through the decades (BLM 201 li). In Nye County, various service sectors such as retail trade and professional and technical services are also of particular importance for employment (see Appendix M, Detailed Employment and Earnings Data). According to information provided by the county, local communities and private landowners adjacent to public lands are concerned about the lack of private land available for commercial and residential development or other economic or social uses. In addition, local private landowners are concerned about how the development of public lands may impact the quality or quantity of local natural resources, particularly water. Additional issues of importance to landowners include rural lifestyle preservation, OHV, and other recreational opportunities (Nye County 2012). Furthermore, special interest groups and individuals who represent resource conservation or resource use perspectives constitute another community with a specific interest in public land management. Various individuals and groups at the local, regional, and national levels are interested in how the BLM administers public lands. Many of their concerns regard wildlife, water quality, and visual quality. They value public lands for open space, wildlife, recreation, and scenic qualities among other aspects (BLM 201 li). Local residents and organizational interests in Lincoln and White Pine Counties have a strong and often direct relationship with BLM administration of public lands. Many residents of these counties are at least partially dependent on public lands for their economic livelihood (e.g., ranchers who maintain and operate livestock grazing permits, commercial big game hunting guides and outfitters, individuals employed in mining, and the staff of the agencies themselves). Some long-time residents see these uses of the land as part of their local customs and culture, which they believe ensures them to at least some preferential consideration. In turn, the revenues generated by those activities help support their local businesses and the function of local Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 565 government. Maintaining and expanding economic uses of the public lands are important for these stakeholders (BLM 2007e). Another major stakeholder group in Lincoln and White Pine Counties is comprised of local residents who express strong attachments to the public lands for various recreation pursuits and the contributions of such pursuits to their quality of life. These pursuits include rock-hounding, hunting, wildlife viewing, backcountry touring, four-wheeling, OHV use, and camping. Proximity and ready access to these opportunities, which are ancillary attributes of the rural character and lifestyle of the area, are also key factors influencing their choice to live in the area. Along with factors such as affordable housing and Nevada’s favorable personal income tax structure, local economic development interests are promoting outdoor opportunities to recruit retirees and others, whose residency choices are largely independent of a specific work site or location, to move to the area (BLM 2007e). In some areas of the socioeconomic study area, historic, economic, and cultural connections with activities taking place on public lands (e.g., timber production and the livestock industry) may be in a state of transition. For example, the Lassen County General Plan notes that Lassen County has a strong and favorable historic, economic, and cultural connection with timber production, agriculture, and the livestock industry (Lassen County 1999; BLM 2007f). The plan notes that attitudes and values are subject to compromise because of economic changes and shifting demographics. As people from suburban and urban areas seek out rural communities and accept government, service, or other non-agricultural jobs, they often have different values and expectations regarding resource use and open space (BLM 2007f). The issue of livestock grazing on federal lands is often cited in rural western communities as epitomizing the relationship of public land use with the lifestyle and economics of these communities (BLM 2007f). A number of ranching operations in Lassen County rely heavily on public grazing allotments. The agricultural element of the Lassen County General Plan states that the economic viability of these operations is substantially dependent on the continued and productive use of public rangeland, and that there is a direct relationship between federal grazing privilege and the economic viability and real estate value of dependent ranches. The plan maintains that if grazing allotments were no longer available or rendered uneconomical due to unreasonable grazing fees, extensive management requirements, or excessively reduced capacity, the home ranches that depend on public land grazing allotments would lose their economic viability (Lassen County 1999). This could cause or contribute to the failure of small ranching operations that, in addition to the tragic consequences for the families involved, contribute to the trend to convert valuable agricultural land to other, non-productive - but more lucrative - non-agricultural uses. The Lassen County Board of Supervisors firmly believes that such losses to the agricultural base erode basic values and lifestyles cherished by most county residents (Lassen County 1999; BLM 2()07f). Modoc County is mostly a rural county with a population of less than 10,000 that developed based on livestock farming, logging, mining, wildlife, and the railroad industries. Modoc County’s Comprehensive LUP states that federal and state lands occupy over three quarters of the county and that the economy of the county depends on commercial and business activities operated on those lands, including cutting, mining, livestock grazing, and commercial and recreational activities. Land use policies include an expectation that private economic activity will be fostered both on private and public lands, including but not limited to agriculture, sustainable forestry, recreation, mining, and transportation (Modoc County 1995). September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 566 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Comments received in response to the Scoping Report and the June 2012 Economic Strategies Workshop for this planning effort reflected many of the themes discussed above (BLM and Forest Service 2012; BLM 201 2o). Residents expressed strong support for multi-use management strategies that would maintain or expand access to public lands for grazing, mining, and renewable energy development. Many expressed concern that placing constraints on these existing activities, as well as activities that may occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, might create economic hardship within their communities and alter traditional cultural values and lifestyles. Some voiced broader concerns about the effects of restricted access to public lands on domestic energy production and the prices of minerals and materials. Participants in the Economic Strategies Workshop also requested that the BLM address a variety of specific concerns in its analysis of the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region, including potential nonanthropogenic impacts on GRSG habitat, major development projects likely to occur within the socioeconomic study area in the reasonably foreseeable future, and potential economic impacts on the hunting and fishing industries. County Land Use Plans Federal land administered by the BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies in the socioeconomic study area is intermingled with state and private lands. County governments have land use planning responsibility for the private lands located within their jurisdictions. County-level LUPs were identified for nine of the twelve counties within the socioeconomic study area (Lassen County 1999; Churchill County 2010; Elko County 2010; Eureka County 2010; Humboldt County 2002; Lander County 2010; Lincoln County 2007; Nye County 2011; Pershing County 2002). Of the nine counties with identified LUPs, six of the plans (Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, and Nye) include some economic development component, such as promotion of specific industrial sectors and natural resource uses. Economic Conditions Economic analysis is concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. This section provides a summary of economic information, including trends and current conditions. It also identifies and describes major economic sectors in the socioeconomic study area that can be affected by management actions. Economic activities that rely or could rely on public lands, such as recreation and livestock grazing, are the economic activities that are most likely to be affected. Economic Sectors, Employment, and Personal Income The distribution of employment and income by industry sector within the socioeconomic study area is summarized in Table 3-73, Employment by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area, and Table 3-74, Labor Income by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area (2010 dollars). See Appendix M for equivalent data by county. Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September 2013 Table 3.73. Employment by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area1 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 567 Percent Change 2001-2010 9.4% -10.9% -5.6% -4.9% 33.7% -25.1% -19.5% 12.8% -27.6% -14.2% 4.5% 19.1% -19.6% 47.6% 72.6% 23.4% 103.9% 13.6% N® O ' OO © On 30.0% 3.0% -16.1% 22.6% 16.5% 24.2% 39.3% Percentage of total 2010 £ o © o 13.8% 1.3% 0.3% 3.7% 4.9% 3.7% 71.5% 0.3% 3.3% 10.1% 4.0% 1.1% 5.5% 6.0% 6.0% 1.3% 5.4% 1.0% 8.2% 3.2% 1 1 .2% xO O"' OO 14.4% 2.8% 4.0% 2001 £ o © o 16.9% 1.5% 0.3% 3.0% 7.1% 5.0% 69.3% 0.4% 4.2% 10.6% 3.7% 1.6% 4.1% 3.8% 5.3% 0.7% 5.2% 0.6% 6.9% 3.3% 14.6% 4.3% 13.5% 2.5% 3.2% Absolute Change 2001-2010 31,056 -6,073 -285 -56 3,331 -5,871 -3,192 29,349 -402 OO ON 1 1,573 2,345 o © t o o VO 9,131 4,094 2,401 2,354 'Nt o oo 6,814 337 -7,758 3,214 7,338 1,964 4,092 2010 361,315 49,848 oo OO O 13,224 17,542 13,210 258,194 1,057 11,769 36,558 14,615 4,136 19,855 21,710 21,581 4,712 19,658 3,790 29,561 11,387 40,376 17,430 51,877 10,065 14,498 2001 330,259 55,921 5,070 1,142 9,893 23,414 16,402 228,845 1,459 13,717 OO ON 12,271 5,146 13,455 12,579 17,486 2,311 17,304 1,986 22,746 o m o 48,134 14,216 44,539 8,101 10,406 Socioeconomic Study Area Total Employment (number of jobs) Non-services related Farm Forestry, fishing, & related activities Mining (including oil and gas) Construction Manufacturing Services related Utilities Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and warehousing Information Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Government Federal2 State2 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 568 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September 2013 Table 3.74. Labor Income by Sector within the Socioeconomic Study Area (2010 dollars) Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 569 Percent Change 2001-2010 4.8% -5.4% 47.7% -27.8% 46.3% -27.5% -21.1% 3.4% -24.0% N© ox OO i -5.6% X© 0s OO -32.0% -15.4% 16.0% 11.1% 55.4% 14.6% 35.0% X© 0s o O m -12.6% -22.5% 37.8% 25.9% 45.7% 23.1% 42.5% 34.7% 13.9% 85.3% £ r Percentage of total1 2010 £ o © o 19.7% N© Ox 0.2% 7.2% 6.0% 5.2% 61.2% 0.7% 4.6% 6.7% 4.6% 1.2% 4.6% 2.0% 7.0% O'"" r- (N 3.8% 1.3% 9.8% 1.7% 7.0% 3.6% 20.9% 5.3% 5.3% 9.9% 35.3% 24.1% 16.1% 6.9% 2001 £ o © © 21.8% 0.8% 0.3% 5.2% 8.7% 6.9% 62.0% 1.0% 5.3% 7.4% 4.1% ox OO 5.7% 1.8% 6.6% x© O'" OO 3.5% 1.0% 7.9% X© O'" O (N 9.4% 2.7% 17.4% 3.8% 4.5% 7.3% 29.8% 24.4% 10.0% 7.5% bsolute (Millions) Change 2001-2010 $767.3 -$187.3 $57.2 -$11.3 $379.8 -$381.8 -$231.2 $333.2 -$37.9 -$68.3 -$65.8 $117.6 -$94.1 -$139.0 $45.4 $116.7 $161.2 OO & $55.0 $375.8 -$40.7 -$336.7 $162.8 $715.7 $278.3 $165.8 $494.7 $2,583.2 $733.3 $1,849.9 $92.1 2010 $16,676.0 rn On r-~ fS c, & $177.0 $29.3 NO © o (N $1,008.2 $864.2 $10,204.5 $119.8 $774.5 $1,116.3 $765.7 $199.6 $763.3 $328.7 $1,169.1 $452.2 $638.7 $212.4 $1,627.1 r~ OO Cl oc $1,161.2 $594.1 $3,482.1 $887.0 ’Tf OO OO $1,657.4 $10,030.7 $6,013.1 $4,017.6 $1,718.2 < 2001 $15,908.7 $3,466.5 $119.9 $40.6 $820.7 $1,390.1 $1,095.3 $9,871.3 $157.7 OO ri oo OO $1,182.1 OO so OO $293.8 $902.3 $283.3 $1,052.4 $291.0 $557.6 $157.4 $1,251.3 $322.4 $1,497.8 $431.3 $2,766.3 $608.7 $718.9 $1,162.7 $7,447.5 $5,279.8 $2,167.7 $1,626.1 Socioeconomic Study Area Total Labor Earnings Non-services related Farm Forestry, fishing, & related activities Mining (including oil and gas) Construction Manufacturing Services related Utilities Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and warehousing Information Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Professional and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Government2 Federal State Local Non-labor Income Dividends, interest, and rent Personal current transfer receipts3 Contributions to government social insurance4 September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 570 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 571 Employment results for the socioeconomic study area as a whole are driven in large part by Washoe County, which accounted for about 70 percent of the study area jobs in 2010. The largest industry sector in the socioeconomic study area is the services-related sector, which comprised 71.5 percent of total employment in the socioeconomic study area in 2010. This reflects a growth rate of 12.8 percent since 2001 (compared with an overall employment growth rate of 9.4 percent since 2001). Compared with the services-related sector, the government sector and the non-services-related sector represented much lower levels of employment, 14.4 percent and 13.8 percent, respectively. Within the services-related sector, the accommodation and food services industry (1 1.2 percent) and retail trade industry (10.1 percent) accounted for the largest share of employment in 2010, followed by the health care and social assistance industry (8.2 percent). The industries that demonstrated the largest growth between 200 1 and 20 1 0 were the management of companies and enterprises industry, with an increase of 103.9 percent; the educational services industry, with an increase of 90.8 percent; and the real estate and rental and leasing industry, with an increase of 72.6 percent. Eight industries declined in employment levels from 2001 to 2010, including the accommodation and food services industry (16.1 percent decline) and farm industry (5.6 percent decline). Appendix M provides county-level employment figures for 2010. The greatest difference in industry proportion between counties in 2010 was in the mining industry, which contributed just 0.6 percent of total employment in Washoe County, Nevada, but contributed a much higher share in Eureka County, Nevada (79.6 percent); Lander County, Nevada (44.1 percent); Humboldt County, Nevada (18.9 percent); and Pershing County, Nevada (16.2 percent). Mining in Eureka County employs residents not only of Eureka but also of neighboring counties, notably Elko. Note that the data source does not release employment data in three of the counties to protect business confidentiality. The percentage of employment generated by the accommodation and food services industry also varied across the counties in the socioeconomic study area, from 1.3 percent in Eureka County, Nevada, to 21.6 percent in Elko County, Nevada. The retail trade industry, which is another recreation-related industry like accommodation and food services, also varied in importance across counties, contributing a low 1.1 percent of employment in Eureka County, Nevada, and higher shares in Lincoln County, Nevada (11.2 percent); Humboldt County, Nevada (1 1.5 percent); and Nye County, Nevada (11.8 percent). The arts, entertainment, and recreation industry contributed a consistently low share of employment in all counties (no more than 5.5 percent in any county). Farming also contributed a relatively low share of employment in most counties (with a low of 0.2 percent in Washoe, Nevada), although the industry did support a high of 12.7 percent of employment in Modoc County, California. See Appendix M for individual county detail. With respect to personal earnings, the services-related sector accounted for the largest share (61.2 percent) of labor income in the socioeconomic study area in 2010, followed by the government sector (20.9 percent) and the non-services-related sector (19.7 percent). In 2010, the individual industries that generated the largest shares of personal earnings were the local government industry (9.9 percent); the healthcare and social services industry (9.8 percent); and the mining trade industry (7.2 percent). The management of companies and enterprises industry, the farming industry, and the mining industry showed strong growth since 2001 (a percent change of 55.4 percent, 47.7 percent, and 46.3 percent, respectively); these were the three highest growth rates between 2001 and 2010. During the same time period, the information industry and the forestry, fishing, and related activities industry experienced declines of 32.0 percent and 27.8 percent, respectively, the greatest declines of all the industry sectors. September, 2013 Chapter 3 A ffected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 572 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Appendix M provides county-level labor earnings figures for 2010. The county-by-county patterns are similar to those for employment, with relatively more variation in mining-related income; mining contributed the most to earnings in Eureka County, Nevada, at 92.1 percent, followed by Lander County, Nevada, at 66.8 percent. Mining labor earnings in Eureka and Lander Counties reflect, in part, labor earnings of residents in neighboring counties. At the other end of the range, mining contributed a negligible amount (less than $50,000) to earnings in Modoc County, California. Earnings from the mining sector were left undisclosed in 3 of the 12 counties due to confidentiality requirements. The share of earnings from the farm industry varied across the 12 counties in the study area. In Washoe County, Nevada, the farm industry accounted for zero percent of earnings, while farming in Modoc County, California provide 22.1 percent of earnings. The proportion of the county-level labor earnings from the accommodation and food services industry and the retail trade industry, which are both influenced by recreation and travel, differed by county. Accommodation and food services generated 13.2 percent of earnings in Elko County, Nevada, but only 0.2 percent in Eureka County, Nevada. Retail trade provided a maximum of 7.3 percent of earnings in Churchill and Nye Counties, but only 0.2 percent in Eureka County, Nevada. The arts, entertainment, and recreation industry was not a major contributor to earnings in any of the counties. Table 3-75, Annual Unemployment, 2007 - 2011, presents the unemployment rates for each county in the Socioeconomic Study Area, as well as the rates for the 12 counties aggregated and the states of California and Nevada. The data show that the socioeconomic study area has experienced rates of unemployment that are about equal to or lower than those of California and Nevada for each of the years listed. At the county level, in 201 1, the unemployment rate ranged from a low of 6.0 percent in Eureka County, Nevada, to a high of 16.5 percent in Nye County, Nevada. Table 3.75. Annual Unemployment within the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2007 - 2011 Geographic Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Churchill County, Nevada 4.5% 6.3% 8.9% 1 0.6% 1 1 .0% Elko County, Nevada 3.4%, 4.5% 6.5% 7.4% 7.1% Eureka County, Nevada 4.3% 5.5% 6.8% 7.6% 6.0% Humboldt County, Nevada 3.7% 5.2% 7.5% 8.1% 7.2% Lander County, Nevada 3.4% 4.6% 6.0% 7.1% 6.6% Lassen County, California 8.2% 9.5% 12.6% 14.0% 13.5% Lincoln County, Nevada 4.4% 5.8% 9.2% 12.6% 13.7% Modoc County, California 8.0% 9.6% 12.3% 14.4% 14.9% Nye County, Nevada 6.8% 1 0.2% 14.3% 16.5% 16.5% Pershing County, Nevada 5.1% 7.3% 10.0% 1 0.9% 1 1 .7% Washoe County, Nevada 4.5% 7.1% 1 1 .4% 13.1% 13.1% White Pine County, Nevada 3.8% 4.9% 7.2% 8.8% 8.4% Socioeconomic Study Area 4.7% 7.0% 1 0.8% 12.4% 12.3% California 5.4% 7.2% 1 1 .3% 12.4% 11.7% Nevada 4.7% 7.0% 1 1 .6% 13.7% 13.5% Source: BLS 2012b Recreation Approximately 52,600 jobs (24.6 percent of total employment in 2010) in the socioeconomic study area are related to travel and tourism (Headwaters Economics 2012). This estimate is based on data from the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns and includes industrial sectors that, at least in part, provide goods and services to visitors, the local economy, and the local Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 573 population. It includes both full- and part-time jobs. Most of these jobs are concentrated in the “accommodation and food services” sector. In 2010, the socioeconomic study area’s proportion of travel and tourism-related jobs was 9.5 percentage points higher than the national average of 15.1 percent. Jobs related to travel and tourism are more likely to be seasonal or part-time and more likely to have lower average annual earnings than jobs in non-travel and tourism-related sectors. The average annual wage per travel- or tourism-related job was $20,823 (2010 dollars) in the socioeconomic study area in 2011, compared to $48,787 for jobs not related to travel and tourism (Headwaters Economics 2012). 1 Although much of the recreation use on BLM-administered lands is dispersed and far from counting devices (e.g., trail registers, fee stations, or vehicle traffic counters), approximations of the number of visitors to BLM-administered land can be obtained from the BLM Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) database, in which BLM recreation specialists provide estimated total visits and visitor days to various sites2.Table 3-76, Estimated Annual Visits by Planning Unit, summarizes BLM visitation data within the study area for fiscal year (FY) 201 1 (i.e., the fiscal year ending September 30, 201 1) and Forest Service visitation data from Round 2 of the National Visitor Use Monitoring program (NVUM). Table 3.76. Estimated Annual Visits by Planning Unit Planning Unit Number of Visits Carson City District Office 1,007,842 Caliente Field Office 30,073 Egan Field Office 1,034,655 Schell Field Office 160,867 Black Rock Field Office 110,772 Humboldt River Field Office 240,248 Mount Lewis Field Office 97,814 Tonopah Field Office 160,358 Tuscarora Field Office 951,100 Wells Field Office 280,945 Alturas Field Office 33,401 Eagle Lake Field Office 174,433 Surprise Field Office 75,400 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 1,796,132 Total 6,154,040 Source: Data for BLM field offices is for fiscal year (FY) 1 1 (BLM 20 1 2p); data for the Routt National Forest is for FY07 (Forest Service 2012f). FY 1 1 is the year ending September 30, 2011. Note: For the Carson City District Office, recreation data were not available by Field Office (Stillwater and Sierra Front). Visitor expenditures can be approximated using the RMIS data in conjunction with data from Forest Service, which has constructed recreation visitor spending profiles based on years of survey data gathered through the Forest Service NVUM. Although the data are collected from National Forest visitors, the analysis that follows is based on the NVUM profiles because the BLM has no analogous database. The profiles break down recreation spending by type of activity, day use versus overnight use, local versus non-local visitors, and “non-primary” visits (i.e., 'All dollar values were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a). 2 In RMIS, a visit is defined as the entry of any person onto lands or related waters administered by the BLM for any time period. A same day reentry, negligible transit, and entry to another recreation site or detached portion of the management area on the same day are considered a single visit. RMIS defines a visitor day as equivalent to twelve visitor hours. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 574 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement incidental visits where the primary purpose of the trip was other than visiting public lands). Table 3-77, Visitor Spending from Recreation on BLM and Forest Service Land in Socioeconomic Study Area, FY 2011, summarizes individual and party visits and expenditures by trip type and estimated direct expenditure. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Table 3.77. Visitor Spending from Recreation on BLM and Forest Service Land in Socioeconomic Study Area, FY 2011 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement ft o> -g 03 w .ss Oi -C = c ft g — W x -O » i ^ w z £ cs E y > 0) wo os c n 4> < G 03 Oh ft QJ g 03 s w 03 £ £ ’> .sc ft ** c c Of o G Oh E *g y o 'ft O ft G ft CO) 0/} ft .00 e .3 g c ft G O ft Ol ft 00 ft VO ri G o ft oo ’ G co £ "E aj E > G O 1—1 _ CJ G ft y ^ O 3 ft ft ft 00 ' G vo B "E C > cd o-l _ o G ft y o G ft ft CL) ■ G ft — ■ o Ol o ft — ri G ri 2 G ft CQ ft £ x Z G .g _ co ^ w t« ’ Sft (L) ,o^o £ ’c c/D M— < Q, (U s — ' Cl m *-< gp I Gh _l •r ft ^ ft ft G Gh ft O O G CJ ft <1J JO G G G 173 gSTO g > ft o G O. ’ g ft r5 l^° G -G ft G ® g — m ft CL) op.y o • S n <4-i % "ft ^ t: co g T3 QJ G - — • CU 0 4 H— > CO ' 1 > c o O CO G aj ft 00 G G ' — ' .G • G ON T3 ft 00 E "ft .5 ft "3 Z O Z o ft a m ft G O _ to 0> G •ft -ft s a> Oh C/D | G ft G ft G CL) > W September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 576 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement As Table 3-77 shows, the estimated total visitor spending on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in the socioeconomic study area was about $405.6 million in FY 2011. It is important to note that this includes expenditures from local residents and from visitors whose use of public lands was incidental to some other primary purpose. Grazing Farming, including ranching (livestock grazing), employed approximately 4,785 people in the socioeconomic study area in 2010, accounting for 1.3 percent of total employment. This includes labor of farm proprietors, although not of unpaid family labor. The average annual wage for a farm job (including ranching) in the socioeconomic study area was $27,965 in 2010. This was lower than the average annual wage for a non-farm job ($41,963; Headwaters Economics 2012). Table 3-78, Farm Earnings Detail, 2010 (2010 dollars), presents the proportion of personal income originating from farm earnings and the farm cash receipts from livestock received in 2010 throughout the socioeconomic study area and Nevada and California as a whole.3 Table 3.78. Farm Earnings Detail within the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010 (2010 dollars) Geographic Area Farm Earnings as Share of AH Earnings Agricultu re and Forestry Support Activities Earnings as Share of All Earnings’ Farm Cash Receipts (Millions) Share of Farm Cash Receipts from Livestock Share of Farm Cash Receipts from Crops Estimated Share of Earnings from Livestock3 Lassen County, California 5.0% (D) $81.9 32.9% 67.1% 1 .6% Modoc County, California 22.1% 3.3% $1 12.1 33.3% 66.7% 7.4% Churchill County, Nevada 2.3% (D) $69.4 82.8% 1 7.2% 1 .9% Elko County, Nevada 1 .4% (D) $63.6 96.6% 3.4% 1 .4% Eureka County, Nevada 1 .2% (D) $24.1 37.3% 62.7% 0.4% Humboldt County, Nevada 3.8% (D) $80.8 41.6% 58.4% 1 .6% Lander County, Nevada 2.3% (D) $19.2 52.6% 47.4% 1 .2% Lincoln County, Nevada 0.9% (D) $16.6 54.3% 45.7% 0.5% Nye County, Nevada 3.1% (D) $64.2 95.0% 5.0% 2.9% Pershing County, Nevada 7.7% (D) $42.6 53.4% 46.6% 4.1% Washoe County, Nevada 0.0% (D) $20.9 47.2% 52.8% 0.0% White Pine County, Nevada 1 .6% (D) $17.2 77.0% 23.0% 1 .2% 3 All dollar values were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a). Please note that farm cash receipts vary considerably from year to year and that the primary purpose of the table is to highlight relative, representative shares of earnings and the relative importance of crops and livestock. Chapter 2 A ffected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 577 Geographic Area Farm Earnings as Share of All Earnings Agriculture and Forestry Support Activities Earnings as Share of All Earnings1 Farm Cash Receipts (Millions) Share of Farm Cash Receipts from Livestock Share of Farm Cash Receipts from Crops Estimated Share of Earnings from Livestock3 Socioeconomic Study Area 1.1% 3.3% $612.6 57.4% 42.6% 0.6% California 1 .2% 0.5% $38,176.9 27.7% 72.3% 0.3% Nevada 0.2% 0.0% $556.5 60.7% 39.3% 0.1% Sources: Headwaters Economics 2012; BEA 2012a. Values reported in 2001 dollars were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2012a). 'This division is the finest resolution of data provided by the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis that includes agricultural services. 2(D) indicates that the value is not released to the public by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, to avoid disclosure of confidential information. Calculated by multiplying the share of farm earnings by the share of cash receipts from livestock. Table 3-78 shows that the relative contribution of farm earnings varies substantially across the counties in the socioeconomic study area and that the share of farm earnings is greatest in Modoc County (22.1 percent), Pershing County (7.7 percent), and Lassen County (5.0 percent). Farm earnings in all other counties in the socioeconomic study area made up less than four percent of total earnings. Table 3-78 also shows that the relative contribution of farm earnings from livestock varies substantially across the counties in the socioeconomic study area and that the share of farm earnings from livestock is greatest in Elko County (96.6 percent), Nye County (95.0 percent), Churchill County (82.8 percent), and White Pine County (77.0). Farm earnings from livestock in all other counties in the socioeconomic study area made up less than 54.3 percent of the total farm earnings. The right-most column of Table 3-78 combines the information on relative contribution from livestock with the information on farm earnings as a share of all earnings. This should be interpreted as an approximate measure; even so, it is useful to identify counties in which livestock grazing contributes the greatest portion of overall earnings: Modoc in California, and Pershing and Nye in Nevada. Table 3-79, Active and Billed Animal Unit Months (AUMs), provides information on active and billed AUMs on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered land for each of the BLM field offices and National Forest areas. The estimated gross receipts data in the table are calculated from data from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which publishes annual gross receipts for cow-calf operations for different production regions across the country (USDA ERS 2012). Gross receipts reflect the sales value for output from cow-calf operations. The BLM calculated a ten-year inflation-adjusted average value per cow-calf operation from the Economic Research Service budgets, then converted that information to a per-AUM figure based on average forage requirements for a cow, including other livestock (e.g., bulls and replacement heifers) that are needed to support the production from the cow (Workman 1986). Based on these calculations, the BLM estimates that ten-year average gross receipts in the socioeconomic study area come to $50.24 per AUM (2010 dollars), which is reflected in the table below. Because sheep are a small share of the livestock, any difference in gross receipts between cow and sheep operations have little impact on the overall receipt estimates. September, ; 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 578 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement The data in the table help to demonstrate the importance of livestock grazing throughout the socioeconomic study area, although there is more grazing on federal lands in some counties than in others. For example, the importance of grazing on federal lands in Elko County is supported by Table 3-79 (Tuscarora and Wells Field Offices) and existing studies (e.g., Alevy et al. 2007). Between 2000 and 201 1, billed AUMs decreased by approximately 20.4 percent on BLM-administered lands in the planning area and by approximately 3.6 percent on the portion of Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in the planning area. Billed AUMs fluctuate considerably, and grazing has actually increased in some areas during Chapter 3 Ajfected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Table 3.79. Active and Billed Animal Unit Months (AUMs) Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 579 Gross Receipts (millions) $2.6 °o ci $8.6 $2.6 $7.4 $14.0 $12.6 o o $2.9 $5.1 $4.4 $6.7 $18.7 $16.1 $13.9 Acres per AUM 8.8 33.5 29.5 19.2 24.5 26.5 17.3 12.4 19.9 38.6 16.5 45.4 8.0 rei N/A Allotments 138 97 53 64 95 60 r- 42 36 49 rn 142 97 N/A Other (%) 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Sheep (%) 0% 6% 3% 10% 24% 4% xO O'" 43% 12% 0% 5% 0% 2% 8% 21% Cattle (%) 100% 94% 96% 90% 75% 96% 89% NO O' r- to N© O' OC OO 99% 95% 100% 97% 92% 79% Billed (2011) 30,185 51,580 53,776 32,531 58,076 195,806 182,630 83,623 30,409 60,925 64,828 85,800 239,593 216,229 234,786 % Billed (2011) 58% 93% 32% 63% 39% 70% 73% 42% 53% 60% 74% 64% 64% 67% 85% Active (2011 ) OO ON 0% 55,619 170,614 51,958 147,479 279,331 250,371 199,641 57,560 101,117 87,857 134,092 372,320 320,578 276,191 Geographic Area Alturas Field Office Black Rock Field Office Caliente Field Office Eagle Lake Field Office Euan Field Office Humboldt River Field Office Mount Lewis Field Office Schell Field Office Sierra Front Field Office Stillwater Field Office Surprise Field Office Tonopah Field Office Tuscarora Field Office Wells Field Office Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 580 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 581 this period (e.g.. Wells Field Office). It is important to remember, as well, that the data are only for forage values on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered land; forage on other public lands, and private lands, contribute additional values to the socioeconomic study area, as well as fiscal revenues. The economic analysis of the alternatives, presented in Chapter 4, addresses additional indirect contributions of livestock grazing (as well as other resource uses) to the regional economy and compares impacts of the alternatives with one another. this period (e.g., Wells Field Office). It is important to remember, as well, that the data are only for forage values on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered land; forage on other public lands, and private lands, contribute additional values to the socioeconomic study area, as well as fiscal revenues. The economic analysis of the alternatives, presented in Chapter 4, addresses additional indirect contributions of livestock grazing (as well as other resource uses) to the regional economy and compares impacts of the alternatives with one another. In addition to contributing additional forage for raising livestock, making public lands available for grazing provides additional benefits to the holders of federal permits. Research has demonstrated that in most cases, grazing permits increase the property value of the ranch holding the permit. Various factors have been explored to explain this effect. Significantly, the research has found that the added forage and relatively low permit fees for grazing on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands do not entirely explain the increase in property value associated with the permit itself. Research has found that the added acreage associated with a public land permit is perceived as adding semi-private open space to the property and thus increases the value of the ranch. Examples of this research include Rimbey et al. (2007) and Torell et al. (2005). However, since the federal government retains ownership of the lands, it should be noted that any premium to property values is a result of amenity perception rather than ownership, since any public land grazing permit is associated with publicly, not privately, owned land. Forestry and Wood Products Timber-related industries in the socioeconomic study area employed over 655 people in 2010, approximately 0.3 percent of total employment, according to the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns. No county had more than 50 timber jobs, except for Washoe County, which had 597, making up 90 percent of the socioeconomic study area’s timber labor force. These estimates include both full- and part-time jobs and reflect three timber-related industries: growing and harvesting, sawmills and paper mills, and wood products manufacturing. The share of timber-related jobs in the socioeconomic study area (0.3 percent) was 0.5 percentage points lower than the national average of 0.7 percent (Headwaters Economics 2012). Average annual earnings for timber-related jobs tend to be higher than for non-timber jobs. However, the average annual wage per timber related job in the socioeconomic study area in 2010 was $39,532 (2010 dollars), compared to $41,840 for non-timber jobs. Collection of wildlings (live transplants) and woody biomass, cutting of Christmas trees, and use of wood for posts are all allowed on BLM-administered lands with a permit or through purchase. Permits are also available on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands for collection of firewood. The collection of pinyon pine nuts and campfire wood are also allowed (BLM 201 2o). Renewable Energy Resources September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 582 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement There is one active solar energy project in the Battle Mountain portion of the planning area, in Nye County, with production of approximately 110 megawatts anticipated for 2013 (BLM 201 lj). There is also a solar power plant located in Churchill County, Nevada, which is forecasted to produce 43 million kilowatt-hours of energy per year (ENEL Green Power 2013). There are four wind projects in the monitoring stage in the Battle Mountain portion of the planning area. Meteorological towers are located in Nye County, Esmeralda County, and Lander County (BLM 201 lj). Currently, at least eight project areas have been proposed for wind energy development in the Ely planning area, but these are still in the wind energy monitoring phase (BLM 2007d; BLM 2013c). There has been some interest in developing wind energy within the Winnemucca planning area. Current activity includes placement of meteorological towers (BLM 2010d). BLM deferred the final decision on a proposed commercial-scale wind energy project, located in part in Elko County, until the completion of the GRSG LUPA/EIS process (BLM 201 2q). As of April 2013, there were two wind testing projects authorized by the BLM in the Eagle Lake Field Office and a development project waiting for authorization. In the Surprise Field Office there were three wind testing projects authorized and one additional testing project waiting for authorization (BLM 2013c). Geothermal resources in Nevada provide an important economic contributor to the state; by some estimates, the geothermal industry in Nevada could be worth up to $22.5 billion over the next 30 years, and 86 planned or developing geothermal power plants in Nevada have the potential to add nearly 3,700 megawatts of power, enough to power 2.6 million homes (Geothermal Energy Association 2010). According to the Geothermal Energy Association (a trade association), 20 recipients in Nevada were awarded a combined $73.6 million in Department of Energy funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other appropriations. The Geothermal Energy Association reports that as of 2010, the State of Nevada had generated over $44 million from BLM geothermal leasing activities, and that the State of Nevada and counties with geothermal resources should receive an additional $12.9 million from recent (as of 2010) BLM leases. According to the trade association, this could create significant economic activity for rural counties with geothermal resources, as well as environmental benefits from corresponding reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (Geothermal Energy Association 2010). Table 3-80, Geothermal Electrical Generation: Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources, FY201 1, provides sales volume and sales value for geothermal resources managed by the BLM, using data from the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). The data underscore the importance of geothermal resources on BLM-administered resources in Churchill County, in particular. Table 3.80. Geothermal Electrical Generation: Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011 Comity Sales Volume (kWh) Sales Value (Millions) Churchill 734,107,309 $33.9 Eureka 3,131,249 $0.1 Humboldt 1 10,920,485 $8.7 Lander 54,289,404 $2.2 Pershing 27,597,213 $0 Washoe 89,784,995 $1.3 Total 1,019,830,655 $46.2 Source: ONRR 2012 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 583 As of 2007, the Battle Mountain planning area had 86 authorized geothermal leases eovering 97,005 acres, two pending geothermal applications covering 12,137 acres, one recently permitted plan of development for geothermal leasing, and one existing geothermal plant. About 20 percent of the lands within the Battle Mountain District are potentially valuable geothermal resource areas, located mainly in the Esmeralda and Lander Counties. Pending lease application sites cover less than one percent of the potentially valuable lands and are located in Nye County and Lander Counties (BLM 201 lj). There are no known geothermal resource areas in the Ely planning area and only one active geothermal lease (BLM 2007d). In the Elko planning area, the Beowawe geothermal power station (Eureka County) started producing energy in 2006 (NV Energy 2013), and the 32-megawatt Tuscarora project (Elko County) was completed in 2012 (Ormat 2012). Geothermal energy resource exploration and development has increased in the Winnemucca planning area. As of 2006, there were 109 geothermal leases, 5 pending geothermal applications, and 6 Known Geothermal Resource Areas within the planning area. Two large and one small geothermal exploration projects were permitted in 2006 and 2007. In addition, there were three power plants and two vegetable dehydration plants in operation within the planning area, ranging in generation capacity from 5.8 to 30 megawatts (BLM 201 Od). In the Eagle Lake planning area. Honey Lake Power, which is located in Lassen County, is currently using a combination of biomass resources and geothermal sources in the Wendel-Amadee Known Geothermal Resource Area to generate up to 30 megawatts of electrical power per year (Greenleaf Power 2013; BLM 2007e). In the near future, at least one other geothermal facility will likely be developed in the Known Geothermal Resource Area (BLM 2007e). Although geothermal leasing is encouraged, activity is sporadic to nonexistent in the Surprise planning area (BLM 20071). In many areas there are warm springs used for pools, spas, and space heating (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2000). Biomass technology is currently being used in the Ely planning area for heating one of the White Pine County schools (BLM 2007d). As previously noted, the Honey Lake Power Plant, in Lassen County, is a cogeneration biomass and geothermal plant (Greenleaf Power 2013; BLM 2007f). The BLM is currently cooperating with Modoc County on a biomass study area for use of juniper for biomass fuel (BLM 20 1 2r), and other individual projects for use of biomass are under development in Modoc County. As previously mentioned, collection of firewood is allowed on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands with a permit. Although use of wood for heating is relatively low among households (1.8 percent in California and 1.3 percent in Nevada; US Census Bureau 201 1), its use can be much more important in rural areas. In Modoc County, 37.5 percent of households use wood as heating fuel and in Lassen County, 30.1 percent do so (US Census Bureau 2011). Census data show that wood for heating grew faster between 2000 and 2010 than other heating fuels and is more likely to be relied upon by low and middle income families (Alliance for Green Heat 2011). Mining and Minerals The overall value of mineral and energy production in Nevada reached an all-time high of $7.72 billion in 2010. Nevada led the nation in the production of gold, barite, and gypsum, and was the only state that produced magnesite, lithium, and two types of specialty clays, sepiolite and saponite (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010). Locatable minerals (such as gold and September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 584 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement gypsum) may occur on private or public lands. Those under federal lands (and those owned by the federal government under private or state lands) require the establishment and maintenance of a mining claim (and payment of maintenance fees). In 2010, Nevada’s production of gold, valued at $6.5 billion, was 73 percent of the total gold production in the United States, helping to make the United States the third largest gold producer in the world. Nevada alone accounted for 7 percent of world production of gold. Gold mining is heavily located in the northern and central part of the state, particularly Elko, Eureka, and Lander Counties. In 2010, Nevada’s largest gold operations included Barrick Gold Corporation’s mines (1.2 million ounces) and Newmont Mining Corporation’s mines (0.9 million ounces) on the Carlin trend in Eureka and Elko Counties; Barrick Gold Corporation’s Pipeline and Cortez Hills mines (1.1 million ounces) in Lander County; Newmont’s Twin Creeks mine (0.45 million ounces) in Humboldt County; and the Kinross-Barrick Smoky Valley joint venture Round Mountain mine (0.4 million ounces) in Nye County. Combined, Barrick and Newmont accounted for 81 percent of Nevada gold production in 2010 (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010). In counties with relatively small populations (e.g.. Eureka), smaller mines can be of particular importance due to the share of the labor force employed. Nevada’s silver production in 2010, which totaled 7.36 million ounces, was generally a co-product or byproduct of gold mining and was produced at a value of $149 million. Nevada’s silver production in 2010 accounted for 18 percent of the US total and 1 percent of the world total. With a ratio of value (i.e., average price of gold to average price of silver) of 61:1 in 2010, only those deposits with more than 61 times as much silver as gold can be considered primary silver deposits. Only one such deposit, the Coeur Rochester Mine in Pershing County, was being mined in Nevada in 2010, with a silver-to-gold production ratio of 210:1 and total silver production of 2.0 million ounces. The Coeur Rochester Mine produced 27 percent of Nevada’s silver in 2010 (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010). Other mineral production values in Nevada in 2010 include the following: copper, $438 million; barite, $49 million; gypsum, $12 million; and petroleum, $27 million (Natural Resource Industry Institute 2011; Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010). In 2010, Nevada’s copper production was dominated by the Robinson copper-gold-silver- molybdenum mine, operated by Quadra Mining Ltd. near Ely in White Pine County. Byproduct copper was also produced at Newmont’s Phoenix project near Battle Mountain in Lander County. One major contributor to the production of molybdenum in Nevada in 2010 was the Golden Phoenix’s Ashdown Mine in northwestern Humboldt County, producing approximately 350 thousand pounds valued at $5.6 million (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2010). Table 3-81, Oil Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011, provides sales volume and sales value for oil resources managed by the BLM, underscoring the importance of oil resources in Nye County, in particular. Table 3.81. Oil Sales Volume and Sales Value from BLM-Administered Resources, FY2011 County Sales Volume (bbl) Sales Value (Millions) Eureka 41,362 $3.6 Nye 369,908 $29.8 Total 411,270 $33.4 Source: ONRR 2012 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 585 Table 3-82, Mining Sector Employment by County, provides data on the number of jobs in the mining sector by county within the Socioeconomic Study Area. Table 3.82. Mining Sector Employment by County Geographic Area Number of Jobs Percentage of Total Employment Lassen County, California 2 0.1% Modoc County, California 72 5.3% Churchill County, Nevada 75 1 .4% Elko County, Nevada 4,203 22.2% Eureka County, Nevada 769 76.9% Humboldt County, Nevada 1,949 3 1 .7% Lander County, Nevada 309 24.3% Lincoln County, Nevada 26 4.2% Nye County, Nevada 755 10.8% Pershing County, Nevada 226 24.5% Washoe County, Nevada 354 0.2% White Pine County, Nevada 880 35.1% Socioeconomic Study Area 9,620 4.5% California 21,425 0.2% Nevada 10,922 1.1% US 581,582 0.5% Source: Headwaters Economics 2012 Mineral production in the socioeconomic study area employed approximately 9,620 people in 2010, making up 4.5 percent of total employment, which is 4 percentage points higher than the national average of 0.5 percent (Headwaters Economics 2012). This estimate is based on data from the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns and a selection of industrial sectors that includes oil and gas extraction, coal mining, metals mining, nonmetallic minerals mining, and other mining-related industries. The estimate includes both full- and part-time jobs. It is shown here because it has fewer data gaps (data not disclosed for confidentiality reasons, estimated here by Headwaters Economics 2012) than the data provided in Appendix N, Non-Market Valuation Methods. Appendix N, Table N-l shows Bureau of Economic Analysis data for comparison. Though the proportion of employment associated with mining industries varied by county, every county had some percentage of employment coming from a mining industry. The lowest percentages of mining employment were found in Lassen County (0.1 percent) and Washoe County (0.2 percent), and the highest percentages of mining employment were found in Eureka County (76.9 percent). White Pine County (35.1 percent), and Humboldt County (31.7 percent). The percentage of mining employment on total employment in Eureka and Elko Counties does not appropriately capture the fact that many of those employed in the mining sector in Eureka County actually reside in Elko County, which is also an important service area for mining activities in nearby counties (Elko County 2003; Learning 2010). In 2010 in Nevada, the average annual earnings per mining-related job were substantially higher than the average annual earnings per non-mining job: $83,377 (2010 dollars) compared to $39,369 (Headwaters Economics 2012). Other Values Public lands provide a range of goods and services that benefit society in a variety of ways. Some of these goods and services, such as timber and minerals, are bought and sold in markets, and September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 586 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement hence have a readily observed economic value (as documented in the sections above); others have a less clear connection to market activity, even though society derives benefits from them. In some cases, goods and services have both a market and a non-market component value to society. This section provides an overview of several “non-market” values described through a qualitative and quantitative economic valuation analysis. The non-market values associated with public lands can be classified as values that derive from direct or indirect use (e.g., recreation) and those that do not derive from use, such as existence values held by the general public from self-sustaining populations of GRSG. This section and the related appendix describe the use and non-use economic values associated with recreation, populations of GRSG, and land that is currently used for livestock grazing and ranch operations. The sections that follow discuss each of these values in turn. Appendix N provides more discussion of the concepts and measurement of use and non-use non-market values. It is important to note that these non-market values are not directly comparable to previous sections that describe output (sales or expenditures) and jobs associated with various resource uses on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands (see Appendix N for more information). Values Associated with Recreation Actions that promote the conservation of GRSG habitat may result in changes in recreation activity, by changing opportunities or access for different recreational activities. Opportunities for some activities such as wildlife viewing may increase as the amount of habitat may increase for species that depend on public lands, including GRSG. Analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, addresses this issue for each of the management alternatives. This section documents baseline non-market values visitors receive associated with recreation activities. This is measured by what economists call consumer surplus, which refers to the additional value that visitors receive over and above the price they pay. Appendix N provides an explanation of consumer surplus. Fees to use public lands for recreation are typically very low or non-existent, so the value people place on public land recreation opportunities is not fully measured simply by the entrance fees people pay. Economists estimate the consumer surplus from recreation by measuring how the variation in visitors’ travel costs corresponds to the number of visits taken. This “travel cost method” has been developed extensively in academic literature and is used by federal agencies in economic analyses; the method is explained more fully in Appendix N. Conducting original travel cost method studies can be time-consuming and expensive; for this project, the BLM and Forest Service relied on estimates of consumer surplus from prior recreation studies in the same geographic region, using an established scientific method called “benefit transfer.” Based on the studies reviewed and cited in Appendix N, visitors to natural areas, such as lands managed by the BLM and Forest Service, gain values (in excess of their direct trip cost) ranging from approximately $32 per day for camping to about $175 per day for mountain biking. To calculate the aggregate “consumer surplus” value of recreation in the study area, the BLM multiplied this per-day value of recreation by the estimated number of visitor days associated with each activity type. Visitation estimates by activity are derived based on the BLM RMIS database and the Forest Service NVUM for the study area. Accounting for the value per day and the number of days, the total non-market value of recreation on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in the study area was estimated to be about $285 million per year (see Appendix N for details). Based on the quantity of recreational Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 587 trips and the economic value of each type of activity, the largest annual non-market values are associated with hunting, camping, OHV use, hiking, and pleasure driving. These categories omit downhill skiing, because there is little or no overlap between GRSG habitat and lands used for downhill skiing. Analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, addresses how recreational visits and total non-market value for recreation may change under the alternatives being considered. Values Associated with Populations of Sage-Grouse The existence and perseverance of the ESA and similar acts reflects the values held by the American public associated with preventing species from going extinct. Economists have long recognized that rare, threatened, and endangered species have economic values beyond those associated with active use through viewing. This is supported by legal decisions and technical analysis (see Appendix N for details), as well as a number of conceptual and empirical publications that refine concepts and develop methods to measure these non-use or existence values. The dominant method uses surveys to construct or simulate a market or referendum for protection of areas of habitat, or changes in populations of species. The survey asks the respondent to indicate whether they would pay for an increment of protection, and if so how much they would pay. Economists have developed increasingly sophisticated survey methods for non-use value over the last two decades to improve the accuracy of this method. Appendix N offers an in-depth discussion of this method of value estimation. Original surveys to estimate non-use values are complex and time-consuming; rather than perform a new survey, the BLM and Forest Service reviewed existing literature to determine if there were existing non-use value studies for GRSG. No existing studies on valuation specific to GRSG were found. However, there are several studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, for bird species that the BLM judged to have similar characteristics with GRSG, including being a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered and being a hunted species. These studies find average stated willingness to pay of between $15 and $58 per household per year in order to restore a self-sustaining population or prevent regional extinction (see Appendix N for details). These values represent a mix of use and non-use values, but the non-use components of value are likely to be the majority share, since the studies primarily address species that are not hunted. Since GRSG protection is a public good available to all households throughout the intermountain west, if similar per-household values apply to the species the aggregate regional existence value could be substantial. Values Associated with Grazing Land Public land managed for livestock grazing provides both market values (e.g., forage for livestock) and non-market values, including open space and western ranch scenery, which provide value to some residents and outside visitors, and may also provide some value to the non-using public (e.g., the cultural icon of the American cowboy). Many people who ranch for a living or who otherwise choose to live on ranches value the ranching lifestyle in excess of the income generated by the ranching operations. This could be seen as a non-market value associated with livestock grazing. On the other hand, some residents and visitors perceive non-market opportunity costs associated with livestock grazing. Although some scholars and policy makers have discussed non-market values associated with livestock grazing, the process for incorporating these values into analyses of net public benefits remains uncertain, and the BLM and Forest Service did not attempt to quantify these values for the present study. September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 588 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Furthermore, some of the lifestyle value of ranching is likely to be captured in markets, such as through the property values of ranches adjacent to public lands with historic leases or permits for grazing on public land. Economists typically use a method called the hedonic price method to estimate values associated with particular amenities; this method may be used to explain the factors that influence the observed sale prices of ranch land. Appendix N provides more information about this method, as well as additional information to address potential non-market values associated with grazing. Fiscal Nevada has no corporate or personal income taxes and is a right-to-work state4. California receives approximately 85 percent of its own-source revenue from four sources: personal income tax, sales and use tax, corporate tax, and major motor vehicle-related levies (California Legislative Analyst’s Office 2007). Though California does not impose a statewide severance tax, there is a small statewide assessment on oil and gas produced in California. The assessment rate is established each year and is imposed on each barrel of oil and each 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas produced. The assessment rate for FY 2010 was $0.0880312 (California Department of Conservation 2010). Nevada’s counties receive roughly a third of their revenues from local taxes, a third from intergovernmental transfers from the state government, and a third from charges for services and utility revenues. Transfers from federal governments contribute approximately 5 percent of county revenues. Property taxes account for roughly three-quarters of local tax receipts, with much of the rest collected through sales taxes (US Census Bureau 2010d). Public elementary and secondary schools received, in 2008-2009, approximately 60 percent of their resources from local sources (property taxes and other), 30 percent from state sources and 10 percent from federal funds (National Center for Education Statistics 2012). In California, counties receive a little over 40 percent of their revenues from intergovernmental transfers (mostly from the state), 30 percent from local taxes, and the rest from charges for services and utility revenues. Transfers from federal governments contribute approximately 5 percent of county revenues. California charges a property tax on possessory interests (private interests on public lands) such as grazing on public lands (California State Board of Equalization 2012). In Nevada, property taxes account for roughly three-quarters of local tax receipts, with much of the rest being collected through sales taxes (US Census Bureau 201 Od). Public elementary and secondary school received funding for 2008-2009 from 57 percent state sources, 30 percent local sources (mostly property taxes), and 13 percent federal funds (National Center for Education Statistics 2012). Federal payments to states, counties, and public schools associated to the presence of federal lands in Nevada and California include Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Forest Service revenue transfers, federal mineral royalties and fees for grazing, recreation, and rents on ROWs. Payments in Lieu of Taxes are federal government payments based on the presence of all federal lands (not just BLM-administered lands) within each county. Table 3-83, Payments in Lieu of Taxes Received in the Socioeconomic Study Area by County, 2010, shows the PILT payments each county received in 2010. The non-taxable status of federal lands is of interest to local governments, which must provide public safety and other services to county residents. BLM revenue-sharing programs provide resources to local governments in lieu of property taxes 4 States where employment may not require membership in labor unions or payment of fees to labor unions. Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 589 because local governments cannot tax federally owned lands the way they would if the land were privately owned. PILT payments have been reauthorized by Congress since 1976, and values vary between authorization cycles (DOI 2012). Full funding of PILT depends on legislation (e.g., between FY 2008 and FY 2013), without which it is an appropriated program that may be less than fully funded (NACO 2013). Table 3.83. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Received in the Socioeconomic Study Area by County, 2010 Geographic Area PILT (Thousands of dollars)1 Lassen County, California $1,092 Modoc County, California $572 Churchill County, Nevada $2,089 Elko County, Nevada $2,649 Eureka County, Nevada $275 Humboldt County, Nevada $1,641 Lander County, Nevada $806 Lincoln County, Nevada $773 Nye County, Nevada $2,810 Pershing County, Nevada $906 Washoe County, Nevada $3,198 White Pine County, Nevada $1,108 Socioeconomic Study Area $17,918 Source: DOI 2012 'Includes payments received from BLM, forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and USLWS. Since 1908, the Forest Service pays 25 percent of its receipts to states for use on roads and schools in the counties where national forests are located. The decline in the sale of timber from federal lands over time has led to the decline in these payments. Although the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 has attempted to limit this decline (Congressional Research Service 2012), this legislation expires at the end of the current fiscal year (i.e., September 2013). There is the potential for decreases in payments to states, should legislation for Secure Rural Schools or similar support fail to be reauthorized; uncertainty remains about reauthorization of this legislation or funding for 2014, and in years beyond 2014. In Fiscal Year 2012, Nevada received approximately $3.6 million in Forest Service payments (Forest Service 2013e). Federal mineral royalties are typically paid on leasable minerals, with a portion redistributed to states and counties. Locatable minerals do not pay federal royalties. Extraction of locatable minerals from federal lands does pay state sales and use taxes. Nevada also charges a 5-percent net proceeds of mines tax on locatable minerals, which is distributed between the Nevada General Funds and the counties from which the minerals were extracted (Nevada Mining Association 2010). BLM and Forest Service Expenditures and Employment BLM and Forest Service offices provide a direct contribution to the economy of the local and surrounding area. BLM and Forest Service operations and management make direct contributions to area economic activity by employing people who reside within the area and by spending on project related goods and services. Contracts for facilities maintenance, shuttling vehicles, and projects contribute directly to the area economy and social stability. Table 3-84, BLM September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 590 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Employment and Related Expenditures in the Socioeconomic Study Area, provides available information on the BLM and Forest Service expenditures, including both labor and non-labor expenditures. En vironmental Justice Environmental justice pertains to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the adverse environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies (BLM 2005a). The BLM incorporates environmental justice into its planning process, both as a consideration in the environmental effects analysis and by ensuring a meaningful role in the decision-making process for minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to “identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a) reiterates BLM’s commitment to environmental justice - both in providing meaningful opportunities for low-income, minority, and Tribal populations to participate in decision-making, and to identify and minimize any disproportionately high or adverse impacts on these populations. Table 3.84. BLM Employment and Related Expenditures in the Socioeconomic Study Area Agency Office Employment, 2011 (FTEs) Non-labor Expenditures, 2011 (2010 dollars) BLM Alturas Field Office 27.9 $951,520 Eagle Lake Field Office 47.1 $2,317,077 Surprise Field Office 30.8 $764,032 Battle Mountain District Office 39.7 $4,871,061 Mountain Lewis Field Office 23.5 $6,116 Tonopah Field Office 21.7 $2,887 Carson City District Office 68.8 $6,499,975 Sierra Front Field Office 21.6 $633,825 Stillwater Field Office 20.3 $345,758 Elko District Office 81.7 $5,079,293 Tuscarora Field Office 21.8 $208,103 Wells Field Office 18.7 $198,417 Ely District Office 75.6 $8,681,938 Caliente Field Office 13.8 $425,115 Egan Field Office 16.7 $666,103 Schell Field Office 20.6 $326,489 Winnemucca District Office 58.0 $5,743,305 Black Rock Field Office 7.3 $1,163,939 Humboldt River Field Office 34.8 $746,276 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 591 Agency Office Employment, 2011 (FTEs) Non-labor Expenditures, 2011 (2010 dollars) Forest Service Humboldt -Toiyabe National Forest 238 $19,421,940 Source: BLM 2012s; Forest Service 201 3f; 201 3g. Values reported in 2001 dollars (BLM) or 201 1 dollars (Forest Service) were converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 20l2a).FTE = Full-time equivalent employees (hours worked in relation to hours in a full-time schedule). According to the CEQ Environmental Justice Guidance Under the NEPA (CEQ 1997), “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected region exceeds 50 percent; or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected region is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.” The same document states that, “In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.” Additionally, the same guidance (CEQ 1997) advises that “In order to determine whether a proposed action is likely to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes, agencies should identify a geographic scale, obtain demographic information on the potential impact area, and determine if there is a disproportionately high and adverse effect onto these populations. Agencies may use demographic data available from the Bureau of the Census to identify the composition of the potentially affected population. Geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and income, as well as a delineation of tribal lands and resources, should be examined.” Minority Populations Table 3-85, Population Race and Ethnicity, 2010, summarizes the percentage of the population made up of ethnic minority groups in each county of the socioeconomic study area, as well as Nevada, California, and the United States as a whole. Each county in the socioeconomic study area has a lower minority population than California, Nevada, and the United States. All counties in the socioeconomic area have a higher Alaska Native or American Indian population than the United States as a whole. The minority population ranges from a low of 12.1 percent in Lincoln County, Nevada, to a high of 33.9 percent in Washoe County, Nevada. Low- income Populations Table 3-86, Low-Income Populations, 2006-2010 Average, summarizes the percentage of the population below poverty level in each county of the socioeconomic study area, as well as California, Nevada, and the United States as a whole. Following the Office of Management and Budget’s Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect what part of the population is considered to be in poverty (US Census Bureau 2012b). Within the economic study area, the percentage of the population below the poverty line ranges from a low of 7.1 percent in Elko County, Nevada, to a high of 18.9 in Nye County. Of the 10 Nevada counties in the socioeconomic study area, 7 counties have a higher percentages of September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 592 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement residents below the poverty line than Nevada overall (1 1.9 percent). Both California counties have a higher percentage of residents below the poverty line than California as a whole (13.7 percent). Both California and Nevada have a lower percentage of residents below the poverty line than the United States as a whole (13.8 percent). Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Table 3.85. Population Race and Ethnicity, 2010 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 593 Total Minorities2 32.4 20.9 23.4 30.9 16.3 O' 1 C 26.2 Cl 20.9 31.7 33.9 23.7 31.4 GC cK gc c- GC cb Hispanic or Latino1 17.5 13.9 12.1 22.9 12.0 24.4 a<> I? J3 « 55 X o c « ^ TO 13 jH c o — , c o s 2 w. C3 *2 .a s £ i s es < c a o Oh £ a a-g « N OJj — ' o « a* c o < a Oh £ 03 C3 O (O .a f— a a £ H a* a Oh " ,—H 1 <-> o3 CD J-H f-s •i s a -O S g o Jrj 5h O , CO c? O o a x> o o (N a a ^ o O S a o X TO X }_, g<2 u 03 H-l CD S3 .a g CD N 13 r~* 03 -0 Oh 03 Vh b0 O CD 00 CD hO £ _o H a 3 a, o a, 13 H o 13 a X o o & a & X i— 1 o 13 H* CD o a s 03 a Oh Oh C/3 C+H O o Oh 53 CD bO 3 g ' 1— | CD o £ CD o cn CD Vh 'g a (D H, Oh 13 a a cn CD o o eg rO a a 13 <1> X u O o o cr H X CD CD tN > Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 595 Table 3.86. Low-Income Populations, 2006-2010 Average Geographic Unit Analyzed Percent Population Below Poverty Level Lassen County, California 14.2 Modoc County, California 18.4 Churchill County, Nevada 8.8 Elko County, Nevada 7.1 Eureka County, Nevada 16.2 Humboldt County, Nevada 12.0 Lander County, Nevada 1 2.2 Lincoln County, Nevada 10.6 Nye County, Nevada 18.9 Pershing County, Nevada 13.7 Washoe County, Nevada 12.6 White Pine County, Nevada 15.5 Socioeconomic Study Area 12.7 California 13.7 Nevada 11.9 United States 13.8 Source: US Census Bureau 20 1 Od To ascertain whether there are disproportionate effects of the alternatives on low-income populations, data on effects by each alternative will be reviewed and reported in Chapter 4. Tribal Populations In 2010, Nevada’s Native American population was approximately 32,000, and Washoe County had the largest Native American population of all the counties in the socioeconomic study area (approximately 7,000 people; US Census Bureau 2010b). There are 32 reservations and colonies in Nevada belonging to the tribes listed in Table 3-87, Federally Recognized Tribes of Nevada (Nevada Indian Territory 2012). Table 3.87. Federally Recognized Tribes of Nevada1 Tribe In Primary Study Area Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe Yes Duckwater Shoshone Tribe Yes Ely Shoshone Tribe Yes Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe Yes Ft. McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe Yes Ft. Mojave Tribe No Confederated Tribes of Goshute Yes Las Vegas Paiute Tribe No Lovelock Indian Colony Yes Moapa Band of Paiutes No Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Yes Reno Sparks Indian Colony Yes Hungry Valley Community Yes Summit Lake Paiute Tribe Yes Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Yes Battle Mountain Band Yes Elko Band Yes South Fork Band Yes September, 2013 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 596 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Tribe In Primary Study Area Wells Band Yes Timbisha Shoshone Tribe No Walker River Paiute Tribe No Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California No Carson Indian Colony No Dresslerville Indian Colony No Stewart Indian Colony No Woodfords Indian Colony No Winnemucca Colony Council Yes Yerington Paiute Tribe Yes Yomba Shoshone Tribe Yes Source: Nevada Indian Territory 2012 'There are no additional state-recognized tribes in Nevada (NCSL 2013). In California, Lassen County is home to the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and Modoc County is home to the Alturas Rancheria, Cedarville Rancheria, Fort Bidwell Reservation, and Pit River Tribe of California (BIA 2012). Several Native American tribes and groups in Nevada and California have historically used GRSG as a food source, including at least the Achumawi, Western Shoshone, Northern Paiute, and Washoe (Heizer 1978; D’Azevedo 1986). See Section 3.17, Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns), for further details. Chapter 3 Affected Environment September, 2013 Historic Greater Sage-Grouse Range i Ituras, Cedarville Winnemucca Elko y‘%: Ml /■ Susanville ) Battle Mountain % Reno Tonopah — — Nevada and northeastern California 8 — 1 planning area County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Manier etal. 2013 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_SGHistoricRange_V03_02.pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Miles Historic range Preliminary priority and general habitat Figure 3-1 Preliminary Priority and General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat and WAFWA Management Zones Alturas, Cedan/ille] Winnemucca Battle Mountain Susmuillei Reno ’ Tonopah — — Nevada and northeastern California — 1 planning area Bureau of Land Management (BLM) USDA Forest Service (USFS) USFS non-priority forest Other land management County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013. Manier et al. 2013 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_PPH_PGH_WAFVm_V03C_02.pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Las Vegas Miles Preliminary priority habitat Preliminary general habitat Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' (WAFWA) Management Zone Figure 3-2 Population/Subpopulation Management Units and WAFWA Management Zones North Central Nevada Klamath (CA) \lturas. Cecjan/ille yWnnemueca\\~ ur\/£ Lake Area: \Northeastern CA/ v# Northwestern NV V < Battle Mountain Northwestern Interior SiTsanville V/ Warm Springs Galley Reboi Quinn v Range Tonopah South Central OR/ North Central Nevada 9 X' T ~ — — Nevada and northeastern California 8 — J planning area Bureau of Land Management (BLM) USDA Forest Service (USFS) USFS non-priority forest Other land management County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013. Mamer etal. 2013 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_SG PopP M U_V03 _02 . pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 0 No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, L reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Las Vegas Miles □ Population/subpopulation managment unit □ Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' (WAFWA) Management Zone Figure 3-3 Occupied Habitat ilturas. Ceaa'wili& Winnemucca Battle.Mountain Susmv.ille, Rena Tonopah Las Miles - - Nevada and northeastern California 1 — J planning area Bureau of Land Management (BLM) USDA Forest Service (USFS) USFS non-priority forest Other land management County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Manier etal. 2013 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_OccHabitat_V03_02.pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Occupied habitat Figure 3-4 Areas with a High Probability of Cheatgrass Occurrence i Ituras, Cedarvillc Winnemucca Battle Mountain Susanville Reno Tonopah Las Vegas Miles — — Nevada and northeastern California ! — J planning area County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Manier et al. 2013 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_Cheatgrass_V03_02.pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. High cheatgrass probability Preliminary priority and general habitat Preliminary priority and general habitat with high cheatgrass probability Figure 3-5 Fire History 2000-2012 Alturas, Ccdarville HP Winnemucca ■ j Elko Battle.Mountain SusanviiM Reno Tonopah Nevada and northeastern California planning area County BLM and Forest Service GIS.2013. Maftier et'al. 2013 September 15, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_FireHistory_V03_02.j9df f y Bureau of Land Management __ Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Stra fe gw ""No warranty is made by the BLM as -to the aEcura^y, ' reliability, or completeness of these data fontrdividual use or aggregate use with other data. 2000 - 2003 2004 - 2006 2007 - 2009 2010 - 2012 Preliminary priority and general habitat Figure 3-6 Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas, Herd Management Areas, and Territories l Ituras, Cedarville ] : :■ tWi# T'y.-W 5&I A/innemucca Battle Mountain Susanvml Reno Tonopab — Nevada and northeastern California J planning area County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013. Mamer etal. 2013 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_WH B_V03_02 .pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Miles BLM Herd Area BLM Herd Management Area USFS Wild Horse and Burro Territory Preliminary priority and general habitat within BLM Herd Area Preliminary priority and general habitat within USFS Wild Horse Territory Figure 3-9 Areas with Sagebrush and Pinyon Juniper Conifer Interface *■**£*: mgm^ | •+■ Aiturasj I . Jgi ^ i Cefiawille. L L ' — — Nevada and northeastern California 1 — J planning area County -_OR ID NEVADA 'CALIFORNI/ V CA UT \ \ AZ BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Mamer etal. 20,13 • ; J:>' September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_SB_PJ_V03_02 pdf. Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office , National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning StcategJ:-/ 0 No warranty is made by the BLM as to the a§cujl£j;;vf; reliability, or completeness of these data for iW%tiuah use or aggregate use with other data. K Sagebrush and pinyon-juniper conifer interface Preliminary priority and general habitat Figure 3-10 Areas with High Fire Probability iWurasi Cedarville Wmnemucca [B attie Mountain Susanville Reno Tonopah Nevada and northeastern California planning area County BLM and Forest Service 3 GtS:26l3, Maoieret al. 2013 {September 08. 2013 TlVCA_SG_AE_FireProbabiliM03_ Bureau of Land Management KjjWf^aState Office BfihJ&Greater Sage-GrousdM^H itoPwa^gnty is rrB8e by the BteM.as t reliability, or cofnpleteness of tlje.be d; ■fitoraggregS? use with Miles High fire probability Preliminary priority and general habitat Preliminary priority and general habitat with high fire probability Figure 3-1 1 Existing Lands Open to Livestock Grazing Alturas, Cedah/i liei Winnemucca Battle Mountain Susanville ■ Rend Tonopah OR — — Nevada and northeastern California s — J planning area County OR _ _ _ ID NEVA D A 'CALIFORNIA X rv ,UT CA vn BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Manier et al. 2013 September 15, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_grz_V03_02 pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 0 No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, L reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Miles BLM and USFS grazing allotment open to grazing Preliminary priority and general habitat outside grazing allotments BLM unallotted i Preliminary priority and general habitat within grazing allotments USFS unallotted Figure 3-12 Renewable Energy Alturas, Cedarville Wlnnemucca Battle Mountain Susanv.llle Tonopah — Nevada and northeastern California J planning area County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013. Mamer et a . 201 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_RenewEnergy_V03_02.pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Miles Solar energy zones Solar areas Solar PEIS variance areas Wind energy facilities ■West-wide Energy Corridor Preliminary priority and general habitat Figure 3-13 Existing Oil and Gas Leases and Wells Winnemucca JElko Battle Mountain Susanv.ille Reno Tonopah A -i Alturasj j f • ~ | - — — Nevada and northeastern California — J planning area County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Mamer et al. 201 September 08, 2013 t NVCA_SG_AE_OGLeasesWells_V03_02 pdf > Bureau of Land Management \ Nevada State Office \ National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy U No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, tv- reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data, ) L Miles Oil and gas lease Oil and gas lease held by production •West-wide Energy Corridor Preliminary priority and general habitat Figure 3-14 Existing Geothermal Leases and Power Plants t Ituras, Cedarville Winnemucca Mountain Battle Susanv.ille Reno Tonopah Miles — — Nevada and northeastern California 3 — J planning area County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Manier etal. 201 September 08, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_GeothermalLeases_V03_02 pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, Vf reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. A Geothermal power plant “■"■“West-wide Energy Corridor 1 Geothermal lease, producing Preliminary priority and general habitat ■ Geothermal lease Figure 3-15 Special Designations and Other Important Resources ^Mturasj Cedarville Winnemucca Battle Mountain Susanville Reno Tonopah Ubr vvb wiidiite retuge NPS wilderness National Historic Trail — — Nevada and northeastern — J California planning area Bureau of Land Management (BLM) USDA Forest Service (USFS) USFS non-priority forest National Park Service Other land management County BLM and Forest Service GIS 2013, Manier eta!. 2013 September 15, 2013 NVCA_SG_AE_SpecDesig_V03_02.pdf Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office _ l i. National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 0 No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, L reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. v‘ Miles Areas of Critical Environmental Concern National Conservation Area USFS wilderness BLM wilderness BLM wilderness study area Suitable or designated Wild and Scenic River Preliminary priority and general habitat Figure 3-16 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences This page intentionally left blank Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 599 4.1. Introduction This chapter presents the direct and indirect impacts on the human and natural environment anticipated to occur from implementing the alternatives presented in Chapter 2, Alternatives. The purpose of this chapter is to describe to the decision maker and the public how the environment could change if any of the alternatives in Chapter 2 were to be implemented. It is meant to aid in the decision of which LUPA, if any, to adopt. This chapter is organized by topic, similar to Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Each topic area includes the following: • A method of analysis section that identifies indicators and assumptions • An analysis of impacts for each of the six alternatives that has been broken down by alternative • A summary comparison of the alternatives Management actions proposed in Chapter 2 are planning-level decisions that do not result in direct on-the-ground changes. However, by planning for land use on surface estate and federal mineral estate administered by the BLM and Forest Service over the life of the plan, the analysis focuses on impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground changes. Some BLM and Forest Service management actions may affect only certain resources and alternatives. This impact analysis identifies impacts that may benefit, enhance, or improve a resource or resource use as a result of management actions, as well as those impacts that have the potential to impair a resource or resource use. If an activity or action is not addressed in a given section, either no impacts are expected or the impact is expected to be negligible, based on professional judgment. Resource and resource uses that were not carried forward for detailed review and the reasons they were not carried through are included in Table 4-1, Resources and Resource Uses Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis. In general, resources and resource uses are not carried forward for further analysis if management actions would not change across the alternatives or if the effect of GRSG management actions would have neutral or positive effects. Table 4.1. Resources and Resource Uses Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis Resource/Resource Use Rationale for Not Analyzing Resource or Resource Use in Detail Fish and Wildlife Implementation of GRSG conservation measures would generally have a beneficial effect on wildlife species (See Section 4.6, Special Status Species). Specific effects would depend on location, scale, and timing of projects. These elements of a project are identified during the design and planning of specific projects. Thus, any effect on wildlife will be identified at the project design and implementation phase. Visual Resources The compliance with current LUPs’ visual resource management will depend upon location and scale of projects. The effects on visual resources will be analyzed during project planning. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Introduction 600 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Resource/ Resource Use Rationale for Not Analyzing Resource or Resource Use in Detail Special Designations (Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, National Conservation Areas, National Trails, Byways, Wild and Scenic Rivers) The LUPA will not change the designation of Wilderness, WSAs, NCAs, NHTs, or WSRs. Existing LUP direction would be implemented for the resources when implementing conservation management actions. The BLM and Forest Service would manage Wilderness areas to preserve the characteristics therein. The BLM would manage WSAs to not impair the suitability of such areas for the preservation of wilderness. The BLM would manage the NCA for the purposes for which it was designated. The BLM would manage NHT to safeguard the nature and purposes of the trails and in a manner that protects the values for which the trails were designated. The BLM and Forest Service would manage a river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, tentative classification, and any ORVs until Congress designates the river or releases it for other uses. Implementation of GRSG conservation measures would generally have beneficial effects on these special designations. Lands With Wilderness Characteristics No decisions related to the management of lands with wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this planning effort. The management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the scope of this plan amendment process, so existing LUP direction for lands with wilderness characteristics will continue to apply. Effects on lands with wilderness characteristics will be analyzed as part of the implementation of specific conservation projects. Air Quality The LUPA decision will not authorize implementation of activities that could impact air quality. Those impacts would be related to timing and location of any ground-disturbing activities. The effects on air quality will be analyzed in the implementation of conservation projects. Cultural Heritage Resources The LUPA decision will not authorize ground-disturbing activates. Any potential future effects on cultural resources as a result of the implementation of activities in support of conservation actions for GRSG protection will be subject to NEPA analysis and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The BLM and Forest Service manage public lands for multiple uses, in accordance with the FLPMA and NFMA. Land use decisions are made to protect the resources, while allowing for different uses of those resources, such as livestock grazing and oil and gas development. These decisions can result in trade-offs, which are disclosed in this chapter’s analysis. The projected impacts on land use activities and the associated environmental impacts of land uses are characterized and evaluated for each of the alternatives. Impact analysis is a cause-and-effect process. The detailed impact analyses and conclusions are based on the following: • The BLM and Forest Service planning team’s knowledge of resources and the project area • Reviews of existing literature • Information provided by experts in the BLM and Forest Service, other agencies, cooperating agencies, interest groups, and concerned citizens The baseline used for the impact analysis is the current condition or situation, as described in Chapter 3. Impacts on resources and resource uses are analyzed and discussed in detail, commensurate with resource issues and concerns identified through the LUPA/EIS process. At times, impacts are described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Introduction September, 20/3 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 601 4.2. Analytical Assumptions Several overarching assumptions have been made to facilitate the analysis of the project impacts. These assumptions set guidelines and provide reasonably foreseeable projected levels of development that would occur in the planning area during the planning period. These assumptions should not be interpreted as constraining or redefining the management objectives and actions proposed for each alternative, as described in Chapter 2. The following general assumptions apply to all resource categories. Any resource- or resource use-specific assumptions are provided in the methods of analysis section for that resource or resource use. • Sufficient funding, enforcement, and personnel would be available for implementing the final decision. • Implementing actions from any of the LUPA alternatives would be in compliance with all valid existing rights, federal regulations, agency policies, and other requirements. • Implementation-level actions necessary to execute the LUP-level decisions in this LUPA would be subject to further environmental review, including that under NEPA, as appropriate. • Direct and indirect impacts of implementing the LUPA would primarily occur on the public lands administered by the BLM and the Forest Service in the planning area. • Local climate patterns of historic record and related conditions for plant growth may change, with warmer, drier conditions likely to occur over the life of this plan. • Conditions will remain favorable for large wildfires due to warmer and dryer climatic patterns and fuel conditions. • In the future, as tools for predicting climate changes in a management area improve and changes in climate affect resources and necessitate changes in how resources are managed, the BLM or Forest Service may be required to reevaluate decisions made as part of this planning process and to adjust management accordingly. Refer to Section 2.5.3, Adaptive Management, and Appendix E, Monitoring Framework. • The BLM and Forest Service would carry out appropriate maintenance for the functional capability of all developments. • The discussion of impacts is based on best available data. Knowledge of the planning area and decision area and professional judgment, based on observation and analysis of conditions and responses in similar areas, are used for environmental impacts where data are limited. • Restrictions (such as siting, design, and mitigation measures) would apply, where appropriate, to surface-disturbing activities associated with land use authorizations and permits issued on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands and federal mineral estate. There are approximately 50.5 million acres of BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands in the decision area. • Data from GIS have been used in developing acreage calculations and to generate the figures. Calculations depend on the quality and availability of data. Acreages and other numbers are approximate projections for comparison and analytic purposes only. Readers should not infer September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences A nalytical A ssumptions 602 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement that they reflect exact measurements or precise calculations. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts were sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or qualitatively, when appropriate. 4.2.1. General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts Potential impacts are described in terms of type, context, duration, and intensity, which are generally defined below. Type of impact — Impacts are characterized by using the indicators described at the beginning of each resource impact section. The presentation of impacts for key planning issues is intended to provide the BLM or Forest Service decision maker and reader with an understanding of the multiple use trade-offs associated with each alternative. Context — This describes the area or location (site-specific, local, planning area-wide, or regional) in which the impact would occur. Site-specific impacts would occur at the location of the action; local impacts would occur within the general vicinity of the action area; planning area-wide impacts would affect a greater portion of decision area lands in Nevada and Northeast California; and regional impacts would extend beyond the planning area boundaries. Duration — This describes the duration of an effect, either short term or long term. Unless otherwise noted, short tenn is defined as anticipated to begin and end within the first 5 years after the action is implemented; long term is defined as lasting beyond 5 years to the end of or beyond the life of this LUPA. Intensity — This refers to the severity of the impact (40 CFR 1508.27[b]). Rather than categorize severity of impact by qualitative descriptors (e.g., major, moderate, or minor), this analysis discusses impacts using quantitative data wherever possible. Direct and indirect impacts — Direct impacts are caused by an action or implementation of an alternative and occur at the same time and place; indirect impacts result from implementing an action or alternative but usually occur later in time or are removed in distance and are reasonably certain to occur. For ease of reading, the impacts of the management actions for a particular alternative on a specific resource are generally described in comparison to the status quo or baseline for that resource. However, in order to properly and meaningfully evaluate the impacts under each alternative, the expected impacts should be measured against the impacts projected to occur under Alternative A. This is the baseline for purposes of comparison of the alternatives to one another, as it represents what is anticipated should no plan amendments take place. The end of Chapter 4 contains a discussion of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (Section 4.20), Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (Section 4.21), and the Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity (Section 4.22). 4.2.2. Incomplete or Unavailable Information The CEQ established implementing regulations for NEPA, requiring that a federal agency identify relevant information that may be incomplete or unavailable for evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts in an EIS (40 CFR 1502.22). If the information is essential to a Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 603 reasoned choice among alternatives, it must be included or addressed in an EIS. Knowledge and information is, and will always be, incomplete, particularly with infinitely complex ecosystems considered at various scales. The best available information pertinent to the decisions to be made was used in developing the LUPA. The BLM and Forest Service have made a considerable effort to acquire and convert resource data into digital format for use in the LUPA, both from the BLM and Forest Service themselves and from outside sources. Under FLPMA, the inventory of public land resources is ongoing and continuously updated. However, certain information was unavailable for use in developing the LUPA because inventories either have not been conducted or are not complete. Some of the major types of data that are incomplete or unavailable include the following: • GIS data used for disturbance calculations on private lands • Site-specific surveys of cultural and paleontological resources For these resources, estimates were made concerning the number, type, and significance of these resources based on previous surveys and existing knowledge. In addition, some impacts cannot be quantified, given the proposed management actions. Where this gap occurs, impacts are projected in qualitative terms or, in some instances, are described as unknown. Subsequent site-specific project-level analysis would provide the opportunity to collect and examine site-specific inventory data to determine appropriate application of LUP-level guidance. In addition, the BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies in the planning area continue to update and refine information used to implement this plan. 4.3. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 4.3.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows: • Direct habitat loss • Habitat fragmentation • Disruption to species life history requirements • Population loss • Habitat degradation • Habitat restoration/improvement Effects listed above may be characterized for each resource and alternative as appropriate, and, where available, quantified by the indicators described below: • PPM As (PPH)/PGMAs (PGH) - Designations include habitats considered vital to the persistence of GRSG populations at all scales. Acres impacted or improved by each Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage- Septemher 2013 ' Grouse Habitat 604 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement resource is a general metric for direct habitat loss, habitat degradation, and habitat restoration/improvement. The metric provides a basis for a qualitative discussion of habitat fragmentation and species life history requirements. • Nesting habitat - Metric is derived from a buffering of lek locations (Doherty et al. 2011) as a proxy for spatially describing nesting habitat in acres of PPH and PGH, and provides a specific quantitative measure of potential improvement/disruption of species life history requirements for nesting with implications for populations. Habitats within the buffers are known to include areas supporting other seasonal life history requirements as well. Habitats outside lek buffers may also contain nesting habitat but primarily support other seasonal life history requirements such as brood-rearing, wintering, and transitional. Populations - Metric is correlated to nesting habitat and is derived by assigning to individual leks their contribution to GRSG populations at the population/subpopulation scale (see Section 3.2, Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat) and at the sub-region scale. This metric provides for inferences toward population effects from each resource allocation expressed as a percentage of population at the two scales. Where modeled nesting habitat is overlapped by a land allocation, the allocation is considered to be affecting the GRSG population assigned to that associated lek. Each lek supports a percentage of the GRSG population at the sub-population and sub-region scale. Table 4-2, Resource Programs Impacting GRSG by Threat in the Sub-region, relates individual resource programs to threats to the species in order of priority within the sub-region. Impacts from each resource are assessed using the indicators described above. Table 4.2. Resource Programs Impacting GRSG by Threat in the Sub-region Threat/Issue Resource Program Wildfire Fire, fuels, vegetation Invasive species Fire, fuels, vegetation Conifer encroachment Fire, fuels, vegetation Infrastructure ROW/SUA avoidance/exclusion areas, ACECs, wilderness. Wilderness Study Areas Climate change Climate change, fire, fuels, vegetation Livestock grazing Areas open/closed to livestock grazing Mining Areas open/closed to locatable and salable minerals Energy development Areas open/closed to fluid mineral exploration, leasing, development Human uses ROW/SUA avoidance/exclusion areas, ACECs, wilderness. Wilderness Study Areas, areas open, limited, closed to motorized travel Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • For Nevada, PPMAs and PGMAs are derived from NDOW habitat category mapping (NDOW 2012a) and represent habitat adequate to maintain GRSG populations. For the Northeastern California/Northwestern Nevada population, California BLM utilized a mapping methodology based in the Doherty modeling (Doherty et al. 2011), including the 100 percent breeding bird density core regions, or all known active leks with appropriate buffering (6.4 kilometers for 25 percent and 50 percent kernels, 8.5 kilometers for 75 percent and 100 percent kernels). Areas were modified by local knowledge of seasonal range use, known connectivity, and vegetative and natural barriers. In California, extensive radio telemetry information was available, providing a direct footprint of GRSG use areas. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Methods and Assumptions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 605 • This analysis uses PPH and PGH categories for Alternative A only to facilitate comparison across the other alternatives. There are currently no public lands designated by the BLM or Forest Service as GRSG PPH or PGH within the sub-regional planning area and Alternative A would neither result in the designation of PPH or PGH nor assign additional management actions to PPH or PGH areas. As used for comparison, PPH is based on NDOW Category 1 and 2 habitats, while PGH is based on NDOW Category 3 habitat. Nesting habitat is defined as the 4-mile (6.4-kilometer) buffer around 25 percent and 50 percent bird density kernels and the 5.2-mile (8.5-kilometer) buffer around 75 percent and 100 percent bird density kernels (Doherty et al. 2011). • Population and subpopulation boundaries (Connelly et al. 2004) are modified to include whole population management unit (PMU) (NDOW 2002) boundaries (see Section 3.2, Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat). • Habitat conditions and trends for each GRSG population area were determined using the VDDT by modeling vegetation dynamics such as wildfire, succession, insects and disease, habitat restoration projects, prescribed fire, overgrazing, conifer encroachment and treatment, mechanical sagebrush treatment, and fuels reduction projects. VDDT modeling was completed for seven of the nine population/subpopulations in Nevada and California. Northern Interior and Quinn Canyon Range were not modeled due to lack of mapped habitat. As additional data becomes available, habitat conditions and trends will be updated. Impacts on GRSG accrue over varying distances from origin depending on the type of development: • Tall structures such as power lines, wind turbines, communication towers, agricultural, and urban development based on an avian predator foraging distance of 4.3 miles (6.9 kilometers; Boarman and Heinrich 1999; Leu et al. 2008) • Energy extraction such as oil and gas, geothermal, and plan of operation mining at 11.8 miles (19 kilometers) based on direct impacts of field development, including associated infrastructure, noise, lighting, and traffic (Johnson et al. 2011; Taylor et al. 2012) • Interstate highways at 4.7 miles (7.5 kilometers) and paved roads and primary and secondary routes at 1.9 miles (3 kilometers) based on indirect effects measured through road density studies (Connelly et al. 2004; Holloran 2005; Lyon 2000) • Site-specific disturbances such as small-scale mining and mineral material sites at 1.6 miles (2.5 kilometers) based on indirect influence distance from estimated spread of exotic plants (Bradley and Mustard 2006) • Short-term impacts would accrue over a timeframe of up to ten years. Long-term impacts would accrue over timeframes exceeding ten years. • Because GRSG are highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation, development, or changes in habitat conditions and require large, intact habitat patches to complete their annual life history, alternatives proposing to protect the most PPM As and PGM As from disturbance are considered ot greatest beneficial impact. These impacts can be described both qualitatively and quantitatively. • Seasonal ranges of migratory and non-migratory GRSG are included within PPMAs and PGMAs but are not mapped to provide direct impacts assessment at the sub-regional scale. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Methods and Assumptions 606 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement PPMAs and PGMAs encompass adequate habitat for providing connectivity within populations and subpopulations. Connectivity will be considered by incorporating PMU-scale information in the design and implementation of restoration projects. 4.3.2. Nature and Type of Effects Riparian Areas and Wetlands See Livestock Grazing Management, below. Water Resources Management See Livestock Grazing Management, below. Vegetation and Habitat Restoration Current treatments and active vegetation management typically focus on vegetation composition and structure for fuels management, habitat management, and productivity manipulation for protecting and improving the habitat and forage conditions for ungulates and other grazers (Knick et al. 2011). The distribution of these treatments can affect the distribution of GRSG and sagebrush habitats by affecting the distribution of suitable cover and forage (Manier et al. 2013, p. 169). GRSG require high-quality habitat conditions, including a diversity of herbaceous species, vegetative and reproductive health of native grasses, and an abundance of sagebrush (Manier et al. 2013, p. 169). Residual vegetation cover, especially grass and litter, has often been noted as essential for GRSG for concealment during nesting and brood-rearing (Sveum et al. 1998; Kirol et al. 2012). Passive restoration efforts such as adjustments in management practices such as grazing systems and seasonal restriction or closures in seasonal-use areas have a reasonable chance to improve degraded or altered habitats (Manier et al. 2013, p. 170; Connelly et al. 2004). Some areas within the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region are experiencing severe habitat degradation such that the establishment of “undesirable” species has displaced native species, making passive management approaches unsuitable and requiring direct manipulation (Connelly et al. 2004). In parts of the sub-region, invasive species such as cheatgrass or native species such as juniper and pinyon pine have replaced desirable dominant species. These areas require active removal and seeding of native species for successful restoration. Active treatments within the sub-region include manual and mechanical juniper and pinyon pine removal and planting of native seed and seedlings. Invasive plants are thought to alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude native plant populations. Cheatgrass competes with native grasses and forbs that are important components of GRSG habitat. Cheatgrass abundance is negatively correlated with habitat selection by GRSG (Kirol et al. 2012), indicating that changes in composition and structure associated with cheatgrass specifically degrade GRSG habitat. Invasion by medusahead ( Taeniatherum caput-medusae ) may be even worse than cheatgrass, as it also reduces perennial productivity, degrades wildlife habitat, supports high-frequency wild fire intervals, and requires intensive treatment for restoration (Davies 2010). Expansion of conifer woodlands also threatens GRSG populations because woodlands do not provide suitable habitat and because trees displace shrubs, grasses, and forbs that are required by GRSG. Juniper expansion is also associated with increased bare Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 607 ground and the potential for erosion, as well as an increase in perch sites for raptors. Juniper encroachment may also represent expansion of raptor predation threats. Invasive species cause direct degradation of sagebrush habitats, resulting in effects on local GRSG populations by affecting forage, cover quality and composition, and increased wildfire frequency and intensity, with the potential to cause complete avoidance (Manier et al. 2013, p. 135). Livestock Grazing Management Livestock grazing is the most widespread land use across the sagebrush biome (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-29). Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation, water, and nutrient availability by consuming or altering vegetation, redistributing nutrients and plant seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and disrupting microbial composition (Connelly et al. 2004). Livestock may also trample nests and disturb GRSG behavior (NTT 201 1, p. 14). Livestock grazing is a “diffuse” form of biotic disturbance that exerts repeated pressure over many years on a system; unlike point-sources of disturbance (e.g., fires), effects of grazing are not likely to be detected as disruptions, but as differences in the processes and functioning of the sagebrush system. Grazing effects are not distributed evenly because historic practices, management, and animal behavior all lead to differential use of the range (Manier et al. 2013, pp. 157-168). At unsustainable levels of grazing, impacts can lead to loss of vegetative cover, reduced water infiltration rates, decreased plant litter, increased bare ground, reduced nutrient cycling, decreased water quality, increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG (Manier et al. 2013, pp. 157-159). Properly managed grazing, however, may protect GRSG by reducing fuel loads (NTT 201 1, p. 14). Structural range improvements such as fences represent potential movement barriers (especially woven-wire fences), predator perches, or travel corridors, and are a potential cause of direct mortality to GRSG (Manier et al. 2013, p. 89). Grazing restrictions that protect sagebrush ecosystem health would enhance habitat for GRSG populations. Fire and Fuels Management Fire is the primary threat to GRSG populations and habitat within the western half of their distribution. In the Great Basin, fire has been increasing in size and frequency (Baker 2011). Fire is particularly problematic in sagebrush systems because it kills sagebrush plants and, in some cases, re-bums before sagebmsh has a chance to re-establish. Fire is a primary threat to GRSG populations and habitat where increasing exotic annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass, are resulting in sagebrush loss and degradation (USFWS 2010a, p. 13,932). Cheatgrass can more easily invade and create its own feedback loop in areas that are: 1 ) dry with understory vegetation cover that is not substantial, or 2) experiencing surface-disturbing activities (e.g., road construction). It can facilitate short fire return intervals by outcompeting native herbaceous vegetation with early germination, early moisture and nutrient uptake, prolific seed production, and early senescence (Hulbert 1955; Mack and Pyke 1983; Pellant 1996). Furthermore, by providing a dry, fine fuel source during the peak of fire season, cheatgrass increases the likelihood of fire and thus increases the likelihood of further cheatgrass spread (Pellant 1990). Without fire, cheatgrass dominance can exclude sagebrush seedlings from establishing. With fire, areas can be converted to annual grasslands. Without shrubs and a diversity of grasses and forbs, such annual grasslands will not support GRSG, and populations could be displaced. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 608 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Fire risk and the likelihood of the cheatgrass-fire cycle in GRSG habitat is highest in arid, low-elevation areas with Wyoming big sagebrush {Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), particularly in areas where there is ground disturbance or bare ground (e.g., recently burned areas). Ground disturbance such as roads facilitates the establishment and spread of cheatgrass and other invasive weeds (Gelbard and Belnap 2003). While fires do occur within higher elevation mountain big sagebrush {Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) habitats, they are typically smaller and lower intensity fires. This is primarily due to higher precipitation levels, resulting in higher fuel moisture levels, more robust understory vegetation, and more rapid growth rates. Another factor affecting fire in some sagebrush sites is the encroachment of pinyon and juniper trees from higher elevations down slope into sagebrush habitats (Baker 2011; Balch et al. 2012). Under suitable conditions, wildfires that start in pinyon and juniper stands can move into Wyoming big sagebrush stands. In the absence of cheatgrass, Wyoming sagebrush sites can take 1 50 years to recover. Where cheatgrass is present, fire can open the site to invasion of annual grasses as described above. In the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region, five of seven modeled populations/subpopulations and both unmodeled populations experience declining habitat trends directly attributable to fire and cheatgrass invasion. Depending on the amount of habitat available to the birds, a single fire can influence a local population’s distribution, migratory patterns, and overall habitat availability (Fischer et al. 1997, p. 89). In degraded GRSG habitats where cheatgrass is dominant under the sagebrush canopy, the habitat may be adequate winter habitat or provide adequate cover for nesting. However, these areas may lack the understory forb diversity and insect abundance necessary for brood-rearing and could result in lower chick survival. As GRSG habitats become smaller and less connected to adjacent populations, they become increasingly susceptible to stochastic events and local extirpation (Knick and Hanser 2011; Wisdom et al. 2011). In addition, genetically isolated populations could suffer from a decrease in fitness known as inbreeding depression. The cheatgrass fire cycle causes GRSG habitat loss and degradation on an annual basis. Currently, due to the extent of the threat, there are no management actions that can effectively alter this trend, and fires are estimated to reduce GRSG habitat within the Great Basin by 58 percent in the next 30 years (Miller et al. 2011). While research and management efforts are focused on developing means of controlling cheatgrass on a large scale, the only current management actions, under the fire program, to minimize the likelihood of fire ignition or the extent of fire in GRSG habitat is through fuels treatments (e.g., construction of firebreaks or greenstrips), pre-suppression planning, and effective fire suppression geared toward protecting GRSG habitat. Facilitating the spread of cheatgrass and the likelihood of ignition through BLM and Forest Service-authorized programs is further discussed under Sections 4.12, Lands and Realty; 4.14, Minerals; and 4.10, Recreation. Wild Horse and Burro Management While not as widespread as livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management is still a major land use across the sagebrush biome. HMAs and WHBTs overlap modeled populations by 0 to 100 percent depending on sub-population in the region. Impacts from horses, however, are somewhat different than impacts from cattle (USFWS 2013a, p. 46). According to the COT Report (USFWS 2013a, p. 46): On a per capita body mass, horses consume more forage than cattle or sheep and remove more of the plant which limits or delays vegetative recovery (Menard et al. 2002), and horses can range further between water sources than cattle, thereby making them more difficult to manage. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 609 Wild horse and burro grazing results in a reduction of shrub cover and more fragmented shrub canopies, which can negatively affect GRSG habitat (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Additionally, sites grazed by free-roaming wild horses and burros have a greater abundance of annual invasive grasses, reduced native plant diversity and reduced grass density (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Effects of wild horses and burros on habitats may also be more pronounced during periods of drought or vegetation stress (NTT 20 1 1 , p. 1 8). Wild horses and burros require that water be available year-round in herd management areas and wild horse territories (The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971). This often leads to riparian areas receiving yearlong use by wild horses or riparian areas being modified with additional fencing and troughs in order to accommodate yearlong horse use. The range improvements would result in increased potential for raptor perch sites and less water available on the ground, and would possibly have negative effects on GRSG riparian habitat depending on how each facility is constructed and making GRSG more vulnerable to predation. According to Berger (1986), one measure of habitat quality for wild horses is the presence of meadows. Horse bands that spent more time foraging in meadows had higher reproductive success, and meadows received the highest use in proportion to their availability. At levels higher than established AMLs, impacts can lead to loss of vegetative cover, decreased water quantity and quality, increased soil erosion, and reduced overall habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG. Locatable, Leasable, and Salable Minerals Management Minerals development within the sub-region consists of locatable mineral resources at various scales that require a Notice of Intent when disturbance is 5 acres or less, or Plans of Operation when the total unreclaimed disturbance will exceed 5 acres, or if the proposed operations meet one or more of the criteria requiring a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operations (43 CFR 3809.21 and 36 CFR 228.4). Locatable minerals exploration and mining is primarily for gold, silver, and copper. Leasable minerals in Nevada include commodities such as potassium, phosphate, and sodium. Fluid minerals include oil and gas and geothermal development. Oil and gas development is in limited production, occurring only in the far southeastern sub-region. Oil and gas leasing occurs over a larger footprint in eastern Nevada. Geothermal potential within the sub-region is widespread but localized. Impacts on GRSG associated with geothermal development are similar to fossil fuel-fired power plants. This is because the resources are exploited in a highly centralized fashion, including the footprint of the power plant itself, access roads, and transmission lines. Development of locatable and leasable mineral resources typically requires significant infrastructure and human activity for construction, operation, and maintenance. Mineral extraction of all types, including locatable, leasable, and salable extraction, in GRSG habitat results in habitat loss caused by construction of infrastructure, the footprint of the surface or subsurface operation, and other associated facilities. Sagebrush communities that are lost or modified in locations where reclamation is not compromised by the presence or introduction of invasive grasses may not regain sagebrush cover suitable for GRSG use for 20 to 30 years or longer following interim or final reclamation. Population re-establishment may take upwards of 30 years (Braun 1998). Where compromised, reclamation may only be minimally effective. Necessary infrastructure causes additional direct and indirect impacts on GRSG from location, construction, and use of ancillary facilities, staging areas, roads, railroad tracks, and structures such as buildings and power lines. The industrial activity associated with energy and mineral development produces noise and human activity that disrupt the habitat and life-cycle of GRSG. All studies which assess impacts September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 610 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement of energy development on GRSG have found negative effects on populations and habitats (Naugle et al. 2011). Noise from industrial activity may disrupt GRSG communication, which is at low-frequency and potentially masked by low-frequency noise from equipment and vehicles, resulting in reduced female attendance and yearling recruitment as seen in sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus; Amstrup and Phillips 1977). The authors found that the low-frequency mining noise in the study area was continuous across days and seasons and did not diminish as it traveled from its source. The mechanism of how low-frequency noise affected the birds in the study was not known, but it is known that GRSG depend on acoustical signals to attract females to leks (Gibson and Bradbury 1985; Gratson 1993). Noise associated with oil and gas development may have played a factor in habitat selection and a decrease in lek attendance by GRSG (Holloran 2005). Recent studies in oil and gas areas indicate that continuous noise levels, and even intermittent road traffic, reduce lek attendance when levels approach 1 0 decibels over ambient conditions (Patricelli in review). Infrastructure for mining is similar to that required for oil and gas but is more localized in extent. As revealed by studies on oil and gas development, the interaction and intensity of effects of habitat loss could cumulatively or individually lead to habitat fragmentation in the long term (Connelly et al. 2004; Holloran 2005) with negative impacts of fragmentation as a result of development and associated infrastructure on lek persistence, lek attendance, winter habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival rate, and female nest site choice (Holloran 2005; Aldridge and Boyce 2007; Walker et al. 2007; Doherty et al. 2008). Land Uses and Realty Management Transmission lines and major power lines are widespread throughout the range of GRSG. GRSG generally respond negatively to increased human infrastructure in sagebrush habitats, including roads, power lines, and communication towers (Manier et al. 2013, pp. 71-74). Although transmission and power line construction does not generally result in substantial direct habitat loss, it would temporarily disturb individual GRSG and habitat along the ROW. Roads associated with energy transmission facilities can contribute to habitat fragmentation by reducing the extent of contiguous blocks of habitat and reduce the amount and quality of GRSG habitat. Following construction, GRSG avoidance of vertical structures, potentially due to avian predators perching on the structures, may result in habitat exclusion via behavioral response. One study reported that the frequency of raptor/GRSG interactions during the breeding season increased 65 percent and golden eagle interactions alone increased 47 percent in an area in pre- and post-transmission line comparisons (Manier et al. 2013, pp. 81-82). Additionally, the tendency of GRSG to fly relatively low, and in low light or when harried, may put them at high risk of collision with power lines (Manier et al. 2013, pp. 81-82). ROW/SUA exclusion areas would prohibit all development of ROWs, with some exceptions provided, while ROW/SUA avoidance areas would consider on a case-by case basis whether a ROW or Forest Service SUA would be allowed. This flexibility may be advantageous where federal and private land-ownership areas are mixed and exclusion areas may result in more widespread development on private lands if government managed lands could not be used. Land tenure adjustments or withdrawals made in GRSG habitat could reduce the habitat available to sustain GRSG populations, unless provisions were made to ensure that GRSG conservation remained a priority under the new land management regime. Land exchanges designed to decrease fragmentation of GRSG habitat would help GRSG populations (NTT 201 1 , p. 12). Renewable Energy Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 611 The Southern Great Basin and Northern Great Basin WAFWA GRSG Management Zones totaled over 850 square miles (2,200 square kilometers) leased for wind energy; second only behind the heavily developed Wyoming Basin (Knick et al. 201 1). Geothermal production provides 17 percent of the renewable electricity generation in the United States, most of which is in California outside of sagebrush habitat (Knick et al. 2011). Geothermal production within the current range of GRSG is primarily in the Great Basin (Knick et al. 201 1 ). Much speculation occurs regarding the potential for renewable energy facilities to affect GRSG because renewable energy in general is too recent to ascertain immediate or lag effects caused by the industry. Because grouse species have evolved in habitats with little vertical structure, it is conjectured that tall vertical structures such as wind turbines will displace grouse far from their normally used habitat (Johnson and Stephens 2011). It is unknown if local populations affected by anthropogenic energy disturbances would become acclimated and return to use the area and maintain viable population numbers. Because large-scale development of renewable energy resources is recent compared with oil and gas, many of the long-term impacts of renewable energy are still being studied and results have not been published in scientific literature. However, potential infrastructure development impacts on GRSG can be anticipated from studies of oil and gas development on the species (Becker et al. 2009). Impacts from energy development accrue both locally and at the landscape scale. Accumulated evidence across landscape-scale studies show that GRSG populations typically decline following oil and gas development (Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007; Doherty et al. 2008). Oil and gas infrastructure and associated human activity have been shown to adversely affect GRSG populations collectively and in some instances, impacts have been directly attributed to certain anthropogenic features (e.g., roads, power lines, noise, associated infrastructure; Walker et al. 2007; Doherty et al. 2008; Lyon and Anderson 2003; Holloran 2005; Kaiser 2006; Aldridge and Boyce 2007). Renewable energy development and its similar infrastructure to oil and gas (e.g., power lines, roads, and construction activities) may negatively affect GRSG populations via several different mechanisms. Mechanisms responsible for cumulative impacts that lead to population declines depend on the magnitude, frequency, and duration of human disturbance. GRSG may abandon leks if repeatedly disturbed by raptors perching on power lines or other tall vertical structures near leks (Ellis 1984), by vehicular traffic on roads (Lyon and Anderson 2003) or by noise and human activity associated with energy development (Braun et al. 2002; Holloran 2005; Kaiser 2006). Collisions with power lines, vehicles, property fencing, and increased predation by raptors may increase mortality of birds at leks (Connelly et al. 2000a; Lammers and Collopy 2007). Roads and power lines may also indirectly affect lek persistence by altering productivity of local populations or survival at other times of the year. GRSG mortality associated with power lines and roads occurs year round (Aldridge and Boyce 2007) and artificial ponds created by development (Zou et al. 2006) that support breeding mosquitoes known to vector West Nile virus (Walker et al. 2007) elevate risk of mortality from disease in late summer (Walker and Naugle 2011). GRSG may also avoid otherwise suitable habitat as development increases (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Holloran 2005; Kaiser 2006; Doherty et al. 2008). Avoidance ol development areas should not be considered a simple shift in habitat use, but rather a reduction in the distribution of GRSG (Walker et al. 2007) because avoidance is likely to result in true population declines when density dependence, competition, or displacement of birds into September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 612 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement poorer-quality adjacent habitat lowers survival or reproduction (Holloran and Anderson 2005; Aldridge and Boyce 2007; Holloran et al. 2010). GRSG exhibit extremely high site fidelity which strongly suggests that unfamiliarity with new habitats may also reduce survival (Baxter et al. 2008), as evidenced in other grouse species (Yoder et al. 2004). Grouse species avoid other anthropogenic features such as roads, power lines, oil and gas wells, and buildings (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Pruett et al. 2009) and augmentation of dwindling GRSG populations, via introduction of translocated birds or supplementing existing populations is often unsuccessful (Naugle et al. 2011; Baxter et al. 2008). Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management The CTTM program is principally focused on road networks within the GRSG range. Though roads can range from state or interstate highways to gravel and two-track roads, BLM and Forest Service travel management primarily involves the level of access allowed to the public within travel management zones identified as closed, limited (to existing or designated roads and trails), or open. Use of roads is predominately associated with recreational pursuits on public lands. Areas currently open to cross-country motorized use would be expected to have greater impacts than those areas where travel is limited to existing roads and trails or closed to motorized use. Road densities have been directly correlated with GRSG persistence. Within the GRSG range, 95 percent of the mapped sagebrush habitats are within 1 .6 miles (2.5 kilometers) of a mapped road; density of secondary roads exceeds 3.1 miles/247 acres (5 kilometers/square kilometers) in some regions (Knick et al. 2011). Roads have multiple impacts on wildlife in terrestrial ecosystems, including, increased mortality from collision with vehicles, changes in behavior, loss, fragmentation, and alteration of habitat, spread of exotic species, and increased human access, resulting in facilitation of additional alteration and use of habitats by humans (Formann and Alexander 1998; Jackson 2000; Trombulak and Frissel 2000). The effect of roads can be expressed directly through changes in habitat and GRSG populations and indirectly through avoidance behavior because of noise created by vehicle traffic (Lyon and Anderson 2003; USFWS 2010a; See Assumptions and Indicators regarding interstates and primary routes). While the direct habitat loss from roads is not known to be substantial, roads fragment the habitat by impeding use of migration corridors or seasonal habitats; facilitate habitat degradation in the remaining habitats by creating a corridor along which invasive plants can spread; allow for increased human noise disturbance which can result in GRSG habitat use avoidance (i.e., functional habitat loss); and increase mammalian and avian predator abundance (Formann and Alexander 1998, pp. 207-231). Connelly and others (2004) suggest road traffic within 4.7 miles of leks negatively influences male lek attendance. Similarly, lek count trends are lower near interstate, federal, or state highways compared with secondary roads (Johnson et al. 2011), and Connelly and others (2004) reported no leks within 1.25 miles of an interstate and, in general, leks closer to the interstate had higher rates of decline than leks further away from the interstate (See the discussion of Interstate 80 in Nevada in Section 3.2, Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat). In Montana and southern Canada, as the length of roads within 2 miles of a lek increased, the likelihood of lek persistence decreased (Manier et al. 2013). Motorized activities are expected to have a larger footprint on the landscape than non-motorized users. Cross-country motorized travel would result in increased potential for soil compaction, loss of perennial grasses and forbs, and reduced canopy cover of sagebrush (Payne et al. 1983). Long-term losses in sagebrush canopy would likely be the result of repeated, high frequency, long duration use by cross-country OHV use. Impacts on vegetation communities would likely be Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 613 greater during the spring and winter months when soil conditions are wet and more susceptible to compaction and rutting. In addition, the chances of wildfire are increased during the summer months when fire dangers are high and recreation is also at its highest. Noise and increased human presence associated with construction, use, and maintenance of roads may change GRSG behavior based on the proximity, magnitude, intensity, and duration. Other Resources Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on GRSG and are therefore not discussed in detail: recreation use excluding CTTM, and ACECs. 4.3.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Climate Change The impacts of climate change are common to all alternatives. Maximum seasonal temperatures and altered rainfall patterns exacerbate the fire cycle such that large-scale fires are not only driven by the annual cheatgrass flush of fine fuels but are also fueled by historically low moisture ratings in larger fuels in the shrub community. As temperatures and levels of rainfall change, the climate envelopes supporting the sagebrush ecosystem will shift. The adjacent Mojave ecosystem expands northward. Low elevation sagebrush habitats convert to desert scrub. Forest/sage ecotones shift toward sagebrush. Some of these shifts, particularly in the southern half of the range, will likely occur at rates that challenge the ability of GRSG to adapt, requiring an adaptive management strategy regardless of alternative features in land use planning. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management The magnitude of impacts is different for all alternatives as the acreages of lands managed for ROWs, SUAs, and zoning designations (e.g., Solar PEIS and Wind Energy EIS) vary across the alternatives (see Table 2-3, Comparative Allocation Summary of Alternatives, in Chapter 2). However, industrial solar construction and infrastructure are expected to have similar effects on GRSG and, therefore, effects caused by duration and frequencies are expected to be similar across all alternatives. Under all of the alternatives, no acres of GRSG habitat within the planning area would be managed for Solar Energy Zones. 4.3.4. Alternative A Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative A, current management implements the Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook policies (BLM 2008j), Land Health Standards, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007a) and the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy Final EIS (BLM 20081), as well as other policies and plans. The Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook requires an interdisciplinary and collaborative process to plan and implement vegetation treatments that improve biological diversity and ecosystem function while promoting and maintaining native plant communities that are resilient to disturbance and invasive species. Land-health standards are ecologically based goal statements which include watershed tunction, ecological processes, water quality, and habitat quality for threatened and endangered and special status species (43 CFR 4180.1). Land Health Standards Assessments are used to establish program priorities, determine the status of current conditions and set the stage for September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to AH Alternatives 614 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement evaluations that are used to determine achievement or non-achievement of land-health standards. While the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Final EIS, which is specific to northeastern California, focuses on the restoration of sage steppe ecosystems and associated vegetation communities that have become dominated by western juniper. Implementation of the above policies and plans would improve vegetation management by decreasing invasive species, provide for native vegetation establishment in sagebrush habitat, reduce the risk of wildfire, restore fire-adapted ecosystems and repair lands damaged by fire. These policies also recognize the need to improve the diversity, resiliency and productivity of native vegetation health and persistence (BLM 2008f). Mechanical juniper and pinyon pine treatments would result in short-term disturbances of soils and sagebrush due to heavy equipment, skid trails and temporary roads. Mechanical and manual treatments would also increase noise, vehicular traffic and human presence. However, once the site potential is restored there would be a long-term increase in forage, cover quality and composition, reduction in predator perches, decrease in fire spread and intensity and a potential increase in water availability. Annual grass expansion in low-elevation sagebrush habitat is outpacing existing treatment rates in five of seven modeled population/subpopulations and the remaining two un-modeled populations. Current treatment rates are maintaining or reducing annual grass in the Northeastern Nevada and Central Nevada subpopulations. Conifer expansion is predominant in mountain sagebrush but also occurs within Wyoming and low sagebrush. Serai classes which include substantial conifer dominate in three of seven modeled subpopulations including Southeastern Nevada where conifer is a significant component on 42 percent of mountain sagebrush habitat and 21 percent of Wyoming sagebrush habitat. Under current treatment rates, trends here are stable to slightly improving. In Northwestern Nevada/Northeastern California, conifer is a significant component on 21 percent or mountain sagebrush habitat. Trends at current treatment rates are slightly improving. In the Central Nevada subpopulation, conifer is a significant component on 18 percent and 6 percent of mountain and Wyoming sagebrush habitats with trends continuing to decline under current treatment rates. The Quinn Canyon Range population is an un-modeled population where conifer impacts are high. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative A, 49,155,000 acres in the planning area (17,589,700 acres of existing PPH and PGH; approximately 142,900 acres within existing PPH and PGH are unallotted to grazing) are open for livestock grazing affecting 94 percent of the modeled populations within the sub-region. Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing plans followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for Rangeland Health, which include maintaining healthy, productive and diverse populations of native plants and animals. Nevada LUPs do not contain specific language in regards to GRSG conservation and livestock management although many offices are covered under various conservation strategies for GRSG. Recent California LUPs have specific language regarding the management of livestock and its relation to locally produced GRSG conservation strategies. National and in some cases, local drought policies are in place and would be followed to minimize impacts on rangelands under drought conditions. Continuation of these policies would not specifically protect GRSG habitat, though could provide indirect benefits through preservation of existing sagebrush habitat. Direct impacts on GRSG would be reduced in some areas due to GRSG specific management found in some conservation strategies. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 615 According to National BLM policy, riparian habitats would be managed to achieve PFC. On Forest Service-administered lands, riparian areas are managed through a combination of utilization standards and design features discussed/documented each year in the AOI. Functional condition of riparian areas and wetlands are considered in the development of riparian utilization standards. In some cases this management would require livestock removal or restrictions in riparian areas to reduce impacts caused by livestock, such as trampling and overuse of riparian areas. Managing for PFC helps to improve riparian vegetation health through increased production and diversity of vegetation and helps to improve water retention on those sites. As a result, brood-rearing habitats for GRSG would be improved or preserved where they are applied. Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife and range objectives, and would include building or modi fying fences to permit passage of wildlife and reduce the chance of bird strikes, use of off-site water facilities, and in some cases modification or removal or improvements not meeting resource needs. Modifications may involve moving troughs, adding or changing wildlife escape ramps, or ensuring water is available on the ground for a various different wildlife species. Although not directly created to protect GRSG, these approaches would protect and enhance GRSG habitat by reducing the likelihood of surface disturbance in sensitive areas and ensuring brood-rearing habitat is available to GRSG. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Within the planning area, all LUPs address fire suppression and fuels management; however, most plans do not include direction for these activities that is specifically focused on GRSG and its habitat. The more recent LUPs contain specific objectives and management action for suppression and management of fires within sagebrush vegetation communities and GRSG habitat in accordance with local conservation strategies. Each LUP supports the development and adherence to a more detailed fire management plan that outlines priorities and levels of suppression for particular vegetation classes, or resource protection. Most plans support objectives of re-introducing fire into fire-dependent ecosystems and utilize the Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) framework to aid in prioritizing response to wildfires and determining where fire can be used to meet land management plan objectives. Plans place priority for suppression on the protection of life and property followed by important resource values. In general, fire suppression activities, fuels management, post-fire emergency stabilization and fire restoration efforts are not specifically focused on GRSG, but GRSG may benefit from reduced fire size, post-fire site stabilization, or rehabilitation of diverse native vegetation communities. Some LUPs promote the use of native seed for stabilization and restoration, which may help increase native plant diversity and thereby benefit GRSG, but this guidance is not consistently applied across the decision area. More direction for the BLM has been provided in BLM Instruction Memorandum 2013-128, which provides habitat maps, guidelines and BMPs for wildland fire suppression and fuels management in GRSG habitat. Under Alternative A, wildfires would likely continue to increase in size and frequency in seven of the nine populations/subpopulations in the sub-region. GRSG would subsequently continue to be degraded or lost. Small and heavily disturbed populations with dominance of invasive annual grass understory would be particularly susceptible to these impacts. Additionally, there may be some direct and indirect effects on individual GRSG from direct morality or disturbance due to fire suppression or fuels treatment activities. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 616 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative A, overall management direction is to manage populations of wild horses and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife and other uses. Management would not be based specifically on the habitat needs of GRSG. Horses and burros would be managed at AML with gathers based on gather schedules, budgets, or other priorities, such as emergency gathers during drought periods. Keeping horses and burros at AML would reduce overall impacts on vegetation, especially nesting cover and riparian brood-rearing habitats during periods of drought. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Within the sub-region, most public lands are open to fluid mineral leasing. Specific closures of areas to leasing such as ACECs or crucial or essential wildlife habitat exist throughout the sub-region. Fluid minerals include oil and gas and geothermal (See Section 4.3.2, Nature and Types of Effects). Currently, 16,061,900 acres of PPH and PGH are managed as open to fluid minerals leasing and 1,670,800 acres of PPH and PGH as closed to fluid minerals leasing for particular ROWs, designated wilderness areas, ACECs, and other administrative needs. However, none of these acres were designated to protect GRSG habitat. Lands closed to fluid minerals leasing comprise 1,296,100 acres of PPH and 374,700 acres of PGH, respectively. Within modeled nesting habitat, there are 834,600 acres of PPH and PGH combined, which are closed to fluid mineral leasing. Closed areas provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 32 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and by sub-population (See Table 4-3, Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Oil and Gas Leasing). Table 4.3. Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Fluid Mineral Leasing Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 26 Southeast Nevada 39 Northwest Interior 0 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 31 Northeast Nevada 13 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 43 Northeast California/Northwest Nevada 53 Warm Springs Valley 78 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Lands within the sub-region are generally open to mineral location. There are specific locatable mineral withdrawals to protect other uses and resources, but none specific to protecting GRSG habitat. All locatable mineral activities are managed under the Surface Management Regulations at 43 CFR Part 3809, and 36 CFR Part 228. Mitigation of effects on GRSG and its habitat are identified through the NEPA process approving plans of operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals are to provide opportunities to develop the resource while preventing undue or unnecessary degradation of public lands. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 617 Lands withdrawn from locatable mineral entry comprise 1,296,100 acres of PPH and 374,700 acres of PGH. Withdrawal within modeled GRSG nesting habitat includes 834,600 acres of PPH and PGH combined. Current withdrawals restrict mineral development and provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 32 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and represented by the sub-population (See Table 4-4, Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Withdrawal). Table 4.4. Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Withdrawal Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 26 Southeast Nevada 37 Northwest Interior 0 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 31 Northeast Nevada 13 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 43 Northeast California/Northwest Nevada 56 Warm Springs Valley 7 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Within the sub-region, most public lands are open to mineral material disposal. Specific closures of areas to salable mineral materials such as ACECs or crucial or essential wildlife habitat exist throughout the sub-region. Currently, there are 16,061,900 acres open to material disposal and 1,670,800 acres closed within PPH and PGH. Lands closed to mineral material disposal comprise 1,296,100 acres of PPH and 374,700 acres of PGH respectively. Within modeled nesting habitat, there are 834,600 acres of PPH and PGH combined. Closed areas provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 32 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and represented by sub-population (See Table 4-5, Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Salables). Table 4.5. Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Salables Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 26 Southeast Nevada 39 Northwest Interior 0 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 31 Northeast Nevada 13 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 45 Northeast California/25Northwest Nevada 56 Warm Springs Valley 0 BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative A, all BLM-administered lands are held in retention unless identified for disposal. Disposal criteria typically include considerations of sensitive or crucial resources such as wildlife habitat. While most LUPs in the sub-region do not have specific goals September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 618 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement related to GRSG, some newer plans, such as those in California and the Ely District Office in Nevada, do have specific avoidance and exclusion areas, seasonal buffers, and seasonal timing restrictions related to GRSG disturbance and habitat. Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural communities of high interest. While not explicitly stated in some existing LUPs, particularly those in Nevada, this would likely include retention of areas with GRSG, and would thus retain occupied habitats under BLM administration. This would reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove sagebrush habitat. Mitigation is typically developed under the NEPA process, and most ROW and surface developments are subject to limited operation periods or other stipulations in local GRSG conservation strategies. This alternative stipulates 114,200 acres of avoidance areas within existing PPH/PGH where certain actions would be considered on a case by case basis and 276,600 acres for ROW/SUA exclusion within PPH/PGH where all development would be prohibited. Exclusion would affect 169,600 acres of PPH and avoidance at approximately 101,000 acres of PPH. Acres identified as available for disposal within PPH and PGH total 336,300 under Alternative A. Under this alternative, avoidance areas provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 3 percent of the GRSG population in the sub-region, and exclusion areas provide an increased level of protection to 12 percent of the modeled sub-region population. These management actions would be expected to reduce both direct and indirect impacts on GRSG. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management In 2005 and 2008, the BLM programmatically amended its LUPs for renewable energy resources through the Wind Energy PEIS and Geothermal PEIS, respectively. These programmatic documents outline public lands available and unavailable for these resource uses and provide direction on processing ROWs and geothermal lease applications as well as establishing BMPs for conducting these activities on BLM-administered lands. The BMPs contain some general guidance for addressing GRSG and its habitat. LUPs would continue to have different stipulations for geothermal resources and under Alternative A, 8,196,700 acres could be allocated for solar development. Under Alternative A, 276,600 acres are managed for exclusion and 1 14,200 acres are managed for avoidance of wind energy within existing PPH/PGH. Outside these areas, there would be more impacts on GRSG and their habitat than inside the areas excluded or avoided. Impacts on GRSG and their habitat from construction and operation of wind energy facilities are discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, above. Management under Alternative A allows for high use of GRSG habitat for wind energy and would lead to more impacts than Alternatives D and F. Management under Alternative A includes 1 ,492,800 acres in the Solar PEIS variance areas within PPH/PGH. In areas where solar energy facilities are permitted, there would be more impacts on GRSG and their habitat than in areas where solar energy facilities are excluded. Impacts similar to wind energy would be expected. Under Alternative A, management allows for high use of GRSG habitat for wind energy and would lead to more impacts than Alternatives C and D. Impacts from Wind Energy Development on GRSG Sub-Populations Within the sub-region, most areas of public land would remain open for wind development, with 276,600 acres of PPH and PGH managed as existing ROW/SUA exclusion and 2,216,500 acres of Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 619 PPH and PGH managed as ROW/SUA avoidance for wind energy. This represents 16 percent of the available PPH and PGH in the planning area being subject to exclusion or avoidance. There are 983,600 of exclusion acres and 89,200 of avoidance acres of PPH and PGH within modeled nesting habitat. Proposed exclusion and avoidance areas provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 3 percent of the population for avoidance areas and 8 percent of the population for the sub-region, and as represented by the GRSG sub-population data (see Table 4-6, Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by ROW/SUA Exclusion or Avoidance). Table 4.6. Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by ROW/SUA Exclusion or Avoidance Sub-Population Percent Affected Exclusion Avoidance Central Nevada 12 0 Southeast Nevada 38 0 Northwest Interior 0 0 Quinn Range 0 0 North-central Nevada 0.2 0 Northeast Nevada 6 2 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 0 0 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 2 10 Warm Springs Valley 0 0 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Solar Energy Development on Sub-populations Within the sub-region, most public lands are excluded from solar development. Areas potentially available to solar development include designated Solar Energy Zones, which are considered open. The Final Solar Programmatic EIS states that occupied GRSG habitat and Solar Energy Zones do not overlap (BLM 2012h). Some areas, termed Solar Variance Areas, within PPH and PGH remain available for application for solar development. Solar Variance Areas are considered to be avoidance. Under this alternative, 1,492,800 acres of PPH and PGH would be designated as Solar Variance and would remain open to application for solar development within the sub-region. This alternative leaves the remaining PPH and PGH (16,240,100 acres) closed to solar development. There are 14,883,500 acres of PPH and PGH for exclusion and 924,800 acres that would be designated as Solar Variance (avoidance) within modeled nesting habitat. Variance areas provide a level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 10 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and represented by sub-population table (see Table 4-7, Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Solar Energy). Table 4.7. Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Solar Energy Variance Areas Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 25 Southeast Nevada 41 September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 620 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Sub-Population Percent Northwest Interior 40 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 0 Northeast Nevada 0 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 0 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 0 Warm Springs Valley 7 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under current management, TMAs have not been consistently identified in LUPs beyond the basic allocations of open, closed, and limited. Closed areas are comprised of congressionally designated areas. Wilderness Study Areas, and as directed by some ACECs and are retained through all alternatives. Areas limited to existing/designated roads include Forest Service-administrated lands, non-wilderness portions of the Black Rock/High Rock National Conservation Area, and all non-wilderness portions of the recently completed California BLM LUPs (2008), which include northeastern California and northwestern Nevada. Impacts on GRSG from recreation are well documented (See Section 4.3.2, General Nature and Types of Effects). Comprehensive Travel and Transportation involves the regulation of off-road use by motorized vehicles. Off-road motorized vehicle use can impact GRSG habitat by causing habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive plant spread, induced displacement or avoidance behavior, creation of movement barriers, noise, and direct encounters (Knick et al. 2011). Reducing the extent and influence of roads and trails, and the areal extent of off-road use would be expected to reduce impacts associated with these activities. Cross-country vehicle travel is most prevalent after wet conditions have abated, particularly during the late summer/fall hunting seasons. Juvenile GRSG become increasingly mobile during late summer through the winter and are less impacted by random vehicle disturbance during this period. The effect of limiting vehicular access to existing roads is minor but of note during these time periods. For comparison of impacts, the acreage designated closed, limited, or open can provide a direct comparison among alternatives. Under current management, 874,600 acres are closed to motorized vehicles, 4,113,300 acres are limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles, and 12,745,000 acres are open to all modes of cross country travel (see Table 4-8, Alternative A: Acres of GRSG Habitat and Sub-region Populations within Travel Management Designations). Table 4.8. Alternative A: Acres of GRSG Habitat and Sub-region Populations within Travel Management Designations Allocation PPM PC H Modeled Nesting Habitat % Sub-region Population Affected (acres) Closed 731,000 143,600 834,600 20 Limited 3,083,600 1,029,700 3,681,900 49 Open 8,878,900 3,866,100 11,292,000 77 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Table 4-9, Alternative A: GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Travel Management Designations of Closed and Limited, depicts population effects by percent sub-population. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 621 Table 4.9. Alternative A: GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Travel Management Designations of Closed and Limited Sub-Population Percent Closed Limited Central Nevada o J 50 Southeast Nevada 23 37 Northwest Interior 0 0 Quinn Range 0 0 North-central Nevada 31 50 Northeast Nevada 8 30 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 42 29 Northeast California/ 43 81 Northwest Nevada Warm Springs Valley 0 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 4.3.5. Alternative B Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative B, restoration projects would be prioritized in seasonal GRSG habitats thought to be limiting the distribution and abundance of GRSG. Re-establishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory plants would be the highest priority for restoration efforts. Restoration treatments would incorporate habitat parameters defined by Connelly et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2007, and state GRSG conservation plans. Native seed would be required for restoration treatments and the establishment of designated seed harvest areas for sagebrush seed collection in fire prone areas. Climate change would be a consideration when proposing native seed collection. In addition, post-restoration management plans would be implemented to ensure long-term persistence of vegetation treatments. Alternative B management prescriptions for vegetation and soil applied to PPMAs (12,693,500 acres) and PGM As (5,039,400 acres) would provide greater protection and restoration efforts for GRSG habitat compared with those under Alternative A. Management under Alternative B would ensure the long-term availability and resiliency of native seed for restoration treatments by establishing native seed harvest areas which incoiporate climate change effects. This and post- treatment management plans would provide long-term beneficial impacts by improving the success of restoration treatments and the future persistence of GRSG and their habitat. Vegetation treatment rates would be greater than under Alternative A and would further reduce the impacts ot invasive grasses, affecting seven of nine population/subpopulations where invasive grasses are a substantial threat. Treatment rates would further reduce the impacts of conifer encroachment on four ol nine population/subpopulations where conifer is a substantial threat. VDDT modeled trends tor habitat projected at 10 and 50 years would improve compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management September, 20/3 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 622 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative B, the same number of acres would be open to livestock grazing as under Alternative A, with the same number of acres of modeled nesting habitat affected within the sub-region. Agencies, in coordination with permittees, would prioritize a number of management actions in PPMAs to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations into livestock grazing management, though there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing or available AUMs unless an allotment is retired from grazing. Management actions would include developing specific vegetation objectives based on ESDs to conserve, enhance, or restore PPMAs habitat and riparian areas would be managed to achieve proper functioning condition. Vegetation treatments to increase livestock forage would only be allowed if they conserved, enhanced or restored GRSG habitat. This alternative would also implement modifications to season of use, numbers of livestock or livestock types to meet seasonal GRSG requirements. New water developments would only be authorized when they would benefit PPMAs. In PPMAs, older developments would also be analyzed in order to determine if modifications of the system are necessary to maintain the integrity of the riparian area. Removal, modification, or marking of fences would be considered under this alternative. This alternative would provide long-term benefits to GRSG through implementation of management actions that would improve both upland and riparian GRSG habitats, and both short- and long-term impacts on their seasonal ranges. Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B management actions would further reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts from grazing on GRSG and their habitat. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under Alternative B, impacts on GRSG from fire suppression activities would be largely the same as Alternative A. On BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands, 12,693,500 acres of GRSG habitat would be designated as PPMAs and 5,039,400 acres would be designated as PGMAs. With regard to fuels management projects GRSG would benefit from the direction provided to protect important aspects of habitat within PPMAs (e.g., canopy cover, etc.). Hazardous fuels projects focused on protecting GRSG habitat would be prioritized in these areas. Any fuels treatment in sagebrush would carefully consider if there is a net benefit for GRSG prior to implementation, and fuels treatments would not be allowed in winter habitat. Prescribed fire in low precipitation areas (less than 12 inches) would generally not be allowed. Post-fire rehabilitation would be conducted using primarily native species, based on availability and adaptation. Rest from grazing would be required for two full growing seasons, unless vegetation recovery dictates otherwise. These activities may decrease the likelihood for fire in GRSG habitats and would help restore GRSG habitat in fire-affected areas. Relative to the amount of GRSG habitat that is expected to bum based on current trends; these actions may provide localized but minimal protections and improvements to seven of the nine populations/subpopulations in the sub-region where fire contributes significantly to current declining trends. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative B, wild horses and burros would be managed at AML on the same number of acres as Alternative A, with gathers prioritized based on PPMAs habitat and emergency environmental issues. HMA plans when developed or updated would incorporate GRSG habitat objectives. Implementation of any range improvements would follow the same guidance as identified for livestock grazing in this alternative including designing and locating new improvements only where they “conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through improved grazing management”. Design features could include developing or modifying waters to mitigate Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 623 for West Nile virus, removing or modifying fences to reduce the chance of bird strikes, or monitoring and treating invasive species associated with range improvements. Additional range improvements would specifically address the needs of GRSG. Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would prioritize GRSG habitat objectives in HMA plans and base assessment of AMLs on achieving or maintaining GRSG habitat needs. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B provides short-term and localized improvements to grass cover and forb availability. This affects nesting and both early and late brood-rearing habitats, where horse gathers have been implemented and for the duration of which herd numbers are appreciably reduced toward AML. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Management under Alternative B would close 12,693,500 acres of PPMAs to leasing. Within modeled nesting habitat, there would be 10,522,300 acres of PPMAs. Closed lands would provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 94 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region and by sub-population (See Table 4-10, Alternative B: Percent of Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Leasables). Closure to leasable minerals would result in long-term beneficial impacts on GRSG habitats associated with all seasonal life history requirements. It would do this by reducing disturbance to both habitat and the species at leks, during nesting and brood rearing, and on winter ranges. Table 4.10. Alternative B: Percent of Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Leasables Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 99 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 92 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 88 Warm Springs Valley 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Management under Alternative B would be more protective than under Alternative A. In addition to withdrawals and processes for management, PPMAs would be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry and existing mining claims would be subject to validity exams or buy-out. Proposed withdrawal under Alternative B would include 12,693,500 acres of PPMAs. Within modeled nesting habitat there would be 10,522,300 acres of PPMA. Withdrawn lands would provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 94 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region and by sub-population (See Table 4-11, Alternative B: Percent of Sub-Populations Affected by Withdrawals). Withdrawal from locatable mineral entry would result in long-term beneficial impacts on GRSG habitats associated with all seasonal life history requirements. It would do this by reducing disturbance to both habitat and the species at leks, during nesting and brood rearing, and on winter ranges. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 624 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 4.11. Alternative B: Percent of Sub-Populations Affected by Proposed Withdrawals Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 99 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 92 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 88 Warm Springs Valley 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative B would be more protective than Alternative A and would close PPMAs to mineral material sales. Alternative B closes 12,693,500 acres of PPMAs to mineral material sales (10,522,300 acres of PPMAs in modeled nesting habitat). Closed lands would provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 94 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region and by sub-population (See Table 4-12, Alternative B: Percent of Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Salables). Closure to salables increases long-term protection of leks and nesting habitat, as depicted in Table 4-12. It would also reduce habitat and species disturbance during the remaining seasonal life history phases, including brood rearing and wintering. Table 4.12. Alternative B: Percent of Sub-Populations Affeeted by Closure to Salables Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 99 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 92 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 88 Warm Springs Valley 100 BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative B, more habitat would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance (4,932,400 acres) and exclusion (12,693,500 acres) areas than under Alternative A. There is an approximate 233,900-acre difference between both alternatives in terms of acres for disposal, with Alternative B having fewer acres. PPMAs would be made into exclusion areas, with some exceptions, for new ROW and special use authorizations. Mitigation and restoration efforts would take place related to existing ROWs in PPMAs. In general habitat, avoidances areas would be set up in relation to new ROWs, collocating ROWs as much as possible. Under Alternative B, PPMAs Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 625 would be retained unless mitigation or land exchange would better benefit GRSG habitat. Avoidance areas provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 64 percent of the sub-regional population, and exclusion areas provide an increased level of protection to 94 percent of the modeled sub-regional population. In relation to Alternative A, management under Alternative B would provide fewer direct impacts on GRSG by greatly increasing acreage subject to ROW/SUA avoidance and exclusion and by protection and acquisition of important GRSG habitats. ROW/SUA exclusion and avoidance would result in long-term beneficial impacts on GRSG habitats associated with all seasonal life history requirements. It would do this by reducing disturbance to both habitat and the species at leks, during nesting and brood rearing, and on winter ranges. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative B, impacts from management of lands for wind and solar energy development would be the same as for Alternative A. Impacts from Wind Energy Development on Sub-populations Alternative B does not specify exclusion or avoidance areas specifically for GRSG conservation. Because a specific action was not specified under Alternative B, the default is that the same action would be taken for Alternative B as proposed for Alternative A. Within the sub-region, most areas of public land would remain open for wind energy development. 276,600 acres of PPMAs and PGMAs would be excluded and 1 14,200 acres of PPM As and PGMAs would have ROW/SUA avoidance for wind energy development. This represents 4 percent of the available PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area being excluded or avoided in the planning area. In the sub-region, within modeled nesting habitat there are 983,600 of exclusion and 89,200 of avoidance acres of PPMAs and PGMAs. Proposed ROW/SUA exclusion and avoidance areas provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks (see Table 4-13, Alternative B: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by ROW/SUA Exclusion or Avoidance). Table 4.13. Alternative B: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by ROW/SUA Exclusion or Avoidance Sub-Population Percent Affected Exclusion Avoidance Central Nevada 99 92 Southeast Nevada 100 96 Northwest Interior 92 44 Quinn Range 0 0 North-central Nevada 100 62 Northeast Nevada 99 59 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 87 30 Warm Springs Valley 100 100 BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Solar Energy Development on Sub-populations September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 626 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Alternative B does not specify exclusion and avoidance areas specifically for GRSG conservation. Because a specific action was not specified under Alternative B, the default is that the same action would be taken for Alternative B as proposed for Alternative A. Within the sub-region, most public lands are excluded from solar development. Areas potentially available to solar development include designated Solar Energy Zones, which are considered open. The Final Solar Programmatic EIS states that occupied GRSG habitat and Solar Energy Zones do not overlap (BLM 2012h). Some areas, termed Variance Areas, within PPH and PGH remain available for application for solar development. Solar Energy Variance Areas are considered as avoidance. Under this alternative, 1,492,800 acres of PPM As and PGMAs would be designated as Solar Variance and would remain open to application for solar development within the sub-region. This alternative leaves the remaining PPMA and PGM A (16,240,100 acres) closed or limited to solar development. There are 14,883,500 acres of PPH and PGH for exclusion and 924,800 acres that would be designated as Solar Variance (avoidance) within modeled nesting habitat. Variance areas provide a level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 10 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and as represented by the sub-population table(Table 4-14, Alternative B: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Solar Energy). Table 4.14. Alternative B: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Solar Energy Variance Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 25 Southeast Nevada 41 Northwest Interior 40 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 0 Northeast Nevada 0 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 0 Northeast California/Northwest Nevada 0 Warm Springs Valley 7 BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative B, areas designated as open to cross-country travel within PPM As would be managed as limited for motorized travel with the exception of existing closed areas within PPMAs or PGMAs. Under Alternative B, 874,000 acres would be subject to existing closures to motorized vehicles, 12,992,100 acres would be limited to existing roads, and 3,866,100 acres would be open to all modes of cross-country travel (See Tables 4-15, Alternative B: GRSG Habitat and Sub-region Populations within Travel Management Designations, and 4-16, Alternative B: GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Travel Management Designations of Closed and Limited). Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 627 Table 4.15. Alternative B: Acres of GRSG Habitat and Sub-region Populations within Travel Management Designations Allocation PPMAs PGM As Modeled Nesting Habitat % Sub-region Population Affected (acres) Closed 731,000 143,600 834,600 20% Limited 1 1,962,500 1,029,600 10,720,200 94% Open N/A 3,866,100 N/A N/A BLM and Forest Service 2013 Table 4.16. Alternative B: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Travel Management Designations of Closed and Limited Sub-Population Percent Affected Closed Limited Central Nevada J 100 Southeast Nevada 23 100 Northwest Interior 0 92 Quinn Range 0 0 North-central Nevada 31 100 Northeast Nevada 8 100 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 42 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 43 88 Warm Springs Valley 0 100 BLM and Forest Service 2013 Alternative B would reduce the potential for random vehicle disturbance to GRSG within PPMAs during all phases of their seasonal life history. Disturbance to GRSG during lekking, and secondarily during nesting, would be the most detrimental impact but is naturally limited by vehicle travel conditions during late winter/early spring. The effect on GRSG of limiting vehicular access to existing roads is minor but of note. Cross-country vehicle travel is most prevalent after wet conditions have abated and particularly during the late summer/fall hunting seasons. Juvenile GRSG become increasingly mobile during late summer through winter and are less impacted by random vehicle disturbance during this period. The effect of limiting vehicular access to existing roads is minor but of note during these times. 4.3.6. Alternative C Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative C, vegetation management would prioritize the restoration of crested wheat seedings back to native vegetative communities and focus fuels treatments in areas of urban interface and significant existing disturbances, establish monitoring sites, require “Risk Assessments,” minimize or eliminate the use of herbicides, address vectors of weed infestations, and require the use of mowers to remove thatch from meadows and to manage existing fuel breaks. Management prescriptions under Alternative C would focus vegetation treatments in unoccupied GRSG habitats (e.g., crested wheat grass seeding, urban interface, areas where livestock September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 628 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmentai Impact Statement management infrastructure is removed, and other areas of significant disturbances). Broad-scale treatment of invasive grasses is achieved through natural recovery following the removal of livestock. Juniper removal projects would be limited as well. Given the limited current distribution of suitable GRSG habitat, management plans that strategically protect intact sagebrush and restore impacted areas to enhance existing habitats have the best chance of increasing the amount and quality of GRSG habitat (Manier et al. 2013, p. 171). Management under Alternative C would not prioritize restoration treatments within occupied habitats; therefore, it would decrease the potential for restoring GRSG habitat, compared with Alternative A. Alternative C would also rely on the removal of livestock and a presumption that long-term vegetative would recover over time in the absence of large-scale vegetation treatments. Additionally, VDDT modeling projects habitat trends for 10 and 50 years. It indicates a slight decline from increased influence of invasive grasses and a continued dominance of conifer within impacted populations and subpopulations, compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative C, livestock use would be closed on about 17,589,700 acres of PPMA (portions of PPMA are unallotted). About 94 percent of the modeled GRSG population in the sub-region would be affected, and anywhere from 88 to 100 percent of each sub-population. Maintenance of a 6-inch stubble height throughout the grazing season in riparian areas and maintenance of a 9-inch stubble height on the uplands would be mandated as part of this alternative. As needed, livestock would be reduced rather than moved into other sagebrush sites under this alternative. Under this alternative, both passive and active restoration would occur including, removal of livestock, roads, water developments, fences, and other range infrastructure that may contribute to GRSG predators or increase habitat for mosquitoes that may carry the West Nile virus. Additional active restoration would include reseeding of roads and crested wheatgrass seedings with native shrubs and grasses. Under Alternative C, grazing impacts on GRSG would be reduced compared with Alternative A. Potential trampling of nests would be eliminated since no grazing would occur during the nesting season and the potential for direct impacts from livestock turnout activities would also be reduced or eliminated. The necessary reduction in livestock numbers under this alternative would result in greater amounts of residual upland cover both in the short term and long term. Removal of fencing would reduce the potential of GRSG direct strikes and reduce the potential for predation. However, fence removal would increase negative impacts on brood-rearing habitats from wild horses and burros having access to more riparian sites. Removal of troughs and other artificial watering devices would make more water available on the ground for GRSG, their habitats, and other wildlife species. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under Alternative C, impacts on GRSG from wildfire suppression and fuels management would be the same as Alternative B; 17,732,900 acres of GRSG habitat would be designated as PPMAs. However, this alternative adopts a passive restoration approach relying on a long-term improvement of habitat conditions by closing PPMAs (17,589,700 acres) to livestock grazing. The alternative does not rely on presuppression infrastructure, such as fuelbreaks, to limit the impacts of fire and limits cheatgrass control to natural restoration over chemical treatment, which is restricted. The combination of reducing the direct measures to combat invasive species and limit fire spread would increase the likelihood of continued GRSG habitat decline within seven of the nine GRSG populations/subpopulations. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 629 Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative C, wild horses and burros would be managed on the same HMA/WHBT acreage as under Alternative A. Horses and burros would be managed at AML. However, AML establishment would be analyzed in conjunction with livestock numbers during grazing permit renewals and land health assessments. Use of contraceptives and other population growth suppression to manage wild horse and burro numbers would be similar to actions under Alternative A. Management under Alternative C would not allow the use of helicopters for gathers and would be expected to lead to decreased gather efficiency, resulting in increases of wild horses and burros beyond AML. Combined with the removal of some fences during “active restoration'” processes related to livestock grazing, horses and burros would be expected to range over a larger area than under Alternative A and would necessitate the need for increased gather outside of HMA/WHBT boundaries. The increase in access to riparian and upland habitats that are currently protected by fences, and expected temporary increases in horses and burros over AML, would over time reduce food and cover for GRSG and reduce water holding capacities of riparian brood-rearing sites compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Management under Alternative C would afford the highest level of protection of all alternatives. Mineral leasing would be precluded for all ACECs, including all PPMA, under this alternative. Closed acreage would include all PMUs in the sub-region, protecting all occupied or potentially occupied GRSG habitat and an increasing the level of protection to all associated populations and sub-populations (Table 4-17, Alternative C: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Leasables). Table 4.17. Alternative C: Percent of GRSG Sub-PopulationsAffected by Closure to Leasables Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 100 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 96 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 88 Warm Springs Valley 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Table 4.18. Alternative C: Percent of GRSG Sub-PopulationsAffected by Closure to Leasables Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 100 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 96 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 630 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Sub-Population Percent South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 88 Warm Springs Valley 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Management under Alternative C would afford the highest level of protection of all alternatives. Mineral entry withdrawal would be recommended for all ACECs, including all PPMAs, under this alternative. This would also include all PMUs in the sub-region, protecting all occupied or potentially occupied GRSG habitat and an increasing the level of protection to all associated populations and sub-populations. Management under Alternative C would withdraw PPMAs to locatable mineral entry (17,732,900 acres). Within modeled nesting habitat, there are 15,485,100 acres of PPMA. Withdrawal would increase protection of all acres of PPMA within modeled nesting habitat associated with leks, which would impact 97 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and by sub-population below (Table 4-18, Alternative C: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Withdrawals). Table 4.19. Alternative C: Percent of GRSG Sub-PopulationsAffected by Withdrawals Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 100 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 96 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 88 Warm Springs Valley 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative C would close PPMA to mineral materials sales, providing the highest level of protection among the alternatives (same as Alternative D; See Table 4-19, Alternative C: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Salables). Table 4.20. Alternative C: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Salables Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 100 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 96 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 South-central Oregon/North-central Nevada 100 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmentai Impact Statement 631 Sub-Population Percent Northeast California/Northwest Nevada 88 Warm Springs Valley 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Management under Alternative C would close PPM A (17,732,900 acres) to mineral material disposal. Within modeled nesting habitat, there are 15,485,100 acres of PPM A and PGMA combined. Closure would increase protection of all acres of PPMA within modeled nesting habitat associated with leks. This would impact 97 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region and by sub-population. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative C, ROW/SUA avoidance acres would remain the same as under Alternative A. Within PPMA, there are more acres managed as ROW/SUA exclusion under Alternative C (17,732,900 acres) than under Alternative A (276,600 acres). This difference would provide protections to more of the modeled sub-regional GRSG population than Alternative A, about 94 percent of the modeled population. This difference is due to resource use restrictions in all PPMAs as well as potential ACECs. Acres identified for disposal are less than Alternative A. Under Alternative C, all public lands in proposed ACECs (all PPMAs) and identified restoration and rehabilitation lands would be retained in public ownership. New corridors or facilities including communication towers would only be allowed in non-habitat areas with existing towers undergoing reviews for adverse effects. All existing transmission or pipeline corridors would be assessed under this alternative and ROWs or Forest Service authorizations amended to require features that enhance GRSG habitat security. This alternative would result in fewer direct or indirect impacts on GRSG and their habitats under compared with Alternative A due to most effects from the land and realty program occurring outside of occupied habitat and effects within current ROWs being minimized over time. Additionally, this alternative would prioritize more areas for acquisition compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Alternative C would prohibit development from all PPMAs. Management under Alternative C would close both ACECs and occupied GRSG habitats to large-scale solar development. Alternative C provides the highest level of protection for sagebrush habitat of all the alternatives, with 17,732,900 acres of ROW/SUA exclusion for solar development in PPMAs. Closure would increase protection of all acres of PPMAs within modeled nesting habitat associated with leks, which would impact 97 percent within exclusion areas. This alternative further butlers wind development outside of PPMA by 5 to 10 miles, affording additional protection to potential and unoccupied habitats adjacent to PPMA. This alternative eliminates the impacts Irom renewable energy development on GRSG and its habitat in all seasonal ranges. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative C, PPMAs would be managed as limited to motorized travel with the exception of existing closed areas. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 632 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.3.7. Alternative D Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Management under Alternative D would focus on vegetation management within PPMAs and PGMAs with a goal of maintaining a resilient sagebrush vegetative community, restoring sagebrush communities to reduce habitat fragmentation, and maintaining and re-establishing habitat connectivity over the long term. Management actions include vegetation effectiveness research; region-specific GRSG Habitat Objectives that consider life requisite, habitat indicators and objectives to be incorporated in proposed vegetation treatments across all resource programs; management of lotic and lentic riparian areas; seeding and seedling treatments for areas affected by wildfire; use of native seed; evaluation of treatments at a landscape scale; use of fire resistant species for fuel breaks; resting of grazing allotments pre- and post-treatment; monitoring and control of invasive species; prioritizing treatments in winter habitat by enhancing or reducing wildfire risk; and increasing edge habitat adjacent to riparian areas. Management under Alternative D would provide for specific on the ground management objectives for vegetation treatments which are categorized by GRSG seasonal habitat requirements. This would allow 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 D would require one year of pre-treatment rest from cattle grazing and two years of rest post-treatment. This requirement coupled with vegetation effectiveness research and meeting specific seasonal habitat objectives would increase the success of treatments being implemented compared with Alternative A (see Table 2-6, Proposed Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse). VDDT modeling projects that habitat trends for 10 and 50 years would improve, compared with Alternative A, and would be similar to Alternative B. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Management actions under Alternative D would similar to those under Alternative B. Actions described under this alternative would provide both short-term (less disturbance) and long-term (habitat) benefits to GRSG. Compared with Alternative A, Alternative D management actions would further reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts from grazing on GRSG and their habitat. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Effects on GRSG from wildfire and fuels management under Alternative D would be similar to, but less than Alternative B. Impacts on GRSG are expected to be slightly less due to fuels management treatments and post-fire rehabilitation projects in PPMAs, which are focused on maximizing benefits on GRSG. Fuel breaks would be implemented to better contain wildfires, and during firefighting operations sagebrush habitat would be protected to the extent possible as a valuable resource. See discussion under Alternative B, Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management. Relative to the amount of GRSG habitat that is expected to bum based on current trends; these actions may provide localized but minimal protections and improvements to seven of the nine populations/subpopulations in the sub-region where fire contributes significantly to current declining trends. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September. 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 633 Under Alternative D, gathers would be prioritized in PPMAs habitat but the management would be similar to Alternative 13, with the same percentage of modeled overall GRSG population affected as under Alternative A. As under Alternative B, Alternative D would be expected to produce similar results as Alternative A. However, beneficial effects on GRSG and PPMAs would accrue more quickly due to the prioritization of gathers based on importance to GRSG habitat. Overall, as under Alternative B, Alternative D provides significant, short-term, and localized improvements to grass cover and forb availability. This would affect nesting and both early and late brood-rearing habitats where horse gathers have been implemented and for the duration of which herd numbers are appreciably reduced toward AML. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Fluid Mineral Leasing Management under Alternative D would allow leasing on all lands with federal fluid mineral estate. Within PPMA and PGMA, leasing would only be allowed with NSO stipulations. Waivers, exceptions, or modifications would not be considered in PPMA and would be considered in PGMA. Management under Alternative D would provide NSO restrictions to all PPMA and PGMA. Management under Alternative D would include 12,693,500 acres of PPMA and 5,039,400 acres of PGMA (all PPMA and PGMA within the sub-region). Within modeled nesting habitat, there are 15,485,100 acres of PPMA and PGMA combined. NSO stipulations would provide an increased level of protection to all acres of PPMA and PGMA within modeled nesting habitat associated with leks, which would impact 97 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and by sub-population below (Table 4-20, Alternative D: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by NSO Stipulations for Leasing). Table 4.21. Alternative D: Percent of GRSG Sub-PopulationsAffected by NSO Stipulations for Leasing Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 100 Southeast Nevada 100 Northwest Interior 96 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 100 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 82 Warm Springs Valley 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Same as Alternative C. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 634 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management PPMAs and PGMAs would be managed to reduce fragmentation and enhance connectivity under Alternative D. Under this alternative, more acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance than under Alternative A. PPMAs would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion areas for large-scale wind and solar energy development, and ROW/SUA avoidance for all other ROWs and Forest Service authorizations. Road ROWs would be authorized based on public safety or administrative needs. Development could occur in avoidance areas with appropriate RDFs. Like Alternative A, in PPMAs and PGMAs, new utilities would be co-located with existing surface ROWs. PGMAs would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance for new communication site ROWs or SUAs. BLM ROW exclusion areas and Forest Service SUA no disturbance areas would be the same as under Alternative A. ROW/SUA avoidance acreage provides a level of protection affecting 94 percent of the modeled sub-regional GRSG population, with ROW/SUA exclusion acreage providing a level of protection affecting 9 percent of the modeled sub-regional population. Management under Alternative D would apply avoidance criteria throughout PPMAs and PGMAs resulting in greater control of impacts on GRSG in these habitats than would occur under Alternative A. Exclusion areas under Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative A; therefore, impacts would be expected to be the same. Fewer acres would be identified for disposal under Alternative D than under Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative D, all PPMAs (12,927,400acres) and all PGMAs (5,039,400 acres) would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion for wind energy facilities. This alternative, along with Alternative F which has the same provision, would have fewer impacts on GRSG than Alternative A. Under Alternative D, PPMAs and PGMAs would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion for wind facilities. This level of closure provides the maximum preservation of sagebrush habitat. Of the 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area, 17,732,900 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion and 0 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance under Alternative D. This represents 100 percent of the PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area. In the sub-region, within modeled nesting habitat there are 12,202,900 acres proposed for ROW/SUA exclusion and an additional 89,200 acres proposed for ROW/SUA avoidance within PPMAs and PGMAs. Proposed exclusion and avoidance areas provide an increased level of protection to modeled nesting habitat associated with leks represented by 94 percent of the modeled GRSG population for the sub-region within the closure and exclusion proposed by this alternative. GRSG sub-populations affected by exclusion or avoidance are shown in Table 4-21, Alternative D: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by ROW/SUA Exclusion or Avoidance. Table 4.22. Alternative D: Pereent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by ROW/SUA Exclusion or Avoidance Sub-Population Percent Affected Exclusion Avoidance Central Nevada 12 100 Southeast Nevada 37 100 Northwest Interior 0 96 Quinn Range 0 0 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 635 Sub-Population Percent Affected Exclusion Avoidance North-central Nevada 0 100 Northeast Nevada 5 99 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 0 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 2 87 Warm Springs Valley 0 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 The exclusion of wind energy developments from PPMAs and PGMAs eliminates the impact of tall structures, which GRSG avoid during all phases of their seasonal life cycle. Exclusion also eliminates the need for additional infrastructure development, which further degrades and fragments GRSG habitat. Impacts from Solar Energy Development Under Alternative D, PPMAs and PGMAs would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion for new solar energy facilities. This would provide a high level of protection for sagebrush; excluding 17,773,300 acres of sagebrush habitat from new development. Beneficial impacts on GRSG are similar to those described above for wind energy development under Alternative D. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative D, areas designated as open to cross-country travel within PPMAs and PGMAs from Alternative A would be managed as limited to motorized travel, making it the most limiting to travel management designations. Under Alternative D within PPMA and PGMA, the current 874,000 acres remain closed to motorized vehicles, as carried forward under Alternative A. Alternative D limits vehicular travel to existing roads on 16,858,200 acres and retains 0 acres open to all modes of cross-country travel (see Table 4-22). Table 4.23. Alternative D: GRSG Habitat and Sub-region Populations within Travel Management Designations Allocation PPMAs PGMAs Modeled Nesting Habitat % Sub-region Population Affected (acres) Closed 731,000 143,600 834,600 20 Limited 1 1,962,500 4,895,800 12,172,700 94 Open N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Alternative D would reduce the potential for random vehicle disturbance to GRSG and their habitats within PPMAs during all phases of their seasonal life history. Disturbance to GRSG during lekking, and secondarily during nesting, would be the most detrimental impact, but it is naturally limited by vehicle travel conditions during late winter/early spring. The effect on GRSG of limiting vehicular access to existing roads is minor but of note. Cross-country vehicle travel is most prevalent after wet conditions have abated and particularly during the late summer/fall hunting seasons. Juvenile GRSG become increasingly mobile during late summer through winter September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 636 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and are less impacted by random vehicle disturbance during this period. The effect of limiting vehicular access to existing roads is minor but of note during these times. Table 4-23 depicts population effects by sub-population. Table 4.24. Alternative D: GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Travel Management Designations of Closed and Limited Sub-Population Percent Affected Closed Limited Central Nevada 3 100 Southeast Nevada 22 100 Northwest Interior 0 96 Quinn Range 0 0 North-central Nevada 26 100 Northeast Nevada 8 99 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 42 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 40 88 Warm Springs Valley 0 100 North-central Nevada 26 100 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 4.3.8. Alternative E Alternative E establishes SGMAs from the Strategic Plan for Conservation of GRSG in Nevada (State of Nevada 2012). SGMAs identify occupied habitat, suitable habitat, potential habitat, and non-habitat within the range of GRSG in Nevada. Within SGMAs, the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council would work to achieve conservation through a goal of “no net loss” in occupied, suitable, and potential habitats. Alternative E proposes a hierarchical decision-making process for considering planned disturbance or development. The process seeks to avoid disturbance/development, wherever possible, by relocating activities; to minimize disturbance/development through permit conditions to lessen effects; and to mitigate disturbance/development by implementing additional actions that would result in replacement of an asset (mainly habitat) that would be lost as a result of a development action. This alternative limits habitat disturbance to not more than 5 percent per year, per 640 acres, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results, and refers disturbance levels exceeding 5 percent per 640 acres to evaluation and consultation with the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. SGMAs apply only to lands within Nevada. SGMAs include 19.9 million acres of all surface administrations within Nevada. Out of a total of 15.3 million acres of modeled nesting habitat, SGMAs include 11.9 million acres (78 percent). Of 11.9 million acres of PPM As and 4.9 million acres of PGM As, SGMAs include 10.7 million acres of PPMAs (91 percent) and 2.3 million acres of PGMAs (47 percent). Using the weighted population model, SGMAs include nesting habitat associated with leks represented by 91 percent of the modeled GRSG population for the sub-region. Due to the lower percentage of PGMAs included in SGMAs, a larger portion of nesting buffers fall outside SGMAs, reducing the amount of nesting habitat supporting the 91 percent population below that provided by the inclusion of all PPMAs and PGMAs in the sub-region (see Table 4-24, Alternative E: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Supported by SGMAs). Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 637 Table 4.25. Alternative E: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Supported by SGMAs Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 98 Southeast Nevada 95 Northwest Interior 0 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 98 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 84 Warm Springs Valley 92 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Alternative E does not provide fixed exclusion or avoidance areas, leaving all management subject to an avoid, minimize, and mitigate approach, which provides a lower level of certainty than alternatives that have fixed exclusion and avoidance land allocations based on PPMAs and PGMAs designations. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative E, BLM-administered lands in California would be managed similar to Alternative A. BLM-administered lands in Nevada would be managed similar to Alternative D; however, they would be managed over a management footprint defined by SGMAs that matches the PACs defined in the COT Report. SGMAs contain slightly smaller footprints of occupied and suitable habitat than the equivalent combined PPMAs and PGMAs defined in Alternative D. SGMAs also include potential and unoccupied habitat. For federal lands in Nevada, management under Alternative E would limit habitat improvement projects within GRSG habitats, unless treatments show credible positive results through the direction of the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council. Restoration would be based on data-driven models that incorporate ecological site potential and identify the highest priority sites with high success potential. Vegetation management would be similar to that under Alternatives B and D. Coordination processes between the state and land management agencies ensure consistency in all vegetation management actions, as well as establishment, monitoring, and implementation of no net loss mitigation. Management under Alternative E would provide for more vegetation treatments within occupied GRSG habitat than Alternative A. It is similar to Alternatives B and D. Ten and fifty year habitat trends would improve compared to Alternative A and would be similar to Alternatives B and D. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative E, GRSG management would be focused on SGMAs encompassing four categories, Occupied, Suitable, Potential, and Non-Habitat areas. There would be no change in acres from existing areas open to grazing. Management under Alternative E would emphasize cooperative implementation of appropriate prescribed grazing conservation actions, such as NRCS conservation Practice Standard 528 for prescribed grazing, at scales sufficient to influence a positive response in occupied and suitable GRSG habitat acres (NRCS 2011). Occupied and September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 638 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement suitable habitat would be managed to retain attributes necessary for GRSG. Potential habitats would be managed for habitat enhancement and restoration to expand or restore occupied and suitable habitats. Overall, impacts on GRSG and their habitats from implementation of Alternative E would be similar to Alternatives B and D, but would be applied to SGMAs, which are smaller in extent than PPMAs and PGMAs in Alternatives B and D. Enhancement of potential habitats under Alternative E may improve GRSG habitats that are currently unoccupied. The impact of improvements within unoccupied habitats is difficult to characterize but has the potential to provide additional habitat for GRSG. Uplands would be managed by ensuring that existing grazing permits maintain or enhance SGMAs. Livestock grazing would be used as a tool, when appropriate, to improve GRSG habitat quantity, quality or to reduce wildfire threats. Land management agencies would be encouraged to cooperatively make timely, seasonal range management decisions with livestock operators to respond to vegetation management objectives, including fuels reduction based on the flexibility of livestock operators. Riparian areas would be managed, at a minimum, for PFC. BLM riparian areas would be managed to meet RAC standards. Alternative E would promote riparian grazing improvements along with additional infrastructure (e.g., fences and troughs) in order to control season, duration and degree of use to promote herbage removal at acceptable limits. These improvements would be beneficial to late summer brood-rearing habitat for GRSG. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under Alternative E, the effects on GRSG from wildfire suppression and fuels management would be similar to the effects described under Alternative D. With respect to hazardous fuels treatments, this alternative sets a goal of supporting incentives for developing a beneficial use for biomass. Additionally, it seeks to expedite the process to implement fuels reduction projects for protection of GRSG habitat. Finally, it seeks to improve pre-suppression, initial attack, and suppression efforts and to reduce the number of fires greater than 300 acres. These activities would decrease the likelihood for large fires in GRSG habitats. Elowever, relative to the amount of GRSG habitat that would continue to bum outside the control of the BLM or Forest Service, these actions may provide localized but minimal protections and improvements to GRSG habitat. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Similar to Alternatives B and D. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would allow leasing within SGMAs on all lands with federal fluid mineral estate. The State policy of avoid, minimize, and mitigate would include NSO stipulations and a 5 percent surface-disturbance cap. Existing mineral withdrawals would include 1,399,700 acres, and 1 1,708,400 acres open to leasing would be subject to the "avoid, minimize, and mitigate" policy. For nonenergy leasables, management under Alternative E would implement an avoidance strategy on 1 5,905,600 acres within SGMAs including 1 1,708,400 acres of occupied and suitable habitat. Within modeled nesting habitat, SGMAs include 11,960,500 acres of occupied and suitable habitat combined. Existing withdrawn acreage, avoidance, and implementation of the avoid, minimize, and mitigate policy would provide an increased level of protection to all acres of Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 639 occupied and suitable habitat within modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 91 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and by sub-population below (Table 4-25, Alternative E: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by NSO Stipulations for Leasing). Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Lands would be generally open to mineral location. There are specific existing locatable mineral withdrawals for particular ROWs, designated wilderness areas, ACECs, and other administrative needs, but none specific to protecting GRSG habitat. All locatable mineral activities are managed under the Surface Management Regulations at 43 CFR 3809. Mitigation of effects on GRSG and its habitat are identified through the NEPA process approving plans of operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals are to avoid, minimize and mitigate while providing opportunities to legally access locatable mineral resources. Table 4.26. Alternative E: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Avoidance for Fluid Minerals Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 98 Southeast Nevada 95 Northwest Interior 0 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada 100 Northeast Nevada 98 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 84 Warm Springs Valley 92 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Of state-designated Occupied and Suitable habitat within SGMAs, 1,399,700 acres would be withdrawn as under current management and 1 1,708,400 acres would be open to locatable minerals. Effects on GRSG populations are similar to Alternative A (see Table 4-4, Alternative A: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Withdrawal). Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would avoid mineral material sales within SGMAs and apply a policy of avoid, minimize, and mitigate. This alternative would limit habitat disturbance to 5 percent per year, per 640 acres, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results, and would refer disturbance levels exceeding 5 percent per 640 acres to evaluation and consultation with the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. SGMAs apply only to lands within Nevada. Management under Alternative E would implement the avoidance strategy on 15,905,600 acres within SGMAs, including 1 1,708,400 acres of occupied and suitable habitat combined. Existing withdrawn acreage, avoidance, and implementation of the avoid, minimize, and mitigate policy would provide an increased level of protection to all acres of occupied and suitable habitat within modeled nesting habitat associated with leks representing 91 percent of the GRSG population for the sub-region, and by sub-population below (Table 4-26, Alternative E: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Closure to Salables). September, ; 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 640 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 4.27. Alternative E: Percent of GRSG Sub-Populations Affected by Avoidance to Salables Sub-Population Percent Central Nevada 98 Southeast Nevada 95 Northwest Interior 0 Quinn Range 0 North-central Nevada too Northeast Nevada 98 South-central Oregon/ North-central Nevada 100 Northeast California/ Northwest Nevada 84 Warm Springs Valley 92 Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative E, habitat disturbance would be limited to 5 percent per year per 640 acres, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results, and would refer disturbance levels exceeding 5 percent per 640 acres to evaluation and consultation with the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. SGMAs apply only to lands within Nevada. On federal lands in Nevada with already pre-approved activities, no new mitigation would take place beyond previously approved in Plans of Development, ROWs, or drilling plans. General guidance would be to avoid when possible, minimize adverse effects as practicable, and mitigate adverse effects in Occupied or Suitable Habitat in Nevada. Whenever possible, this alternative would locate facilities in non-habitat areas, site new linear features in existing corridors or co-locate them with other existing features and engage in reclamation and weed control efforts. Management under Alternative E would emphasize fire prevention, reclamation, invasive weed control, and predator control to benefit GRSG. This alternative would provide few regulatory mechanisms to reduce direct or indirect impacts on GRSG and their habitat compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative E, management strategy would be to avoid conflicts with GRSG habitat by siting projects outside of habitat wherever possible. Because this strategy would not rule out the construction of projects within or adjacent to GRSG habitat, there would be the possibility for more land use for both wind and solar energy development than under Alternative A, but it is not quantifiable. Impacts from Wind Energy Development Same as Alternatives B and C. Impacts from Solar Energy Development Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Same as Alternative D. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 641 4.3.9. Alternative F Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative F, BLM-administered lands in California would continue to be managed under Alternative A. For federal lands in Nevada, management under Alternative F generally would repeat management actions described under Alternative B with exceptions such as reduced treatment of invasive conifer. Management under Alternative F would provide about the same level of protection as Alternative B or slightly less. VDDT modeling projects that habitat trends for 10 and 50 years would improve compared with Alternative A and would be similar to Alternative B. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Management under Alternative F would retain the same number of acres open and the same number of acres closed to livestock grazing as found under Alternative A and, therefore, would affect the same percentage of the sub-regions GRSG population. All prescriptions related to livestock management would apply to all GRSG habitats. Management under Alternative F would be more restrictive than Alternative A, resting 25 percent of each GRSG planning area annually, keeping utilization levels at or below 25 percent on all habitats, and restricting the use of new water developments using spring or seep sources from within GRSG habitat. Management under Alternative F would also require that water developments be analyzed and if necessary modified or removed if they are found to be impacting a riparian area. Similar modification or removal standards would be applied to other existing range developments such as fences. No salt or other supplements would be allowed. Ensuring riparian areas are at PFC would be the same as for Alternative A. Compared with Alternative A, management under Alternative F would provide more indirect benefits to GRSG due to increases in both upland and riparian nesting and brood-rearing habitat amount and quality. Management under Alternative F would increase some direct impacts on nesting GRSG when compared with Alternative A by not applying timing restrictions to livestock during GRSG nesting periods. This would likely be offset by closure of 25 percent of each planning area to livestock grazing each year and removal of certain livestock related structures such as fences. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative F, AML for wild horses and burros would be reduced by 25 percent in all HMAs and WHTs in GRSG habitat. All other management would be the same as under Alternative B. In comparing horse-removed sites to horse-occupied sites, researchers have documented reduced total vegetative and grass abundance and cover, lower sagebrush canopy cover, increased fragmentation of shrub canopies, lower species richness, increased compaction in surface soil horizons, and increased dominance of unpalatable lorbs (Manier et al. 2013). Horses typically separate from cattle by using higher elevations and steeper slopes where the 25 percent reduction would be most pronounced (Connelly et al. 2004). A 25 percent reduction in AML in GRSG habitat would improve upland sites and water sources with which horses tend to associate. These sites correspond with early and late GRSG brood-rearing habitats. HMA September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 642 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement plans, when developed or updated, would incorporate GRSG habitat objectives. Implementation of any range improvements would follow the same guidance as identified for livestock grazing under this alternative. This includes designing and locating new improvements only where they “conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through improved grazing management.” Design features could include developing or modifying waters to mitigate for West Nile virus, removing or modifying fences to reduce the chance of bird strikes, and monitoring and treating invasive species associated with range improvements. Additional range improvements would specifically address the needs of GRSG. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Management under Alternative F would close PPMAs and PGMAs to fluid mineral leasing. Quantification is the same as in Salable Mineral Materials, Alternative C. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Impacts from locatable minerals management would be the same as for Alternative B. Impacts from salable minerals management would be the same as for Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative F, all PGMAs would be managed as avoidance areas for new ROWs and all PPMAs habitats would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion for new pennits with exceptions for co-location of projects within existing footprints and valid, existing rights. ROW/SUA avoidance acreage would impact about the same amount of modeled sub-regional GRSG population as Alternative A, about 3 percent. Under this alternative, 17,732,200 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion. ROW/SUA exclusion would protect about 17,100,00 more acres of PPMAs habitat than under Alternative A. Management under Alternative F would also include actions to reclaim or modify existing ROWs that may impact GRSG directly (fences) or indirectly benefit their habitat (e.g., restoring a non-used road). Management under Alternative F would retain public ownership of PPMAs where it benefitted overall GRSG habitat and propose priority habitat for mineral withdrawal. Management under Alternative F would be expected to provide greater direct protections to GRSG than Alternative A due to the larger number of acres under Alternative F being in the ROW/SUA exclusion category. Indirect impacts on habitat would be expected to also be less than Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative F, wind energy projects would not be sited within occupied GRSG habitat (PPMAs and PGMAs), within 4 miles of the perimeter of GRSG winter habitat, or within five miles of an active lek. This would result in 17,732,900 acres managed as ROW/SUA exclusion for wind energy development. Under this alternative, solar development would be the same as Alternative A, and the same nature and scope of impacts would be expected. Impacts from Wind Energy Development Same as Alternative D. Impacts from Solar Energy Development Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 20/3 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 643 Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B. Alternative F also specifies a prohibition on camping within 4 miles of leks, which is the only recreation-specific management action outside travel management in any of the action alternatives. Camping does not typically occur during the lekking season between March 1 and May 15 due to weather and ground conditions. Camping within 4 miles of a lek location during other seasons would not disturb GRSG or their habitat as the birds disperse to nesting locations, and later into brooding and winter habitats. With respect to travel management, impacts from Alternative F would not differ appreciably from Alternative B. 4.4. Vegetation and Soils 4.4.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on vegetation are as follows: Upland Vegetation • Acres and condition of native vegetation communities; and • Change in the estimated acres of conifer encroachment Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species • Change in the likelihood for noxious weed or invasive annual grass introduction or spread • Change in the amount or density of noxious weed or invasive annual grasses Note that impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation are discussed in Section 4.5, Riparian Areas and Wetlands Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances would be influenced by several factors, including location in the watershed; the type, time, and degree of disturbance; existing vegetation; precipitation; and mitigating actions applied to the disturbance. • New invasions of noxious and invasive weeds would continue to occur and spread as a result of ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the planning area, recreational activities, wildland fire, wildlife and livestock grazing and movements, and surface-disturbing activities. • Since the effects of climate change are complex and not yet well known or understood, the analysis was conducted assuming hotter, dryer conditions, leading to plant stress. Plant adaptations to climate stress are not known. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Vegetation and Soils 644 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement • Ecological health and ecosystem functioning depend on a number of factors, including vegetative cover, species diversity, nutrient cycling and availability, water infiltration and availability, percent cover of weeds and climatic trends. Short-term effects on upland vegetation would occur over a timeframe of up to ten years and long-term effects would occur over longer than ten years. 4.4.2. Nature and Type of Effects Vegetation Management actions could affect vegetation resources by changing species composition, distribution, density and condition. Vegetation communities could change from one state to another state through transitions commonly referred to as state-and-transition models (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003). Management actions could improve, maintain, or decrease GRSG habitat. GRSG depend on the vegetation resources for cover and feed, primarily sagebrush species. Natural change agents could also alter the vegetation communities through wildfires and drought conditions. Drought conditions can alter plant vigor and seed production. Historically, sagebrush-dominated vegetation was one of the most widespread habitats in the country, but its expanse has been fragmented, lost, or altered by invasive plants and anthropogenic disturbance (NTT 2011). Protection of GRSG habitat would involve restrictions and limitations on activities that contribute to the spread of invasive species, fire, and other surface disturbance, and management of vegetation to promote healthy sagebrush and understory vegetation to support GRSG. Management of vegetation resources to protect GRSG would alter vegetative communities by promoting increases in sagebrush height and herbaceous cover and vegetation productivity, in order to improve rangeland health and enhance sagebrush ecosystems. Treatments designed to prevent encroachment of shrubs, non-native species or woody vegetation would alter the condition of native vegetation communities by changing the density, composition, and frequency of species within plant communities (Connelly et al. 2004). Invasive Weeds Management actions could reduce invasive weed populations through control methods such as chemical, biological, mechanical, and manual removal. Management actions could also increase invasive species and help weed populations be established by disturbance factors such as road construction, fence construction, vegetation removal, vehicle traffic, wildlife, and livestock grazing and movement. Vegetation treatments would cause short-term disturbance to vegetation from vegetation removal, but would result in long-term improvements to habitat quality and rangeland health. Soils Management actions could affect soil resources by removing soils due to mechanized equipment, vehicle traffic and natural means. Erosion of soils could be experienced by wind or water (overland runoff). Vegetation removal or the presence of invasive annual vegetation could likely cause increased soil erosion. Habitat Restoration Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 645 Habitat restoration projects typically have multiple objectives: increasing forage and cover for wildlife, reducing nonnative or weedy species, reducing pinyon/juniper encroachment, reducing canopy coverage of woody species, replenishing seed banks, and creating a mosaic of vegetative age classes. While these projects typically result in short-term vegetation removal, much like fuels projects, they are typically designed to improve habitat and result in a more diverse, vigorous, healthy plant community. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation in burned areas is part of a holistic approach to addressing post-wildfire issues and also includes suppression activity damage repair and long-term restoration (more than three years). ESR is planned actions performed by burned area emergency response teams within one year of wildfire containment to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation of natural and cultural resources, to minimize threats to life or property from the impacts of a fire, or to repair, replace, or construct physical improvements to prevent degradation of land or resources. Burned area rehabilitation is undertaken within three years of wildfire containment to repair or improve fire-damaged lands unlikely to recover naturally to management approved conditions, or to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by fire (DOI 2006). Following a wildfire, ESR stabilizes and prevents unacceptable degradation of natural and cultural resources. Post-wildfire ESR assists in stabilizing soils, replenishing the seed bank, and addressing weed threats. These activities are typically designed to restore the vegetative cover and to assist post-fire recovery. Post wildfire cheatgrass conversion is one of the biggest challenges across the planning area. If successful, ESR will reduce erosion, aid in reducing cheatgrass invasion, and maintain appropriate fire return intervals. ESR benefits both upland and riparian vegetative communities. lire and Fuels Management In most of the planning area, fuel conditions have changed from historic conditions because of management practices and the spread of nonnative species. Fire exclusion, in the form of fire suppression, has greatly affected fuel conditions. In pinyon/juniper systems, this management practice results in increased fuel loadings because fires are more infrequent than historic fire-return intervals. Sagebrush within this habitat is also transitioning to an older age class that is more decadent; with high fuels loading that can support large severe wildfires. These increased fuel loadings are leading to higher severity fires that require more post-fire rehabilitation. The main structural change in what were historically sagebrush shrublands is the encroachment of pinyon and juniper, other conifers, and other woody shrubs into the sagebrush. Over time the encroachment will increase the fuels loading, causing an upward shift in fire behavior. This increases the resistance to control, decreasing the effectiveness of firefighting efforts. Fuels management has both short- and long-term impacts on vegetation. In the short term, vegetation will be lost, but in the long term, fuels management would improve vegetative health, composition, and productivity. Additionally, in the long term, fuels treatments would prevent uncharacteristically large or intense wildfires that could damage large expanses of vegetation. If fuels treatments are unsuccessful, habitat may be converted to exotic annuals and other weedy species. Assuming all fuels projects would be designed and managed to meet Land Health Standards, negative impacts on uplands and riparian areas would not be anticipated. Since the Forest Service does not have an equivalent to Land Health Standards, fuels projects would be designed to meet GRSG habitat objectives (see Table 2-6). Fire management practices include the control of wildfires in some areas, the use of fire either through prescribed burning or the management of wildfires in order to meet land management goals, and the treatment ot vegetation so that fires are more controllable in areas where values September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 646 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement at risk are higher. Wildland fire management on BLM-administered lands is guided by a fire management plan that considers the three elements mentioned above, as well as firefighter and public safety and cost effectiveness. Fire is an inherent component of ecosystems and historically has had an important role in promoting plant succession and the development of plant community characteristics. Control of fires and other land use practices during the last century has changed plant communities by altering the frequency, size, and severity of wildfires. Indicators of wildland fire ecology and management is summarized through fire regime and condition class classifications. Fire regimes are used as part of the FRCC discussion to describe fire frequency (average number of years between fires) and fire severity (effect of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation - low, mixed, or stand replacement). These regimes represent fire intervals prior to Euro-American settlement and are calculated and classified by analyzing natural vegetation, known fire cycles, and fire history data. Condition class indicates the degree of departure from the historic fire regime (Hann and Bunnell 2001; see Tabic 3-23, Condition Classes in PPFI and PGH [acres]). While the fire regime of a particular area is not likely to change except in the very long term, the condition class can be changed through fire management and other vegetation management actions. Extreme departure from the historic fire regime results in changes to one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). Depending on size, location, severity, intensity, and vegetation, wildfire would have short-term impacts on vegetation, resulting in vegetation removal and soil disturbance from suppression actions. Fire can also lead to the proliferation of cheatgrass in lower precipitation zones and subsequent habitat degradation. In the long term, wildfire can be beneficial, resulting in a mixed serial stage, greater vegetative diversity, and habitat restoration. 4.4.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Vegetation Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation health, species composition, water, and nutrient availability by consuming vegetation, redistributing nutrients and seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and disrupting microbial systems (Connelly et al. 2004; NTT 2011). Grazing may reduce herbaceous understory cover for nesting GRSG, but also may enhance rangeland health by limiting the growth of introduced annual plants. Changes in livestock management could affect vegetation by reducing grazing pressure on forage species where livestock numbers are reduced, or duration of grazing period is reduced, or if the season of use is during dormancy. Changes in livestock management could affect vegetation by increasing grazing pressure on forage species if livestock numbers are increased, or duration of grazing period is increased, or if the season of use is during hot season. Invasive Weeds Livestock grazing is one of the vectors to introduce and or increase the spread of invasive weeds. Multiple factors can influence an area’s susceptibility to cheatgrass invasion, including livestock grazing, perennial grass cover and biological soil crusts (Reisner et al. 2013). Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to AH Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 647 Big sagebrush does not re-sprout after a fire, but is replenished by wind dispersed seed from adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending on the species and the size of a burn, sagebrush can reestablish within five years of a burn, but a return to a full pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 years (Connelly et al. 2004). Fire suppression may be used to maintain habitat for GRSG (NTT 2011), but these policies alter the successional pattern of vegetation in the landscape. When management reduces wildland fire frequency by controlling natural ignitions, the indirect impact is that vegetation ages, and early successional vegetation communities are diminished. Fire suppression may preserve condition of some sagebrush communities, as well as habitat connectivity. This is particularly important in areas where fire frequency has increased as a result of weed invasion, or where landscapes are highly fragmented. However, fire suppression can also lead to increased fuel loads, which can lead to more damaging or larger-scale fires in the long term. Selective siting of fuels management treatments may allow for fire suppression actions to use suppression tactics protect sagebrush communities from wildfires. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Among all six alternatives, the number of acres of vegetation affected would be the same. Impacts from wild horse and burro populations and management to vegetation resources would be the same as identified in the individual Resource Management Plan NEPA analysis. 4.4.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Riparian and Water Resources Management would continue to operate as guided by individual LUPs. Continued construction of water developments on BLM-administered lands would be implemented in accordance with Land Health Assessments that would lead to an improvement in vegetation conditions through proper grazing management. Under this alternative PPM As and PGMAs prioritization do not apply, therefore management would not be focused on these areas leading to less acres of riparian and water resources management within priority habitat. This alternative therefore would have less acreage impacted by short-term impacts through the construction of water developments to vegetation, and mores acres of long-term impacts on vegetation without water developments installed to achieve proper grazing management within priority habitat. September, ; 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 648 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative A, PPMAs and PGMAs restrictions do not apply. Post fire rehabilitation, invasive species management, and restoration activities would be guided by individual field office’s fire management plans and LUPs. Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook policies would be followed and would provide guidance on which treatments and chemicals can be used. Application of these policies would improve vegetation management in sagebrush habitat thereby likely improving vegetation and soils conditions in these areas. A greater amount of sagebrush acreage within PPMAs and PGMAs areas may be burned under this alternative and thus requiring additional post fire rehabilitation and invasive species management. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Wildfire Management Fire suppression would be guided by individual field office’s fire management plans, or LUPs. A greater acreage of sagebrush may be burned within priority habitat under Alternative A since it is the least restrictive on wildland fire management within PPMAs and PGMAs areas. As a result, a greater loss of vegetation could occur in sagebrush habitats under Alternative A. This could result in an increased risk of annual grass and noxious weeds invasion due to the disturbance. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 649 Fuels reductions projects would also be guided by the individual field office’s fire management plans or LUPs. Fewer fuels projects would occur in or around priority habitat under Alternative A since it is the least restrictive. With fewer fuels projects designed to protect PPMAs, this could lead to greater acreage of sagebrush that may be burned within priority habitat. Also under Alternative A, PPMAs and PGMAs restrictions do not apply. Fuels projects could be implemented without disturbance limits. Project design would be limited by NEPA compliance. Habitat improvement and restoration projects would be implemented for livestock, wildlife, and fuels reduction. Since Alternative A would have the fewest restrictions for fuels treatments, the greatest number of acres would be available for treatment. While Alternative A may result in the largest amount of short-term vegetation loss, long-term impacts include increases in vegetation composition and health. Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Climate Change Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the current LUPs regarding climate change management. Invasive Weeds September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 650 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the current LUPs regarding climate change management. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the current LUPs regarding climate change management. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 651 Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Recreation Management Vegetation Under Alternative A, the impacts on vegetation resources would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Invasive Weeds Under Alternative A, the impacts on invasive weeds would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Soils Under Alternative A, the impacts on soils would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 652 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.4.5. Alternative B Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative B, large scale disturbances within priority habitat would not be permitted and small scale disturbances would be limited to 3 percent surface disturbance. This would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils. Although lands may be limited to a disturbance threshold, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Riparian and Water Resources management actions under Alternative B would allow new water developments only to occur if GRSG PPMAs would benefit. Most water developments are implemented in association with livestock grazing management, with focus on alleviating or excluding riparian areas from use in order to obtain PFC, thereby benefiting GRSG habitat. Direct short-term impacts include ground disturbing activities during the construction of the developments which includes trenching and clearing of soil to install pipelines and associated trough(s), and disturbances associated with fence construction. Therefore the amount of short-term impacts due to new water developments would be the same as Alternative A, as most spring developments are associated with improved grazing management with the goal of improving vegetation conditions. These types of projects also indirectly benefit upland vegetation through improved livestock distribution. This alternative also includes making necessary modifications to existing developments within PPMAs to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area. This would increase the amount of acres of short-term impacts on vegetation to make necessary modifications when compared with Alternative A. However, this would also indirectly increase the amount of acres of vegetation improvement in the long term through the proper maintenance of the development; with the assumption grazing management is meeting or making progress towards Land Health Standards. Under Alternative B, riparian areas would be managed for PFC. Both vegetation and soils are assessed to determine if a system is at PFC or pertinent Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Vegetation and soils would likely be resilient to withstand 25 year flood events when at PFC. Diversity of riparian vegetation could be increased if managed to the potential natural community. Under this alternative, new water developments would be constructed only if they are beneficial to priority habitat. This may minimize surface disturbance to soils and vegetation in riparian areas. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions under Alternative B would aim to improve vegetation conditions and prioritize restoration efforts to benefit sagebrush vegetation. As a result, the restoration and vegetation management actions would enhance vegetation beyond the extent and condition relative to Alternative A by requiring the use of native seeds, removing encroaching conifers, designing post-restoration management to ensure the long-term persistence of the restoration efforts, considering changes in climate, and monitoring and controlling invasive species. In PPMAs and PGMAs, fires would be suppressed to conserve habitat. Fewer acres of sagebrush habitat would be converted to an early serai stage than under Alternative A, thus fewer acres may require ESR treatments and invasive species control. The emphasis on native seed and reestablishment of species-appropriate sagebrush seed would improve vegetation conditions. In the absence of fire or fuels treatments, this alternative may result in more decadent sagebrush stands with depleted understories in the future. This could lead to increased risk of catastrophic Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 653 fire as a result of fire suppression or exclusion and indirectly lead to larger ESR treatments and invasive weed control projects in the long term. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative B, grazing management to achieve vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential could maintain or enhance sagebrush and perennial grass conditions within priority habitat. Impacts on soils from livestock grazing management are likely to be the same as those identified under Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Wildfire Management Fire in PPMAs and adjacent PGMAs would be suppressed to conserve habitat. Fewer acres of sagebrush habitat would be converted to an early serai stage than under Alternative A. However, there could also be a greater potential for catastrophic fire as a result of fire suppression and exclusion. As a result of actions, more fires would be suppressed in the surrounding vegetative communities to protect sagebrush, and fewer acres of sagebrush habitat would be lost to fire. However, increased fire suppression could also contribute to larger catastrophic fires in the future due to increases in fuel loading in PPMAs and adjacent PGMAs. With suppression efforts focused on PPMAs and adjacent PGMAs more acres would likely burn in areas outside of PPMAs. This could lead to catastrophic fires converting sagebrush habitats to early serai stage in PGMAs areas, or to annual grasslands in low elevations not considered GRSG habitat. Large portions of PGMAs habitat are areas that have been impacted by fire over the last decade and still have the potential to become PPMAs as succession progresses. These communities can be negatively impacted and may cross a threshold if they are burned again. Changes in soil, vegetation, and water properties would be more likely to occur outside of PPMAs under this alternative. Fuels Management Fuels projects could not reduce sagebrush canopy cover below 15 percent, with the exception of fuels breaks. In PPMAs, seasonal restrictions would apply to fuels treatments, and prescribed fire would be excluded in sagebrush habitat where there is less than 12 inches of annual precipitation. Treatments would be to rest areas from livestock grazing for two full growing seasons. Fuels treatments would use native plant seeds, with exceptions for availability and probability of success when nonnative seeds would meet GRSG objectives. Restrictions under Alternative B would reduce the opportunity for fuels treatments and limit treatment objectives, which would lead to fewer acres treated. Under this alternative, treatments would be limited to those that benefit GRSG or the identified GRSG objectives. Restrictions would also limit the number of acres treated and potentially the effectiveness of the treatments. Overall fewer acres would be treated under Alternative B than Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Vegetation Under Alternative B, vegetation in HMAs/WHBTs would be managed to achieve GRSG habitat objectives. This could allow for improvement of sagebrush/perennial grass communities in those HMAs/WHBTs. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 654 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Invasive Weeds Under Alternative B, impacts on invasive weeds would be the same as those analyzed under Alternative A. Soils Under Alternative B, soils in HMAs/WHBTs would be managed to achieve GRSG habitat objectives. This could allow for improvement of soils conditions in those HMAs/WHBTs. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative B, potential improvements to sagebrush/perennial grass communities, soil health and functions would also improve creating greater resiliency to the predicted effects of climate change. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative B, no new surface occupancy would be authorized. This could reduce vegetation and soils disturbance. Where applications for permits to drill are authorized for existing leases, surface disturbance would be limited to 3 percent. This would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils. Although lands may be listed as closed, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative B, no closures of PPM As would be authorized. This could reduce vegetation and soils disturbance. This would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils. Although lands may be listed as withdrawn and/or closed, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative B, new ROW actions would be restricted to the footprint of existing ROWs. This would keep any new disturbance to vegetation or soils to previously disturbed locations. This Alternative involves burial of new or existing power lines where feasible and this could increase the disturbance of vegetation and soils in new locations. Under Alternative B, disturbance to sagebrush would be limited to 3 percent surface disturbance. This could maintain sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities within the priority habitat in the planning area. Vegetation conditions could increase where other developments, such as fences and roads would be reclaimed if they are no longer in use. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative B, vegetation and soils disturbance from energy development would be minimized in priority habitat containing sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities. Although lands may be listed as excluded from energy development, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Under Alternative B, disturbance to sagebrush would be limited to 3 percent surface disturbance. This could maintain sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities within the priority habitat in the planning area. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 655 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Limiting motorized travel to designated roads, primitive roads and trails under Alternative B would minimize disturbance of vegetation and soils from vehicle traffic within the planning area. Limiting or prohibiting construction of new roads would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils in priority habitat. Mitigation measures could increase the sagebrush/perennial grass community type if disturbance exceeds the 3 percent threshold. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative B, only SRPs that have neutral or beneficial impacts on priority habitat would be authorized. This could limit the disturbance to vegetation and soils within priority habitat. 4.4.6. Alternative C Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative C, passive restoration would occur. Passive restoration methods may not allow for conversion to a different vegetation community, as described in state-and-transition models. This applies to those vegetation communities that have passed a threshold, or transition, away from a reference or desired state. Unlike community pathways, transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity or direction of the factors that produced the change and instead require the application of distinct factors such as the addition of seeds, the removal of shrubs, or the addition of top soil (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003). Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Under Alternative C, bank trampling in riparian areas would be limited to 10 percent of livestock accessible stream and spring margin and meadow areas. This could allow for soils along riparian areas to experience minimized disturbance from livestock. Riparian area soils could maintain hydric conditions. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management This alternative focuses on the restoration of crested wheatgrass seedings and cheatgrass infestation areas. It does not prioritize any other treatments within PPMAs It would also prioritize the use of flash burners, mowing, and selected hand cutting for weed treatments, with herbicide only being used if there is no other alternative. This alternative relies more on passive restoration and would lead to fewer acres of vegetation management being treated compared with Alternative A. However, it is likely that more acres of crested wheatgrass seedings and cheatgrass invaded areas would be treated improving vegetative conditions for GRSG habitat with success in those areas. With minimizing the use of herbicides to treat annual grasses and noxious weeds fewer acres of acres of treatment would be completed under this alternative compared with Alternative A. Active seeding of those areas of intensive disturbance could result in short-term disturbance of vegetation and soils until establishment of perennial vegetation is obtained. The use of flash burning, mowing and other mechanical methods could show a temporary disturbance in vegetation and soils. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Vegetation September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 656 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative C, livestock grazing would not be permitted within occupied GRSG habitat. As a result, fine fuels could increase throughout occupied habitat and fire risk may increase as well. Depending on the vegetation conditions and community types prior to removal of livestock, this could result in higher fine fuel loading or a closed shrub canopy. Invasive Species Under Alternative C, large scale removal of livestock could reduce one of the vectors of invasive weed establishment and spread. Removal of fences, water troughs, and pipelines within PPMAs could temporarily increase the disturbance of vegetation and soils, possibly leading to an increased invasive weed establishment and spread. Under Alternative C, all PPMAs areas closed to livestock grazing could show a reduction in the potential for invasive species establishment. This may not control or reduce the existing invasive species presence. The dominance of cheatgrass and medusahead in the intermountain West, partly caused by extensive overgrazing in the late 1800s and early 1900s, would not be rectified by removing cattle or by reducing their numbers. The new cheatgrass-dominated “steady state” would require the use of treatments such as herbicides, seeding, and fertilizing to restore the pre-settlement flora (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Soils Trampling impacts on soils could be minimized by large scale removal of livestock grazing under Alternative C. Reduced trampling could result in reduced impacts on biological soil crusts. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management The type of impacts from wildland fire management would be the same as those described under Alternative A. Fuels treatments would focus on areas of human habitation or in areas of significant existing disturbances. This alternative would have more restrictions and result in fewer acres treated when compared with Alternative A. Under these restrictions fuels treatments would only allow the removal of grass along roadsides or other disturbed areas, and would not include the removal of shrubs. This would restrict the amount of acres that could be treated in PPMAs areas. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative C, impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative C, impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management In closed areas, there would be little to no impact on soils and vegetation. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Disturbance of vegetation and soils due to development of locatable and salable minerals management could be minimized in occupied habitat under Alternative C. Disturbance to vegetation would be the same as Alternative A in non-occupied habitat. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 657 Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative C, additional lands would be acquired to be managed by federal land management agencies. The impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as those identified under Alternative A where lands are designated as ACECs. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative C, solar energy development would not occur within the proposed ACEC, and could minimize vegetation and soils disturbance, although much of the planning area is not of high potential for solar energy development. The buffer distances of 10 to 15 miles between ACECs, occupied habitat and wind energy development could minimize vegetation and soils disturbance due to the construction and maintenance of those facilities in the buffered areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Closing of all lands to cross country travel under Alternative C would minimize disturbance of vegetation and soils from vehicle traffic within the planning area. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative C, impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as Alternative A. 4.4.7. Alternative D Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative D, lands would be managed to meet GRSG and habitat objectives. Sagebrush/perennial grass ecosystems would be enhanced or maintained. This would directly or indirectly increase sagebrush vegetation. Conifer stands in historic sagebrush areas would be reduced. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Impacts on riparian areas would similar to Alternative B, although under this alternative, riparian areas and wetlands would receive more emphasis in the development of management actions for weed control, vegetation treatments, fuels management and water developments. As with Alternative B, riparian habitats would be managed for some level of desired ecological condition. Habitat objectives for riparian areas would also be incorporated into the permitting process for livestock grazing. Collectively, these measures would have the effect of improving overall watershed health with more positive effects on vegetation and soils resources compared with Alternative A. Riparian Areas, Wetland, and Water Resources management actions under Alternative D would allow new water developments to occur only when GRSG PGMAs and PPMAs would benefit. This differs from Alternative B by including PGMAs along with PPMAs. However, most water developments are implemented in association with livestock grazing management, with focus on alleviating or excluding riparian areas from livestock use in order to obtain PFC and improving distribution in the uplands, thereby benefiting GRSG habitat. Therefore the amount of short-term impacts due to new water developments would be the same as Alternative A, as most spring developments are associated with improved grazing management. The alternative also includes making necessary modification to existing developments within PPMAs to maintain September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 658 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area, which also is included under Alternative B. This would increase the amount of acres of short-term impacts on vegetation to make necessary modifications when compared with Alternative A. However, this would also indirectly increase the amount of acres of vegetation improvement in the long term through the proper maintenance of the development, with the assumption that grazing management is meeting or making progress towards BLM Land Health Standards. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management All vegetation and soils management activities would be prioritized in PPMAs and PGMAs areas under this alternative. Treatments would prioritize the use of native seed and establishing appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies that meet GRSG seasonal habitat requirements (see Table 2-3, Comparative Allocation Summary of Alternatives). This includes ESR, invasive species/noxious weed, conifer encroachment, and restoration activities. Management actions would be designed to establish and maintain a resilient sagebrush vegetative community and restore sagebrush vegetation communities to reduce habitat fragmentation and maintain or re-establish habitat connectivity over the long term. Treatments would also be rested from livestock for two growing seasons or until vegetation or habitat objectives are met. Treatments would be implemented only for the benefit of GRSG or the identified GRSG objective. These restrictions would increase the amount of acres treated in PPMAs and PGMAs areas compared with Alternative A, and decrease the amount of acres treated outside of PPMAs and PGMAs areas. Under this alternative more fires would be suppressed to protect sagebrush, and fewer acres of sagebrush habitat would be lost to fire in PPMAs reducing the amount of ESR treatments needed when compared with Alternative A. However, with suppression efforts focused on PPMAs and PGMAs more acres would likely burn in areas outside PPMAs and PGMAs increasing the need for ESR treatments in non- GRSG habitat. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative D, grazing management to achieve vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential could maintain or enhance sagebrush and perennial grass conditions within priority habitat. In those areas not meeting GRSG habitat objectives, the rest and seasonal changes could improve sagebrush communities by relieving some grazing pressure. Drought management actions to remove livestock temporarily when plants are stressed would help to maintain desired plant communities. Livestock resting during herbaceous plant growth would help to increase vigor of desired plants. This would provide a more resilient plant community to withstand livestock grazing pressure. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Wildfire Management Wildfire management will provide first for firefighter and public safety, and then set priorities to protect communities, infrastructure, improvements, and natural and cultural resources based on values to be protected, human health and safety, and costs. These priorities are outlined under the current Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. As safety allows, in PPMAs and PGMAs unburned islands and patches of sage brush would be retained, as well as minimizing burn-out operations in priority and general habitat. Under this alternative, fewer acres of sagebrush habitat in PPMAs and PGMAs would be converted to an early serai stage, and would have less risk for invasive grass and noxious weed invasion than under Alternative A. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 659 As a direct result of actions, more tires would be suppressed in the surrounding vegetative communities to protect sagebrush, and fewer acres of sagebrush habitat would be lost to fire. However, indirect impacts of fire suppression could lead to a greater potential for catastrophic tire in the future as a result of fire exclusion over the long term due to increases in fuel loading in PPMAs and PGMAs. With suppression efforts focused on PPMAs and PGMAs more acres would likely burn in areas outside of these areas. This could lead to catastrophic fires converting sagebrush habitats to early serai stage in or to annual grasslands in low elevations not considered GRSG habitat. Changes in soil, vegetation, and water properties would be more likely to occur outside of PPMAs and PGMAs under this alternative. Fuels Management Fuels management treatments would be prioritized inside and outside of PPMAs to prevent large scale loss of habitat. Treatment design would locate projects adjacent to existing disturbances such as power lines, roads, fence lines, and other disturbances where feasible. No treatments would be allowed in PPMAs or PGMAs if it is determined that the treatment would not be beneficial to GRSG or its habitat. Treatment types would place emphasis on maintain, protecting, and expanding GRSG habitat. A full suite of integrated vegetation treatments, including but not limited to chemical, mechanical, seeding, and prescribed fire treatments as appropriate would be used to enhance priority habitat and restore general habitat that are currently in FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 fire classes. The use of native seed would be required for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability of success. Non-native seeded species may be used as a fire resistant fuels treatment. In all cases, seed must be certified weed-free. This alternative is more restrictive than Alternative A, but would not likely decrease the amount of acres treated overall; however, it would increase the amount of acres treated in and adjacent to PPMAs and PGMAs areas compared with Alternative A. This alternative would also ensure that the treatment would be beneficial to GRSG or it would not be implemented. Indirectly the fuels projects under this alternative would lead to fewer acres burned in and adjacent to PPMAs and PGMAs than under Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Adjustments to AML numbers could alter vegetation structure and composition by removing some of the disturbance caused by wild horse and burro movement across the landscape. In those areas on BLM -administered lands not meeting Standards for Rangeland Health, where causal factors are due to wild horse and burro populations, adjustments to AML could help to improve vegetation conditions. Passive restoration methods may not allow for conversion to a different vegetation community, as described in state-and-transition models. This applies to those vegetation communities that have passed a threshold, or transition, away from a reference or desired state. Unlike community pathways, transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity or direction of the factors that produced the change and instead require the application of distinct factors such as the addition of seeds, the removal of shrubs, or the addition of top soil (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003). Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative D, vegetation treatments would be implemented as climate change strategies. These treatments would reduce the presence of cheatgrass, reduce conifer encroachment in priority GRSG habitat, and seed shrubs and grasses. These treatments would help to maintain September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 660 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement or enhance vegetation that comprises GRSG habitat. Hazardous fuels treatments would be implemented with design towards improving wildlife and GRSG habitat. Vegetation conditions would be improved in moderate to high quality habitat where bioclimatic conditions are predicted to persist through 2050. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative D, no new surface occupancy would be authorized. This could reduce vegetation and soils disturbance. This would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils. Exploration activities would be allowed as long as sagebrush species are not crushed. This could maintain sagebrush health and resiliency in priority habitat. Although lands may be listed as withdrawn, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative D, no new surface occupancy would be authorized. This could reduce vegetation and soils disturbance. This would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils. Mitigation measures could increase sagebrush and perennial grass communities in off-site areas to compensate for permitted loss of sagebrush loss. Lands already leased would continue under current management. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative D, new ROW actions would be restricted to the footprint of existing ROWs. This would keep any new disturbance to vegetation or soils to previously disturbed locations. This Alternative involves burial of new or existing power lines where feasible and this could increase the disturbance of vegetation and soils in new locations. This could maintain sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities within the priority habitat in the planning area. Vegetation conditions could increase where other developments, such as fences and roads would be reclaimed if they are no longer in use. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative D, wind and solar energy development would be excluded in PPMAs and PGMAs. Vegetation and soils disturbance from energy development would be minimized or eliminated in priority habitat containing sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities. Although lands may be listed as excluded from energy development, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Under Alternative B, disturbance to sagebrush would be limited to 3 percent surface disturbance. This could maintain sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities within the priority habitat in the planning area. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Limiting motorized travel to designated roads, primitive roads and trails under Alternative D would minimize disturbance of vegetation and soils from vehicle traffic within the planning area. Limiting or prohibiting construction of new roads would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils in priority habitat. Mitigation measures could increase the sagebrush/perennial grass community type to offset any loss of sagebrush. Requiring certified weed free seed for reclamation of roads would minimize invasive species establishment or spread. Impacts from Recreation Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 661 Under Alternative D, only SRPs that have neutral or beneficial impacts on priority habitat would be authorized. This could limit the disturbance to vegetation and soils within priority habitat. No new construction of recreation facilities in priority or general habitat would reduce anthropogenic disturbance to soils and vegetation. 4.4.8. Alternative E Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative E, lands would be managed to meet GRSG and habitat objectives. Lands would be managed for a no net loss of sagebrush vegetation. Also, sagebrush communities would be avoided, minimized or mitigated from anthropogenic disturbances. Disturbance would be limited disturbances greater than or equal to 5 percent of 640 acres (32 acres) within Occupied/Suitable Habitat would trigger habitat evaluation and consultation with the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. This would directly or indirectly increase sagebrush vegetation. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Under Alternative E, invasive and noxious weeds would be more actively controlled. This would help to maintain native riparian vegetation and help prevent soil erosion. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under this alternative the fundamental hierarchical decision-making policy of "Avoid, Minimize and Mitigate" would be followed. The alternative assigns the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council with establishment of policies for the identification and prioritization of landscape-scale enhancement, restoration, fuel reduction, and mitigation projects. Without knowing what actions would be taken by the Council, it cannot be determined fully what level of impacts this alternative would have. The main goal of the alternative is to achieve conservation through a concept of “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. Therefore, this alternative would limit the amount of disturbance to vegetation, but would also mitigate any vegetation loses with treatments designed to improve vegetation. Since mitigation would only occur after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization measures have been taken, the level of mitigation treatments is unknown. However, this alternative would limit habitat disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in Occupied and Suitable Habitat to not more than five percent of a section per year, per SGMA, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results. This limit would not apply to removal of invasive or encroaching vegetation where such removal actually creates habitat. Therefore, this alternative could improve more acres of vegetation within GRSG habitat than Alternative A. Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy in northern California actions are intended to provide design and implementation guidelines for effective sagebrush restoration. These actions are likely to improve GRSG habitat. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative E, grazing management to achieve vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential could maintain or enhance sagebrush and perennial grass conditions within SGMAs. In those areas not meeting GRSG habitat objectives, the rest and seasonal changes could improve sagebrush communities by relieving some grazing pressure. Management under Alternative E would encourage grazing practices that would September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 662 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement promote the health of perennial grass communities to suppress cheatgrass. This may not control or reduce the existing invasive species presence. The dominance of cheatgrass and medusahead in the intermountain West, partly caused by extensive overgrazing in the late 1 800s and early 1900s, would not be rectified by simply removing cattle or by reducing their numbers. The new cheatgrass-dominated “steady state” would require massive levels of fossil fuel input via herbicides, seeding, fertilizing, etc., to restore the pre-settlement flora (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Passive restoration methods may not allow for conversion to a different vegetation community, as described in state-and-transition models. This applies to those vegetation communities that have passed a threshold, or transition, away from a reference or desired state. Unlike community pathways, transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity or direction of the factors that produced the change and instead require the application of distinct factors such as the addition of seeds, the removal of shrubs, or the addition of top soil (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003). Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Wildfire Management The type of impacts from wildland fire management would be similar as those described under Alternative D except they would apply to SGMAs rather than PPMAs and PGMAs. This alternative also relies on some actions that are not under the control of federal agencies, such as the use of the Nevada Division of Forestry, County Fire Protection Districts, and volunteer firefighting forces which are currently in place throughout Nevada. Fuels Management This alternative would limit habitat disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in Occupied and Suitable Habitat to not more than five percent per year, per SGMA, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results. This limit would not apply to removal of invasive or encroaching vegetation where such removal actually creates habitat. The alternative would also allow the construction of temporary roads for fuels reduction projects within pinyon and juniper treatment areas. Once the treatment is complete the temporary roads would be removed and restored having no negative impact. This alternative would also limit the amount of fuels treatments in winter habitat and the use of prescribed fire within Wyoming big sagebrush communities. Alternative E would focus fuels treatments within occupied habitat, therefore reducing the risk of large catastrophic wildfires. This would lead to fewer acres burned within GRSG habitat when compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative E, wild horse and burro populations would be managed to AML to avoid and minimize impacts on SGMAs. It is expected that vegetation and soils within SGMAs impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative E, climate change adaptation strategies would be determined by the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council, Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team and Nevada Sagebrush Mitigation Bank Program. Impacts on vegetation and soils could be enhanced or reduced based on decisions and actions of the above mentioned groups. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 663 Under Alternative E, avoidanee management, and enhancement and reclamation of disturbed lands would be implemented to preserve, protect, and improve habitat in SGMAs. This could minimize vegetation and soil disturbances in those areas. Other leasable minerals management activities would be located outside SGMAs. This could enhance or maintain vegetation and soils in occupied, suitable and potential habitats. Although lands may be listed as avoided, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Active reclamation efforts using native plants would help to increase sagebrush/perennial grass communities in areas of previous disturbance. Active invasive and noxious weed control in disturbed areas could help to decrease non desirable vegetation and increase desired sagebrush/perennial grass communities. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative E, exploration activities for notice level projects would be limited to five acres of disturbance. This could minimize vegetation and soil disturbances in those areas. Other mining activities would be avoided to non-habitat. This could enhance or maintain vegetation and soils in occupied, suitable and potential habitats. Although lands may be listed as avoided, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Active reclamations efforts using native plants would help to increase sagebrush/perennial grass communities in areas of previous disturbance. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative E, facilities and activities would be avoided in occupied, suitable and potential habitat. This could enhance or maintain vegetation and soils within those three habitat categories. Although lands may be listed as avoided, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Active invasive and noxious weed control in ROW areas could help to decrease non desirable vegetation and increase desired sagebrush/perennial grass communities. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative E, facilities and activities would be avoided in occupied, suitable and potential habitat. This could enhance or maintain vegetation and soils within those three habitat categories. Although lands may be listed as avoided, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Active invasive and noxious weed control in ROW areas could help to decrease non desirable vegetation and increase desired sagebrush/perennial grass communities. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative E, OE1V routes would be designated to areas outside of SGMAs. Depending on the travel designation in areas outside of SGMAs, vegetation could be either enhanced or stressed from mechanical traffic. Areas where designation is limited or closed would likely enhance existing sagebrush/perennial grass communities. Areas where designation is open may see more soil erosion due to mechanical traffic from vehicle tires. Disturbance from OHV use on vegetation and soils could be reduced in the SGMAs through the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of sagebrush/perennial grass communities. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative E, OHV routes would be designated to areas outside of SGMAs. Disturbance from OHV use on vegetation and soils could be reduced in these SGMAs. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 664 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.4.9. Alternative F Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative F, disturbance to sagebrush would be limited to 3 percent surface disturbance. This could maintain sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities within the priority habitat in the planning area. Under Alternative F, passive restoration would be implemented in unoccupied habitat that may be occupied if converted to a potential natural community. Passive restoration methods may not allow for conversion to a different vegetation community, as described in state-and-transition models. This applies to those vegetation communities that have passed a threshold, or transition, away from a reference or desired state. Unlike community pathways, transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity or direction of the factors that produced the change and instead require the application of distinct factors such as the addition of seeds, the removal of shrubs, or the addition of top soil (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003). Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Water Resources Management No new water developments for diversion from spring or seep sources would be allowed within GRSG habitat under this alternative. This would remove the ability to construct any spring/seep developments within PGMAs or PPMAs and would lead to less acres of disturbance to vegetation in the short term related from the direct impact of construction when compared with Alternative A. However, this could lead to an increase in construction of other water developments such as stock ponds and other water catchments not directly diverting water from springs or seeps. This would lead to a greater amount of acres disturbed to upland vegetation when compared with Alternative A since the disturbance related to spring developments is only for a short term and typically are rehabilitated after construction. With the construction of stock tanks the loss of vegetation association with the project would be long term due to the replacement of vegetation with a small reservoir. Under Alternative F, riparian areas would be managed for PFC or pertinent Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Both vegetation and soils are assessed to determine if a system is at PFC. Vegetation and soils would likely be resilient to withstand 25 year flood events when at PFC. Diversity of riparian vegetation could be increased if managed to the potential natural community. Under this alternative, no new water developments would be constructed, minimizing additional surface disturbance to vegetation and soils. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management The type of impacts from vegetation and soils management would be the same as those described under Alternative B, with the exception that this alternative would exclude livestock grazing from burned areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives. This would keep livestock off burned areas for a longer period than Alternative B and could speed up burned area recovery towards meeting GRSG habitat requirements. However, this action could indirectly lead to heavier fuel loading and a greater potential for fire reoccurrence. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative F, utilization levels of 25 percent could leave fine fuel levels at a high risk for wildfire. This could produce an increase in perennial grass vigor due to reduced grazing pressure. Under Alternative F, 25 percent of grazing areas within the planning area would be rested from grazing each year. This could increase the resiliency of grazed species. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 665 Impacts from Fire ami Fuels Management The type of impacts from wildland fire management would be the same as those described under Alternative B. The type of impacts from fuels management would be the same as those described under Alternative B. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Wild horse AMLs would be reduced by 25 percent within occupied GRSG habitats. While impacts from wild horses and burros would remain, this would reduce the effects of wild horses described under Alternative A. More residual grasses and forbs would likely remain within occupied GRSG habitat that overlaps HMAs/WHBTs. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative F, impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative F, impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management For locatable minerals under Alternative F, all lands within priority habitat would be petitioned for withdrawal from mineral development. This could reduce the vegetation and soil disturbance when compared with Alternative A. Although lands may be listed as withdrawn, there may not be a resultant change in vegetation or soil conditions. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative F, new ROW actions would be restricted to the footprint of existing ROWs. This would keep any new disturbance to vegetation or soils to previously disturbed locations. This Alternative involves burial of new or existing power lines where feasible and this could increase the disturbance of vegetation and soils in new locations. Vegetation conditions could increase where other developments, such as fences and roads would be reclaimed if they are no longer in use. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative F, vegetation and soils disturbance from wind energy development would be minimized in priority habitat containing sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation communities. The buffer distances of 5 miles between wind energy development and leks and 4 miles from wind energy development and winter habitat could minimize vegetation and soils disturbance due to the construction and maintenance of those facilities in the buffered areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Limiting motorized travel to existing routes under Alternative F would minimize disturbance of vegetation and soils from vehicle traffic within the planning area. Limiting or prohibiting construction of new roads would minimize disturbance to vegetation and soils in PPMAs. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 666 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation measures could increase the sagebrush/perennial grass community type if disturbance exceeds the three percent threshold. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative F, impacts on vegetation and soils would be the same as Alternative B. 4.5. Riparian Areas and Wetlands This section discusses impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from existing management actions and resource uses by alternative. Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion of existing riparian and wetland areas within the planning area (Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands). 4.5.1. Methods and Assumptions Acres of riparian areas and wetlands were calculated from the National Wetlands Inventory database (USFWS 2013b). Indicators Indicators of impacts on riparian areas and wetlands are as follows: • Amount and condition of riparian and wetland vegetation. Assumptions • The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances would be influenced by several factors, including location in the watershed; the type, time, and degree of disturbance; existing vegetation; precipitation; and mitigating actions applied to the disturbance. • New invasions of noxious and invasive weeds would continue to occur and spread as a result of ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the planning area, recreational activities, wildland fire, wildlife and livestock grazing and movements, and surface-disturbing activities. • Ecological health and ecosystem functioning depend on a number of factors, including vegetative cover, species diversity, nutrient cycling and availability, water infiltration and availability and percent cover of weeds. • Short-term effects on riparian and wetland vegetation would occur over a timeframe of two years or less and long-term effects would occur over longer than two years. • Impacts from wild burros to riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs and PGMAs are considered negligible in comparison with impacts from wild horses. • Implementation and effectiveness of management actions on riparian areas and wetlands may be limited by funding, political constraints, workloads, enforcement, compliance, staffing levels, litigation, conflicting priorities and regulations, climate change, and other factors. Riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs and PGMAs within the sub-region are estimated to total 48,700 acres (USFWS 2013b) (note; this figure likely underestimates total riparian-wetland acres in sub-region). Some alternatives, especially Alternative C, may result in an increase in Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Riparian Areas and Wetlands September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 667 this acreage. All alternatives would result in an improvement in both condition and trend of riparian areas over time. Improvement in riparian habitat conditions is assumed to be lowest for Alternative A and highest for Alternatives C and F. 4.5.2. Nature and Type of Effects Type of effects of land uses or management actions on riparian areas and wetlands can include direct, indirect and cumulative effects (refer to Section 5.5, Riparian and Wetland Resources, for a discussion of cumulative impacts on riparian areas). Direct effects typically include compaction of soils and loss or alteration of riparian plants and riparian plant communities. Indirect effects are often the result of actions implemented for reasons other than management of riparian habitats but result in impacts on riparian habitats. The nature of these effects can vary from negligible to substantial depending on timeframes, condition of the riparian system and types of land or resource uses. Generally effects which are chronic in nature and occur over long periods of time are more significant to riparian resources than effects which are short term and temporary. Riparian and wetland plant communities are typically more resilient than uplands to minor or temporary disturbances because of the availability of moisture and a longer growing season. More information on the nature and types of effects from land uses and management actions on riparian areas and wetlands analysis is presented below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Short- and long-term direct and indirect effects on riparian areas and wetlands as a result of GRSG management efforts within the planning area are positive. Priority riparian habitats including areas important for late brood rearing would be targeted for improvement through efforts to improve GRSG habitat. Improvement of riparian areas and wetlands would be included as an important consideration in implementing changes in livestock grazing practices, prioritizing wild horse gathers, developing restoration projects, prioritizing weed treatments and adopting mitigation and avoidance measures for surface disturbing activities in areas of GRSG habitat. Efforts to manage GRSG would also result in increased focus on inventory and assessment of priority riparian areas leading to identification of opportunities to enhance or protect these areas. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetlands Management Riparian management results in positive direct and indirect effects on riparian areas and wetlands over both the short term and long term. Direct effects include restoration and enhancement of riparian habitats, while indirect effects can include restoration, management or enhancement of surrounding uplands or of watersheds in general. Many programs including range, wildlife (including special status species), wild horses and burros, vegetation (including restoration, fuels, weeds) and fire (including burned area rehabilitation and prescribed burning) are designed to improve overall health and resiliency of rangeland habitat often resulting in long-term direct or indirect benefit to riparian areas. In the case of locatable, salable and leasable minerals, management of riparian areas often includes incorporating measures such as avoidance, use of best management practices and mitigation into permitting documents to reduce or eliminate impacts. Impacts from Water Resources Management Water management can have both positive and negative direct and indirect effects on riparian areas and wetlands. Generally, these effects are long term. BLM and the Forest Service typically manage water resources indirectly through practices which promote watershed health September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 668 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement or through permitting activities which provide direction on activities affecting water use such as mine dewatering, energy development or construction of range improvements. Generally, watershed management practices which increase health of vegetative communities (both upland and riparian) have a direct or indirect long-term positive effect on riparian areas and wetlands. Functional watersheds stabilize soil and reduce erosion; provide resiliency against disturbance including wildfire, weed infestations and grazing; capture and store water; and, provide a filtering mechanism for pollutants (See Section 3.15, Water Resources). Negative direct and indirect effects on riparian areas from water management activities associated with mining operations, spring developments or other land uses can include loss of vegetation and soil and loss or diversion of surface or subsurface flows. In some cases, these impacts are mitigated by enhancing or protecting riparian areas and wetlands in other locations. State of Nevada regulations also require users of surface water to provide access to wildlife, thus reducing impacts of permitted diversion projects. Impacts from Vegetation Management Impacts on riparian areas are often indirect and include overall improvement of rangelands and watersheds (refer to above discussion on benefits of functional watersheds). In the case of weed control, impacts can be direct and positive where removal of invasive plants can result in establishment and expansion of riparian and wetland plant species. Direct positive impacts on riparian areas can also occur where vegetative management practices include reseeding of burned or disturbed floodplains. Generally, these impacts are long term. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Livestock management is probably the single most important factor affecting riparian areas and wetlands within the sub-region since livestock grazing is so wide spread and since livestock are highly attracted to riparian areas. Although they comprise only a small percent of the total planning area, riparian habitats often the only sources of succulent forage and water once uplands become desiccated. The detrimental effects of poor livestock grazing practices on riparian areas are well documented (refer to Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands). Direct and indirect effects on riparian areas and wetlands from managed livestock grazing are generally positive. Managed grazing can directly benefit riparian systems by reducing those impacts from grazing which are considered detrimental to proper functioning of riparian ecosystems (See Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands). More importantly, managed grazing benefits riparian areas and wetlands by allowing for growth and establishment of riparian plant communities. Especially where functionality of riparian systems is dependent on riparian and wetland plants, properly managed grazing would help to ensure long-term health and sustainability of the riparian-wetland resource. Healthy riparian systems are resilient to disturbances such as floods, droughts and wildfires (Prichard et al. 1999; Dalldorf et al. 2013; Chaney et al. 1993). Numerous strategies to improve stream and riparian habitat conditions through proper management of livestock have been developed and implemented on western rangelands in recent decades. Strategies range from fencing and removal of riparian areas from adjoining grazed uplands to establishing limits on streambank trampling and riparian plant use to developing prescriptive grazing protocols to reduce duration and frequency of hot season use (Wyman et al. 2006; Chaney et al. 1993; Clary and Webster 1989). Techniques such as riding and herding, use of supplements and construction of water developments are also commonly applied separately or in conjunction with grazing systems to reduce livestock use of riparian areas (Wyman et al. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 669 2006). The importance of incorporating an adaptive approach to riparian grazing management is also gaining recognition. Several common themes emerge from the literature addressing livestock grazing management for riparian areas. These include: • Riparian areas should be managed in conjunction with surrounding uplands (Wyman et al. 2006; Chaney et al. 1993). Healthy riparian systems are a function of healthy watersheds. • Merely reducing stocking rates rarely solves problems until other factors, such as season of use, are addressed (Wyman et al. 2006; Leonard et al. 1997). • Development of riparian grazing strategies is often highly site-specific, and there are no “one size fits air’ solutions (Wyman et al. 2006; Leonard et al. 1997). • The majority of successful riparian grazing systems are based on reducing frequency and duration of hot season grazing on riparian areas over time (Wyman et al. 2006; Chaney et al. 1993; Ehrhart and Hansen 1997; Dalldorf et al. 2013; Elmore and Kauffman 1994). • LInderstanding and incorporating livestock management goals into the development of a riparian grazing system is important to success (Wyman et al. 2006; Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Range improvements associated with livestock management, including construction of water developments and fences, can have both direct and indirect short and long-term impacts on riparian areas and wetlands. Water developments can indirectly benefit riparian and wetland areas by providing offsite water sources for livestock thus reducing use of riparian areas. Similarly, fencing provides a means for control and management of livestock allowing for growth and establishment of riparian plants. Negative effects can occur when water developments affect hydrologic function of springs or other riparian areas by interrupting normal flow patterns (generally, direct impacts from fences on riparian areas are minor). Although new range improvements are implemented through the NEPA process and typically include measures to avoid or eliminate adverse impacts, many older developments in PPMAs and PGMAs within the sub-region were poorly constructed or are in various stages of disrepair. Consequently, many of these older developments are acting to drain water away from spring sources or otherwise adversely affecting the ability of the riparian system to function properly. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Direct and indirect effects on riparian areas and wetlands from fire and fuels management are generally positive. Treatments including reseeding of burned drainage bottoms or reducing of heavy fuel loads adjacent to riparian areas represents a direct benefit. Management which targets protection or enhancement of surrounding watersheds through reseeding, prescribed fire or through application of mechanical or chemical fuel treatments represents an indirect benefit. Both direct and indirect effects from fire and fuels management are generally long term. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Direct and indirect impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from management of wild horses and burros are positive. By managing wild horse and burro populations for other multiples uses and for a “thriving ecological balance” impacts in the form of trampling and overuse of vegetation on both uplands and riparian areas are reduced. Management of wild horses and burros at or September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 670 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement below AMLs also provides an indirect benefit to riparian areas and wetlands when conflicts with livestock management fences are reduced. These impacts are long term. Impacts from Climate Change Including Management The direct and indirect effects of climate change on riparian areas and wetlands are assumed to be negative. Increased ambient and water temperatures, changes in flow regimes and reduced stream flows can negatively affect riparian ecosystems (See Section 3.22, Climate Change). Efforts to mitigate these effects through proactive strategies to address climate change would provide an indirect benefit to riparian areas. Negative effects are long term. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Impacts are both direct and indirect and can include potential to diminish the flow of springs and seeps due to groundwater withdrawal, loss of vegetation, soil compaction, potential chemical contamination of surface water if a connection exists or develops between the oil/gas reservoir and surface water, siltation due to construction activities and vehicle use, and potential for spills to water ways. These impacts can be short or long term. Note that standard drilling requirements isolate the wellbore from surface water and deeper aquifers. Management also includes closing areas to surface occupancy and providing for stipulations which protect riparian areas and wetlands from disturbance. Areas closed to surface occupancy include wilderness, wilderness study areas, and special recreation management areas. Stipulations to protect riparian areas or mitigate impacts are incorporated into leases through the NEPA process. Impacts from Locatahle and Salable Minerals Management For locatable minerals, all PPMAs and PGMAs within the planning area (excluding limited areas withdrawn or petitioned for withdrawal) are open to mineral exploration and development under the 1872 Mining Law. Direct and indirect impacts on riparian areas and wetlands are similar to those described for Leasable Minerals Management (with the exception of those impacts specific to oil and gas development). Requirements to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation allow for development of measures to avoid or mitigate impacts through Notices of Intent and Plans of Operation. Mitigation measures which include projects or funds to enhance and protect riparian habitats can have positive direct and indirect impacts. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Establishment of rights of way exclusion or avoidance areas provides an indirect positive benefit to riparian and wetland habitats by protecting these areas from disturbance. Retention of lands in public ownership also provides an indirect positive benefit since further use or development of these areas would be subject to environmental review. These impacts are long term. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management (Geothermal only) Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from geothermal energy development are mostly the same as those described for Fluid Minerals. However, water management activities from geothermal development including injection can also alter temperatures or chemistry of the ground water and any associated hot springs or seeps. Stipulations to protect riparian areas or mitigate impacts are incorporated into leases through the NEPA process. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 671 Area designations of closed or limited to off-highway vehicle use represent indirect positive effects on riparian areas and wetlands, while a designation of open represents a negative long-term effect. Impacts on riparian areas from both highway vehicles and OHVs are variable and depend on the frequency of use, soil/substrate present, and transportation route design/construction. Where proper crossings have been installed (e.g., properly sized culverts, bridges, rock crossing, etc.) or where substrate is durable, transportation impacts may be negligible. Where vehicle use crosses finer sediments without proper armoring, compaction and rutting can occur. Roads in general can alter surface flows and accelerate erosion through loss of vegetation which leads to loss of water tables and further loss of riparian vegetation (See Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands). Impacts from Recreation Management Although impacts from recreation on riparian areas and wetlands including trampling and compaction and loss of soil and vegetation negatively affect riparian areas, managed recreation can directly or indirectly benefit riparian resources. Mitigation or avoidance of impacts through the process of issuing Special Recreational Use (SRU) permits or through the establishment of SRMAs can result in protection of riparian areas and wetlands from human caused disturbance over the long term. Impacts from Special Designations Management Special designations of WSAs, ACECs, RNAs, NSHTs, WSRs, NCAs, and Wilderness indirectly benefits riparian areas and wetlands. These designations all include restrictions on surfaces use which could result in protection of associated riparian habitats over the long term. 4.5.3. Impacts Common to AH Alternatives All alternatives have at least some provisions that would directly and indirectly benefit riparian areas and wetlands over the long term. Resource and Land Uses Not Considered Further Wind and solar energy development and conifer removal create few impacts because this type of development does not generally occur in riparian areas or wetlands. Because sites for wind and solar energy development do not typically include drainage bottoms, wetlands or other low lying areas, impacts on riparian habitats from these land uses are typically negligible. Although removal of conifers can increase water yields indirectly benefiting riparian resources, generally conifer removal treatments are intended to improve upland habitats for GRSG or other species. 4.5.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Although management of the GRSG is not consistently provided for in existing LUPs across the sub-region, the delineation of PMUs in Nevada and Northeastern California and the development of local working groups would focus management and monitoring efforts on priority habitat including riparian areas. Condition and trend of important riparian areas and wetlands within PMUs would likely improve under this alternative. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetlands Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives 672 Draft Resource Management Plan/Enviromnental Impact Statement All LUPs within the sub-region recognize importance of riparian areas and wetlands and include guidance for protection or enhancement of this resource within PPH and PGH. Priority riparian habitats are targeted for improvement while impacts on riparian areas as a result of management actions or authorizations are considered through the NEPA process. Many livestock grazing systems developed through the permit renewal process and through assessments of rangeland health are focused on improving riparian habitat conditions. In some eases, mitigation programs developed for land uses such as mining have resulted in restoration of thousands of acres of riparian areas and wetlands in PPH and PGH. Condition and trend data for riparian and wetland habitats within the planning area suggest existing programs which directly or indirectly provide for riparian area management are only partially effective (see Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands). Generally, restoration efforts have been focused on priority streams habitats, especially those supporting fisheries. Although highly important to GRSG, lentic riparian areas have received less focus likely because they are small in size, widespread and more difficult to manage. Under this alternative, condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPH or PGH is likely to improve but progress may not be consistent across the planning area. Impacts from Water Resources Management Under Alternative A, the BLM and Forest Service would continue to manage programs designed to improve watershed function (fire and fuels, vegetation, livestock, and wild horse and burro management) would continue to result in improvement in condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands within the sub-region. Where land uses such as mining or energy development impact water resources, stipulations or mitigation measures developed through the NEPA process would continue to have the effect of reducing impacts on riparian areas or in the case of offsite mitigation, have the potential to enhance riparian areas. Impacts from Vegetation Management Under Alternative A, vegetation would continue to be managed under the Integrated Vegetation Management policies. Condition of riparian areas and wetlands would be maintained or improved where these policies are applied. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management All districts and offices on BLM-administered lands within the sub-regional decision area are subject to meeting the standards for rangeland health including the standard that riparian and wetland sites exhibit a properly functioning condition and achieve state water quality criteria. On Forest Service-administered lands, riparian areas are managed through a combination of utilization standards and design features discussed/documented each year in the AOI as well as response to direction found in AMPs. Functional condition of riparian areas and wetlands are considered in the development of riparian utilization standards. Partnerships involving restoration of intermingled public and private lands are increasingly being implemented in PPH and PGH throughout the sub-region. These collaborative watershed restoration efforts are resulting in improvement in many miles and acres of lotic and lentic riparian habitats in GRSG habitat. Flexibility in designing and implementing prescriptive riparian grazing management is a key factor in the success of these collaborative efforts. Under Alternative A, there are no “fallback standards” (standards applied when other approaches to grazing management have not been effective) in PPH and PGH. This situation, in combination Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 673 with limitations to effectiveness discussed under assumptions, likely contributes to variable success in meeting goals for riparian areas across the planning area (see Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands). Range improvements which are properly constructed and analyzed would continue to improve condition and trend of riparian habitats in PPH and PGH within the sub-region through better distribution and management of livestock. However, there are no existing requirements for remediating older developments which may be draining spring sources or causing other forms of damage to riparian areas. Condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands affected by nonfunctional or poorly designed developments would likely continue to decline or would not improve. Based on the above discussion, condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPH and PGH is likely to improve in portions, but not all, of the sub-region. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under current strategies and policies for management of fires and fuels, condition of riparian areas and wetlands within the sub-region would either be maintained or improved. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Where wild horse and burro populations are managed at or below AMLs and where riparian and wetland areas occur in PPH and PGH in horse management areas, condition and trend of riparian current riparian habitat conditions would be maintained. Where numbers of wild horses are in excess of desired levels, condition and trend of riparian habitats (especially lentic riparian areas) would decline. Impacts from Climate Change Management Although there are no specific provisions for management of climate change in LUPs within the sub-region, climate management as it relates to riparian areas and wetlands in PPH and PGH would likely be addressed through efforts to improve watershed function and health. These actions would result in improved condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in GRSG habitat. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Riparian areas and wetlands could potentially be impacted from activities associated with leasing of fluid minerals over the majority of the planning area including PPH and PGH. Stipulations added to leases would reduce impacts. Exceptions to this could occur with newer LUPs which contain some provisions for modifying or waiving lease stipulations in cases where the resource either does not exist or where some type of mitigation can protect the resource. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative A, riparian areas and wetlands throughout GRSG habitat are subject to impacts from locatable minerals management with limited exceptions (exceptions include areas either withdrawn or segregated from mineral entry). The requirement for BLM and the Forest Service to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation results in impacts on riparian areas being reduced, avoided, or mitigated where possible and feasible. The majority ol PPH and PGH within the planning area is also open to salable minerals management with few exceptions (these include areas with special designations or administrative September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 674 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement needs). Measures developed through the NEPA process would reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts on riparian areas as applicable. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative A, ROW/SUA avoidance and exclusion areas make up a relatively small percent of PPH or PPG within the planning area. Consequently, only limited areas of wetland and riparian habitats are protected from disturbance. Important wildlife habitats, including riparian areas, are generally not identified for disposal under Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management (Geothermal only) Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from geothermal energy development would be the same as those described for Fluid Minerals. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from CTTM under Alternative A would be mostly negative since the majority of PPH and PGH is designated as open. Where more restrictive designations have been established under newer plans or on Forest Service-administered lands, impacts on riparian areas would be reduced or eliminated. Impacts from Recreation Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from CTTM under Alternative A would be mostly negative since the majority of PPH and PGH within the sub-region is open to recreation with few restrictions. Stipulations added to SRU permits may reduce impacts on riparian habitats. 4.5.5. Alternative B Management under Alternative B would reduce land disturbances and would result in fewer impacts on riparian areas and wetlands associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative B would identify 12,693,500 acres for PPM As and 5,039,400 acres for PGMAs. Protecting GRSG habitat would result in few land disturbances and could result in reduced impacts on riparian habitats. Measures may also include protecting existing riparian areas and associated water sources from future use. Management under Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on riparian and wetland resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Water Resources Management Management under Alternative B would identify actions such as designing new range improvements to conserve, enhance or restore GRSG habitat, and using RDFs to mitigate potential impacts due to West Nile virus when developing or modifying water developments. This could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Management Same as Alternative A. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 675 Impacts from Riparian Areas and Welland Management Under Alternative B, riparian habitats are managed primarily through proposed ehanges to livestock grazing management. These changes would improve condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs and PGMAs within the sub-region. Impacts from managing riparian areas and wetlands for reference state vegetation relative to ecological site descriptions are not completely clear. ESDs have not been developed for lotic or lentic riparian areas although draft guidelines for development have been issued by the NRCS for lotic areas (NRCS 2011). In addition, managing for proper functioning condition of lentic riparian habitats may not be clearly tied to managing for diverse forb species richness. Some lentic sites including seeps, springs and wet meadows tend to become increasingly dominated by such species as Nebraska sedge as functioning condition improves. Disturbance such as that created by livestock grazing may be required to increase forb diversity (note that forb diversity on meadows can increase with grazing). Lotic riparian systems are also generally highly dynamic and periodic disturbance is part of how these systems function. Generally, however, managing riparian areas for proper functioning condition would result in elevated water tables and an outward expansion of mesic areas creating both more edge and more ecotones for forb diversity. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Livestock grazing would continue to be managed under existing policies and regulations as described for Alternative A for both the BLM and Forest Service. Riparian areas and wetlands including wet meadows are currently being managed for proper functioning condition and/or good ecological conditions on both BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands. In addition, no additional acres would be closed to livestock grazing in PPMAs and PGMAs. Recommendations for changing livestock grazing practices to meet GRSG habitat needs are the same as those currently provided for under Alternative A (and as discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, above). Generally, these include implementing changes in timing and intensity of use, numbers and distribution of livestock and in class of livestock. Differences between Alternative B and Alternative A relative to riparian areas are focused on integrating GRSG needs into grazing plans, term grazing permits, land health assessments, and drought condition evaluations. Emphasis is also placed on integrating private lands into the planning process. Management actions under Alternative B would include establishment of specific objectives for riparian areas and wetlands based on ecological site descriptions and identified GRSG habitat needs. Management under Alternative B would also differ from Alternate A in regards to range improvements. New water developments in PPMAs would only be allowed if the project benefited the GRSG (no changes in requirements are proposed for PPG). New required design features would be recommended for construction of ponds (including ponds or reservoirs constructed for livestock water) to reduce mosquito production and decrease opportunities for transmission of West Nile Virus. Finally, management under Alternative B would provide for evaluation and modification of existing water developments to benefit GRSG. Currently, there are no specific requirements to identify and remediate poorly designed or constructed developments which may be impairing riparian and wetland habitats. Condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs and PGMAs is expected to improve under Alternative B as a result of an increased focus on managing livestock grazing for late brood-rearing habitat. Proposed changes for range improvements under Alternative B would also September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 676 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement benefit riparian areas and wetlands currently being damaged by nonfunctional or improperly installed water developments. Adopting required design features for ponds is not likely to appreciably impact riparian areas and wetlands, while restricting new water developments in PPMAs could reduce opportunities for better control and management of livestock. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Management under Alternative B would not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management nor does it specify suppression activities. It does identify RDFs for fire suppression activities, general actions for pre- and post-fire treatment activities, timing of treatments, resting, and use of native plants for revegetation. Based on these actions, fire and fuels management under Alternative B would result in reduced impacts on riparian habitats in comparison with Alternative A. Effects of fire on riparian habitats are determined largely by habitat conditions at the time of the fire, post-fire management practices, the severity of the fire, suppression tactics used for fire management, and post-fire precipitation regimes. Hazardous fuels treatments would result in an overall decrease in wildfire potential, thereby decreasing impacts on riparian habitats. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Areas managed for wild horses and burros (HMAs and WHBTs) would not change from Alternative A. fn addition, these areas would continue to be managed to meet AMLs and to achieve a natural ecological balance with respect to other uses. However, under Alternative B, gathers would be prioritized in PPMAs (where feasible) and GRSG habitat objectives would be incorporated into BLM HMAs and Forest Service territories. Any structural improvements proposed for horses including water developments would be subject to consideration of impacts on GRSG. Prioritization of gathers in PPMAs could result in improved condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands under Alternative B; however, factors outside control of the agencies may limit the implementation of this measure (refer to Section 4.5.1, Methods and Assumptions, for Riparian Areas and Wetlands). Impacts from Climate Change Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative B, 13,068,000 acres would be managed as closed and 4,664,700 acres would be managed as open to fluid minerals, oil and gas, and geothermal within PPMA and PGMA. In addition, Alternative B would identify actions and conservation measures for areas that are already leased. Management under Alternative B would result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. Impacts from Lo cat able Minerals Management Management under Alternative B would identify f 3,068,000 acres as petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry and 4,664,700 acres as open to locatable mineral exploration or development within PPMA and PGMA. All locatable mineral activities would continue to be managed under the regulations at 43 CFR 3800 through the approval of a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operations. Withdrawing important GRSG habitat from mineral entry would increase protection of riparian Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 677 habitat. It would result in fewer impacts on these areas under Alternative B in comparison to Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative B would identify 13,068,000 acres as closed to mineral material disposal and 4,664,700 acres as open for consideration for mineral material disposal on a case-by-case basis within PPMA and PGMA. Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Management under Alternative B would identify 4,932,400 acres as ROW/SUA avoidance, 12,693,500 acres as exclusion areas, and 233,900 acres no longer suitable for disposal. Under Alternative B, fewer acres of riparian habitats would be impacted from disturbance associated with ROWs and SUAs in comparison to Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Management under Alternative B would retain 874,000 acres as closed to motorized vehicles, 12,992,100 acres as limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles, and 3,866,100 acres as open to all modes of cross country travel. Management under Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management Management under Alternative B would not close any areas to recreation activities; it does specify that any SRPs must have a neutral or beneficial effect on PPMAs. Neutral or beneficial impacts on GRSG habitat result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats under this alternative compared with Alternative A. 4.5.6. Alternative C Management under Alternative C would reduce land disturbances and would result in fewer impacts on riparian areas and wetlands associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Alternative C provides for extensive protection of GRSG habitat through large-scale restrictions on livestock grazing, mining, and energy development. Establishment of ACECs for GRSG is emphasized. Removing infrastructure such as fences and water developments and restoring uplands is also proposed. Collectively, these measures would improve riparian habitats through natural healing and by reducing disturbances. In comparison to Alternative A, Alternative C would result in greater improvement in condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management Under this alternative, management of riparian areas and wetlands would be primarily addressed through changes in livestock management including closing PPMAs to grazing and establishing lorage utilization limits in areas open to livestock. In areas closed to livestock, passive restoration (natural healing) is proposed for riparian habitats. Additional measures for riparian habitats under September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 678 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmentai Impact Statement Alternative C include removing existing water developments and focusing risk assessments on areas such as seeps, springs and intermittent and perennial drainages. Restrictions on ground disturbance in priority C3RSG habitat would also reduce impacts on riparian areas and wetlands. Overall condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs would improve under Alternative C. Acres of riparian habitat would also increase. Many riparian areas recover rapidly once stressors are reduced or eliminated. Continuous hot season grazing by livestock creates a situation where riparian and wetland plant communities cannot recover. Under current management, many areas throughout the sub-region are grazed annually throughout the hot season. Removal of annual hot season grazing would allow for re-establishment of riparian and wetland plant communities resulting in functional floodplains and for elevated water tables, conditions leading to expansions in amount and extent of riparian habitats. Long-term impacts of no grazing on riparian plant communities are less clear. Some studies show that plant productivity, especially in meadows, can decline over time in the absence of grazing (Bryant 1985). However, in a review of the literature on the subject, Belsky (1986) concluded that strong evidence for a positive relationship between herbivory and plant fitness is lacking (Belsky 1986). Thus, no livestock grazing would likely be positive to riparian areas and wetlands initially, but long-term impacts are less certain. In areas outside of PPMA, a 5 percent limit on riparian browse utilization and requirement to not exceed 10 percent trampling would result in improvement in condition and trend of lotic and lentic systems where functionality is based on condition of riparian plant communities. For some systems such as marshes or boulder controlled channels, herbaceous stubble heights, and trampling limits may not applicable. Removal of water developments in GRSG habitat would also improve condition of riparian habitats. Increased focus on identifying and restoring riparian and wetland habitats at risk would likely increase opportunities to enhance these areas. Impacts from Water Resources Management Management under Alternative C would identify the removal of water developments. This would allow for further enhancement of riparian habitats and giving riparian systems the ability to recover more quickly. Management under Alternative C could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Management Proposed reductions in livestock grazing, restoration of crested wheatgrass seedings and cheatgrass infestations, and reclamation of disturbed areas would provide an indirect benefit to riparian areas. It would do this through improved watershed function. In comparison to Alternative A, more acres of riparian areas and wetlands would improve under Alternative C. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Substantial changes in livestock management are proposed under this alternative. Removal of all grazing from PPMAs, and incorporation of stubble height, trampling, and woody browse plant utilization limits in riparian areas open to grazing would result in improvement in riparian areas and wetlands over time, at least initially. Removal of water developments would also likely improve condition of riparian areas and wetlands (see discussions above). Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 679 Areas open to livestock grazing are outside PPMAs. In these areas, actions including establishing use limits, removing range improvements, applying seasonal grazing restrictions and reducing and eliminating grazing where standards are exceeded would have both direct and indirect effects on riparian areas and wetlands. Reduced impacts from livestock on riparian areas would improve condition and trend of riparian areas. It should be noted, however, that reductions in numbers of livestock without changing season of use is unlikely to be effective. Also, a loss of management flexibility could preclude development of collaborative watershed partnerships and site-specific grazing systems designed to benefit riparian areas in PPMAs. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Impacts from this alternative would be similar to Alternative B (wild horses and burros would continue to be managed under existing regulations with the exception that GRSG needs would be considered as part of the process). In addition, use of helicopters for gathers would be precluded. Water trapping would be conducted as an alternative. Water trapping could cause trampling and loss of riparian plants, while any restrictions that make gathers less effective would represent an indirect negative impact on riparian areas if horse numbers remained too high in the HMAs/WHBTs. Impacts from Climate Change Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from leasable minerals management would be reduced under Alternative C in comparison to Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from locatable minerals management would be reduced under Alternative C in comparison to Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands from leasable minerals management would be reduced under Alternative C in comparison to Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative C, 17,732,900 acres would be managed as exclusion areas and 331,200 acres would no longer be suitable for disposal. Management under Alternative C could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Restricting cross-country travel and removing or closing roads in priority habitats would directly and indirectly benefit riparian areas and wetlands by reducing disturbance and improving September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 680 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement watershed function. These measures would improve more acres of riparian habitat in comparison to Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management Same as for Travel and Transportation, above. 4.5.7. Alternative D Management under Alternative D would reduce land disturbances and would result in fewer impacts on riparian areas and wetlands associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative D, 12,693,500 acres would be managed as PPMAs and 5,039,400 acres as PGMAs. It would also outline objectives for protecting and enhancing GRSG habitat as well as reducing potential future disturbances. Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitat than Alternative A. Impacts from Water Resources Management Management under Alternative D would identify actions including limiting the authorization of new water developments in PPMAs and PGMAs and modifications of existing developments where spring function has been impaired. Both measures would have the effect of reducing impacts on riparian habitats in comparison with Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Management Management under Alternative D would not identify any specific numbers of acres for vegetation treatment; however, it does have some general actions specifying types of treatments and timing. Based on the actions associated with Alternative D, there should be fewer impacts on riparian habitat overall than under Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Welland Management Impacts on riparian areas would similar to Alternative B, although under this alternative, riparian areas and wetlands would receive more emphasis in the development of management actions for weed control, vegetation treatments, fuels management and water developments. As with Alternative B, riparian habitats would be managed for some level of desired ecological condition. Habitat objectives for riparian areas would also be incorporated into the permitting process for livestock grazing. Based on these measures, condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs and PGMAs would improve under this alternative. Impacts from Livestock Management Under Alternative D, livestock grazing in PPMAs/PGMAs would continue to be managed under existing policies and regulations, including meeting rangeland health standards on BLM-administered lands and meeting utilization standards on Forest Service-administered lands. Differences from Alternative A include incorporation of GRSG habitat standards for riparian areas into the grazing permitting process and adding considerations for water developments in PPMAs/PGMAs. Under Alternative D, utilization standards for riparian areas and sequential Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 681 restrictions on grazing in the following season would apply to grazing authorizations on allotments not meeting or making progress towards meeting GRSG habitat objectives. Modifying or restricting use of water developments to reduce impacts on riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs/PGMAs is also proposed. Proposed administration of livestock grazing on PPMAs/PGMAs under Alternative D would likely improve condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands. Livestock grazing represents one of the most significant impacts on riparian habitats within the sub-region. Opportunities to apply site-specific and flexible riparian grazing protocols to achieve GRSG habitat objectives would continue to be available in PPMAs/PGMAs. This opportunity would continue to foster development of large-scale collaborative management efforts on both public and private lands. Where objectives and standards are not being met, the development of “fallback” measures would help to ensure condition of riparian habitats receives priority consideration as part of the livestock grazing permitting process. Currently, standards are not being met on many riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs/PGMAs across the sub-region. Greater emphasis on managing water developments for GRSG would also likely benefit riparian areas since many older projects are adversely impacting seeps and springs across the sub-region. However, restrictions on use of tools to improve livestock distribution could also reduce opportunities to apply landscape level management strategies. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Management under Alternative D would not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management. It does identify general actions for suppression activities, pre- and post-fire treatment activities, timing of treatments, resting, and use of native plants for revegetation. Based on these actions. Alternative D could have fewer impacts on riparian habitat than Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative D, greater emphasis would be placed on meeting GRSG habitat objectives, including late summer brood-rearing habitat, than currently exists. This would improve condition and trend of riparian habitats in PPMAs/PGMAs in areas managed for wild horses and burros. Impacts from Climate Change Management Management under Alternative D would emphasize actions that help manage potential impacts on GRSG habitat due to climate change. These actions would include restoring connectivity and habitat in fragmented areas, managing for drought, invasive species, and wildfire and implementing vegetation treatments to restore degraded areas. All of these options would help restore degraded riparian systems and improve water quality. Management under Alternative D could have fewer impacts on riparian habitat than Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative D, 1,670,800 acres would be managed as closed to fluid minerals, oil and gas, and geothermal and 16,061,900 acres as open to fluid minerals, oil and gas and geothermal within PPMA and PGMA. In addition, Alternative D would list stipulations for NSO in priority GRSG habitat for currently unleased areas and require site-specific conservation measures for reducing land disturbance on leased areas. Management under Alternative I) would result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. September, ; 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 682 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative I) within PPMA and PGMA, 17,732,900 acres would be managed as closed to mineral material disposal and 0 acres as open for consideration for mineral material disposal on a case-by-case basis. Management under Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitat than Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative D, 17,456,300 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance, 276,600 acres as exclusion areas and 336,300 acres no longer suitable for disposal. Management under Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats than Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative D, 874,400 acres would be managed as closed to motorized vehicles, 16,858,200 acres as limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles and 0 acres as open to all modes of cross country travel. Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitat than Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management Management under Alternative D would not close any areas to recreation activities; however, it does specify that any SRPs or SUAs must have a neutral or beneficial effect on priority habitat. It also specifies that no new recreational facilities would occur in PPMAs and PGMAs. Neutral or beneficial impacts and no new recreational facilities in GRSG habitat could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitat. Therefore, management under Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on riparian areas and wetlands than Alternative A. 4.5.8. Alternative E Alternative E proposes a hierarchical decision process of avoid, minimize, and mitigate in order to achieve the goal of no net loss of occupied, suitable, and potential GRSG habitat. Management under Alternative E would also focus management strategies over more acres of GRSG habitat in Nevada than Alternative A. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative E would not identify acreages for PPMAs and PGMAs, rather it discusses collaboration through the ecosystem council, a mitigation banking program and disturbances greater than or equal to 5 percent of 640 acres (32 acres) within Occupied/Suitable Habitat would trigger habitat evaluation and consultation with the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. If successful, innovative approaches, including use of a dedicated technical team to address GRSG habitat issues, development of a mitigation banking and credit system to offset impacts, and greater focus on collaboration across jurisdictional lines, could increase opportunities for improvement of riparian areas and wetlands in GRSG habitat than currently exist. Impacts from Water Resources Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 683 Management under Alternative E would not identify any actions for managing water resources within GRSG habitat. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Management Strategies to improve management of upland vegetation resources under Alternative E would indirectly improve riparian and wetland habitats if successful. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management Under Alternative E, management of riparian areas and wetlands within important GRSG habitat in Nevada would be emphasized through the use of the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council, the Nevada Technical Team and the Mitigation Bank Program. Enhanced coordination, project facilitation, technical assistance and use of a credit system for effective mitigation would all likely result in improvement condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in both PPMAs/PGMAs in Nevada as well as additional habitats in SGMAs. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative E, livestock grazing would continue to be managed under existing policies and regulations except that additional emphasis would be place on managing livestock grazing for enhancement of GRSG habitat in SGMAs including PPMAs/PGMAs in Nevada. Conditions and trends for riparian areas and wetlands is expected to improve under Alternative E in comparison with Alternative A as a result of increased emphasis on collaboration and coordination across jurisdictional boundaries and as a result of developing a system to incentivize conservation practices. These strategies would likely provide additional opportunities to improve priority riparian and wetlands habitats in Nevada. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Management under Alternative E would not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management or post-fire rehabilitation treatments. It does identify general actions for suppression activities, particularly associated with improving initial attack suppression actions. Based on these actions. Management under Alternative E would result in fewer impacts from wildfire to riparian resources in comparison with Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands would be the same as for Alternative A. Generally, management of wild horses for AMLs would reduce impacts on riparian areas and to livestock management fences which indirectly benefit riparian habitat management. Impacts from Climate Change Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas as closed or open to fluid minerals. However, the strategy to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on GRSG habitat under Alternative E would result in fewer impacts on riparian and wetland habitats from activities associated with mineral leasing in comparison with Alternative A. This alternative limits habitat disturbance to September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 684 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement not more than 5 percent per year, per 640 acres, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results, and would refer disturbance levels exceeding 5 percent per 640 acres to evaluation and consultation with the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. SGMAs apply only to lands within Nevada. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas for petition for withdrawal from mineral entry or open to locatable mineral exploration or development. However, the strategy to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on GRSG habitat under Alternative E would result in fewer impacts on riparian and wetland habitats from activities associated with hard rock mining in comparison with Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas as closed to mineral material disposal or open for consideration for mineral material disposal. This alternative limits habitat disturbance to not more than 5 percent per year, per 640 acres, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results, and would refer disturbance levels exceeding 5 percent per 640 acres to evaluation and consultation with the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. SGMAs apply only to lands within Nevada. This would result in fewer impacts on riparian and wetland habitats in comparison with Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas for ROW/SUA exclusion, ROW/SEfA avoidance, or areas available for disposal; rather this alternative proposes a strategy to avoid disturbances and development in occupied, suitable, and potential GRSG habitat. If successful, impacts on to riparian and wetland habitats from land uses and realty actions under Alternative E would be less than for Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas as closed to motorized vehicles, or as limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles or as open to all modes of cross country travel. However, this alternative proposes a strategy to avoid disturbances and development in occupied, suitable and potential GRSG habitat. If successful, impacts on riparian and wetland habitats from travel and transportation activities under Alternative E would be less than for Alternative A. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management Management under Alternative E does not identify areas as closed to recreational use or specify any conservation measurements associated with recreation. However, a number of strategies to reduce potential impacts on GRSG habitats from recreation are proposed. These include avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts; initiating studies to evaluate impacts; and, working collaboratively across jurisdictional boundaries to resolve recreation conflicts. If successful, impacts on riparian and wetland habitats from recreation under Alternative E would be less than for Alternative A. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 685 4.5.9. Alternative F Alternative F is similar to Alternative B but is more comprehensive in scope. Additional restrictions on a wide range of land use activities affecting both renewable and nonrenewable resources would significantly reduce the potential to disturb riparian and wetlands habitats. In addition, designation of sagebrush reserves with further limitations on development and disturbance would result in additional protection of riparian resources. Proposed actions focused on restoration and remediation of damage or disturbance would also directly and indirectly benefit riparian areas and wetlands within the planning area. Collectively, these measures would result in more riparian and wetland habitat improvement in comparison to Alternative C. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands are similar to Alternative B, except that there is additional emphasis on protecting priority GRSG habitat. Added focus on both preserving habitat and limiting disturbance would result in more acres of riparian and wetland habitat being improved or protected in comparison to Alternatives A and B. Impacts from Water Resources Management Management under Alternative F identifies no new water developments in occupied habitat unless it can be shown to benefit GRSG. It also identifies modifying or dismantling existing developments as a method to maintain the continuity of the pre-development riparian area within GRSG habitat. Management under Alternative F results in fewer impacts on riparian habitat than Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Management Increased focus on vegetation management for the benefit of GRSG habitat would indirectly benefit riparian and wetland habitat by improving overall watershed health, resulting in greater benefits to these areas in comparison to Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management Under Alternative F, riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs/PGMAs would continue to be managed for meeting PFCs or Forest Plan standards and guidelines (refer to Alternative A). As with Alternatives B and D, riparian habitats would be managed for forb species richness, edge and potential natural communities based on ecological site descriptions. Water developments would also be limited or modified in priority GRSG habitats (refer to Alternatives B, C, and D). Additional emphasis is placed on addressing GRSG concerns and limiting land uses in priority GRSG habitat and on restricting livestock grazing practices than exists under Alternative A. Based on similarities in impacts on portions of Alternatives A, B, C and I) and on incorporation of new measures to reduce impacts on riparian habitats, condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs/PGMAs would improve under Alternative F. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative F, impacts on riparian areas and wetlands including proposed incorporating GRSG habitat objectives for late summer brood-rearing habitat into the livestock grazing permitting process and into land health assessments are similar to Alternatives B and D. Restrictions on new water developments and proposals to modify existing developments are September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 686 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement similar to Alternatives B, C, and D. Others measures including establishment of ungrazed reference areas, incorporation of rest requirements and adoption of restrictive utilization limits for riparian habitats are also proposed (see related proposals under Alternative C). Condition and trend of riparian habitats would likely improve under Alternative F as a result of a placing greater emphasis on livestock impacts on late summer brood-rearing habitat (refer to discussions under Alternatives B and D). Establishment of ungrazed reference areas may result in expansion of riparian areas at least initially (see related discussion for removing livestock use from in PPM As/PGM As under Alternative C). Although ungrazed areas, especially riparian habitats, could become less productive over time, reference areas would provide a comparison to grazed areas and more conclusive results about the effectiveness of this strategy. The establishment of strict utilization limits (less than or equal to 25 percent of annual use) for riparian habitats may limit flexibility to achieve landscape-level grazing prescriptions. The utilization limit along with a rest requirement (25 percent of grazed area to be rested annually) is proposed in addition to use of established protocols for riparian grazing management including the control of frequency, timing and duration of use. Although riparian areas and wetlands would improve in PPMAs/PGMAs on public lands under such restricted grazing, opportunities to develop collaborative riparian grazing systems across jurisdictional and land ownership boundaries would be more limited under this alternative than for Alternatives A and E. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Impacts on riparian areas and wetlands are similar to Alternatives A, B, and D. Wild horse and burro AMLs would be reduced by 25 percent within HMAs/WHBTs with occupied GRSG habitat. While impacts from wild horses and burros would remain, this would reduce the effects of wild horses and burros described under Alternatives A, B, and D. More emphasis would also be placed on meeting GRSG habitat needs including late summer brood-rearing habitat in herd management areas than currently exits. Impacts from Climate Change Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Same as Alternative B. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 687 Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Alternative F is similar to Alternative B, with the exception that there would be increased focus on planning and on closing or remediating roads in priority habitat. These measures would reduce impacts on riparian areas and wetlands in comparison to Alternatives A and B. Impacts from Recreation Management Management under Alternative F would not close any areas to recreational activities; it does specify that any BLM SRPs or Forest Service SUAs must have a neutral or beneficial effect on priority habitat. It also specifies that timing of certain recreational activities and prohibits cross-country travel in priority GRSG habitat. Neutral or beneficial impacts and no cross-country travel in GRSG habitat could result in fewer impacts on riparian habitats in comparison to Alternative A. 4.6. Special Status Species Implementing the management actions for GRSG described in Table 2-5, Description of Alternative Actions, would have mostly negligible or beneficial impacts on other special status species and, therefore, impacts from each alternative are not discussed separately in detail. See Biological Evaluation (Appendix J, Management Indicator Species Report) for further discussion of effects of management actions on other special status species. Most of the management actions for GRSG under the Alternatives would be beneficial for the majority of sensitive species inhabiting in the planning area. The possible exception would be species that require pinyon and juniper woodlands for at least part of their life cycle requirements. Pinyon and juniper woodlands include pure to nearly pure stands of single-leaf pinyon pine and any of four species of junipers - Utah, Western, Rocky Mountain, or California (NDOW 2013). Physical features of pinyon and juniper woodlands are highly variable, even within a single mountain range. Pinyon and juniper woodlands on unproductive soils provide a variety of sheltering functions for wildlife that range from hiding cover to cavities and nest sites for birds, bats and small mammals. As an evergreen cover, such habitat provides important thermal protection for wildlife during winter and shelter from the summer’s intense sun. Two critical services of pinyon and juniper habitat to wildlife are structure and the pinyon nut crop. Ferruginous hawks exploit pinyon and juniper woodlands by relying on older trees of sufficient size and structure to support their large nest platforms, but these trees must be located at the lower edge of the forest or on upper slopes of drainages where they provide a long view of the surrounding, open sagebrush expanses where prey dwell. For birds and bats in particular, pinyon and juniper woodland provide structure for nesting and roosting, and locations for foraging that would otherwise be missing from the mid-elevation cold desert were it is dominated by shrubs. Pinyon Jays and small mammals are strongly tied to the annual pinyon nut crop. The BLM and Forest Service acknowledge the requirements of pinyon and juniper obligate species may be contradictory to the restoration of sagebrush habitat for GRSG, but management decisions would need to be made on a more local case-by-case basis and therefore is not further discussed in this programmatic document. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Special Status Species 688 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.7. Wild Horses and Burros 4.7.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on wild horse and burro management are as follows: • Changes to HMAs/WHBTs AMLs in GRSG habitat. • Changes in ability to provide long-term management of wild horses and burros in HMAs/WHBTs due to changes in forage availability, and sufficient volume, quality and distribution (location) of water sources. Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • Designated HMAs/WHBTs to meet the four-season habitat needs and allow for a self-sustaining herd at a designated AML. • Horses and burros are dependent on the herbaceous component of a shrub/grass plant community. Encroachment of shrubs or pinyon-juniper onto established range lands are adverse, increases in grasses and forbs are beneficial. Vegetation treatments such as prescribed burns or weed control can enhance the plant community composition and forage availability. • Heavy or poorly timed grazing will adversely affect plant composition, plant succession, and ground cover. • Water is the primary resource associated with wild horse distribution. Water developments can improve wild horse distribution. Furthermore, man-made water developments that employ some type of mechanical device (e.g., windmill, electric pump, etc.) can fail and cause horses to go without or go elsewhere for water. • Fences and other disturbances can restrict wild horse movement and access. Fences are sometimes necessary to restrict horse distribution to areas inside HMAs/WHBTs or to protect sensitive resources within HMAs/WHBTs. • While wild horses and burros may be found on lands outside HMAs/WHBTs, these areas have no forage allocated to wild horses and burros and BLM/Forest Service has no authority to manage (except to remove) wild horses and burros outside of HMAs/WHBTs. • Wild horse and burro gather operation scheduling is a product of a national priority process. Factors affecting gather priorities include determinations of excess horses and overpopulations, wild horse and range condition, annual appropriations, litigation and court orders, emergency situations (i.e., disease, weather, fire, etc.), availability of contractors, adoption market, and long-term holding availability for unadoptable excess horses. • Population growth suppression (fertility control agents, sterilization, and sex ratio adjustments) can aid in population control, but periodic gathers are still necessary to remove excess wild horses. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Wild Horses and Burros September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 689 • Wild horse and burro distribution will and can vary by season, climatic conditions, water and forage availability, and population size. Intensive livestock grazing management strategies (scheduled pasture rotations) that involve project infrastructure (fences) are generally not appropriate for long-term wild horse management. 4.7.2. Nature and Type of Effects Within the sub-region, all BLM and Forest Service districts manage for wild horses and burros within established HMAs (BLM) or WHBTs (Forest Service). Most HMAs or WHBTs contain GRSG habitat within a sagebrush vegetation community. Overall management direction is to manage for healthy populations of wild horse and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. All HMAs/WHBTs are managed for AML. Initially, AML is established in LUPs at the outset of planning and is adjusted based on monitoring data throughout the life of the plan. Priorities for gathering excess wild horses and burros to maintain AML are based on population inventories, resource monitoring objectives, gather schedules, and budget. Gathers are also conducted in emergency situations when the health of the population is at risk due to lack of forage or water and in some situations, wildland fire. Direction for prioritizing wild horse and burro gathers for maintaining AML is not based on GRSG habitat needs, although this is implicit in the Congressional directive to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. Under the No Action Alternative, there are no goals, objectives, or management actions specifically identified within the management framework for the Wild Horse and Burro program. Implementing management for the protection of GRSG generally involves reducing or otherwise restricting land uses and activities that could potentially reduce forage and water availability or disturb a wild horse and burro population. For example, mineral extraction, recreation and construction activities within ROW grants may all reduce forage availability, result in disturbance or prohibit the ability of wild horses and/or burros to move freely across HMAs/WHBTs. Protecting areas from these activities for the purpose of protecting GRSG would also protect forage for wild horse and burros and limit disturbance (human and surface). Impacts could occur to wild horse and burros and the ability to support AMLs when management options for HMAs/WHBTs are restricted. For example, establishment of priority for gather operations in PPMAs could put HMAs/WHBTs that do not contain PPMAs at risk for overpopulation; however, provisions under this plan would allow for exceptions as needed for herd health limiting impacts. Impacts from range improvement restrictions would generally vary based on type of range improvement affected; restrictions on fences would improve wild horse habitat by allowing free range, while limitations on projects that could enhance forage and water availability would not help to support the AML. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on wild horse and burro management, and are therefore not discussed in detail: air quality, visual resources, cultural resources, ACECs, socioeconomics, and tribal interests. 4.7.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 690 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Across all alternatives, the number of acres of habitat affected would be the same. Impacts from wild horse and burro populations would be the same as identified in the individual LUP analysis. Wild horse and burro grazing has similar impacts as livestock grazing in their effect on soils, vegetation health, species composition, water, and nutrient availability by consuming vegetation, redistributing nutrients and seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and disrupting microbial systems as identified in Connelly 2004. 4.7.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 691 Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative A, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. 4.7.5. Alternative B Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Protections afforded to GRSG and its habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with priority GRSG habitats. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands , and Water Resources Management Use of management prescriptions to conserve, enhance, or restore riparian areas and wet meadows within GRSG habitat could also benefit wild horses and burros. Management techniques such as fencing could also limit wild horse and burro access to riparian areas and reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within an HMA/WHBT. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Allowance of vegetation treatments designed to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat would also benefit wild horses and burros. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Managing livestock grazing to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Allowance of management treatments designed to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat that benefit livestock would also benefit wild horses and burros. Modification or elimination of livestock watering sites could reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within an HMA/WHBT. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Fuels projects that protect existing sagebrush ecosystems and associated priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. However, temporary or long-term management changes to wild horses and burros September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 692 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (i.e., reduction in AML, removals, movement patterns, forage access, etc.) may be necessary to achieve and maintain the desired project objectives. Prioritizing fire suppression activities to conserve priority GRSG habitat would also benefit wild horse and burro habitat. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Managing wild horse and burro populations and their habitat to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat could be expected to impact wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Prioritizing wild horse and burro gathers to those HMAs/WHBTs and areas outside of established boundaries that overlap priority GRSG habitat could impact population management activities within non-GRSG HMAs/WHBTs. Modification or elimination of watering sites in order to conserve GRSG habitat could reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within a HMA/WHBT. Prioritizing the evaluation of AMLs and completing land health assessments may result in need for the reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within and outside HMA/WHBT in order to achieve GRSG habitat objectives. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative B, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Leasing and surface occupancy restrictions to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat along with reduction of disturbance (human and surface) would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Locatab/e and Salable Minerals Management Withdrawals and closures of priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Implementation of exclusion and avoidance actions as well as limiting surface disturbance in order to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Retention of priority GRSG habitat would also benefit wild horse and burros. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative B, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Restrictions to travel and surface disturbance to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Recreation Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 693 Under Alternative B, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. 4.7.6. Alternative C Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Protections afforded to GRSG and its habitat would be expected to benefit and impact wild horse and burro populations. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Water Resources Management Restoration of riparian areas would benefit wild horse and burro populations through water availability and improved habitat condition. Establishing riparian stubble height limitations would require reducing utilization levels which would likely result in need for reduction of wild horse and burro AML for the HMA/WHBT. Elimination of livestock water developments could reduce water availability within an HMA/WHBT resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative C, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Elimination of livestock grazing within SRAs and reducing grazing levels within those areas that retain grazing use to protect and maintain occupied GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Establishing upland and riparian stubble height requirements that require reducing utilization levels would likely result in need for reduction of wild horse and burro AML for the HMA/WHBT. Elimination of livestock watering sites could reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within an HMA/WHBT. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under Alternative C, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Evaluation of AMLs and completing land health assessments may result in need to reduce wild horse and burro populations within an HMA/WHBT as well as outside their boundaries in order to achieve GRSG habitat needs. Restricting removal and population control techniques could hamper proper management. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative C, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 694 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative C, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Withdrawals and targeted restoration within occupied GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these areas. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Prohibiting new ROW corridors within ACECs and occupied habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Retention of all public lands within ACECs and occupied GRSG habitat would also benefit wild horse and burros. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Prohibiting new site development and associated ROW corridors within ACECs and occupied habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Seasonal restrictions and closures within occupied GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative C, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. 4.7.7. Alternative D Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Protections afforded to GRSG and its PPMAs or PGMAs habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap these areas. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands , and Water Resources Management Conservation and enhancement of riparian areas would benefit wild horse and burro populations through improved habitat condition. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Evaluation and prioritization of GRSG habitat restoration treatments identified for PPMAs or PGMAs habitat would be expected to benefit wild horse and burro habitat. Associated landscape-scale management and surface disturbance restrictions would also benefit wild horse and burro habitat. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Managing livestock grazing to protect and maintain PPMAs and PGMAs habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 695 Allowance of management treatments designed to conserve, enhance, or restore PPMAs and PGMAs habitats that benefit livestock would also benefit wild horses and burros. Authorization of new or modification of existing livestock watering sites that benefit or conserve PPMAs and PGMAs habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros. Elimination of existing water sources that may be identified as impacting PPMAs and PGMAs habitats could reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within a HMA/WHBT. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Fuels projects that protect and restore existing sagebrush ecosystems and associated PPMAs and PGMAs habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Prioritization of fire suppression activities to protect and conserve PPMAs and PGMAs habitats would also benefit wild horse and burro habitat. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Managing wild horse and burro populations and their habitat to achieve GRSG habitat objectives within PPMAs and PGMAs habitats could be expected to impact wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Prioritizing wild horse and burros gathers to those HMAs/WHBTs as well as outside of these boundaries that overlap PPMAs and PGMAs habitats could impact population management activities within non-GRSG HMAs/WHBTs. Evaluation of AMLs may result in need for the reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within an HMA/WHBT in order to achieve GRSG habitat objectives. Impacts from Climate Change Management Management actions and treatments that enhance and sustain PPMAs and PGMAs habitats for the long term would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Leasing and surface occupancy restrictions to protect and maintain PPMAs and PGMAs habitats along with reduction of disturbance (human and surface) would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Management restrictions that conserve, maintain and enhance PPMAs and PGMAs habitats while meeting the Nation’s and State’s needs for these minerals would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Implementation of exclusion and avoidance actions as well as limiting surface disturbance in order to protect and maintain PPMAs and PGMAs habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Retention of these habitats would also benefit wild horse and burros. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 696 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative D, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Restrictions and closures, both seasonal and long term, that minimize disturbances (human and surface) within PPMAs and PGMAs habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Recreation Management Restrictions and closures, both seasonal and long term, that minimize disturbances (human and surface) within PPMAs and PGMAs habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. 4.7.8. Alternative E Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Protections afforded to GRSG and its habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with SGMAs. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Use of management prescriptions to conserve, enhance, or restore riparian areas and wet meadows within SGMAs could also benefit wild horses and burros. Management techniques such as fencing could also limit wild horse and burro access to riparian areas and reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within a HMA/WHBT. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative E, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Managing livestock grazing within SGMAs to protect and maintain GRSG habitats would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Fire management activities that protect, maintain, and improve sagebrush habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Prioritizing fire suppression activities to conserve GRSG habitat within SGMAs would also benefit wild horse and burro habitat. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Evaluation of HMA designations and their associated AMLs within SGMAs may result in need for the reduction of populations or elimination of wild horse and burro HMAs/WHBTs in order to achieve GRSG habitat objectives. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 697 Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative E, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Mining and mineral exploration activities that protect and maintain sagebrush habitat within SGMAs would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Mining and mineral exploration activities that protect and maintain sagebrush habitat within SGMAs would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Implementation of avoidance actions for locating ROWs and facilities in order to protect and maintain GRSG habitat within SGMAs would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Implementation of avoidance actions as well as limiting disturbances (human and surface) within SGMAs would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Travel restrictions, both seasonal and long-term within SGMAs, which minimize disturbances (human and surface) to GRSG, would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Recreation Management Actions that avoid, minimize and mitigate disturbance within SGMAs could be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these areas. 4.7.9. Alternative F Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Protections afforded to GRSG and its habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with PPMAs or PGMAs. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Water Resources Management Use ol management prescriptions to conserve, enhance, or restore riparian areas and wet meadows within GRSG habitat could also benefit wild horses and burros. Modification or elimination of livestock watering sites could reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within a HMA/WHBT. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 698 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Vegetation treatments designed to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat would also benefit wild horses and burros. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Managing livestock grazing to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horse and burro habitats. Prioritization of the completion of land health assessments may result in the need to reduce wild horse and burro numbers within a HMA/WHBT in order to achieve GRSG habitat needs. Establishing upland and riparian utilization levels limits in order to achieve GRSG habitat objectives would likely result in the need for the reduction of wild horse and burro AML for the HMA/WHBTs that overlap the area. Elimination or modification of livestock watering sites could reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of wild horse and burro numbers within a HMA/WHBT. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Fuels treatments that protect existing sagebrush ecosystems and associated priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. However, temporary or long-term management changes to wild horses and burros (i.e., reduction in AML, removals, movement patterns, forage access, etc.) may be necessary to achieve and maintain the desired project objectives. Prioritizing fire suppression activities to protect and conserve priority GRSG habitat would also benefit wild horse and burro habitat. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Managing wild horse and burro populations and their habitat to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat could be expected to impact wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these occupied habitats. While impacts from wild horses and burros would remain, reducing wild horse and burro AMLs by 25 percent would reduce the effects of wild horses and burros, as described under Alternative A. As a result, costs of wild horse and burro management would increase, due to a need for additional horse gathers for removal and population growth suppression treatment to attain and maintain the newly established AMLs. Reductions to this level could impact herd sustainability and diversity, which could lead to changes in HMA/WHBT designation and long-term management in these occupied habitats. Prioritizing wild horse and burro gathers to those HMAs/WHBTs as well as outside their boundaries that overlap priority GRSG habitat could impact population management activities within non-GRSG HMAs/WHBTs. Modification or elimination of watering sites could reduce water availability resulting in potential need for reduction of the wild horse and burro population within a HMA/WHBT. More residual grasses and forbs would likely remain in the occupied GRSG habitat that overlaps HMAs/WHBTs. Prioritizing the evaluation of AMLs, HMA designations, and completing land health assessments may result in need for the reduction or elimination of wild horse and burro populations within a HMA/WHBT in order to achieve GRSG habitat objectives. Impacts from Climate Change Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 699 Under Alternative F, the impacts on wild horse and burro management would continue to be the same as those identified in the individual LUP documents. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Leasing and surface occupancy restrictions and closures to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat along with reduction of disturbance would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Withdrawals and closures of priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros and their habitat. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Implementation of exclusion and avoidance actions as well as limiting disturbance (human and surface) in order to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros whose HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Retention of priority GRSG habitat would also benefit wild horse and burros. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Closure of priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Restrictions to travel and surface disturbance to protect and maintain priority GRSG habitat would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. Impacts from Recreation Management Seasonal camping and non-motorized recreation closures near active leks as well as prohibition of off-road vehicle use in PPMAs would be expected to benefit wild horses and burros where HMAs/WHBTs overlap with these habitats. 4.8. Wildland Fire and Fire Management 4.8.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on wildland fire ecology and management are as follows: • Alteration of vegetative cover is likely to result in a shift in FRCC. • A change in the likelihood of human-caused wildfire in the planning area. • A change in the size, extent, or occurrence of wildfire in the planning area. • Management actions that inhibit a response to wildland fire or appropriate treatments to prevent wildland fire. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Wildland Fire and Fire Management 700 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • Fire is an important functional, natural disturbance in many of the ecological systems found in the planning area. • A direct relationship exists between fuel characteristics and potential fire intensity and severity. • Necessity for fuels treatments would likely increase over the life of this plan. There will be increased demand on suppression resources managing wildland fires to protect values at risk. 4.8.2. Nature and Type of Effects Impacts on wildland fire management result from changes in fire frequency and intensity, and the ability to employ fire-suppression methods, all of which would affect management of fire and related costs within the planning area. Actions which change fire regime condition class from highly altered ecosystems could reduce the risk of losing key ecosystems as well as decrease fire risk and management costs in the long term. Many different resource uses may introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which increase the probability of wildfire occurrence and the need for fire-suppression activities. Fire intensity can be affected by activities that decrease fuel loading, such as vegetation treatments and harvesting of timber products, and activities that alter the composition and structure of vegetation communities. High-intensity fires generally result in a greater loss of vegetation cover, changes to soil chemistry, damage to root structures, and a greater ability for non-native species to become established (Verma and Jayakumar 2012). Surface disturbance produced would generally contribute to the modification of the composition and structure of vegetation communities (including an increase in invasive and noxious weed proliferation). This proliferation could then likely cause the potential for increased fire spread and activity. Therefore, management actions that minimize disturbance for GRSG would reduce the potential risk of fire. Management actions that are intended to improve, create, or re-establish healthy ecological conditions in various vegetation types benefit the fire and fuels program in the long term by promoting the most efficient use of fire and fuels management program resources. In addition, allowing a range of fuel treatment options and providing the possibility to use unplanned wildfire to meet land management plan objectives where appropriate provides needed management flexibility to reduce large fire costs and achieve fire and fuels goals and objectives. However, prioritizing fire suppression can limit management options and increase costs for fire management programs. Riparian and water resource management could restrict suppression operations by limiting use of heavy equipment or retardant near streams or riparian areas. Wild horse and burro grazing can impact the BLM’s ability to manage fires as a natural process due to grazing’s influence on fine fuels availability (e.g., perennial grasses). A reduction or change in AML can in turn change the fine fuels in site-specific locations. The impact would be the greatest where fine fuels are the primary fire carrier. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 701 Fire management may be impacted from climate change trends in the planning area. Generally, increased temperature and longer growing seasons may result in more rapid accumulation of fuels in forested and montane shrubland systems (Brown et al. 2004). This increase of fuel loading would increase the FRCC departure, effecting the fire size, intensity and severity resulting in an increase in fire suppression costs, fuels treatment planning and implementation. In the same forested and montane shrublands, climate change may increase the frequency and duration of droughts increasing fire frequency (Brown et al. 2004). The increased temperatures and longer growing season will also support the expansion of invasive annual grasses and forbs. This effect will also increase fire frequency and extent which will then promote the onslaught of invasive annual grasses. This positive feedback loop of fire and invasive plant species may be the greatest impact on fire management and GRSG (Abatzoglou and Kolden 2011). Transportation and travel management affects wildland fire in three main ways: 1) by providing access for fire suppression, 2) by providing an avenue for noxious weed and invasive plants spread, and 3) by providing access for increased human activities, which can lead to human-caused fires. Roads and trails that are maintained, repaired, or open for public use generally remain in a passable condition that allows access for fire suppression equipment and manpower, and they can also be used as control lines. This improved access results in faster response times leading to reduced fire size. Roads and trails are one of the main vectors of weed spread, which leads to an increase in FRCC and ecosystems moving away from natural fire regimes (CEC 2012). This is compounded by open OHV use and increased human use increases the potential for human-caused fire ignition. Similarly, the level and type of recreation permitted can impact fire risk. Increased recreational use may increase the probability of unintentional fire starts from human-caused ignitions and the need for fire suppression. Table 4-27, Human-Caused Fires in GRSG Habitat (1992-2011), displays the number of human caused points of ignition with a one mile buffer within GRSG habitat within the planning area from 1992 -2011. Table 4.28. Human-Caused Fires in GRSG Habitat (1992-2011) Human Caused Fires Acres % of Acres by Type Starts % of Starts by Type Miscellaneous 75,866 24.87% 322 25.35% Equipment Use 104,303 34.19% 255 20.08% Not Specified 10,164 3.33% 212 1 6.69% Debris Burning 39,611 12.98% 158 12.44% Arson 26,227 8.60% 1 13 8.90% Campfire 35,176 1 1 .53% 110 8.66% Railroad 13,219 4.33% 48 3.78% Children 366 0. 1 2% 27 2.13% Smoking 144 0.05% 25 1 .97% Grand Total 305,076 100.00% 1270 100.00% Source: Short 2013; BLM anc Forest Service 2013 Surface disturbance caused by development would generally contribute to the modification of the composition and structure of vegetation communities (including increases in noxious weed proliferation) in the vicinity of developed areas, which could then be more likely to fuel high-intensity fires. This could cause an increase in program costs because of the increased potential for fire. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 702 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Lands and realty actions may indirectly result in increased fire risk potential. For example, issuance of ROWs can result in indirect impacts by increasing the risk of human-caused ignition should construction of transmission lines, renewable energy projects, or other development occur. Limiting ROW grants may reduce roads and in turn reduce potential fire suppression control lines. Fire suppression response times could also increase over time where limitations on new road construction restrict access. Limiting ROW grants and SUAs could decrease the potential for utilizing roads as fuel breaks and control lines during fire suppression. Likewise, the development of energy and minerals resources increases the risk of wildfires by introducing new ignition sources (Shlisky et al. 2007). Associated facilities, infrastructure and transmission lines can increase fire and fuels program costs while decreasing fire management flexibility with regards to suppression options. Energy development also poses hazards to firefighters, including unknown toxins, facility protection, evacuation of industry personnel, and dangerous overhead power lines. Fire programs could incur additional costs to train firefighting personnel for emergency situations associated with energy development. Additional limitations on mineral development would have an indirect effect of decreased fire. This would be due to less development, fewer vehicles, and less construction equipment, all of which would serve to decrease the chance of human ignition. Development of federal minerals underlying non- federal surface ownership may impact fire management on BLM-administered lands, particularly when ownership is in a checkerboard pattern, as fires ignited on non-federal lands may quickly spread onto and impact BLM-administered lands. The additional closure to mineral material disposal infrastructure supporting minerals development would decrease accessibility to remote areas for fire suppression and would reduce fuel breaks in the event of wildfire. The potential for invasive species establishment or increase may follow construction and could impact fire management actions through increased risk of fire and need for fire management. Range grazing management can impact the ability to manage fire as a natural process through changes in fine fuels availability (e.g., grasses). Livestock grazing reduces fuel loads, so a reduction in grazing intensity or change in grazing location may lead to changes in fuel levels at site-specific locations. Vegetation and weed treatments that decrease standing vegetation could decrease the intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled. For example, efforts to reduce incursion of nonnative annual grasses (primarily cheatgrass) and proliferation of other noxious and invasive weeds would promote healthy plant communities and lower risk of high-intensity wildfire (USGS 2006c). Used appropriately, prescribed fire would be compatible with noxious weed control; however, the presence of noxious weeds and the potential of weeds to spread after a prescribed fire would need to be monitored on a site-specific basis. Flowever, management actions that retain shrub and cover may result in increased fuel loading and increase the likelihood and intensity of wildland fire. Special designations such as ACECs and the management of sensitive resources can restrict fuels treatments on a site-specific basis. For example, in areas where preservation of particular species or habitats is emphasized, management options and fuels treatments may be limited. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on wildfire and fire management and are therefore not discussed in detail: Air Quality, Soil Resources, Fish and Wildlife, Cultural Resources, and Visual Resources. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 703 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.8.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Downward Shift in Fire Regime Condition Class Creating landscapes that benefit GRSG through the use of restoration projects would improve FRCC. The several aspects of restoration may create this benefit by reducing the infestation of cheatgrass and other non-natives that can alter fire frequency. Restoration may also reduce mid to late serai encroachment of sage steppe by pinion juniper. Removing encroaching conifers could reduce fire intensity and fire potential and improve FRCC. While GRSG restoration will affect FRCC, the area’s most likely to benefit GRSG might not relate to the areas that would most likely benefit FRCC and hazardous fuels reduction. Furthermore, landscape patterns that most benefit GRSG may be more prone to wildfire due to lack of disturbance and in early serai areas. Completed restoration projects may further increase the suppression priority of that area, increasing demands for fire suppression resources. Vegetation and weed treatments that decrease standing vegetation and associated fuel loads could decrease the intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled. For example, efforts to reduce incursion of non-native annual grasses (primarily cheatgrass), and the proliferation of other noxious and invasive weeds, would promote healthy plant communities and an associated lower risk of high-intensity wildfire (USGS 2006c). Used appropriately, prescribed fire would be compatible with noxious weed control; however, the presence of noxious weeds and the potential of weeds to spread after a prescribed fire would need to be monitored on a site-specific basis. However, management actions that increase shrub and cover may result in increased fuel loading, which increases the intensity of wildland fire. Management actions that are intended to improve, create, or re-establish healthy ecological conditions in various vegetation types benefit the fire and fuels program in the long term by shifting FRCC to historic conditions and promoting the most efficient use of fire and fuels fire management program resources. Restrictions on fuels treatment could impact ability to control fuels levels and result in increased fire risk. For example: Restrictions on reduction of canopy cover could increase fuel loads and associated fire risk. Allowing a range of fuel treatment options provides management flexibility to reduce large fire costs and achieve fire and fuels goals and objectives. Prioritizing areas for fire suppression can limit management options and increase costs for fire management Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Riparian areas, wetlands, and water resource management could restrict suppression operations by limiting use of heavy equipment or retardant near streams or riparian areas. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Associated facilities, infrastructure and transmission lines from leasable mineral activities can increase fire and fuels program costs while decreasing fire management flexibility with regards to suppression options. Energy development also poses hazards to firefighters, from unknown toxins, facility protection, evacuation of industry personnel, and dangerous overhead power September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to AH Alternatives 704 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement lines. Fire programs could incur additional costs to train firefighting personnel for emergency situations associated with energy development. Altered Project Design and Reduce Effectiveness In areas with high potential for fluid mineral development, restricting development disturbance would generate a greater need for off-site mitigations than in lower potential areas. These mitigation actions could range from rehabilitating existing disturbances to creating additional habitat by removing other vegetation to allow for less competition for sagebrush. Vegetation treatments used to mitigate impacts by creating or improving sagebrush areas is where the impact on wildland fire management would occur. Mitigation vegetation treatments would be placed in areas where habitat improvements are necessary and may not take into consideration other values at risk and may reduce opportunities to develop effective or strategically placed fuel projects or other vegetation treatments. Fuels projects should be placed in the best location to reduce the intervals in sagebrush. This would vary from 20 to 70 years, depending on the site and the species of sagebrush. Due to fire suppression, fire regimes and planning areas have been altered. Vegetation that has missed a fire cycle or two is decadent, with large dead components that can increase fire intensity. Range treatments in the past have created early serai vegetation that is less likely to support large wildfires and maintain FRCC. Reducing vegetation treatments that mimic the natural fire effects has increased the FRCC of these landscapes, leaving them more prone to large intense wildfires. Vegetation treatments or fire scars scattered across the landscape can interrupt the progression of a fire, limiting the fire’s size. Landscapes that do not have disturbances are prone to fires burning more acres than past wildfires did. As the overall age class of vegetation on the landscape increases, it creates an upward shift in FRCC. While the treatments would still occur that meet GRSG objectives, they would more likely be mechanical, which can be more expensive than using prescribed fire as a treatment method. This is due to the necessity of GRSG treatments to retain minimum percent cover of sagebrush. This is more easily ensured when using mechanical treatments versus prescribed fire treatment methods. If treatments are more expensive, fewer acres can be treated with the same amount of funds. Several actions associated with range management could benefit the wildland fire program by reducing FRCC. These actions include reduction of spreading invasive species, such as cheat grass, and actions that treat invasive species. Altered Project Design and Improved Effectiveness As leasable development occurs, the needs for off-site mitigation to improve, restore, or create suitable GRSG habitat will increase as the level of disturbance approaches the anthropogenic limit. The increase in off-site mitigation could create opportunities to reduce fuel loading and increase resiliency on the landscape. It would do this through development of plans, and placement of proposed treatment where they would benefit GRSG and wildland fire management. This combined effort to reduce the fuel loading and improve habitat will increase the amount of vegetation treatments possible and will reduce the impact on the overall disturbance on the landscape. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Development of mineral resources increases the risk of wildfires by introducing new ignition sources (Shlisky et al. 2007). Geophysical exploration, especially when utilizing overland travel. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 705 could temporarily increase the potential human-caused ignitions. Restrictions and closures would reduce opportunities for human-caused ignitions. Limitations on mineral development would have an indirect effect of decreased fire due to less development, fewer vehicles, and less construction equipment, all of which would serve to decrease the chance of human-caused ignition. However, the rest of the planning area would continue to experience current levels of risk for human-caused ignitions and the resultant shift in FRCC. Similarly, limitations on development in areas previously leased would limit the risk of human-caused ignition in PPMAs. Development of federal minerals underlying non-federal surface ownership may impact fire management on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands, particularly when ownership is in a checkerboard pattern, as fires ignited on non-federal lands may quickly spread onto and impact federally administered lands. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Associated facilities, infrastructure and transmission lines from renewable energy activities can increase fire and fuels program costs while decreasing fire management flexibility with regards to suppression options. Energy development also poses hazards to firefighters, from unknown toxins, facility protection, evacuation of industry personnel, and dangerous overhead power lines. Fire programs could incur additional costs to train firefighting personnel for emergency situations associated with energy development. Increased Planning, Increased Project Cost, Increased Fuels Management Cost Limiting wind energy development to locations outside of all designated PPMAs may increase surface loading. Areas outside of the PPMAs can range from pinion and juniper woodlands, to mixed brush vegetation to grassy slopes. These communities in general have higher fuel bed depth and fuel loading than the predominant GRSG/sage brush vegetation community. This would increase the values at risk from wildland fire in more susceptible areas. The level of planning and the size of the project treatment are directly tied to the size and type of fuels and the values at risk. The larger the fuel type, the greater the distance to be cleared because of radiant heat, and flame lengths. The value at risk would identify the level of vulnerability or susceptibility to damage if a wildland fire were to occur. The higher the fuel load, more planning is required to cover any vegetative treatment around any established value at risk. There is either increased line construction or mechanical improvements around a value prior to any implementation action. If the values are too great or if not all of the risks may be mitigated, then the likelihood of multiple treatments mechanical, chemical, prescribed fire (pile or broadcast) would occur. Therefore, the cost per acre would increase due to the equipment operational costs. Any increase in the cost per treatment would decrease the size of the treatment. The impacts on wildland fire and fuels management to solar energy projects are similar in wildland fire ecology and fire management activities. Except the footprint of the project area would be significantly larger directly under the solar arrays. Impacts from Recreation Management Human Caused Fires September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives 706 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement The increase in SRPs may slightly increase human caused fire risk, based upon the assumption that increased human activity increases wildland fire risk. Recreation users are unlikely to cancel planned activities in response to trail or area closures caused by fire or fuels management. Rather they are expected to shift their activities to different, nearby lands and trails. Few human wildfire ignitions are a direct result of activities associated with SRPs, which usually are highly regulated during the permit process based upon the assumption that issuing permits reduces the risk activities that could cause a wildfire. Short-term loss of recreation from fire and fuels management activities generally causes short-term suspension of most recreation activities within the immediate area of the project or incident. Dispersed recreation use such as ATV use, camping, hunting, and hiking increases the potential for human caused fire. Developed recreation areas would be prioritized for fire suppression to protect human life and property. Recreation use could slow emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts post fire and impact vegetation treatments through direct damage to seeded areas. Impacts from Special Designations Management Wildland fire suppression objectives would follow the appropriate management actions from Wilderness, WSAs, NHTs, NCAs, or WSR management plans. 4.8.4. Alternative A Under Alternative A, fewer management actions would be applied specific to GRSG habitat protection, therefore impacts on fire management would vary across the planning area based on site-specific habitat objectives for other resource concerns. Within the sub-region, all LUPs address fire suppression and fuels management. Each LUP supports the development and adherence to a more detailed fire management plan that outlines priorities and levels of suppression for particular vegetation classes, or resource protection. Most plans support objectives of re-introducing fire into fire-dependent ecosystems and utilize the FRCC framework to aid in prioritizing response to wildfires and determining where fire can be used to meet land management plan objectives. Most plans place priority for suppression on the protection of life and property followed by important resource values. The more recent LUPs contain specific objectives and management action for suppression and management of fires within sagebrush vegetation communities and GRSG habitat in accordance with local conservation strategies. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Surface disturbance produced would generally contribute to the modification of the composition and structure of vegetation communities (including an increase in invasive and noxious weed proliferation). This proliferation could then likely cause the potential for increased fire spread and activity. Therefore, management actions that minimize disturbance for GRSG would reduce the potential risk of fire. Under Alternative A, special provisions that are related to GRSG protection are limited. There is no PPMA or PGMA designated or identified and few limitations on resource uses are directed towards GRSG protection. There is limited potential in the current management for site-specific restrictions on development as a result or measures to protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for GRSG and other special status species. In addition, many LUPs contain management actions to prohibit surface disturbing or other disruptive activities within GRSG breeding, nesting and some cases winter habitat within a certain distance and between certain dates. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 707 Where there are restrictions to development in place (specifically for GRSG or other special status species management) the level of risk for fire ignitions and higher intensity fires would be decreased. The level of impacts would depend on the site-specific restrictions currently in place in the LUPs which is likely to be lower than all other alternatives. Unplanned fire ignitions could cause short-or long -term damage to habitats depending on the serai type affected, extent, severity of fire and use of habitat by certain species. In the short term, fire removes nesting and cover habitat and leaves bare areas that provide little habitat value and could erode and case sedimentation of waterways. Fire could displace species from suitable habitat, which could increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats. In the long term, wildland and prescribed fire, as well as fuels treatments, may improve habitats by increasing structural and age diversity. Often, natural and planned fires used for fuels treatments and to meet land management plan objectives lower the risk for an uncharacteristic wildfire that can destroy larger acreages or wildlife habitats. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Water Resources Management Riparian, Wetland and Water resource management could restrict suppression operations by limiting use of heavy equipment or retardant near streams or riparian areas. Impacts from Vegetation Management This alternative retains current fire and fuels management objectives under current LUPs Within the sub-region, all LUPs address fire suppression and fuels management. Each LUP supports the development and adherence to a more detailed fire management plan that outlines priorities and levels of suppression for particular vegetation classes, or resource protection. Most plans support objectives of re-introducing fire into fire-dependent ecosystems and utilize the FRCC framework to aid in prioritizing response to wildfires and determining where fire can be used to meet LUP objectives. Most plans place priority for suppression on the protection of life and property followed by important resource values. The more recent LUPs contain specific objectives and management action for suppression and management of fires within sagebrush vegetation communities and GRSG habitat in accordance with local conservation strategies and the Sage Steppe Final EIS (BLM 2008f) for vegetation treatments. This alternative allows for the greatest potential of surface disturbance as there are fewer vegetation management use restrictions. Surface disturbance would generally modify the composition and structure of vegetation communities (including increases in noxious weed proliferation) which would likely increase fire potential and spread. Increase in program costs would also be realized because of the increased potential for fire. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Range grazing management can impact the BLM’s ability to manage fire as a natural process due to the influence of grazing on fine fuels availability (e.g., grasses). Livestock grazing reduces fuel loads, so a reduction in grazing intensity or change in grazing location, implemented as a result of the Rangeland Health Determination process, may lead to changes in fuel levels at site-specific locations. The impact would be to reduce fire risk potential especially in areas where grass fuel types are the main carrier of the fire. Under Alternative A in the planning area, 49,155,000 acres would be open to grazing (all existing PPH and PGH). Livestock grazing would result in site-specific reduction in fuels and the associated risk of wildland fire as described above. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 708 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Management actions under Alternative A would place minimal restrictions on fuels management and fire suppression control methods, and therefore would have few impacts on fire management. Management actions that are intended to improve, create, or re-establish healthy ecological conditions in various vegetation types benefit the fire and fuels program in the long term by shifting FRCC to historic conditions and promoting the most efficient use of fire and fuels resources. Management under Alternative A would generally allow for the use of prescribed fire and vegetative treatments where needed. Fire suppression would be prioritized to protect human life, human safety and high value resources as well as manage wildfire for land management objectives. Impacts would vary throughout the planning areas based on site-specific habitat objectives and treatments applied. Due to the flexibility in management of prescribed and wildland fires and lack of specific areas prioritized for protection, fire suppression and fuels treatment costs are likely to be the lower under Alternative A. The lack of consistent seasonal restrictions for implementation of fuels treatments with Alternative A would result in more acres treated on an annual basis therefor reducing the amount of acres that are currently classified as condition class II and III. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Wild horse grazing can impact the ability to manage fires as a natural process changes in fine fuels availability (e.g., perennial grasses). Grazing reduces fine loads so a reduction or change in AML can in turn change the fine fuels in site-specific locations. The impact would be the greatest where fine fuels are the primary fire carrier. Under Alternative A, there are currently 7,370,000 acres of Flerd Areas, 6,086,200 acres of Herd Management Areas and 344,600 acres of Wild Horse and Burro Territory for a total of 35,205,100 acres. Grazing would result in site-specific reduction of the fine fuels and reduce the associated risk of wildland fire; however, this could result in a negative impact to achieve a historically natural FRCC. Impacts from Climate Change Management Management resulting from climate change is specific to individual land use plans. Many of the plans are silent with respect to climate change but do include management that addresses climate change issues, such as management of livestock during drought conditions. Management under Alternative A could increase FRCC, as existing climate changes issues would continue to contribute invasive annual grasses expansion and encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands. This could then result in an increase in fire size, extent and severity. This would also increase fire suppression costs, increase fuel treatment planning and costs. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management The BLM would place some limitation on fluid mineral development, which would indirectly decrease the risk of fire due to fluid mineral development, vehicle traffic, and construction equipment. Impacts to fire would be dependent on the number of facilities constructed and disturbance footprints which would affect wildfire potential, increase fire suppression priorities and vegetation management strategies. Higher FRCCs would continue under this alternative Impacts from Loca table and Salable Minerals Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 709 Within the sub-region, all lands are generally open to mineral location under the mining law. There are specific locatable mineral withdrawals for particular ROWs, designated wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern and other administrative needs. There are no locatable mineral withdrawals specific to protecting GRSG habitat. All locatable mineral activities are managed under the regulations at 43 CFR 3800 and 36 CFR 228 through approval of a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operations. Mitigation of effects on GRSG and habitat are identified through the NEPA process approving plans of operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals are to provide opportunities to develop the resource while preventing undue or unnecessary degradation of public lands. The BLM would place some limitations on mineral development, which would indirectly decrease the risk of fire due to fluid mineral development, vehicle traffic, and construction equipment. Impacts to fire would be dependent on the number of locatable facilities constructed and disturbance footprints which would affect wildfire potential, increase fire suppression priorities and vegetation management strategies. Higher FRCCs would continue under this alternative. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Land and Realty primarily influences ROWs, land tenure adjustments, and proposed land withdraws. Many LUPs in the sub-region do not contain specific goals, objectives or management actions directly related to GRSG conservation. Recently adopted LUPs, such as those in California, identify timing restrictions and buffers for ROWs that may affect GRSG habitat. Mitigation is typically developed during the NEPA process for site-specific actions. Some LUPs and the State GRSG conservation strategy identify objectives to acquire sensitive GRSG habitat or easements where appropriate or within PMUs. Lands and reality actions may result in an associated increase in fire risk. Development for energy and mineral resources can increase the risk of wildfires by introducing new ignition sources (Shlisky et al. 2007). For example, the issuance of a ROW grant can increase the risk of human caused ignition if the constructions of transmission lines, renewable energy projects or other development occur by increasing human activities in the area for both development and maintenance of facilities. Roads created during development and maintenance of facilities can facilitate the spread of exotic plant species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003). This in turn can create an increase in annual grasses causing increased fire intensities. Although, these developments could also create more roads and infrastructure that may be used as access to fires for suppression and used as control lines in suppression activates. Under Alternative A, there are no common management practices across the sub-region therefore impacts from GRSG will generally be impacted by site-specific NEPA planning. As discussed above, risks from human caused fires from development would be lowest in exclusion areas and highest in areas to new development. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative A, 276,600 acres are managed for exclusion and 1 14,200 acres are managed for avoidance of wind energy within existing PPH/PGH. Management under Alternative A includes 1,492,800 acres in the Solar PEIS variance areas within PPH/PGH. As discussed above in Section 4.8.3, Impacts Common to All Alternatives, in areas where solar or wind energy facilities are permitted, there would be continue to be impacts on wildland fire and fire management, because construction could result in a shift in FRCC, construction and use of the facilities could increase the likelihood of human-caused wildfire, and the presence of the facilities could interfere with wildland fire prevention or control. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 710 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative A, a potential for human-caused ignition and an increase in invasive annual grasses would be highest in the 12,745,000 acres open to cross-country use, with reduced risk in the 4,1 13,300 acres limited to existing routes and 874,400 acres closed to motorized vehicles. Impacts from Recreation Management This alternative would not prioritize fire management activities in GRSG habitat, and there would be no increased likelihood of wildland impacts from recreation activities. ES&R treatments and vegetation management treatments may be directly impacted due to damage of seeded areas from recreation use. 4*8.5. Alternative B Management actions under Alternative B would focus on fire suppression in PPMAs and would impose some limits on fuels treatments in this area, resulting in higher level of protection but reduced management options in this area. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Maintain or increase current populations by managing or restoring priority areas so that at least 70 percent of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet GRSG needs. Manage PPMAs so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than three percent of the total GRSG habitat regardless of ownership. This would decrease the chance for human-caused ignition in PPMAs. Fire can be either discrete or diffuse depending on its characteristics and the scales at which it is measured. GRSG are extremely sensitive to discrete disturbance (Johnson et al. 2011; Naugle et al. 2011) although diffuse disturbance over broad spatial and temporal scales can have similar, but less visible effects. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Management Under Alternative B, prioritizing implementation of restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit GRSG (Meinke et al. 2009) by prioritizing restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting GRSG distribution and abundance would be a high priority. Fire and fuels management policies would be designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining sagebrush cover, applying seasonal restrictions, protecting winter range, and requiring the use of native seeds. Post fuels treatments and ESR management would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded areas and native plants. These proposed modifications to fire and fuels management would result in an increase in the protection of sagebrush vegetation compared with Alternative A. Prioritizing fire suppression in PPMAs and PGMAs would protect vegetation from the destructive effects of wildfire, but could result in increased fuel load and spread of noxious weeds. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 711 Under Alternative B, the BLM would open the same acres (49,1 55,000 in the planning area) to grazing as Alternative A; however. Alternative B would limit grazing in PPMAs unless the treatment conserves, enhances, or restores GRSG habitat. This may limit the total amount of treatment allowed on the landscape, potentially increasing FRCC, as well as, the probability and severity of fire. Monitoring invasive species and treating noxious weeds under this alternative could decrease FRCC, fire probability and severity. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management In priority habitat and general habitat, prioritizing suppression immediately after firefighter and public safety to conserve habitat would limit suppression options. It would also increase costs for fire management programs as compared with Alternative A. This is because aggressive suppression response to conserve and protect would require more suppression resources. However, the decision to prioritize GRSG habitat over property or infrastructure is one to be made by land managers and incident command staff. Fuels management projects in PPM A would be designed to reduce wildfire threats and decrease the risk of high-intensity fire in PPMAs in the long term. Restrictions on the location of fuel breaks, and location of other fuels treatments, however, would reduce management options and would increase costs of fuel management. Seasonal restrictions for implementation of fuels projects may limit the amount of fuels treatments that can be accomplished therefor potentially decreasing the amount of acres that can be treated annually. Frequency and intensity of wildland fire would be more natural under Alternative B in the long term because post fuel and restoration management would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-bum native plants. This shift would be of particularly important for PPMAs currently in Condition Classes II and III. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Wild horse and burros have the potential to impact habitats used by GRSG by reducing grass, shrub and forb cover and increasing unpalatable forbs and exotic plant including cheatgrass (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Develop or amend HMA plans to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations for all HMAs/WHBTs. Although Alternative B would have the same Herd Areas, Herd Management Areas Wild Horse Territory as Alternative A, if herd management area plans for HMAs/WHBTs were amended within PPMAs, the impact could result in an increase of fine fuels and could then result in an increase in fire size, extent, and severity in the short term. This would also increase fire suppression costs, increase fuel treatment planning and costs. However, a long-term outcome would improve the habitat and move toward a historic FRCC. Impacts from Climate Change Management Management under Alternative B could be impacted by an increase in FRCC, as more areas could be supported for invasive annual grasses and encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands. This could then result in an increase in fire size, extent and severity. This would also increase fire suppression costs, increase fuel treatment planning and costs. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management September, 20 J 3 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 712 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management In Alternative B the ROW/SUA avoidance was increased from 1 14,200 acres to 4,932,400 acres a 96 percent increase and ROW/SUA exclusion from 276,600 acres to 12,693,500 a 79 percent increase acres from that of Alternative A within the planning area. This would decrease the potential for human caused wildfires from that of Alternative A. However, by reducing ROW grants and SUAs, it may reduce roads and in turn reduce potential fire suppression control lines. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Impacts from renewable energy management would be the same as for Land Uses and Realty Management. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative B, potential for human-caused ignition and an increase in invasive annual grasses would be possible in the 3,866,100 acres open to cross-country use. This is a reduction of 8,879,000 acres open to cross-country traffic compared with Alternative A. There is no change in acreages of closed areas. Impacts from Recreation Management This alternative would limit the issuing of SRPs in PPMAs, unless the SRP has neutral or beneficial impacts on the habitat. This could limit SRPs that are being issued, and could reduce human activities in these areas and slightly reducing human-caused wildfires. 4.8.6. Alternative C Management under Alternative C would have the broadest restrictions on fuel management activities extending to all occupied habitat by limiting fuel treatments to the interface of human habitation, and existing disturbances. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Protect remaining occupied GRSG habitats from chronic grazing disturbance and new development. Management under Alternative C would have broader restrictions on resource use and highest level of protection for all occupied GRSG habitat than Alternative A. This would further reduce opportunities for human-caused fires. Under Alternative C 17,732,900 acres would be designated as PPMAs. However, the reduction of grazing would increase fine fuels that carry fire and could increase fire risk and large fire occurrence. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 713 The BLM and Forest Service would place restrictions on fire and fuels management when it would be beneficial to PPMAs. The BLM would design and implement fuels treatments and suppression with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced unless fuels management objectives require additional reduction in sagebrush cover. Restrictions placed on fire and fuels management under this alternative would impact the ability to efficiently manage fuels and could increase the potential for wildfire costs of vegetation management and fire suppression. FRCCs would slowly be reduced overtime in areas where natural rehabilitation is achievable. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Under Alternative C, no livestock grazing would be permitted within PPMAs. In the short term, fine fuels would increase throughout occupied habitat and fire risk would increase as well as FRCC. In the longer term use restrictions limiting disturbance would stabilize FRCC. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Fuel management actions under Alternative C would be less restrictive than Alternative A. Under Alternative C, fuels management activities would be limited to the interface of human habitation, and previously disturbed areas. Reducing vegetation treatments that mimic the natural fire effects would increase the FRCC resulting in an increased potential for large intense wildfires. This increased potential for large wildland fire would increase costs associated with both fire suppression and post fire rehabilitation. An increase in fire size would increase the exposure to firefighters and public to the inherent risks associated with firefighting. Increased fuels would result in areas of dense vegetation that would exhibit high fire intensities that would dictate an indirect fire suppression strategy. An indirect fire suppression strategy would increase the overall fire size, which would in turn compromise important GRSG habitat. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management The impacts under Alternative C would be similar to that of Alternative A as HAs, HMAs, and WHBTs remain the same. Impacts from Climate Change Management Management under Alternative C would be impacted by an increase in FRCC, as more areas could be supported for invasive annual grasses and encroachment of piny on-juniper woodlands. This could then result in an increase in fire size, extent and severity. This would also increase fire suppression costs, increase fuel treatment planning and costs. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 714 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative C, the potential for human caused fires would be reduced. Under Alternative C, the acres for ROW/SIJA avoidance would remain the same as Alternative A; however, the acres for ROW/SUA exclusion would increase from 276,600 acres 17,732,900. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Impacts from renewable energy management would be the same as those described for Land Uses and Realty Management. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative C, potential for human-caused ignition and an increase in invasive annual grasses would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management This alternative would not prioritize fire management activities in GRSG habitat, and there would be no increased likelihood of impacts from recreation. 4.8.7. Alternative D Alternative D management actions and related impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B, but with an added emphasis on region-specific habitat needs and variations in requirements for specific GRSG habitat types resulting in more site-specific variation in fire management impacts. Management under Alternative D would also place added emphasis to pre-suppression planning, prevention, and educational objectives for fire suppression personnel. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative D would have broader restrictions on resource use and highest level of protection for all occupied GRSG habitat than Alternative A. This would further reduce opportunities for human-caused fires. In Alternative D 12,693,500 acres are designated as PPMAs and 5,039,400 acres as PGMAs. However, the increase in vegetation produced by conserving sagebrush communities and habitats and restoration of native (or desirable) plants to create landscape patterns which benefit GRSG, promoting large intact sagebrush communities may increase fire threat. Establishing and maintaining fuel breaks identified under Alternative D would reduce fire threat and large-scale fires. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands, and Water Resources Management In PPMA and PGMA habitat, where riparian extent is limited by shrub encroachment, management would consider fuels treatments including prescribed burning or other means to increase edge and expand mesic areas to improve late summer brood-rearing habitat, thus decreasing FRCCs, fire size, and extent. Impacts from Vegetation Management Management under Alternative D would prioritize implementation of restoration projects with the most flexibility to the hazardous fuels management and fire suppression program with an added emphasis on region-specific habitat needs and variations in requirements for specific GRSG habitat types, resulting in more site-specific variation in fire management impacts. Impacts from vegetation management would be similar in nature to those described under Alternative B. Under Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 715 Alternative D, actions would include treating PPMAs and opportunity areas to maintain and expand healthy GRSG habitat. Vegetation treatments could reduce fuel loading, which would affect fire intensity and allow fires to be more easily controlled. Vegetation treatments also create early serai stage vegetation communities which generally fuel low-intensity fires. Restoration priority would include seasonal habitats identified as the limiting factor for GRSG distribution and abundance and would include corporation with local government and planning agencies. As a result, restoration efforts are likely to address management concerns for other resources than GRSG, including fire management. Actions would result in a shift towards historic FRCC and reduction in fire risk. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Impacts from livestock grazing management would be similar to those described under Alternative B. Focusing management activities on allotments found not to be achieving RHS and that have the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing or restoring habitat for GRSG would result in an improvement in habitat and return to historic FRCC in the long term. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Impacts from fire management would be similar in nature to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, however, additional fuels treatments and other habitat treatments would be permitted with an emphasis on maintaining, protecting, and expanding sagebrush ecosystems. Emphasis would be concentrated in PPMAs; therefore, the long-term reduction in risk of high intensity fire would occur in these areas with particular importance to condition class III. Seasonal restrictions for implementation of fuels projects may limit the amount of fuels treatments that can be accomplished therefor potentially decreasing the amount of acres that can be treated annually. Some additional flexibility would be incorporated into management, allowing for the use of prescribed fire on a site-specific level within GRSG habitat, as appropriate. Creating and maintaining effective fuel breaks in strategic locations, prioritizing suppression of fires in PPMAs and other proactive fire management activities, would reduce the size and intensity of wildland fires in PPMAs but would result in an increase in both fuels management and fire suppression costs. Management under Alternative D would prescribe added measure for fuels treatment effectiveness and post fire rehabilitation activities and monitoring. These added measures would increase both fuels management planning and post fire rehabilitation costs, but would increase the awareness and encourage partnerships with other agencies and resource programs. Management under Alternative D would limit the placement of fire suppression infrastructure in areas of solid sagebrush which would result in some loss of flexibility in management of wildfire and an increase in fire suppression costs. The added emphasis of prepositioning resources and prioritizing fire suppression immediately after firefighter and public safety would increase the use of resource, increasing firefighter exposure as well as overall program costs. However, it would result in a reduction in the loss of habitat from wildland fire. Under Alternative D, added measures would be incorporated in overall fire management planning to include pre-suppression, educational and prevention messages on the importance of GRSG habitat. These added measures would increase planning time and costs, but would result in an increase in awareness among the fire community that would lead to an increase in GRSG habitat. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 716 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative D, active HMAs, HAs, and WHBTs would be managed to achieve GRSG habitat objectives in PPMAs and PPMAs. Within PPMAs and PGMAs, the AML within HMAs, HAs, and Forest Service WHBTs would be established or maintained so that they consider the life cycle requirements for GRSG populations in terms of forage and nesting cover. Wild horse and burro population levels in PPMAs and PGMAs would be managed within the established AML to maintain or enhance GRSG habitat objectives. In HMAs, HAs, and WHTs not meeting standards due to degradation that can be at least partially contributed to wild horse or burro populations, consider adjustments to AML through the NEPA process. Under Alternative D, maintaining current AMLs within HMAs, HAs and WHBTs would be similar to Alternative A. If GRSG habitat was not meeting standards due to degradation and adjustments to AML were made to conserve, enhance or restore habitat, the result would improve the habitat and move toward a historic FRCC In the long term. Impacts from Climate Change Management Management under Alternative D would lessen the impacts on fire management the most by proactively reducing the risk associated with landscape stressors such as invasive annual grasses and the encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands. By placing treatment priorities on habitat quality, this could reduce the risk associated with fire by decreasing FRCCs along with fire size, severity and extent. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management In this alternative as development occurs, the need for off-site mitigation to improve, restore, or create suitable GRSG habitat would increase as the level of disturbance through activities increases. This alternative would increase treatments in PPMAs and PGMAs in GRSG habitat. The increase in off-site mitigation could create opportunities to reduce fuel loading and increase resiliency on the landscape. It would do this by helping to develop plans, and place the proposed treatments where they could benefit wildland fire management and GRSG habitat. This combined effort to reduce the fuel loading and improve habitat would increase the amount of hazardous fuels and vegetation treatments possible and would reduce the impacts on the overall disturbance on the landscape even though there is a potential increase in fire suppression activities due to increased roads, equipment use, and human activities. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management The BLM and Forest Service would place more limitations on mineral development in this alternative, which would indirectly decrease the risk of fire due to locatable and salable mineral development, vehicle traffic, and construction equipment. The additional closure to mineral material disposal infrastructure supporting minerals development would decrease accessibility to remote areas for fire suppression and would reduce fuel breaks in the event of wildland fire. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative D, lands in PPMAs and PGMAs would be retained as public lands to conserve GRSG habitat in federal ownership. Manage land uses in PPMAs and PGMAs to reduce habitat fragmentation and maintain or enhance connectivity between habitats. Manage and minimize Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 717 the effects of land use authorizations on PPMAs and PGMAs through ROW grant stipulations. PPMAs and PGMAs would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion for utility scale commercial wind and solar energy facilities and ROW/SUA avoidance for all other types of ROWs and SUAs. In priority and general habitat, no new road ROWs would be authorized except those necessary for public safety or administrative or public need tied to valid existing rights. Within priority and general habitat, allow industrial coal-fired or natural gas-fired energy, wind and solar facilities associated with existing industrial infrastructure (e.g., a mine site) to provide on-site power generation. Do not designate new planning ROW corridors in priority and general GRSG habitat. While ROW/SUA exclusion is the same as that of Alternate A. Under Alternate D, ROW/SUA exclusion incorporates the same acreage as that of Alternate A; however, 1 7,456,300 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance, a 99 percent increase from 1 14,200 acres identified under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, excluding and avoiding new ROW or special use authorizations and related development in PPMAs and PGMAs would reduce opportunities for human-caused ignitions as compared with Alternative A. However, fire suppression response times could possibly increase over time because of no new road construction. These roads would also be used as fuel breaks and control lines during fire suppression activities. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Impacts from renewable energy management would be the same as Alternative C. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative D, potential for human-caused ignition and an increase in invasive annual grasses would be reduced. This is because there are no areas open to cross-country use. This is a reduction of 12,745,100 acres open to cross-country traffic compared with Alternative A. This alternative will have the least impact on fire management because of the reduction in open to cross-country use. There is no change in acreages of closed areas. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative D, SRPs would only be allowed in PPMAs and PGMAs that have neutral or beneficial effects on the GRSG. Because issuance of permits may increase exposure of the area to human activity and consequently the likelihood of human-caused ignition, wildfire risk from recreation activities may be decreased under this alternative as compared with Alternative A. 4.8.8. Alternative E Alternative E would not delineate PPMAs or PGMAs and would not apply to lands in the state of California. BLM-administered lands in California would follow Alternative A. Alternative E objectives would focus on eliminating the threats to GRSG in the planning areas, including wildfire. Management actions would allow for some level of fuels treatments providing greater flexibility for wildfire management. This alternative places added emphasis on a comprehensive wildfire management program that engages all interagency partners (federal, state, and local), to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire, rapidly suppress wildfires, and rehabilitate lands damaged by wildfire. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 718 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Limit habitat disturbance, including habitat improvement projects, in occupied and suitable habitat to not more than five percent per year, per GRSG Management Area, and to 20 percent in potential habitat unless habitat treatments show credible positive results (Connelly et al. 2000a). This limit does not apply to removal of invasive or encroaching vegetation where such removal actually creates habitat. Impacts from Alternative E would be less than that of Alternative A because not more than five percent of the occupied and suitable and 20 percent in potential habitat would undergo habitat disturbance. This in turn will cause a shift in Condition Class to a more historical regime. Maintain a mosaic of shrub cover conditions ranging from twenty percent to forty percent in nesting habitat to provide both habitat resiliency and preferred nesting conditions for GRSG in areas with high raven populations. Where this amount of shrub cover is not available (less than 25 percent), then perennial grass cover should exceed 10 percent (Coates et al. 2011) and annual grass cover should not exceed 5 percent (Blomberg et al. 2012). The increased shrub and grass cover will help move toward a historical FRCC. However, as shrub and grass cover becomes more and more continuous and ground cover is higher, the risk for large uncharacteristic fires increases. Initiate landscape level treatments in SGMAs to reverse the effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment and prioritize treatments of Phase I and Phase II to restore healthy, resilient sagebrush ecosystems and to increase forb and grass cover. Aggressively implement plans to remove Phase I and Phase II encroachment and treat Phase III encroachment to reduce the threat of severe conflagration and restore SGMAs where possible, especially in areas in close proximity to occupied and suitable habitat. Prioritize areas for treatment of Phase III pinyon-juniper encroachment in strategic areas to break up continuous, hazardous fuel beds. Treat areas that have the greatest opportunity for recovery to SGMAs based on ecological site potential. Old growth trees should be protected on woodland sites. As under Alternatives B, C, D, and F, season- and GRSG habitat-specific restrictions on development would result in site-specific variation changes to habitat and associated change in FRCC and fire risks. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Management under Alternative E would lessen impacts from fire by providing technical assistance, project success monitoring, and financial support to areas across the state that were previously burned and currently threatened by fires due to noxious weed infestations or increased fine fuels. Non-federal land projects tasks include: fuels reduction through noxious weed decadent material removal, noxious weed and invasive plant treatments, and other forested and riparian area fire fuel load thinning. Native planting and reseeding in cleared areas and degraded riparian habitat areas could decrease FRCC and fire risk. Impacts from Vegetation Management Similar to Alternative D. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Similar to Alternative A. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 719 Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Impacts from GRSG management would be similar to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative E, emphasis would be on sagebrush habitat protection and restoration within the State of Nevada SGMAs. Disturbance limits under Alternative E would include a general limit on new permanent disturbance of five percent of SGMAs on state or federally managed lands within Nevada. As a result, likelihood of human-caused ignitions would be reduced in these areas. As under Alternative D, season- and GRSG habitat-specific restriction on development would result in site-specific variation in changes to habitat and associate changes to FRCC and fire risk. Additional emphasis under Alternative E integrates the prepositioning of suppression resources and preventative actions similar to Alternative D. Prepositioning and preventative actions would increase the likelihood of successful fire management actions with response to wildfire, but increase overall management costs. Fuels reduction treatments would be similar to Alternative B, with added emphasis on coordination of state and local agencies and individual landowners. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Management under Alternative E would maintain wild horses at AML in HMAs to avoid and minimize impacts on SGMAs and evaluate conflicts with HMA designations in SGMAs and modify LUPAs to avoid negative impacts on GRSG and if necessary, resolve conflicts between the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative E, impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Climate Change Management Under Alternative E, the planning area could be impacted by an increase in FRCC, as more areas could be supported for invasive annual grasses and encroachment of pinyon and juniper woodlands. This could then result in an increase in fire size, extent and severity. This would also increase fire suppression costs, increase fuel treatment planning and costs. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under this alternative, existing fire management objectives would be employed; similar to Alternative D. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Under this alternative, existing fire management objectives would be employed; similar to Alternative D. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management By following a strategy that seeks to avoid conflict with GRSG habitat by locating facilities and activities in non-habitat wherever possible there will similar impacts between Alternative E and Alternative D. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management By following a strategy that seeks to avoid conflict with GRSG habitat by locating facilities and activities in non-habitat wherever possible, there would be similar impacts as Alternative D. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 720 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Same as Alternative D. Impacts from Recreation Management Same as Alternative D. 4.8.9. Alternative F Alternative F is very similar to Alternative B and it would impose some limits on fuels treatments in this area, resulting in higher level of protection but reduced management options. Alternative F prioritizes lire suppression in only priority GRSG habitat while Alternative B includes both priority and general habitat. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative F, sagebrush cover will be maintained or increased to cover at least 70 percent of the land. This may cause an increase in fire severity and size due to the increase in fuel loading over time. Management under Alternative F would also designate sagebrush reserves (BLM ACECs and Forest Service zoological special conservation areas), which would cause an increase in planning and implementation costs associated with special designations. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands , and Water Resources Management Management under Alternative F could lessen the impacts on fire by providing riparian protection which could serve as natural fire breaks. This management could decrease FRCCs in those areas. Impacts from Vegetation Management This alternative is similar to Alternative C; however, the restrictions on fire and fuels management when it would be beneficial to PPMAs and PGMAs would be reduced further. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced unless fuels management objectives require additional reduction in sagebrush cover. Restrictions placed on fire and fuels management under this alternative would impact the ability to efficiently manage fuels and could increase costs of vegetation management and limit fire suppression options. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Impacts from livestock grazing would be similar in nature to those described under Alternative D. Under Alternative F, GRSG seasonal habitat requirements would be considered when managing sagebrush rangelands, resulting in more site-specific variation in management and related variation in FRCC, fuels levels, and fire risk. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management From a fire and fuels perspective, little difference exists between Alternative F and Alternative B. Under Alternative F, suppression response would only include priority habitat. The effects would be the same as Alternative A except a slight reduction in fire suppression costs can be expected when compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 721 The impacts under Alternative F would be similar to that of Alternative A as HAs, HMAs, and WHBTs remain the same. Impacts from Climate Change Management Management under Alternative F would result in an increase in FRCC, as more areas could be supported for invasive annual grasses and encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands. This could then result in an increase in tire size, extent and severity. This would also increase tire suppression costs, increase fuel treatment planning and costs. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable and Salable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative F, the potential for human caused tires would be reduced. Under Alternative F, the acres for ROW/SUP avoidance would remain the same as under Alternative A; however, the acres for exclusion increased 276,600 acres to 12,693,500. The acres available for disposal have been reduced from 331,200 under Alternative A to 0 in Alternate F. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Impacts on wildland fire and fuels management from renewable energy management under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative C. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative F, potential for human-caused ignition and an increase in invasive annual grasses would be the same as Alternative B as they both have the same amount of open, limited and closed travel areas. Impacts from Recreation Management This alternative could have a larger impact on reducing human caused wildfire associated with recreation because it would prohibit camping within 4 miles of active GRSG leks. This could limit wildland fires ignited from unattended or abandoned campfires. However, more than likely, it would just displace camping to another area and not reduce the overall human caused fire potential. 4.9. Livestock Grazing 4.9.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Table 4-28, Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on range management under each alternative. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Livestock Grazing 722 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 4.29. Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative Indicator Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Active AUMs in allotments containing GRSG habitat (acres) 2,210,476 2,210,476 0 2,210,476 2,210,476 828,928 Restrictions to the ability to construct or maintain range improvements and conduct treatments (infrastructure and vegetation) No Change Increase Increase Increase Neutral Increase Allotment acres closed to livestock grazing in PPMAs and PGMAs for the life of the plan 0 0 39,782,904 0 0 9,945,726 Allotment acres open to livestock grazing that contain PPMAs and PGMAs1 (acres) 39,782,904 39,782,904 0 39,782,904 39,782,904 29,837,178 Changes to type of livestock, timing, duration or frequency of authorized use, including temporary closures No Change Increase NA; no grazing use proposed Increase Increase Increase Source: BLM and Forest Service 2013 fif the allotment contains any PPMAs or PGMAs, then the total allotment acreage was included in the acreage totals. The following process was used to arrive at the active use by alternative in PPMAs/PGMAs: • Alt A: All or Nothing Approach. Active use in allotments including PPMAs/PGMAs reflects total use for the allotment without adjusting for amount of PPMAs/PGMAs in the allotment. • Alt C: All or Nothing Approach. Occupied habitat (PPMAs/PGMAs) is closed to grazing, so all active use is eliminated in the affected allotment. • Alt F: Twenty-five percent of the area with PPMAs/PGMAs is rested each year, so Alt. A is reduced by 25 percent. Assumption is made that the Reduced Alt. A level reflects 50 percent use. AUMs are reduced 25 percent to match utilization limit. Appendix H, Livestock Grazing, provides allotment-specific information on BLM-administered lands. Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • All new and renewed leases and permits would be subject to terms and conditions determined by the authorizing officer to manage and achieve resource condition objectives for public lands and to meet land health standards for BLM-administered lands and desired conditions on Forest Service-administered lands. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Methods and Assumptions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 723 • Range improvements (e.g., fences, pipeline, water wells, troughs, and reservoirs) could create a localized loss of vegetation cover throughout the improvements1 useful life. Vegetation would be reestablished through reclamation practices consistent with adjacent vegetation along water pipelines and naturally along fence lines within five years to the extent practicable, whereas a portion of the disturbed areas remain disturbed during their useful life and would be revegetated only if abandoned. • The construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue in the decision area as needed. New range improvements would be subject to limitations, as defined in the plan. Range improvements are generally intended to improve livestock distribution and management, which would maintain or improve rangeland health and could benefit the forage base and wildlife and GRSG habitat. • By definition in this plan, livestock grazing is not considered a surface-disturbing activity, but it could affect the surface in areas where livestock concentrate such as around range improvements. • By definition the term “Priority habitat11 means PPMAs only. • Planning Area Acreage: 49,868,700 • Allotment Acreage containing PPM As/PGM As: 39,782,904 • GRSG Habitat Acreage in Planning Area o PPMAs: 12,693,500 acres o PGMAs: 5,039,400 o Total: 17,732,900 acres (36 percent of planning area) 4.9.2. Nature and Type of Effects Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect forage levels, areas open to grazing, the class of livestock, the season of use and timing, the ability to construct range improvements, and human disturbance or harassment of livestock in grazing allotments. Key types of impacts are detailed below. Protecting GRSG habitat may directly affect livestock grazing if management requires limitations to areas open to grazing or available AUMs, modification of grazing strategies, or changes to season of use, which could result in increased time and cost to permittees/lessees or impact the ability of permittees/lessees to fully utilize permitted AUMs. For example, management actions to enhance habitat for GRSG could affect livestock grazing by restricting grazing intensity, retiring grazing privileges in some areas, or changing livestock rotation patterns, in order to maintain residual herbaceous cover in sagebrush habitat (NTT 2011). Conduct grazing management for all ungulates in a manner consistent with local ecological conditions that maintains or restores healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb communities and conserves the essential habitat components for GRSG (e.g., shrub cover, nesting cover). Areas which do not currently meet this standard should be managed to restore these components. Adequate monitoring of grazing strategies and their results, with necessary changes in strategies, is essential to ensuring that desired ecological conditions and GRSG response are achieved (USFWS 2013a). September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 724 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Grazing allotments containing sagebrush habitat would be managed to maximize cover and forage for GRSG, not to maximize livestock forage, which could necessitate change in livestock management. Management of vegetation resources to benefit GRSG may, however, indirectly benefit livestock grazing by increasing vegetation productivity and improving forage in the long term, especially in cases where current conditions are not meeting or exceeding land health standards. For example, in allotments with a history of intensive grazing, transitions in the composition of sagebrush communities may have occurred that have reduced cover or forage for GRSG (Cagney et al. 2010) and grazing livestock. However, when grazing management is put into place to promote health and vigor of the herbaceous community for livestock, this would generally result in sufficient herbaceous cover to meet habitat requirements for breeding GRSG (Connelly et al. 2000a). Similarly, vegetation management designed to curb incursion of non-native annual grasses such as cheatgrass, encroachment of shrubs or woody vegetation, could remove forage in the short-term. However, these treatments generally enhance rangeland conditions in the longer term (NTT 2011). Unregimented livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on riparian ecosystems (Armour et al. 1991); therefore, managing riparian habitat can directly impact livestock grazing through excluding livestock at specific sites, increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences and water gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Managing riparian habitat to maintain proper functioning condition would benefit grazing livestock by indirectly providing cleaner and more reliable water sources and more dependable forage availability. Protecting water quality and watershed health could require changes in livestock management, such as deferring or shortening grazing periods, adding range improvements, excluding grazing from riparian areas, establishing riparian pastures, and increasing livestock herding. In areas requiring exclusion of grazers or other restriction on livestock management, these limitations could result in increased costs to permittees/lessees if changes resulted in AUM reduction or increased livestock management costs. Recreation can affect livestock grazing directly through human disturbance and indirectly through rangeland degradation. Direct disturbance can include undesired animal dispersing or trespassing due to gates left open by recreational users; animal displacement, harassment, or injury from collisions or shooting; or damage to range improvements, particularly from the use of recreational vehicles or from recreational shooting. Disturbance could occur during the hunting season due to increased presence of people, vehicles, and noise and livestock shooting. In addition, OHV use results in indirect impacts, such as increased dust on forage in high use areas, leading to lower forage palatability. Limitations on recreational use in GRSG habitat could indirectly benefit livestock by reducing direct disturbances. Other direct long-term recreation impacts include disturbance caused by increased levels of human activities. The degree of impacts would vary with the intensity of recreation (that is, large numbers of people for SRP use would likely have a higher level of disturbance, as compared to frequent use by a small number of visitors), the timing of recreation activities (livestock could be more susceptible to disturbance during the spring when young are present), and location of recreation in the allotment (a higher level of disturbance could occur near areas frequented by livestock, such as water sources or salt licks). As stated above, limitations on recreational use in GRSG habitat could indirectly benefit livestock by reducing direct disturbances. Limits on construction or use of transportation routes may affect livestock grazing practices. Road construction may cause loss of forage, harassment, and displacement; thus, reduction of Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 725 these aetivities may benefit livestock by reducing disturbances. Closing roads or trails not leading to range improvements would also increase forage availability when the area is rehabilitated or when natural rehabilitation occurs. However, limitations on cross-country travel may impact permittees/lessees ability to effectively manage livestock if exemptions are not granted for access to allotments. This does not apply to California BLM. Travel management actions for GRSG protection generally involve increased limitations or restrictions on travel management. Wildland fire alters sagebrush habitat due to the long time required for sagebrush to regenerate, which allows for spread of cheatgrass and other invasive species (NTT 2011). Wildland fire would remove vegetation and forage over the short term. Additional impacts on livestock operations could occur when management actions or RDFs require a rest period following rehabilitation before grazing is reestablished. Changes in wildland fire suppression and fuels management to protect GRSG habitat would have varying effects on livestock grazing. Measures to protect sagebrush habitat might reduce the spread of wildland fire and the associated disruption to livestock. The management of habitat for GRSG using natural disturbance regimes, such as fire and using vegetative treatments to accomplish biodiversity objectives to improve plant community resilience, could also benefit livestock grazing in the long term by maintaining a balance of serai stages. In general, selectively thinning woodland species benefits livestock grazing by creating a healthier grass, forb, and shrub community. Restrictions on ROWs/SUAs, or land transfers may indirectly impact grazing by reducing construction impacts from development of these ROWs/SUAs (such as dust, displacement and introduction of noxious weeds). Lands and realty actions taken to protect GRSG habitat would involve avoiding or excluding ROWs and SUAs (e.g., for power lines, pipelines, and other structures) or land transfers in GRSG habitat. However, the areas outside of GRSG habitat to which ROWs/SUAs are relocated may see an increase in construction-related effects. Energy and mineral development could impact grazing as follows: During the exploration and testing phase of energy and mineral development, the footprint of disturbance is usually small and localized, therefore minimal acres available for grazing would be directly impacted. However, during the exploration phase impacts on livestock dispersal and trespass could occur, increasing time and cost to permittees/lessees. Outside of the exploration and testing phase, surface disturbing development directly affects areas of grazing in the short term during construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and solar and wind energy facilities. Potential impacts include changes in available forage, reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, limit on livestock movement, harassment, temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds that lack the nutritional value needed for productive grazing practices. In the long term, a smaller amount of grazing acreage is permanently lost from mining operations following rehabilitation. Improving roads associated with energy and mineral development could facilitate livestock management operations by maintaining or improving access to remote locations within allotments. Properly implemented BMPs and reclamation mitigation measures would likely improve rangeland health and forage levels for livestock. Reduction in energy and mineral development in GRSG habitat could reduce potential impacts on grazing, described above. Management for energy and mineral development on split-estate lands would not impact permittees/lessees with BLM public land leases; however, impacts could occur to livestock grazing on private, state, or lands of other ownership as stated above. Changes in livestock grazing management could impact grazing opportunities in a variety of ways. For example, implementing particular livestock grazing management requirements to September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 726 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement benefit GRSG could affect livestock grazing by increasing operators’ costs or changing required management actions. Short-term and long-term costs to permittees/lessees could increase, or AUMs could decrease for some permittees/lessees due to the following: • Implementation of a grazing strategy • Change in season-of-use or livestock class • Modification to grazing systems • Construction or modification of range improvements These management requirements could result in economic impacts on individuals and the community at large, both direct and indirect. For example, if a ranch is dependent seasonally on federal forage, a reduction or eliminations of federal AUMS may create forage imbalances that produce a greater reduction in grazing capacity than just the loss of federal AUMs (Torell et al. 2005). Some management changes may require a short-term output of cost for permittees/lessees, but will result in long-term benefits. For example, construction of range improvements to improve livestock distribution and allow use of a larger portion of the rangeland would generally enhance rangeland health in the long term; however, it could impact the livestock permittees/lessees economically in the short term. Constructing off-site water sources and fencing riparian and spring sources could keep livestock away from sensitive riparian areas and provide a cleaner more reliable source of water for livestock but would similarly represent an increased cost for permittees/lessees. In instances where a permit/lease was retired from grazing, the BLM would have to compensate the permittees/lessees for the range improvement projects constructed under a range improvement permit or cooperative agreement, in accordance with 43 CFR 4120.3-6(c). Retirement of privileges would likely result in a reduction in conflicts between grazing and other land uses and may improve range health and forage conditions for remaining permitted use in the area. ACECs may be designated to protect sensitive habitat for the benefit of GRSG. Grazing availability would depend on the designated AC EC management objectives. Restrictions could include reduction in grazing in the ACEC, limitations on the class of livestock animal, or the season, duration, or location that livestock are allowed to graze. 4.9.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Mineral Split-Estate Across all alternatives, federal permittees would not be impacted by split-estate lands; however, there is the potential for impacts on range management on other lands. Under Alternative A, standard regulations are in place for mineral development on non-federal surface lands, including permitting and reclamation requirements. Impacts from Travel Under all action alternatives, motorized vehicles would be limited to designated roads in areas where travel management planning has been completed; these vehicles would be limited to existing routes in all other areas. This would limit the impacts on livestock grazing from Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to AH Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 727 dispersed travel, as discussed under Nature and Type of Effects. Impacts from motorized and mechanized travel could occur as described in Nature and Type of Effects. Access to authorized uses, such as grazing allotments, would not be impacted under any alternative. Site-specific travel management planning could, when completed, reduce the potential for conflicts between range management and travel management. 4.9.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Under Alternative A, the BLM would conduct land health assessments on all allotments in existing GRSG habitat (39,782,900 acres). Land health assessments include analysis of the current condition of wildlife habitat against established rangeland health standards. If current conditions are lacking, the cause for non-attainment is determined and if livestock grazing caused, grazing use is altered to allow attainment of the standard in the future. This alternative affects all existing GRSG habitat over time. Changes to permitted AUMs could occur on up to all existing GRSG habitat acres. Management changes designed to address non-attainment of wildlife habitat standards would likely reduce permitted AUMs. Grazing management changes would include the timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use, including temporary closures. Construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue under this Alternative. Range improvement projects would be designed to maintain or improve GRSG habitats. Consideration of GRSG habitat needs would likely reduce the number of constructed range improvements. In some instances, improvements may be removed to assist in attainment of standards. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Under Alternative A, current levels and seasons of use will continue in the planning area pending completion of land health assessments. Livestock grazing would be allowed on 39,782,900 acres in existing GRSG habitat for a total of 2,210,500 AUMs in the planning area. Lands are managed to maintain healthy native plant communities and wildlife habitats. On BLM-administered lands, all permits/leases are required to meet or make progress towards meeting rangeland health standards defined in the applicable RAC developed Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 1997d). Permitted AUMs would most likely change in those areas found to be not meeting land health standards (especially the Wildlife Habitat/Special Status Species and Riparian Standards) as a result of livestock grazing at last assessment. This alternative affects all existing GRSG habitat over time. Changes to permitted AUMs could occur on up to all existing GRSG habitat. Management changes designed to address non-attainment of wildlife habitat standards would likely reduce permitted AUMs, change current timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use, including temporary closures. Drought management actions are directed to allotments with resource concerns. Construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue under this alternative. Range improvements including fences; vegetation treatments, such as those in the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy Final EIS (BLM 2008f); andwater developments, would be allowed in the planning area when needed to support grazing systems or improve livestock distribution, allowing for options for management for permittees/lessees when needed to alter grazing use to meet rangeland health standards. Range improvement projects would be designed to maintain or improve GRSG habitats. Consideration of GRSG habitat needs would likely reduce the number of constructed range improvements. In some instances, improvements may be removed to assist in attainment of standards. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 728 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Wild Horse and Burros Overall management direction is to manage for healthy populations of wild horses and burros to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock use, and other multiple uses. Under Alternative A, wild horses and burros would continue to be managed within established HMAs or WHBTs and under established AMLs. Existing competition between wild horses and livestock would continue at current levels. In the Nevada portion of the planning area, wild horse and burros management is included in the Multiple Use Decision Process for forage allocation. This process could result in decreases to current permitted use in the planning area due to re-allocation of forage resources to livestock, wild horse and burros, and wildlife. Range improvement construction and maintenance could be increased if a need for additional water sources is identified for current populations of wild horse and burros. Impacts from Vegetation Restoration and Weed Control Under Alternative A, there would be few vegetation restoration treatments implemented specifically to maintain or improve GRSG habitat. Current management implements the Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook policies (BLM 2008j), Land Health Standards, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007a) and the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy Final EIS (BLM 2008f), as well as other policies and plans. Vegetation treatments are focused on reducing hazardous fuels, ESR, controlling noxious weeds and invasive plants, and managing for sensitive species habitat to some degree. Management actions would be prioritized to meet land health and riparian standards and to control invasive plants and noxious weeds under the direction of current LUPs. Forage availability may increase in the long term due to improved land health and forage productivity. Management actions for invasive species would continue under the direction of Integrative Vegetation management directives. Weed control treatments would increase forage availability in the long term by improving native plant productivity. Vegetation restoration may directly affect livestock grazing if treatments include restrictions on available grazing acreage or changes to permitted AUMs, grazing strategies, or season of use, which could result in increased cost to permittees. Required rest periods following treatments may impact the ability of livestock operators to fully utilize permitted AUMs. Impacts from Climate Change Impacts from climate change on grazing are manifested as drought conditions. Under Alternative A, there would be no additional restrictions to livestock grazing based on drought conditions within PPH other than those already specified in permit terms and conditions. Authorized grazing use in allotments may be changed due to drought conditions on an annual basis. Changes are related to the start and completion dates of grazing periods, which may result in a reduction of permitted AUMs for that year. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management As described under Nature and Type of Effects, managing riparian and wetland habitat can directly impact livestock grazing through excluding livestock at specific sites, increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences and water gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Such changes in grazing management options may result in an increase in costs and time required for permittees/lessees in these areas. Permitted use would decline based on specific actions taken to improve riparian areas to PFC especially on allotments in Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 729 existing GRSG habitat with hot season grazing. Range improvement construction/maintenance could increase or decline based on specific situations. Additional range improvements, such as upland water sources and riparian protection fences, would be constructed to facilitate riparian management. In areas where existing range improvements are contributing to riparian/water resource concerns, these improvements would be modified or removed. Impacts from Recreation Management Under this alternative, there would be no restrictions to SRPs related to GRSG in the decision area; therefore, livestock could be disturbed by recreational activities or groups in the planning area; however, due to the current low level of SRPs and limited interest in future SRPs in the planning area, impacts would likely be minimal. Impacts from general recreational activities would be as described under Nature and Type of Effects. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative A, as under all alternatives, motorized travel would be limited to existing or designated routes, and site-specific travel management planning would be developed, limiting disturbance to livestock. Effects would be the same as those described in Nature and Type of Effects. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under Alternative A, wildfire suppression is not specifically prioritized in GRSG habitat. After firefighter safety, prioritization of suppression would be implemented for multiple resources protection. Wildfire alters sagebrush habitat due to the long time required for sagebrush to regenerate, which may allow for the invasion of invasive species (NTT 2011). Wildfire would remove livestock forage over the short term but can result in increases in forage post-fire. Impacts on livestock operations could also occur when a livestock grazing rest period is required following vegetation stabilization and rehabilitation treatments post-fire. These required rest periods may impact the ability of livestock operators to fully utilize permitted AUMs. The specific impacts on livestock operators would be short-term increased costs to provide alternative forage resources to livestock. The amount of impact on livestock permittees would depend on the location and intensity of the fire in relation to grazing allotments. Under this alternative, no restrictions or priorities would be applied to fuels management in GRSG habitat. Areas treated to remove hazardous fuels would be prioritized to protect life, property, and sensitive resources. Treatment methods would include the use of manual, mechanical, chemical, and prescribed fire. Treatments typically are designed to remove western juniper and other shrubs and trees to prevent wildfire. Treatments implemented under this alternative may increase forage production for livestock in the long term due to increased herbaceous understory due to a decline in the cover of shrubs and trees. This would be dependent on the amount of tree cover removed from the plant community. On sites where additional sunlight would reach the herbaceous understory, there would also be an increase in forage quality and nutritional content. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative A, no new Renewable Energy ROW/SUA exclusion or avoidance areas are proposed lor 17,732,900 acres of the decision area. Disturbance of livestock could result from development of ROWs. This alternative has the fewest acres subject to restrictions on renewable energy ROW locations. Management under Alternative A causes the highest level of disturbance September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 730 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for livestock grazing. Reductions in permitted use and range improvement construction could occur. Impacts from Salable Minerals Under Alternative A, the fewest acres are subject to restrictions for mineral material disposal. Under Alternative A, the majority of the planning area and existing GRSG habitat is open to mineral material disposal on a case by case basis. Management under Alternative A causes the highest level of disturbance for livestock grazing. Disturbance of livestock grazing would result from development of sites. Reductions in AUMs and range improvement construction could occur. Impacts from Loca table Minerals Under Alternative A, the fewest acres are petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry. Under Alternative A, the majority of the planning area and existing GRSG habitat is open to locatable mineral exploration or development. Management under Alternative A causes the highest level of disturbance for livestock grazing. Disturbance of livestock grazing would result from development of sites. Reductions in AUMs and range improvement construction could occur. Impacts from Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Under Alternative A, the majority of the planning area and existing GRSG habitat is open to non-energy mineral exploration or development. Management under Alternative A causes the highest level of disturbance for livestock grazing. Disturbance of livestock grazing would result from development of sites. Reductions in permitted use and range improvement construction would occur. Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Oil, Gas , Geothermal) Under Alternative A, 1,670,800 acres of BLM-administered lands in existing GRSG habitat would be open to fluid mineral development. Conflicts between grazing and mineral development would be more likely to occur in this area. While some decrease in disturbance to range management could occur as a result of surface use restrictions, there is the potential for disturbance in the majority of the decision area. Due to the limited reasonably foreseeable development of oil and gas and geo-thermal, impacts on range management from fluid mineral development would to be minimal. Permitted use and opportunity to construct range improvements would be slightly reduced in areas open to development. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Mineral Within the sub-region, all BLM LUPs contain fluid mineral lease stipulations for oil and gas and geothermal resources, as well as non-energy leasable minerals that occur within GRSG habitat. These stipulations range from No Surface Occupancy within 0.25 mile of a lek to appropriate seasonal timing limitations based on GRSG biology. Timing limitations vary by type of habitat (e.g., lek, brood-rearing, winter) and are typically applied to a 2-mile (3.2-kilometer) buffer around leks. The more recent TUPs (e.g., Ely, Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise LUPs) contain explicit exception, modification, and waiver language for each stipulation per BLM policy to address any special circumstances that would alter the lease stipulation requirements. Older LUPs typically do not provide exception, modification and waiver language. Lorest Service plans contain similar direction; however, actual leasing on Lorest Service-administered lands is delegated to the BLM. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 731 While some decrease in disturbance to range management could occur as a result of surface use restrictions, there is the potential for disturbance in the majority of the decision area. Due to the limited reasonably foreseeable development of oil and gas and geo-thermal, impacts on range management from fluid mineral development would to be minimal. Permitted use and opportunity to construct range improvements would be slightly reduced in areas open to development. Impacts from Lands and Realty Under Alternative A, no new ROW/SUA exclusion or avoidance areas would be present in the decision area. Disturbance of livestock could result from development of ROWs. This alternative has the most acreage identified for disposal. Land tenure adjustments would directly affect permitted use levels as those lands are no longer available for grazing use. This alternative would have the highest potential for impacts from lands and realty on livestock grazing. Impacts from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Forest Service RNAs No new ACECs are proposed. There would be no impact on current livestock grazing or range improvement construction/maintenance over that which is currently present. No changes to current permitted active use or requirements for range improvement construction/maintenance. Any restrictions on grazing activities and range improvement construction/maintenance in current ACECs would continue. 4.9.5. Alternative B Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management On BLM -administered lands, land health assessments would be conducted on all allotments open to grazing; however, under this alternative, priority habitat would be highest priority. Changes to permitted AUMs could occur on up to all PPMAs habitat acres first. Effect is less than Alt A due to reduced area. Restrictions on construction and maintenance of range improvements would occur. Effect is less than Alt A due to reduced area. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Effects would be similar to Alternative A but focus on PPMAs. Livestock grazing would be allowed on 39,782,900 acres in GRSG habitat for a total of 2,210,500 AUMs in the planning area. Under Alternative B, the acres open to grazing and AUM allocations would be the same as under Alternative A. However, all GRSG habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into AMP and permit renewals; therefore, impacts would occur at a site-specific level during the permit renewal process or NEPA analyses on Forest Service-administered lands. On BLM-administered lands, completion of land health assessments and permits would be prioritized within PPMAs, particularly those with the best opportunity to conserve, enhance or restore habitat for GRSG. As a result, impacts on range management would be most likely to occur in these areas. Under Alternative B, management actions (grazing decisions, AMP/Conservation Plan developments, or other agreements) to modify grazing management would be made to meet seasonal GRSG habitat requirements (Connelly et al. 2011a). As described under Nature and Type ol Effects, this could require changes to management of a given allotment such as in class of livestock permitted, changes to livestock rotation or season of grazing permitted. Such changes would have the potential to decrease management options and, therefore, result in increased time and costs for permittees/lessees. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 732 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Work would be done with ranchers so that operations within GRSG habitat could be planned as single units; therefore, the time and cost required to implement these changes could be reduced, although they would still be higher than under current conditions where no change would be required. In addition, retirement of grazing privileges would be an option in PPMAs. As described under Nature and Type of Effects, compensation for authorized range improvements on these lands would be given, conflicts with other land uses would be reduced and land health and forage could be improved. Vegetation treatments that benefit livestock forage could only be completed if these treatments would also conserve, enhance or improve GRSG habitat; therefore, the management options in PPMAs could be reduced when treatments would not benefit GRSG, and the ability to fully utilize permitted AUMs could be impacted in such cases. Specific objectives to conserve enhance or restore PPMAs based on ESDs would be developed and land health assessment to measure progress towards these objectives would be conducted. If it was found that allotments were not meeting standards, changes to grazing systems or AUM levels could be required and may result in increased costs or time for permittees. Under Alternative B, structural range improvements such as fences and exclosures would be allowed in PPMAs, but must be developed to conserve or enhance GRSG habitat. In addition, fences would require flagging to lessen risk for GRSG impacts. The cost of building or maintaining these structures may be increased as compared with Alternative A. Similarly, new water developments from diversion from spring or seep sources would only be permitted when GRSG habitat would also benefit. The ability to construct these developments could be limited. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burros Management Effects would be greater than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, HMAs and WHBTs in PPMAs would be categorized a higher priority for gathers. For the livestock grazing allotments that overlap HMAs and WHBTs in PPMAs, wild horse and burro numbers would stay within AMLs, resulting in more forage availability for livestock. HMAs and WHBTs that do not contain PPMAs would be categorized as a low priority for future gathers. As a result, forage availability would decrease due to growing populations of wild horses that have not been gathered in those areas. Impacts from Vegetation Restoration and Weed Control Under Alternative B, meeting GRSG habitat objectives within PPMAs is the highest restoration priority. In addition, implementation of restoration projects would be based on seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting GRSG distribution and abundance. Post restoration management to ensure long-term persistence could include changes in livestock grazing management, to achieve and maintain the desired conditions. Vegetation restoration may directly affect livestock grazing if treatments include restrictions on available grazing acreage or changes to permitted AUMs, grazing strategies, or season of use, which could result in increased cost to permittees. Required rest periods following treatments may impact the ability of livestock operators to fully utilize permitted AUMs. Impacts could occur should treatments for GRSG habitat not match with vegetation objectives for livestock grazing; however, in most cases, treatment would improve forage conditions in the long term. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 733 Management actions that control invasive species would be prioritized in PPMAs. Unless treatments involve large acres, there would be limited short-term impacts on livestock grazing. Weed control treatments would increase forage availability in the long term by improving native plant productivity. Impacts from Climate Change Impacts from Alternative B are similar to the impacts described under Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Effects would be greater than under Alternative A. Analyze springs, seeps and associated pipelines to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within priority GRSG habitats. Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts on other water uses when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to GRSG. Utilize fencing/herding techniques or seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow vegetation used by GRSG in the hot season (Aldridge and Brigham 2002; Crawford et al. 2004; Hagen et al. 2007). Authorize new water development for diversion from spring or seep source only when priority GRSG habitat would benefit from the development. This includes developing new water sources for livestock as part of an AMP/conservation plan to improve GRSG habitat. Effect is less than Alternative A due to reduced area (PPMAs). Permitted use would decline under Alternative B. Range improvements in PPMAs would be constructed, modified, or removed to facilitate riparian management. Effect is less than A due to reduced area (PPMAs). Impacts from Recreation Management Effects would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative B, effects would be greater than Alternative A due to more acres in limited and fewer in open categories. Administrative access would allow range improvement maintenance to continue. In PPMAs and PGMAs, motorized travel would be limited to existing or designated routes under Alternative B. Travel plans to be completed would analyze PPMAs for the need for road closures, and limitations would be implemented during development of new roads. Some reductions in routes and limitations on new routes as well as upgrades to existing routes would be added compared to Alternative A, which could result in indirect reduction in disturbance to livestock in PPMAs. Closed or seasonally closed routes would still allow administrative access to existing range improvements. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under Alternative B, wildfire suppression in PPMAs would be prioritized, with the focus on protection of GRSG habitat. Fuel breaks, fuels reductions, and other fire prevention techniques would be implemented to reduce the risk of wildfires in PPMAs. As a result, there could be fewer disturbances to livestock grazing within PPMAs, as there would be fewer wildfires in the long term. Measures to protect sagebrush habitat might reduce the spread of wildfire and the associated disruption to livestock operations. Forage availability would be maintained or increased long term. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation treatments following a wildfire would be locused on restoring habitat consistent with GRSG habitat needs. These treatments would use locally selected native seeds where available, and may include temporary restrictions on September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 734 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement livestock grazing, motorized travel, and other uses. Livestock management may be adjusted to support successful restoration post- rehabilitation, which could result in a temporary or permanent reduction in permitted AUMs and forage availability in areas seeded post-fire. The level of impacts would depend on size, location, and intensity of fire and related level of restoration needed. Fine fuels management projects using livestock grazing have the potential to result in site-specific, temporary increases in available forage in PPMAs, but impacts would be small and localized. Effects would be greater than Alternative A. Fuels management would be prioritized to maintain and improve GRSG habitat. These measures focus on ensuring that activities related to fuels reduction to reduce the risk of future catastrophic fires do not significantly affect GRSG populations through either disruption of GRSG activities or destruction of occupied or suitable habitat. Mechanical, manual, and chemical treatments would be utilized to prevent confer encroachment and prevent the spread of undesirable annual grass and weed species. These actions could improve forage in the long term. Emphasis would be placed on ensuring that sagebrush cover is not reduced due to fuels treatment activities. Under this alternative, forage availability may decrease over time in areas of high sagebrush cover, due to a restricted ability to remove sagebrush through fire, mechanical, or chemical means to reduce fuel and increase herbaceous plants in PPMAs. A minimum rest period from livestock grazing of two growing seasons may be required following fuels treatments, depending on the nature of the treatment. The specific timing, type of rest, as well as any modification needed to livestock grazing use would be determined at the site-specific environmental assessment phase. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Effects on livestock grazing are less than those under Alternative A. There would be fewer restrictions on grazing management and on range improvement construction. Under Alternative B, PPMAs would be managed as exclusion areas for new ROWs and SUAs with some exceptions; PGMAs would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance areas. Under this alternative, approximately 17,732,900 acres PPMAs/PGMAs would be exclusion/avoidance areas. Impacts from Salable Minerals The impact from mineral material disposal on livestock grazing is less than Alternative A. More acres are closed to mineral material disposal. Fewer reductions in permitted use and restrictions on range improvement construction would occur. Impacts from Locatable Minerals The impact from locatable material disposal on livestock grazing is less than Alternative A. The largest numbers of acres are petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry. Habitat mitigation and vegetation reclamation requirements would reduce the potential impacts on permitted use. The fewest reductions in permitted use and restrictions on range improvement construction would occur. Impacts from Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Under Alternative B, the impact on livestock grazing from non-energy mineral leasing would be less than under Alternative A. Approximately 12,693,500 acres of PPMAs would be closed to leasing so less acreage would be subject to development than under A. Fewer reductions in pennitted use and fewer restrictions on range improvement construction would occur. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 735 Impacts from Fluid Minerals Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Mineral The effects from unleased fluid minerals management would be similar to Alternative A, but more limited due to less acreage affected due to PPMAs only. Permitted use and opportunity to construct range improvements in PPMAs would be unaffected due to closure. Leasing in PGMAs would be subject to stipulations so minimal impacts are expected. Impacts from Lands and Realty The effects from lands and realty management would be less than under Alternative A. The NTT Report recommends making PPMAs exclusion areas for new ROWs and SUAs with some exceptions (such as where proposed infrastructure could be collocated within an existing disturbance area) and PGMAs ROW/SUA avoidance areas. Under this alternative approximately 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs and PGMAs would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion or avoidance areas. ROW/SUA avoidance/exclusion acreage is increased which would result in less disturbance to vegetation and permitted use than A. Less acreage is identified for disposal than under A. Reductions in permitted use, restrictions on maintenance of range improvements, and changes in timing, duration, or frequency of use would be less than A. Impacts from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Forest Service RNAs Same as Alternative A. 4.9.6. Alternative C Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Effects on livestock grazing would be greater than under Alternative A. No livestock grazing would be allowed on 39,782,900 acres in GRSG habitat for a total of 0 AUMS in GRSG habitat areas. Permitted use is eliminated on all allotments containing PPMAs acres. Construction and maintenance of range improvements in PPMAs would be eliminated under this alternative. Active restoration practices would be implemented to PPMAs/. These include: 1 ) Removal of livestock water troughs, pipelines, and wells. 2) Where possible, without further damage to springs/water sources, remove waterline piping and maximize water at spring/stream sources supporting diverse riparian and meadow vegetation. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burros Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Restoration and Weed Control There would be no impacts on livestock grazing from vegetation restoration and weed control, as all grazing operations within PPMAs would be closed. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 736 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Climate Change There would be no impacts on livestock grazing, as all grazing operations within PPMAs would be closed. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Management under Alternative C would have a greater impact than under Alternative A. Permitted use would decline due to forage reduction based on livestock grazing elimination in PPMAs. Additional range improvements such as upland water sources, riparian protection fences, etc. would be constructed to facilitate livestock grazing management outside PPMAs. However, livestock grazing is eliminated in PPMAs under this alternative. There would be no effect on those acres. Impacts from Recreation Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Management under Alternative C would have the same impact as Alternative A. Under Alternative C, due to no grazing in PPMAs, impacts from travel management on livestock grazing would be limited. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management There would be no impacts on livestock grazing, as all grazing operations within PPMAs would be closed. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Management under Alternative C would have the same impact as Alternative A. However, PPMAs are closed to livestock grazing under Alternative C. There would be no effect on livestock grazing on those acres. Impacts from Salable Minerals Same as Alternative A; however, PPMAs/PGMAs would be closed to grazing under Alternative C, so there would be no impact on grazing on those acres. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Same as Alternative A; however, PPMAs (17,732,900 acres) would be closed to grazing under Alternative C. There would be no effect on livestock grazing on those acres. Impacts from Non-Energy Leasable Minerals No effect on livestock grazing because livestock grazing would be eliminated in PPMAs under Alternative C. Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Oil, Gas, Geothermal) Same as Alternative A; however, livestock grazing would be eliminated on PPMAs (17,732,900 acres) under Alternative C. There would be no effect on livestock grazing on those acres. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 737 Impacts from Un leased Fluid Mineral There would be no effect on livestock grazing under Alternative C. Permitted use would be eliminated in PPMAs under this alternative. Impacts from Lands and Realty Effect is less than Alternative A. This alternative would have the most acreage managed as ROW/SUA exclusion and the least acreage identified for disposal. Also, use restrictions would be placed on all PPMAs acreage. Reductions in permitted use, restrictions on maintenance of range improvements, and changes in timing, duration, or frequency of use would be less than A. Also, livestock grazing is eliminated on PPMAs (17,732,900 acres) under Alternative C. There would be no effect on livestock grazing on those acres. Impacts from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Forest Service RNAs Acreages managed as ACECs would be the greatest of all alternatives. Grazing use would be phased out of ACECs over a three-year period. Range improvements would be removed from ACECs. 4.9.7. Alternative D Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Alternative D differs from Alternative A in the requirement to meet GRSG-specific objectives and guidelines contained in Tables 2-6 and 2-7. This alternative affects all PPMAs and PGMAs acres over time. Changes to permitted AUMs could occur on up to all PPMAs and PGMAs habitat acres. Changes would include the timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use, including temporary closures. Management changes designed to address non-attainment of GRSG habitat objectives would likely reduce permitted AUMs. Construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue under this Alternative. Range improvement projects would be designed to maintain or improve GRSG habitats. Consideration of GRSG habitat needs would likely reduce the number of constructed range improvements. In some instances, improvements may be removed to assist in attainment of standards. Impacts from Livestock Grazing The effect is greater than under Alternative A. Livestock grazing would be allowed on 39,782,900 acres in the planning area, for a total of 2,210,500 AUMs in the planning area. This alternative affects all PPMAs and PGMAs acres over time. Changes to permitted AUMs could occur on up to all PPMAs and PGMAs habitat acres. All PPMA and PPGA acres are required to meet rangeland health standards, especially wildlife/special status species habitat and riparian standards. Additionally, management changes designed to address nonattainment of GRSG habitat-specific objectives detailed in Table 2-6 would likely reduce permitted AUMs on BLM-administered lands. Changes would include the timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use. Temporary closures of livestock grazing would certainly occur. Construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue under this alternative but at a much reduced level. Existing range improvements would be evaluated to make sure they conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat. New range improvement projects would be designed to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitats. Consideration of GRSG habitat needs September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 738 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement would likely limit the number and types of constructed range improvements. In some instances, improvements may be removed to assist in attainment of standards. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burros Management Effects would be greater than under Alternative A. Prioritize gathers in HMAs, HAs, and WHBTs to meet established AMLs in priority GRSG habitat, unless removals are necessary in other areas to address higher priority prevent environmental issues, including herd health impacts. For all HMAs, HAs, and WHBTs within or that contain priority and general habitat, manage wild horse and burro populations within established AML to meet GRSG habitat objectives. In HMAs, HAs, and WHBTs not meeting standards due to degradation that can be at least partially contributed to wild horse or burro populations, consider adjustments to AML through the NEPA process. Adjustments would be based on monitoring data and would seek to protect and enhance priority and general habitat and establish a thriving ecological balance. Permitted AUMs could change due to the Multiple Use Decision Process in effect in Nevada. No changes to construction and maintenance of range improvements would occur under this alternative. Impacts from Vegetation Restoration and Weed Control Impacts from management under Alternative D would be generally similar to the impacts described under Alternative B, except that Alternative D would implement treatments more specifically designed to improve seasonal habitats for GRSG. Wet meadows would be managed to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species to facilitate brood rearing. Wet meadow complexes would be maintained to increase the amount of edge, and cover within that edge, to minimize elevated mortality during the late brood-rearing period. These treatments may result in more restrictions to livestock grazing and the ability to continue existing terms and conditions of permits. Additional acres may be closed to grazing temporarily within allotments to allow for riparian areas and meadows to rest from grazing in order to improve vegetation composition for GRSG habitat. Impacts from Climate Change Under Alternative D, changes in livestock management may be required to protect GRSG habitat due to drought conditions. Changes to current terms and conditions of permits would be changed to prevent over use of plant resources during periods of extremely dry weather and poor growing conditions, in order to maintain GRSG habitat. Changes could include delayed turnout dates, reduced grazing periods, temporary closures of riparian areas and meadows, a reduction in AUMs or livestock numbers for a specified period, or other adjustments to livestock operations. These changes would reduce forage availability and increase the cost of livestock operations. The specific impacts on livestock operators would be short-term increased costs to provide alternative forage resources to livestock, or increased labor costs to herd or move livestock more frequently. The long-term impacts of protecting vegetation during drought conditions would be an increase in plant community stability and an increase in forage availability. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Effects on livestock grazing would be greater than under Alternative A. Alternative D would cause changes to current permitted use, based on specific actions taken to return riparian areas to PFC and improve plant community species richness. Changes to permitted use are most likely to occur in allotments with current hot season grazing use on riparian areas. Additional range improvements would be constructed to facilitate riparian management. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 739 Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to the impacts described under Alternative B. Impacts from Recreation Management Under Alternative D, closing PGMAs/PPMAs to recreation facilities construction would reduce disturbance and conflicts as compared to Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Impacts would be less than Alternative A. This alternative would have the most acres limited and the least acres open. Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B but with additional restrictions on upgrades, realignment of roads, and requirements for site-specific travel management planning completion applied to PPMAs and PGMAs. As a result, disturbance from travel management on livestock grazing would be limited. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Impacts would be less than Alternative A. Management under Alternative D would designate PPMA and PGMA habitat as ROW/SUA exclusion for utility-scale commercial wind energy facilities and solar energy facilities. Fewer potential reductions in permitted use due to forage destruction/quality reduction would occur. Fewer acres would be subject to restrictions on range improvement construction. Impacts from Locatable Minerals and Salable Minerals The impact from locatable minerals would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from mineral material disposal on livestock grazing would be less than Alternative A. The highest numbers of acres are closed to mineral material disposal. Habitat mitigation and vegetation reclamation requirements would reduce the potential impacts on permitted use. The fewest reductions in permitted use and restrictions on range improvement construction would occur. Impacts from Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Under Alternative D, the impact on livestock grazing from non-energy mineral leasing would be less than Alternative A. 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs/PGMAs would be closed to leasing so less acreage would be subject to development than under A. The fewest reductions in permitted use and fewest restrictions on range improvement construction would occur. Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Oil, Gas, Geothermal) Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Un leased Fluid Mineral Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Lands and Realty Impacts would be less than Alternative A. There are more acres identified as ROW/SUA avoidance areas than A and less acreage identified for disposal than A. Reductions in permitted use, restrictions on maintenance of range improvements, and changes in timing, duration, or frequency of use would be less than Alternative A. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 740 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Forest Service RNAs Same as Alternative A. 4.9.8. Alternative E Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Similar to Alternative A. Existing grazing permits would be evaluated to ensure that they maintain or enhance SGMAs. Based on a comprehensive understanding of seasonal GRSG habitat requirements, and in conjunction with flexibility of livestock operators, encourage land management agencies to cooperatively make timely, seasonal range management decisions to respond to vegetation management objectives, including fuels reduction. Livestock grazing would be used as a tool, when appropriate, to improve GRSG habitat quantity, quality or to reduce wildfire threats. Riparian areas would be managed for PFC. Alternative A requires BLM grazing permits to be evaluated against Rangeland Health Standards in effect for the appropriate RAC administrative area. When currently permitted grazing use is determined to be causing the wildlife habitat, special status species habitat, or riparian areas to not meet or not make significant progress towards meeting land health standards, permitted grazing use would be altered by implementing appropriate grazing management guidelines by agreement or by grazing decision by the next grazing season. Targeted grazing used as a tool to achieve specific resource management objectives is allowed under Alternative A. Under Alternative E, grazing permits would be evaluated on all allotments in SGMAs. This evaluation would analyze the current condition of GRSG habitat. If current conditions are lacking, and if livestock grazing caused, grazing use is would be altered to allow habitat conditions to improve in the future. This would be implemented through agreement under this Alternative. This alternative affects all SGMA acres over time. Changes to permitted use could occur on up to all SGMA habitat acres. Management changes designed to address non-attainment of wildlife habitat standards could reduce permitted AUMs as under Alternative A. Grazing management changes would include the timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use. Construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue under Alternative E, especially those designed for riparian management. Specific management actions include riparian fencing to provide control of the season, duration or degree of herbivory, providing alternate water sources away from the riparian area, changing the grazing system, or other grazing management practices that promote herbage removal within acceptable limits. As in Alternative A, range improvement projects would be designed to maintain or improve GRSG habitats. Alternative E would result in positive impacts on GRSG habitat in SGMAs where cooperation is present. The major difference between the two alternatives is the BLM’s requirement to implement grazing management changes by the next grazing season by agreement or by grazing decision, if necessary, when currently permitted use is determined to be causing a GRSG habitat related Standard to be unmet or not making significant progress. Alternative E stresses cooperative, seasonal adjustments to grazing use. Alternative E does not contain the BLM regulatory mechanism. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 741 Impacts from Livestock Grazing Impacts of Alternative E are similar to those from Alternative A. Under Alternative E, the principle livestock grazing action is to “implement appropriate prescribed grazing conservation actions at scales sufficient to influence a positive population response in occupied and suitable GRSG habitat acres such as NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 528 for prescribed grazing (NRCS 201 1). Standard 528 is defined in the Strategic Plan for Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Nevada , (State of Nevada 2012) as “Managing the harvest of vegetation with grazing and/or browsing animals.” The Plan goes on to further state: “This practice may be applied to improve or maintain desired species composition and vigor of plant communities, improve or maintain quantity and quality of forage for grazing and browsing animals’ health and productivity, improve or maintain surface and/or subsurface water quality and quantity, improve or maintain riparian and watershed function, reduce accelerated soil erosion, and maintain or improve soil condition, improve or maintain the quantity and quality of food and/or cover available for wildlife, and manage fine fuel loads to achieve desired conditions. In sage-grouse habitat, this practice is critical to ensure rangelands are managed sustainably to provide habitat requirements for all life stages of sage-grouse.” Currently, The BLM is required to ensure that grazing use is permitted in conformance with established Rangeland Health Standards. Under current management, BLM grazing permits are evaluated against Rangeland Health Standards in effect for the appropriate RAC administrative area. When currently permitted grazing use is determined to be causing a Standard to not meet or not make significant progress towards meeting, permitted grazing use would be altered by implementing appropriate grazing management guidelines. BLM rangeland health standards are substantially similar to the desired conditions outlined in Practice 528 in Alternative E. Current BLM grazing management is required to meet many of the desired conditions outlined in Alternative E. Under Alternative E, current levels and seasons of use will continue in the planning area pending completion of grazing permit evaluations. Livestock grazing would be allowed on 39,782,900 acres in SGMAs for a total of 2,210,500 AUMs in the planning area. Lands are managed to maintain healthy native plant communities and wildlife habitats. All permits/leases would be required to meet or make progress towards conditions found in Standard Practice 528 as well as meeting rangeland health standards defined in the applicable RAC developed Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 1997d). Permitted AUMs would most likely change in those areas found to be not meeting applicable standards (especially the wildlife habitat, special status species, and riparian standards) as a result of livestock grazing at last assessment. This alternative affects all SGMA acres over time. Changes to permitted AUMs could occur on up to all SGMA habitat acres. Management changes designed to address non-attainment of GRSG habitat standards would likely reduce permitted AUMs, change current timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use, including temporary closures. Drought management actions are directed to allotments with resource concerns. Construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue under Alternative E. Range improvements including fences and vegetation treatments as well as water developments, September, 20 13 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 742 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement would be allowed in the planning area when needed to support grazing systems or improve livestock distribution, allowing for options for management for permittees/lessees when needed to alter grazing use to meet rangeland health standards. Range improvement projects would be designed to maintain or improve GRSG habitats. Alternative E is substantially similar to Alternative A, Current Management. Permitted use would be expected to decline over current levels as grazing management is implemented to benefit GRSG. The major difference between the two alternatives is the BLM’s requirement to implement grazing management changes by the next grazing season when currently permitted use is determined to be causing a GRSG habitat related standard to be unmet or not making significant progress. Alternative E does not contain this regulatory mechanism. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burros Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Restoration and Weed Control Similar to Alternative B. Impacts from Climate Change Similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands and Water Resources Management Alternative E requires that BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands meet the standards for riparian vegetation such as outlined in the various RAC Standards and Guidelines for Ecological Health to meet the GRSG habitat requirements. Additionally, grazing management strategies for riparian areas should, at a minimum, maintain or achieve riparian PFC. Specific management actions include riparian fencing to provide control of the season, duration or degree of herbivory, providing alternate water sources away from the riparian area, changing the grazing system, or other grazing management practices that promote herbage removal within acceptable limits. These actions mirror current management of riparian areas on public lands except Forest Service-administered lands are not covered by RAC standards. Impacts from Recreation Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Same as Alternative D. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Similar to Alternative B. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 743 Same as Alternative D. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Same as Alternative A, but focus on reclamation of sites based on ecological potential would benefit livestock grazing. Impacts from Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Oil, Gas, Geothermal) Same as Alternative D. Impact of Unleased Fluid Mineral Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Lands and Realty Same as Alternative D. Impacts from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Forest Service RNAs Same as Alternative A. 4.9.9. Alternative F Impacts from GRSG Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Effects from Alternative F would be greater than under Alternative A. Livestock grazing would be allowed on 29,837,200 acres in GRSG habitat annually for a total of 828,900 AUMs annually in the planning area. This alternative would rest 25 percent of PPMAs/PGMAs each year. Also, utilization levels would be limited to 25 percent. These actions combined would reduce permitted use drastically in PPMAs/PGMAs. Range improvement construction would increase due to the need to fence out PPMAs/PGMAs areas from grazing use on adjacent areas. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burros Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation Restoration and Weed Control Similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Climate Change Similar to Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 744 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from riparian and water resources management would be greater than Alternative A. Changes to permitted use would most likely occur in allotments with current hot season grazing use on riparian areas. Additional range improvements would be constructed to facilitate riparian management. Impacts from Recreation Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Impacts from CTTM would be greater than Alternative A. This alternative mirrors Alternative B. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Impacts from Alternative F would be similar to the impacts described under Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Impacts from renewable energy management would be less than under Alternative A. Alternative F applies restrictions to 20.5 million acres. Impacts from Salable Minerals Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Loca table Minerals Impacts from locatable minerals management would be less than under Alternative A. Greater acreage withdrawn from mineral entry would result in less disruption to livestock grazing. Impacts from Non-energy Leasable Minerals Impacts on livestock grazing would be less than under Alternative A. Approximately 17,732,900 acres would be closed so disturbance would not occur on these acres. Few reductions in permitted use and few restrictions on range improvement construction would occur. Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Oil, Gas, Geothermal) Same as Alternative A. Impact of Unleased Fluid Mineral Impacts would be less than under Alternative A. Impacts would be similar to Alternative C; however, there is no blanket prohibition on livestock grazing under this alternative. In PPMAs/PGMAs open to grazing and closed to fluid mineral leasing, there would be no impact on current permitted use and opportunities to construct and maintain range improvements. Impacts from Lands and Realty Impacts would be less than under Alternative A. This alternative is similar to Alternative C. Reductions in permitted use, restrictions on maintenance of range improvements, and changes in timing, duration, or frequency of use would be less than Alternative A. Impacts from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Forest Service RNAs Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 745 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts would be greater than under Alternative A. ACEC acreage is increased over Alternative A. ACECs would be designated with objective of creating “sagebrush reserves to conserve GRSG and other sagebrush-dependent species.” Grazing use would be altered or eliminated as necessary to create conditions favorable to sage brush dependent species. Reductions in permitted use, restrictions on maintenance of range improvements, and changes in timing, duration, or frequency of use would be greater than Alternative A. 4.10. Recreation 4.10.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on recreation are as follows: • Change in the number and type of BLM SRPs and Forest Service recreation permits issued within the planning area. • Change in the types of recreation activities and opportunities within the planning area. Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • The demand for general recreation on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands would continue to increase over the life of the Resource Management Plan and the Land and Resource Management Plan. • Outdoor recreation will continue to be an important component of the local economy. • Management actions to preserve GRSG habitat would affect a variety of resources and uses, which may improve some recreation opportunities and experiences, depending on the type of recreation. • Outside of SRMAs, the BLM will manage for recreation activities that consist mostly of dispersed activities where users informally participate in activities individually or in small groups. • Demand for SRPs will remain steady or gradually increase over time. The BLM will continue to issue SRPs on a discretionary basis. 4.10.2. Nature and Type of Effects This section analyzes potential impacts on recreation resources from proposed management actions of other resources and resource uses. Existing conditions concerning recreation are described in Section 3.9, Recreation. Direct impacts on recreation are those that allow, restrict, or prohibit opportunity, including both the opportunity for access (e.g., public closure) and opportunity to engage in specific activities (e.g., camping, shooting, and all-terrain vehicle riding). Indirect impacts are considered to be September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Recreation 746 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement those that alter the physical, social, or administrative settings. Impacts on settings can either be the achievement of a desired setting or the unwanted shift in setting, such as to either a more primitive or urban environment. Physical, social, and administrative settings are not specifically managed for in areas not designated as Recreation Management Areas, although these areas do still provide intrinsic recreation values and opportunities. The indicator typically used to describe the impact on these areas is the availability of opportunities as described by either acreage restrictions or specific activity prohibitions. For areas managed as SRMAs, both availability of recreation opportunities (activities and desired outcomes) and changes to physical, social, and administrative settings are used as indicators of impacts. This discussion analyzes the impacts that proposed management decisions would have on managing recreation settings and the targeted outcomes. For areas managed as ERMAs, both availability of activity opportunities and changes to the qualities and conditions (settings) are used as indicators of impacts. This discussion also analyzes the impacts that proposed management decisions would have on managing recreation and the prescribed setting conditions. Since visitor use patterns are difficult to estimate and depend on many factors beyond the scope of management (e.g., recreation trends and economy), qualitative language — for example, “increase” or “decrease”) is generally used unless quantitative visitor use data is available to describe anticipated impacts. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on Recreation and are therefore not discussed in detail: riparian and water resources, vegetation and soils management, livestock grazing, fire and fuels management, wild horse and burro management, climate change, leasable and beatable minerals, and renewable energy. 4.103. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Special Designations Management Recreation management objectives would follow the appropriate management actions from Wilderness, WSAs, NHTs, NCAs, or WSR management plans. 4.10.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative A, existing recreation opportunities in the planning area would be maintained. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative A, existing motorized recreational opportunities in the planning area would be maintained. 4.10.5. Alternative B Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative B, only BLM SRPs and Forest Service recreation permits that have neutral or beneficial effects would be allowed in approximately 12,693,500 acres of PPMAs. This may Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 747 restrict some types of permitted uses. As a result, some types of permitted activities (e.g., OHV races) that could negatively affect PPM As may be impacted resulting in fewer opportunities to engage in those types of events and activities in those areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative B, the OHV area designation would change 8,878,900 acres from open to limited in PPMAs. The restriction on cross-country travel may impact some motorized recreation, such as OHV exploration which depends on unrestricted travel. Opportunities for non-motorized recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, and hunting, in a more natural or primitive setting may be expanded and enhanced. 4.10.6. Alternative C Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Impacts from Alternative C would be the same as or similar to those under Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative C, the OHV area designation would change 12 million acres from open to limited in PPMAs. The restriction on cross-country travel may impact some motorized recreation, such as OHV exploration which depends on unrestricted travel. Opportunities for non-motorized recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, and hunting, in a more natural or primitive setting may be expanded and enhanced. 4.10.7. Alternative D Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative D, only BLM SRPs and Forest Service recreation permits that have neutral or beneficial effects in approximately 17,732,900 acres of both PPMAs and PGMAs would be allowed. As a result, some types of permitted activities (e.g., OHV races) that could negatively affect PPMAs/PGMAs may be impacted, resulting in fewer opportunities to engage in those types of events and activities in those areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Impacts from Alternative D would be the same as or similar to those under Alternative C. 4.10.8. Alternative E Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Impacts from Alternative E would be the same as or similar to those under Alternative D. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Impacts from Alternative E would be the same as or similar to those under Alternative C and D. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 748 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.10.9. Alternative F Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative D, only BLM SRPs and Forest Service recreation permits that have neutral or beneficial effects on approximately 17,732,900 acres in both PPM As and PGMAs would be allowed. As a result, some types of permitted activities (e.g., OHV races) that could negatively affect PPMAs/PGMAs may be impacted, resulting in fewer opportunities to engage in those types of events and activities in those areas. Additional management actions that would seasonally prohibit camping and other non-motorized recreation activities within four miles of active leks would decrease the area available for recreational opportunities such as camping, mountain biking, and hiking, resulting in seasonal reductions in recreational opportunities. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Impacts from Alternative F would be the same as or similar to those under Alternatives C and D. 4.11. Travel and Transportation Management 4.11.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on CTTM are as follows: • Change in the acreages designated as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel. • Change in the types of transportation activities occurring on routes that may impact GRSG or habitat. • Change in the number of acres where new authorized road development would be allowed. • Change in management activities or public use that would necessitate changing the size of the disturbance footprint of routes. Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • The demand for general access to travel routes on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands would continue to increase over the life of the LUP. • Administration of updated agency travel management policy, rules and planning and design guidelines will change public land travel systems through planning and design, making them more sustainable and minimizing potential impacts on resources. • The designation of individual routes is an implementation-level process and not considered as part of a planning level process. • Travel management planning can be carried out in conjunction with an LUP process or deferred. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 749 • Travel systems are dynamic and will be changed through subsequent implementation level planning efforts in order to respond to the needs of the BLM and Forest Service multiple-use mission. • Implementation of a travel management plan would include increased public education, signing, enforcement, and resource monitoring in regard to travel management. There would be no change to areas where travel management has been completed. 4.11.2. Nature and Type of Effects This section discusses impacts on CTTM from proposed BLM management actions. Existing conditions concerning CTTM are described in Section 3.10, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management. Travel and transportation management supports and helps achieve the objectives of other resource programs. Consequently, the travel designations would adhere to the management prescriptions included under each alternative, while following the theme of each alternative. At the resource management planning level, impacts on CTTM are those that restrict travel (e.g., managing areas as closed or limited to motorized travel and seasonal travel limitations). New CTTM actions in response to GRSG habitat protection strategies would impact the number of acres where motorized travel is allowed. Travel management decisions may impact other resource areas, such as the closure or limitation of travel to protect sensitive resources. As such, impacts of travel management actions on other resources and uses are discussed in the respective resource sections of this chapter. Impacts on CTTM from other program areas do occur and are considered as part of implementation level transportation management planning. Implementing management actions for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on CTTM and are therefore not discussed in detail: riparian and water resources, vegetation and soils management, livestock grazing, fire and fuels management, wild horse and burro management, climate change, leasable and locatable minerals, renewable energy, and recreation. 4.11.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Special Designations Management Comprehensive travel and transportation management objectives would follow the appropriate management actions from Wilderness, WSAs, NHTs, NCAs, or WSR management plans. 4.11.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative A, existing travel opportunities in the planning area would be maintained. Approximately 12,745,000 acres would remain open to unrestricted cross-county motorized travel. Approximately 4,113,300 acres would remain limited to existing or designated routes. Approximately 874,400 acres would remain closed to motorized use. New road construction. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 750 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement upgrading of existing roads and realignments of roads would continue to be allowed in the planning area. 4.11.5. Alternative B Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative B, all GRSG management actions would occur only in PPMAs. The management action that limits motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would change 8,878,900 acres from open to limited in PPMAs. It would prohibit upgrading of existing routes that would change the route category. Route construction would be limited to realignments of existing routes that minimize impacts on PPMAs. The 3 percent disturbance threshold could restrict the amount of new routes that could be constructed; any routes constructed in excess of the disturbance cap would require mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of habitat. The impacts from implementation actions, such as evaluating the need for permanent or seasonal road closures, activity-level travel plans, limiting new route construction, and restoration of routes in PPMAs could only be evaluated during implementation. The impacts from these implementation actions would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA documents. 4.11.6. Alternative C Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative C, GRSG management actions would occur on PPMAs. The management action that limits motorized travel to existing road, primitive roads and trails would change 12,744,900 acres from open to limited in PPMAs. The impacts from implementation actions, such as evaluating the need for permanent or seasonal road closures in PPMAs could only be evaluated during activity-level travel planning. The impacts from these implementation actions would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA documents. 4.11.7. Alternative D Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative D, GRSG management actions would occur on PPMAs and PGMAs. The management action that limits motorized travel to existing road, primitive roads and trails would change 12,744,900 acres from open to limited in PPMAs/PGMAs. Upgrading of existing routes that would change the route category would be prohibited. Route construction would be limited to realignments of existing routes that minimize impacts on PPMAs/PGMAs. The impacts from implementation actions, such as evaluating the need for permanent or seasonal road closures in PPMAs/PGMAs could only be evaluated during activity-level travel planning. The impacts from these implementation actions would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA documents. 4.11.8. Alternative E Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Impacts from Alternative E would be the same as or similar to those under Alternative D. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 751 4.11.9. Alternative F Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Impacts from Alternative F would be the same as or similar to those under Alternative D, except Alternative F would further restrict the construction of new routes by not allowing new routes within a four-mile buffer from leks. 4.12. Land Use and Realty 4.12.1. Methods and Assumptions This section discusses impacts on lands and realty from proposed management actions of other resources and resource uses. Existing conditions concerning lands and realty are described in Section 3.11, Lands and Realty. Indicators • Acres of BLM- and Forest Service-administered surface ownership, which includes federal surface with private minerals, in the planning area. • Acres of BLM- and Forest Service-administered surface ownership affected by ROW and SUA restrictions (i.e., avoidance or exclusion areas). • Number, acres/miles, and types of surface-disturbing ROWs, leases, permits, and authorizations including communication sites within PPMAs and /PGMAs. • Number/acres and type of land tenure adjustments/landownership adjustments (i.e., lands identified as suitable for disposal, withdrawal, acquisition, exchange, purchase, donation, or ROW acquisition) within PPMAs and PGMAs. • Number of BLM and Forest Service proposed permits/ authorizations within PPMAs/PGMAs. Assumptions • Authorized ROWs and communication sites would be managed to protect valid existing rights, as long as those ROWs are in compliance with the terms and conditions of their ROW grant. • Upon renewal, assignment, or amendment of existing ROWs, permits, and leases, additional stipulations could be included in the land use authorization. • Existing ROWs, designated utility corridors, and communication sites would be managed to protect valid existing rights. • Demand for small distribution facilities to extend and upgrade services, such as communication sites and utilities, is anticipated to increase as rural development occurs on dispersed private parcels and parcels identified for disposal within the planning area. • Private parcels within the planning area and parcels identified for disposal would continue to require new or upgraded services such as power distribution facilities, including communication sites, roads, and any appurtenant utilities. September, ; 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 752 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement • Power lines and other vertical structures in areas naturally devoid of perching opportunities provide a perch for raptors and subsequently increase the potential for GRSG to abandon leks (Ellis 1984). Mitigation in the form of burying lines or including non-perching design features on lines reduces perching opportunities and subsequent impacts on GRSG (Connelly et al. 2000a) and would be encouraged. • The number of ROW applications for new communication and computer technology, such as fiber optic cable would continue to increase. • Management of all previously withdrawn land from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands would continue. The BLM and the Forest Service would review withdrawals as needed and when necessary, make recommendations for extensions, modifications, revocations, or terminations. All existing withdrawals initiated by other agencies, such as the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Department of Energy, would be continued unless the initiating agency or BFM or Forest Service requests that the withdrawal be revoked. • Any lands that become unencumbered by withdrawals or classifications will be managed according to the decisions made in the FUP. If the FUP has not identified management prescriptions for these lands, they will be managed in a manner consistent with adjacent or comparable public lands within the decision area. If the unencumbered lands fall within two or more management scenarios where future-planning criteria may not be clear, a plan amendment may be required. • Finear ROW widths vary based on the nature of the development contained within the ROW, as well as potential impacts on resources. • The existing designated ROW corridors within the decision area include the Western Utility Group updates to the Western Regional Corridor Study, Section 368 Energy Policy Act of 2005, and West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS (BFM 2009a), which are adopted. Designated transportation and utility corridors include linear ROWs (e.g., electric transmission facilities, pipelines, communication lines, and transportation systems. • ROW and SUA holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant/permit. • The demand for both energy and non-energy types of ROWs are anticipated to remain steady or gradually increase over time. • Fittle to no solar energy ROWs are anticipated due to low solar energy potential in the planning area • Demand for small distribution facilities to extend and upgrade services, such as communication sites and utilities, is anticipated to increase as rural development occurs on dispersed private parcels within the planning area. • Public lands would continue to be available for regional and interstate transmission lines, particularly those needed to transport renewable energy. • Maintaining and upgrading existing utilities, communication sites, and other ROWs and colocation of new infrastructure in existing ROWs is preferred before construction of new Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Methods and Assumptions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 753 facilities in the planning area, but only if the upgrading can be accommodated within the existing ROW. • The BLM and Forest Service recognize that colocation does not eliminate the possibility of new temporary or permanent surface disturbance. ROW authorizations and SUAs in avoidance areas typieally result in mitigation to offset the impact of the proposed development. Mitigation can include design criteria, on-site surface disturbance mitigation, off-site mitigation, or a combination thereof. 4.12.2. Nature and Type of Effects Resources and resource uses affect the lands and realty program by prescribing ROW/SUA exclusion and avoidance areas, stipulations in order to protect resources, and permit conditions associated with Forest Service SUA and BLM ROW grants. Forest Service forest plan prescriptions are similar to BLM ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Prescriptions can restrict or prohibit certain uses in a planning area. It should also be noted that the Forest Service grants SUAs, while the BLM grants ROWs on their respective agency lands. A ROW exclusion area is one that is not available for new ROW location; SUA authorization would not be allowed on Forest Service-administered lands. A ROW avoidance area may be available for ROW location but may require special stipulations. ROW applications or SUAs could be submitted in ROW avoidance areas; however, a project proposed in these areas may be subject to additional requirements, such as resource surveys and reports, construction and reclamation engineering, long-term monitoring, special design features, special siting requirements, timing limitations, and rerouting. Such requirements could restrict project location or they could delay availability of energy supply (by delaying or restricting pipelines, transmission lines or renewable energy projects), limit future access, delaying or increasing the cost of energy supplies, or they could delay or restrict communications service availability. As a result of special surveys and reports, alternative routes may need to be identified and selected to protect sensitive resources, such as GRSG habitat. Designating ROW exclusion and avoidance areas and applying special stipulations would result in increased application processing time and costs due to the potential need to relocate facilities or due to greater design, mitigation, and siting requirements. The Forest Service screening process for SUAs would ‘reject’ application in exclusion areas. Co-locating transmission development infrastructure in existing ROWs or Forest Service easements and existing disturbed areas reduces land use conflicts and additional land disturbance. Co-location policies also clarify the preferred locations for utilities and simplify processing on BLM- and Forest System- administered lands. However, collocating can limit options for mineral development and selection of preferable locations for ROWs. Travel management actions may involve closing areas or specific routes to motorized or mechanized travel, thereby creating areas that are impractical for some types of land uses, such as transmission lines or communication sites. Most past activities are anticipated to continue at a similar or increased level in the foreseeable future. Surface-disturbing activities may contribute to route restrictions and alterations as some area and existing routes and trails become more heavily traveled; in addition, non-motorized opportunities may be reduced as more development occurs. New routes could increase access to remote areas that were previously inaccessible by motorized vehicles. Accessibility to BLM and Forest Service -administered lands may change as land acquisitions and disposals continue. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 754 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Land tenure adjustments/landownership adjustments are intended to maintain or improve the efficiency of BLM and Forest Service management, including management of GRSG habitat. Land disposal as well as exchange, purchase, donation, and ROW acquisition can result in a more contiguous decision area, thus increasing BLM-and Forest Service-administered lands management efficiency. However, while consolidation may be beneficial for certain resources and uses, it may not necessarily reduce effects on GRSG habitat. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on land use and realty and are therefore not discussed in detail: range management, mineral split-estate, fire and fuels management, and habitat restoration/vegetation management. 4.12.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under all alternatives, the BLM would complete a CTTM plan, designating certain routes as open, closed or limited to motorized travel. While the BLM would not close access to valid existing rights, travel management decisions that make access to existing or desirable future ROW locations more difficult would discourage co-location in existing ROWs and new ROW development. Forest Service would implement their Travel Management Plans and would not vary by alternative or resource. In some areas, there is a high concentration of intermixed private and public land, corridors, and oil gas, and geothermal development. In such areas, there would be restrictions on the ability to upgrade or construct new routes. Seasonal restrictions on travel could impact site accessibility, impact the ability to construct and maintain ROWs, and increase project costs. Impacts from Special Designations Management The designation of BLM ACECs and Forest Service Zoological Special Interest Areas would create ROW/SUA exclusion and avoidance areas and SUA prescription areas that could limit the siting of renewable energy development projects and the transmission lines required to connect them to the grid. The BLM and the Forest Service would continue to manage special designation areas as either ROW/SUA avoidance or exclusion (prescription) areas across all alternatives. Limitations on ROW development in wilderness areas impact the ability of the BLM and Forest Service to accommodate ROW authorization demands within the planning area, particularly in locations where special designation areas separate energy sources (e.g., wind or geothermal) from likely demand centers. Routing transmission lines around exclusion areas could result in a longer ROW with greater surface disturbance and extended BLM/Forest Service processing times. 4.12.4. Alternative A The No Action Alternative represents Continuation of Present Management for all the sub-regional LUPs considered in this programmatic LUP amendment. Impacts from Land Use and Realty Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences impacts Common to AH Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 755 Under Alternative A, the BLM and Forest Service would continue to grant ROWs and SUAs under current management systems and existing ROWs in the decision area would continue to provide access and utilities for permittees and lease-holders. A total of 1 14,200 acres would continue to be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance areas, while 276,600 acres would be designated exclusion. All other lands within the decision area would continue to be open for ROW development and SUAs. BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be available for multiple-use and single-use communication sites and road access ROW (or SUAs) on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Title V of FLPMA, and 43 CFR Part 2800 regulations (BLM) and 36 CFR § 251 Subpart B (Forest Service). All new linear ROWs, fiber optic cables, transmission lines, pipelines, and communication sites would be encouraged to locate within designated corridors and existing sites. All ROW and SUA applications would be reviewed using the criteria of following existing corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs. Co-location reduces land use conflicts and additional land disturbance and demarcates the preferred locations for utilities; therefore simplifying processing on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Where existing ROW development is not present, co-location requirements can limit options for new ROW development. Widths in existing corridors vary from 0.5 mile wide up to 3 miles wide. The widths of these corridors would allow for more ROWs to be granted in the major north-south corridor through the planning area. Land Tenure Under Alternative A, approximately 331,200 acres (within PPG and PGH) would continue to be available for disposal via sale. Land disposal, which must meet the criteria under FLPMA Section 203 and applicable LUPs, would improve BLM lands and realty program and overall BLM management efficiency. Forest Service has not identified specific lands for exchange or disposal. Disposal or sale of these lands could prevent the BLM and Forest Service from granting ROWs across those properties, and could result in increasing the density of ROWs in other areas intended for retention. Land tenure and land ownership adjustments are intended to maintain or improve the efficiency of BLM and Forest Service management. The Forest Service completes land ownership adjustments (purchase, exchange, donation, and ROW acquisition), while the BLM conducts land tenure adjustments (withdrawals, disposals, and acquisitions). Impacts from Leasable Mineral Management Mineral development indirectly impacts the lands and realty program through the requirement for new infrastructure development, such as roadways and communication facilities. In occupied habitat under Alternative A, 16,061,900 acres of fluid mineral leasing (subject to stipulations) would continue to be open to new leasing. New mineral development in open areas would continue to place a demand on the lands and realty program. Impacts from Locatable Mineral Management In occupied habitat under Alternative A, 16,061,900 acres of locatable mineral development would continue to be open to new leasing. New mineral development in open areas would continue to place a demand on the lands and realty program. Impacts from Salable Mineral Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 756 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Mineral development indirectly impacts the lands and realty program through the requirement for new infrastructure development, such as roadways and communication facilities. In occupied habitat under Alternative A, 16,061,900, acres of mineral materials development would continue to be open to new leasing. New mineral development in open areas would continue to place a demand on the lands and realty program. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative A, 12,745,000 acres would be open to motorized travel while the BLM would manage 4,1 13,300 acres as limited to existing or designated routes and 874,400 acres would be closed. Accordingly, existing transportation routes and those routes designated for motorized travel on Forest Service-administered lands would continue to provide motorized access to ROW infrastructure and communication sites for construction and maintenance with no additional impacts on lands and realty from CTTM. On BLM-administered lands, there are the fewest restrictions on travel under Alternative A and, thus, the least impact on lands and realty. On Forest Service-administered lands CTTM would be the same under all alternatives. Also, this alternative would not impact the lands and realty program on both BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative A, no new Renewable Energy ROW exclusion or avoidance areas are proposed for 17,732,900 acres of the decision area. This alternative has the fewest acres subject to restrictions on renewable energy ROW locations, which could result in the greatest number of land and realty actions, as BLM grants ROWs and the Forest Service issues SUAs. 4.12.5. Alternative B Management under Alternative B would exclude PPMAs from new BLM ROWs or Forest Service SUAs. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management actions under Alternative B to protect GRSG habitat would impact lands and realty through the closure of areas to ROW authorizations, additional criteria for land exchanges, and limitations on new mineral development and road construction. Limitations on disposals in designated critical habitat for threatened and endangered species would allow better resource management in these sensitive areas. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative B, there would be a net ROW exclusion area increase of 12,239,700 acres and a net ROW avoidance area increase of 5,026,300 acres on BLM-administered lands; this would be a 378 percent increase in PPMAs and a 2,633 percent increase in PGM As compared with Alternative A. The BLM and Forest Service would also take advantage of opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing power lines within existing ROWs in PPMAs, if possible. As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, limitations on new ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines and pipelines, could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for communication systems. While management under Alternative B would allow for co-location in exclusion and avoidance areas, there are limitations Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 757 as to the amount of infrastructure that can be co-located in a given ROW. Often co-location is not feasible. Therefore, in PPMA under Alternative B, there would be limited to no opportunity for new ROW development. Exclusion areas could result in reconfigurations of line locations and re-engineering of infrastructure such as electrical transmission lines and pipelines. On BLM-administered lands based on a reasonable foreseeable lands and realty scenario, exclusion area designations within the decision area could preclude or alter the development of 351 pending new transmission lines, new distribution lines, and new communication sites. In addition, ROW exclusion and avoidance designations could extend processing time for renewals of existing ROW permits, and make siting of new linear or block ROWs more difficult than under Alternative A. Exclusion and avoidance designations under Alternative B would also result in impacts on the location and design of communication towers on both BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. To be effective, communication towers are constructed to meet specific height standards as necessary to have line-of-sight with adjacent repeaters. Under Alternative B, modifications to the communication tower network in PPMAs would be limited to expansion of existing facilities. New facilities would be excluded in PPMAs and conditions on tower design (e.g., tower height) applied to towers in general habitat may prevent the effective transmittal of communication signals to adjacent towers. Land Tenure Under Alternative B, the BLM and Forest Service would retain public ownership in PPMAs except where land exchanges would result in more contiguous federal ownership patterns or where disposal accompanied by a habitat mitigation agreement or conservation easement would result in more effective management of GRSG habitat. In general habitat, the amount of land available for disposal (331,200 acres within habitat) would be the same as Alternative A. Land disposal would be subject to the criteria in FLPMA Section 203. The Forest Service has very limited authority to sell or otherwise dispose of National Forest System lands. Most authorities allowing the sale of lands have specific criteria or identify only a small number of properties for sale or disposal in a limited geographical area. The tool used most often for conveyance of lands within National Forest boundaries is land exchange. Additionally, under Alternative B, the BLM would propose for mineral withdrawal 12,693,500 acres within PPMAs. However, withdrawal would be subject to Congressional approval. The BLM would not recommend approval of withdrawals for reasons other than mineral activity. Having these areas identified or withdrawn would facilitate the disposal of land for promoting community development. Limitations on BLM and Forest Service land tenure and land ownership adjustments, for example restrictions on land disposal to retain GRSG habitat in public ownership, could result in decreased management efficiency. Mineral withdrawal would reduce the number of new ROW authorization requests for infrastructure to support mineral activity. Additionally, under Alternative B, the BLM would propose all PPMAs for mineral withdrawal (surface and split-estate acres). However, withdrawal would be subject to Congressional approval. The BLM would not recommend approval of withdrawals for reasons other than mineral activity. In withdrawn areas, BLM-and Forest Service-administered lands would not be available for September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 758 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement mineral extraction for a defined time period. Impacts on mineral development are described in Section 4.15, Minerals. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage 276,600 acres of PPMAs as ROW exclusion for all ROWs, including utility-scale wind and solar energy. Management of PPMAs as ROW exclusion would eliminate the BLM’s ability to accommodate any new wind and solar energy development demand in those areas. Where renewable energy resource areas exist within ROW exclusion areas, the likelihood of the same energy development occurring on BLM-administered or Forest Service-administered lands elsewhere in the sub-region is minimal to none. Additionally, within avoidance areas, mitigation requirements for renewable energy could direct renewable energy development from federal to non-federal lands. Renewable energy development on adjacent private lands would impact the lands and realty program if transmission lines are required to cross public lands. Impacts from Leasable , Locatable and Salable Mineral Management BLM and Forest Service management under Alternative B would decrease the demand for new ROW or SUA infrastructure to support new mineral development. Under Alternative B, BLM and Forest Service management to protect GRSG habitat would result in the closure of PPMAs to non-energy leasable minerals, surface coal mining, new sub-surface mining, mineral material sales, and oil and gas leasing. ROWs serving existing mineral development sites would continue to place a small demand on the lands and realty program (e.g., for renewals and applications to upgrade or maintain infrastructure). Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative B, the BLM and Forest Service would only allow new roads where access to valid existing rights is necessary and does not currently exist. Construction of new roads to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed would be done using minimum specifications. Limitations on new road construction could make certain areas impractical for new ROW authorizations, particularly in areas not readily accessible via existing roadways as well as the potential for increased cost of construction of the ROW. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative B, 276,600 acres of public lands with wind potential would be managed as ROW exclusion areas and would not be open for renewable energy ROW applications. In total, 5,130,400 acres of lands with wind potential within the decision area would be affected under Alternative B. Approximately 276,600 acres of these lands would be completely unavailable for wind development through ROW exclusion designations and 1,900,900 acres would be substantially restricted through ROW avoidance designations. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs/PGMAs. This could force development to occur outside PPMAs/PGMAs and/or on private lands. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/l nvironmental Impact Statement 759 4.12.6. Alternative C Alternative C would designate PPMAs as ACECs. Management under Alternative C would have the greatest impact on the lands and realty program. New BLM ROWs or Forest Service SUAs would be prohibited in these areas. This alternative limits road construction and prohibits road construction within a four-mile buffer from leks. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative C, new ROWs, including those for wind and solar, would be excluded in all PPMAs (17,732,900 acres); therefore, no areas in GRSG habitat would be open to new ROW development. GRSG management under Alternative C would eliminate the ability of the BLM and Forest Service to accommodate new demand for ROWs or SUAs in GRSG habitat unless new ROWs and SUAs could be collocated with no new disturbance. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, but would apply to a larger land area and there would be no designated corridors to accommodate new ROW infrastructure. For linear ROWs (e.g., pipelines and transmission lines) this could increase the length of these projects, thus increasing project costs. Costs also would be incurred as a result of requirements for mitigation in areas with limits on surface disturbance. In some areas, there is a high concentration of intermixed private and public land, corridors, oil, gas, and geothermal development, and existing authorizations. In these areas, restrictions on the ability to permit ROWs/SUAs and land tenure/land ownership adjustments would have a greater impact than in areas with lesser degrees of intermixed ownership, ROW corridors, minerals development, and existing authorizations. Despite these restrictions, the existing ROW corridor and ROW network would provide opportunities for the collocation of compatible ROWs. Land Tenure Under Alternative C, the BLM and Forest Service would retain public ownership in PPMAs. Impacts from land tenure would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception that BLM and Forest Service would propose all PPMAs, including mineral split-estate for mineral withdrawal. Land tenure and land ownership 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. Impacts from Leasable, Locatable, and Salable Mineral Management Impacts under Alternative C from mineral development would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception that mineral closures would apply to all PPMAs, including surface and split-estate areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Management under Alternative C would have the greatest impact on the lands and realty program as new road construction would be prohibited within 4 miles of active leks. Because of the density of active lek sites, new road construction on BLM- and Forest Service -administered land September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 760 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement in the planning area would be limited to existing roads within PPMAs. Limitations on new road construction would make certain areas unfeasible for new ROW development, including areas outside PPMAs where ROW development would be excluded. It has the most potential for increased cost of construction of ROWs and increased difficulty to access public and private lands. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative C, 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs would be excluded from solar development ROW applications. In total, 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs would be ROW exclusions areas and would be affected under Alternative C. All of these acres of these lands would be completely unavailable for wind development through ROW exclusion designations since wind energy development is managed through the ROW program. While the acreage of moderate to high potential for wind energy may occur along mountain ridge tops, potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs designated lands. This would force development to occur outside PPMAs and/or on private lands. Management of PPMAs as a ROW exclusion would eliminate the BLM’s ability to accommodate any new wind energy development demand in those areas. 4.12.7. Alternative D Alternative D would manage PPMAs and PGM As to reduce fragmentation and enhance connectivity between habitats. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management PPMAs would be designated as ROW and SUA avoidance areas. New ROW projects in PPMAs/PGMAs would be managed for no net unmitigated loss of PPMAs or PGMAs. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under this alternative, PPMAs would be designated as ROW/SUA avoidance areas. The BLM would allow ROWs within these areas to occur if development incorporates specific mitigation measures and stipulations that would result in no net un-mitigated loss of PPMA habitat. These additional restrictions would impact processing time for BLM/Forest Service and increased cost for the applicants. Alternative D would have greater impacts on the lands and realty program than Alternative A, but fewer impacts than Alternatives B and C. Land Tenure Management actions that prioritize GRSG habitat for acquisition and limit disposal of these lands would assist the BLM and Forest Service in prioritizing future land tenure and land ownership adjustments. Land tenure and land ownership adjustments are intended to maintain or improve the efficiency of BLM's and Forest Service’s management. However, these same actions could reduce the BLM’s and Forest Service’s flexibility for consolidating public lands for effective management of other resources. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 761 Under Alternative D, approximately 336,200 aeres would be no longer suitable for disposal via sale. Disposal and/or acquisitions of public lands would allow for more contiguous federal ownership patterns within the GRSG habitat area, or where a land tenure adjustment would result in a net gain in amount or quality of GRSG habitat. This alternative allows the most flexibility in acres available for acquisition, disposal, or exchange because there is no management action proposed to retain public ownership of PPMAs. Impacts from Minerals Management Mineral development indirectly impacts the lands and realty program through the requirement for new infrastructure development, such as roadways and communication facilities. Although land use authorizations (ROWs or SUAs) are not necessary for surface occupancy of leased federal lands, ROWs are often required for infrastructure (e.g., pipelines and centralized facilities). In areas closed to leasing, the need for ROWs to access leases would be eliminated. In areas open to leasing, where surface occupancy restrictions would result in decreased development, overall demand for ROWs would also be decreased. In those cases, the demand would continue but may result in increased length and cost of construction of ROWs, due to the requirement to find alternative routes or sites for infrastructure to support development. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative D, 0 acres would be open to motorized travel while the BLM would manage 16,858,200 acres as limited to existing or designated routes. No new roads would be allowed in PPMAs which could restrict motorized access to ROW infrastructure and communication sites for construction and maintenance. No upgrades of existing routes that would expend the existing disturbance footprint would be allowed, except for resource protection or public safety purposes. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Impacts under Alternative D, PPMAs/PGMAs lands would be designated exclusion areas for utility scale wind and solar development. 17,732,900 acres of public lands would be managed as wind ROW exclusion areas and would not be open for Renewable Energy ROW applications. This represents 17,1 1 1,900 fewer acres open to wind energy development than under Alternative A. 17,773,300 acres of public lands would be managed as solar ROW exclusion areas. This represents 16,280,500 fewer acres open to solar energy development than under Alternative A. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs/PGMAs. This would force development to occur outside PPMAs/PGMAs and/or on private lands. These limitations on new renewable energy ROWs/SUAs, would limit the BLM and Forest Serviceability to accommodate demand for ROW/SUA development, which in turn could restrict the availability of energy or service reliability for communication systems. 4.12.8. Alternative E Alternative E proposes to meet both renewable and nonrenewable energy goals and GRSG conservation measures through close coordination with interest groups; focus attention on the September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 762 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement series of transmission corridors currently being studied to consider the longer-term transmission needs required to meet the State and Nation’s renewable energy demands. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative E, the BLM/Forest Service would allow ROW/SUA development within GRSG habitat subject to ROW conditions. Impacts under Alternative E would be somewhat greater than Alternative D. Impacts from Lands Uses and Realty Under this alternative specific mitigation measures would be set in place to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on leks, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering habitats. Infrastructure would not be located within 0.6 mile of specific habitat. Traveling along routes would be limited to specific times that least impact habitats. These increased measures would restrict infrastructure development in specific areas and would impact management and maintenance of existing and future development. Land Tenure There would be no impact on lands and realty from land tenure/land ownership adjustment requirements under Alternative E. Impacts from Mineral Management New or expanded mineral development, which places a demand on the lands and realty program through applications for ROW authorizations, would be allowed under Alternative E, with stipulations to mitigate impacts on GRSG populations. While the stipulations may extend BLM/Forest Service processing times for mineral development projects, impacts on lands and realty under Alternative E from mineral development would be greater than Alternative D due to an equivalent amount of land available for mineral development. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative E, 12,745,000 acres would be open to motorized travel while the BLM would manage 4,1 13,300 acres as limited to existing or designated routes. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management The strategy for management of renewable energy under Alternative E would avoid conflict with GRSG by locating facilities and activities in non-habitat wherever possible. This alternative would have similar impacts as Alternative A. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs/PGMAs. This would force development to occur outside PPMAs/PGMAs and/or on private lands. Determining lands of “non-habitat” would allow the BLM and Forest Service to be more transparent on lands that have fewer restrictions to future development. Renewable energy companies would know what lands are available and open to development. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 763 4.12.9. Alternative F Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative F, new ROWs and SUAs, including those for wind and solar, would be excluded in all PPMAs (17,732,900 acres); therefore, no areas in GRSG habitat would be open to new ROW development. Impacts on ROW authorizations would be similar to Alternative B, but would apply to a larger land area and there would be no designated corridors to accommodate new ROW infrastructure. ROWs or SUAs, such as roads and transmission lines to the anticipated projects in the sub-region, would be similarly affected by the change in designation. New authorizations would have to be collocated only if the entire footprint of the proposed project (including construction and staging) could be completed within the disturbance associated with the authorized ROW grants or SUAs. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Limitations on new ROWs or SUAs and aboveground linear features, such as transmission lines, would limit the BLM and Forest Service’s ability to accommodate demand for ROW development. This, in turn, could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for communication systems. Land Tenure The BLM and Forest Service would retain public ownership in PPMAs with no exceptions. Impacts from land tenure and land ownership adjustments would be the same as Alternative B, except that the BLM would propose all PPMAs, including mineral split-estate, for mineral withdrawal. Impacts from Leasable , Locatable and Salable Mineral Management Impacts under Alternative F from mineral development would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception that mineral closures would apply to all PPMAs, including surface and split-estate areas. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative F, BLM and Forest Service management would prohibit new road construction or upgrades to existing roads within 4 miles of active leks. Because of the density of active lek sites, new road construction on BLM- and Forest Service-administered land in the planning area would be limited to 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs/PGMAs habitat. Limitations on new road construction would make certain areas unfeasible for new ROW development, including areas outside PPMAs where ROW development would be excluded. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative F, 17,732,900 acres of public lands would be managed as ROW exclusion areas and would not be open for renewable energy ROW applications. This represents 1 7,1 1 1,900 fewer acres open to wind energy development than under Alternative A. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within occupied habitat. This would force development to occur outside occupied habitat and/or on private lands. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 764 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement By determining exclusion areas and standards, the BLM and Forest Service would be more transparent regarding lands that have fewer restrictions to future development. Renewable energy companies would know what lands are available and open to development. 4.13. Renewable Energy Resources BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands are used for a variety of purposes. Major focus areas for the renewable energy program are wind and solar ROW grants and SUAs and to be responsive to applications for renewable energy sites and associated ROWs, as encouraged by current policy. Although geothermal is a resource considered under the renewable energy program, it is discussed under the leasable minerals section. The renewable energy program potentially would be affected by management actions within the resource programs of each office. Identification of areas as having high potential for renewable energy does not mean these lands would be developed. The feasibility of development would be determined by project proponents, and all applications for land use authorizations would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis. Currently, and in the reasonable foreseeable future, there is no and will be no significant commercial biomass energy economy, other than for incidental use as a firewood fuel, in California and Nevada. This section discusses impacts on renewable energy from proposed management actions of other resources and resource uses. Existing conditions concerning lands and realty are described in Section 3.12, Renewable Energy Resources. 4.13.1. Methods and Assumptions • Number and acres of existing ROW exclusion/avoidance areas within PPMAs/PGMAs. • Number and acres of existing solar energy zones with PPMAs/PGMAs. • Acres of “good” or better wind potential within ROW exclusion and avoidance areas/prescription areas that restrict or prohibit certain uses. • Number of authorized Type II ROW grants/SUAs within PPMAs/PGMAs and within PPMAs/PGMAs buffer zones (as determined by wildlife specialist) • Number of authorized Type III ROW grants/SUAs within PPMAs/PGMAs and within PPMAs/PGMAs buffer zones (as determined by wildlife specialist). • Number of permits/authorizations and proposed permits/authorizations within PPMAs and PPMAs/PGMAs and within PPMAs/PGMAs buffer zones (as determined by wildlife specialist). • Application of COAs on existing, pending, and future wind and solar projects to improve conservation efforts of the GRSG and its habitat. Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Renewable Energy > Resources September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 765 • Renewable energy resources include solar, wind, (geothermal is discussed under leasable minerals) and biomass facilities. Biomass projects are authorized under the timber regulations, unless a new facility is being authorized for biomass production. • “Good” or better wind potential is classified as wind speeds of 7.0 meters/second at 50 meter height or at wind power density of above 400 watts/meter (NREL 2012). • Existing ROWs may be modified on their renewal, assignment, or amendment if the requested actions meet the objectives of the amended LUR • ROW/SUA holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant. • Technological advancements, such as enhanced/engineered renewable energy systems, could lead to changes in levels of development potential throughout the planning area. • Valid existing renewable energy ROWs would be managed under the stipulations in effect when the ROWs were issued; new stipulations proposed under this LUPA would apply only to new ROWs. • Upon renewal, assignment, or amendment of existing ROWs, permits, and leases, additional stipulations or modifications could be included in the land use authorization if the request action meets the objective of the amended or revised LUP. • Existing ROWs, designated utility corridors, and communication sites would be managed to protect valid existing rights. • Demand for small distribution facilities to extend and upgrade services, such as communication sites and utilities, is anticipated to increase as rural development occurs on dispersed private parcels and parcels identified for disposal within the planning area. • Private parcels within the planning area and parcels identified for disposal would continue to require new or upgraded services such as power distribution facilities, including communication sites, roads, and any appurtenant utilities. • The number of ROW/SUA applications for new communication and computer technology, such as fiber optic cable would continue to increase. • Maintaining and upgrading utilities communication sites, and other ROWs is preferred before the construction of new facilities in the decision area, but only if the upgrading can be accommodated in the existing ROW. • Co-location of new infrastructure in existing ROWs is preferred over creating a new ROW. The BLM and Forest Service recognize that co-location does not necessarily prevent new temporary or permanent surface disturbance. • Federal energy policy (42 USC §13201 et seq.), would continue to support domestic energy production, including renewable energy such as wind and solar. • BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be available for regional and interstate transmission lines, particularly those needed to transport renewable energy. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Methods and Assumptions 766 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement • Management of all previously withdrawn land from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands would continue. The BLM and Forest Service would review withdrawals as needed and when necessary, make recommendations for extensions, modifications, revocations, or terminations. All existing withdrawals initiated by other agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation or the Department of Energy, would be continued unless the initiating agency or BLM or Forest Service requests that the withdrawal be revoked. • The demand for both energy and non-energy types of ROWs are anticipated to remain steady or gradually increase over time due to economic growth and state and local government usage. • Distributed solar energy development may occur during the life of the LUP but would be localized and the number of associated ROW authorizations is anticipated to be minimal. • Any lands that become unencumbered by withdrawals or classifications will be managed according to the decisions made in the LUP. If the LUP has not identified management prescriptions for these lands, they will be managed in a manner consistent with adjacent or comparable public lands within the decision area. If the unencumbered lands fall within two or more management scenarios where future-planning criteria may not be clear, a plan amendment may be required. New information may lead to changes in delineated GRSG habitat. New habitat areas, or areas that are no longer habitat, may be identified. These adjustments would typically result in small changes to areas requiring the stipulations or management actions stated in the LUP. Modifications to GRSG habitat would be updated in the existing date inventory through plan maintenance. 4.13.2. Nature and Type of Effects Resources and resource uses affect the lands and realty program by prescribing ROW/SUA exclusion and avoidance areas and stipulations in order to protect resources. A ROW/SUA exclusion area is one that is not available for new ROW location under any conditions. In a ROW/SUA avoidance area, new ROW development would ideally be avoided; however, the area may be available for ROW location subject to special stipulations, such as resource surveys and reports, construction and reclamation engineering, long-term monitoring, special design features, special siting requirements, timing limitations, and rerouting. Such requirements could restrict project location, delay availability of energy supply (by delaying or restricting pipelines, transmission lines or renewable energy project), or they could delay or restrict communications service availability. Forest Service Forest Plan prescriptions are similar to BLM exclusion and avoidance areas as in these areas certain uses are restricted or prohibited. Additionally, the Forest Service grants SUAs on Forest Service-administered lands. The Forest Service grants SUAs, while the BLM grants ROWs on their respective agency lands. For renewable energy resources, impacts on anticipated projects would only occur as a result of a change in management of BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands in the planning area in California and Nevada. The primary impact issues associated with renewable energy development are directly related to the large surface area needed for wind and solar facilities, and infrastructure. Areas that are suitable for renewable energy development are limited to those areas where these resources Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 767 occur. Thus, conflicts with other resources would have the potential to reduce areas deemed available for development. Other impacts on renewable energy development generally occur in areas where transportation and utility corridors as well as a solar and wind energy zones exist. Impacts are also related to the mitigation measures required for specific project siting and special stipulations required for resource protection. Collocating utilities and other appurtenances within designated corridors would reduce land use conflicts by grouping similar facilities and activities in specific areas and away from conflicting developments and activities. It would also clarify the preferred locations for utilities on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands, would make construction and maintenance of the facilities easier, and would simplify the application processing for new facilities. However, designation of corridors could limit options for ROW and facility design and selection of more-preferable locations. Renewable energy projects, such as wind farms and concentrated solar power development could be impacted by land use authorizations for power plants, disposals of land resulting in commercial or residential developments, and other lands and realty actions resulting in siting constraints for these large facilities. While the acreage of moderate to high potential for wind energy may occur along mountain ridge tops, these areas are not types of lands typically proposed for disposal. Land tenure and land ownership adjustments are intended to maintain or improve the efficiency of BLM and Forest Service management, including management of GRSG habitat. Land disposal on BLM-administered land and land exchange, purchase, and donation on Forest Service-administered land can result in a more contiguous decision area, thus increasing efficient management of BLM-administered lands. However, while consolidation may be beneficial for certain resources and uses, it may have a negative effect on GRSG habitat. Renewable energy projects and electrical transmission projects to connect both wind and solar energy projects to the grid can only occur on lands that are not ROW/SUA exclusion areas. Alternatives with greater ROW/SUA exclusion acreages would have long-term direct impacts on the ability for renewable resources to be developed. As discussed in Section 4.15, Lands and Realty, ROW and SUA applications may be filed within ROW/SUA avoidance areas. As a result of special surveys and reports, alternative routes may need to be identified to protect sensitive resources, such as the GRSG habitat. Designating ROW and SUA exclusion and avoidance areas and applying special stipulations would result in increased application processing time and costs due to the potential need to relocate facilities or due to greater design, mitigation, and siting requirements. Alternatives with greater ROW/SUA avoidance areas would have short-term direct impacts (e.g., special surveys, reports, and construction and reclamation BMPs) and long-term direct impacts (e.g., potential operation and maintenance requirements) on the economic feasibility of the development of renewable energy resources. Implementing management for all of the resources, except lands and realty and special designation, would have negligible or no impact on renewable energy. For renewable resources, impacts on anticipated projects would only occur as a result of the change in management of lands within California and Nevada. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 768 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.13.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Travel management actions can involve closing areas or specific routes to motorized or mechanized travel, thereby creating areas that are impractical for some types of land uses, such as transmission lines or communication sites. Under all alternatives, the BLM and Forest Service would complete a CTTM plan, designating certain routes as open, closed or limited to motorized travel. While the BLM and Forest Service would not close access to valid existing rights, travel management decisions that make access to existing or desirable future ROW locations more difficult would discourage co-location in existing ROWs and new ROW development. Impacts from Special Designations Management The designation of ACECs would create ROW/SUA exclusion and avoidance areas that could limit the siting of renewable energy development projects and the transmission lines required to connect them to the grid. Due to the generally small size and dispersed locations of proposed ACECs, the impact is expected to be small. ACECs located in the southern region of the planning area and areas of special designated, such as wilderness, also would affect the location of renewable energy solar development projects. New roads would not be constructed in designated wilderness and ACECs, reducing impacts on resources protected by these designations. There is a moderate to high wind potential and high solar potential to occur within some of the ACECs, designated wilderness and, WSAs. Wind and solar power developments would have to be compatible with the management prescriptions for other resources and would be evaluated on a project-specific basis. 4.13.4. Alternative A The No Action Alternative represents continuation of present management for all the sub-regional LUPs considered in this programmatic LUPA. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative A, 276,600 acres of lands would be affected by wind ROW/SUA exclusion or avoidance areas, and 1,492,800 acres of lands would be affected by solar ROW variance areas. All lands with such potential would continue to be open for ROW and SUA applications on a case-by-case basis. Exclusions of any additional areas from wind energy development would be determined at the project level as part of the site-specific analyses or through local LUP planning efforts, with opportunities for full public involvement. As required by the Wind Energy Development Program, proposed policies and BMPs and site-specific analyses, including the development of an appropriate monitoring program, would be conducted for any proposed project on BLM-administered lands. The scope and approach for site-specific analyses would be determined on a project-by-project basis in conjunction with input from other federal, state, and local agencies, and interested stakeholders. Through this process, the BLM would develop project-specific stipulations for incorporation into the Plan of Development. Site-specific analyses are beyond the scope of the PEIS. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences impacts Common to AH Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 769 Renewable Energy applications would be accepted by the BLM and Forest Service under existing policy. However, under Alternative A, GRSG could likely become a federally listed endangered species and the Section 7 Consultation process would be likely to result in substantial project constraints. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative A, existing ROWs in the decision area would continue to provide opportunities for colocation of new infrastructure. A total of 1 14,200 acres would continue to be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance areas, while 276,600 acres would be designated exclusion. All other lands within the decision area would continue to be open for ROW development. The continuation of the renewable energy program would have direct impacts on the lands and realty program by allowing new facilities to be constructed and service renewable energy projects. BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be available for multiple-use and single-use communication sites and road access ROW on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Title V of FLPMA and 43 CFR Part 2800 regulations. All ROW and SUA applications would be reviewed using the criteria of following existing corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs. 4.13.5. Alternative B Alternative B represents the NTT alternative. This alternative would make PPMAs exclusion areas for new BLM ROWs or Forest Service SUAs. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative B, 276,600 acres of public lands with wind potential would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion areas and would not be open for renewable energy ROW and SUA applications. In total, 5,130,400 acres of lands with wind potential within the decision area would be affected under Alternative B; 276,600 acres of these lands would be completely unavailable for wind development through ROW/SUA exclusion designations and 1,900,900 acres would be substantially restricted through ROW/SUA avoidance designations. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs/PGMAs. This would force development to occur outside PPMAs/PGMAs and/or on private lands. By determining exclusion areas, the BLM and Forest Service would be more transparent about lands that would have fewer restrictions for future development. Renewable energy companies would know what lands are available and open to development. Additionally, within avoidance areas, mitigation requirements for renewable energy could direct renewable energy development from federal to non-federal lands. Renewable energy development on adjacent private lands would impact the lands and realty program if transmission lines are required to cross public lands. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management September, 20 1 3 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 770 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative B, ROWs such as roads, fiber optic, natural gas lines, power substations, power distribution and transmission lines to the anticipated projects in the sub region, would be similarly affected by the change in designation. Facilities would have to be co-located only if the entire footprint of the proposed project (including construction and staging), can be completed within the existing disturbance associated with the authorized ROWs or SUAs. These limitations on new ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines, fiber optic, natural gas lines, and power substations, would limit the BLM’s and Forest Service’s ability to accommodate demand for renewable energy ROW development, which in turn could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for communication systems. 4.13.6. Alternative C Alternative C represents the Western Watershed Project Alternative. This alternative would designate PPMAs as ACECs. New BLM ROWs or Forest Service SUAs would be prohibited in these areas. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative C, 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs would be excluded from solar development ROW applications. In total, 17,732,900 acres of lands would be ROW/SUA exclusion areas and would be affected under Alternative C. All of these acres of these lands would be completely unavailable for wind development through ROW/SUA exclusion designations since wind energy development is managed through the lands and realty program. While the acreage of moderate to high potential for wind energy may occur along mountain ridge tops, potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs. This would force development to occur outside PPMAs and/or on private lands. Management of PPMAs as a ROW/SUA exclusion would eliminate the BLM’s ability to accommodate any new wind energy development demand in those areas. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs. This would force development to occur outside PPMAs and/or on private lands. Determining lands of non-habitat would allow the BLM to be more transparent regarding lands that would have fewer restrictions for future development. Renewable energy companies would know what lands are available and open to development. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative C, ROWs such as roads, transmission lines and to the anticipated projects in the sub region would be similarly affected by the change in designation. Facilities would have to be sited in non-habitat or bundled with existing corridors. These limitations on new ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines, would limit the BLM’s ability to accommodate demand for renewable energy ROW development, which in turn could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for communication systems. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 771 4.13.7. Alternative D Alternative D would manage priority and general habitat to reduce fragmentation and enhance connectivity between habitats. PPMAs/PGMAs would be designated as avoidance areas. New renewable energy projects in PPMAs/PGMAs would be managed to achieve no net unmitigated loss of priority or general habitat. Facilities would have to be sited and developed in non-habitat, bundled with existing corridors, or mitigated so that no PPMAs or PGMAs habitat is lost. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative D, PPMAs/PGMAs lands would be designated exclusion areas for utility-scale wind and solar development. Approximately 17,732,900 acres of public lands would be managed as wind ROW/SUA exclusion areas and would not be open for renewable energy ROW applications. This represents 17,1 1 1,900 fewer acres open to wind energy development than under Alternative A. Approximately 17,773,300 acres of public lands would be managed as solar ROW/SUA exclusion areas. This represents 16,280,500 fewer acres open to solar energy development than under Alternative A. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within PPMAs/PGMAs. This would force development to occur outside PPMAs/PGMAs and/or on private lands. These limitations on new renewable energy ROWs, would limit the BLM’s ability to accommodate demand for ROW development, which in turn could restrict the availability of energy or service reliability for communication systems. No net un-mitigated loss of habitat would allow existing industrial wind and solar to develop plans that would allow them to receive a ROW for ancillary facilities (transmission and roads) in PPMAs/PGMAs. By determining exclusion areas, the BLM and Forest Service would be more transparent on lands that would have fewer restrictions to future development. Renewable energy companies would know what lands are available and open to development. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative D, all areas in PGMAs and PPMAs would be designated as ROW/SUA avoidance. The BLM and Forest Service would allow ROW development within avoidance areas to occur if the development incorporates appropriate RDFs in design and construction (e.g., noise, tall structure, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net unmitigated loss of priority or general habitat. Facilities would have to be sited and developed in non-habitat, bundled with existing corridors, or mitigated so that no PPMAs or PGMAs habitat is lost. These limitations on new ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines, would limit the BLM’s and Forest Service’s ability to accommodate demand for renewable energy ROW development, which in turn could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for communication systems. 4.13.8. Alternative E Alternative E represents the State of Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council/Team alternative. This alternative proposes to meet both renewable and non-renewable energy goals and GRSG September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 772 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement conservation measures through close coordination with interest groups and focusing on the series of transmission corridors currently being studied to consider the longer-term transmission needs required to meet the State and Nation’s renewable energy demands. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management The strategy for management of renewable energy under Alternative E would avoid conflict with GRSG by locating facilities and activities in nonhabitat wherever possible. This would force development to occur outside occupied and suitable habitat and/or on private lands. Determining lands of non-habitat would allow the BLM to be more transparent regarding lands that would have fewer restrictions to future development. Renewable energy companies would know what lands are available and open to development. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative E, impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except decisions would avoid occupied and suitable habitat wherever possible. The BLM and Forest Service would allow ROW development within these areas to occur if new features were located within existing corridors or, at a minimum, co-located with existing linear features. These limitations on new ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines, would limit the BLM’s and Forest Service’s ability to accommodate demand for renewable energy ROW development, which in turn could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for communication systems. Under this alternative specific mitigation measures would be set in place to minimize impacts on leks, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering habitats. Infrastructure would not be located within 0.6 mile of specific habitat. Travel would be limited to specific times that least impact habitats. These increased measures would restrict renewable energy development in specific areas and would impact management and maintenance of existing and future development. 4.13.9. Alternative F This alternative would make occupied GRSG habitat (PPMAs and PGMAs) exclusion areas for new BLM ROWs or Forest Service SUAs. Wind energy development would be sited at least five miles from the nearest active lek. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative F, 17,732,900 acres of public lands would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion areas and would not be open for renewable energy ROW or SUA applications. This represents 17,1 1 1,900 fewer acres open to wind energy development than under Alternative A. Potential future development of renewable energy would be reduced or eliminated within occupied habitat. This would force development to occur outside occupied habitat and/or on private lands. By determining exclusion areas and standards, the BLM and Forest Service would be more transparent on lands that would have fewer restrictions to future development. Renewable energy companies would know what lands are available and open to development. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 773 Under Alternative F, ROWs such as roads, fiber optic, natural gas, power distribution and transmission lines to the anticipated projects in the sub-region would be similarly affected by the change in designation. New authorizations would be co-located only if the entire footprint of the proposed project (including construction and staging), can be completed within the existing disturbance associated with the authorized ROWs or SUAs. These limitations on new ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines, would limit the BLM’s and Forest Service’s ability to accommodate demand for renewable energy ROW development, which in turn could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for communication systems. 4.14. Mineral Resources 4.14.1. Fluid Minerals Methods and Assumptions Analysis of impacts on minerals from this LUPA focuses on the impacts of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on fluid minerals would result from closure of an area to fluid mineral leasing. An indirect impact would result from management of an area as ROW/SUA exclusion, which would change the economic feasibility of developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or indirect impacts on fluid minerals are described under Indicators, below. Indicators Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows: • The amount of land (option: unleased land) identified as closed to fluid mineral exploration and development • The amount of land open to leasing subject to NSO stipulations • The amount of land open to leasing subject to CSU stipulations • The amount of land open to leasing subject to TL stipulations • Application of COAs on fluid mineral exploration and development activities on existing and future leased lands for the protection of GRSG • The amount of land managed as ROW/SUA avoidance areas • The amount of land managed as ROW/SUA exclusion areas Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • Federal energy policy (42 USC §13201 et seq.), would continue to support domestic energy production, geothermal and oil and gas. • All future designated ACECs will be closed to mineral leasing. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Mineral Resources 774 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement • Existing fluid mineral leases would not be affected by the closures proposed under this LUPA. • Fluid mineral operations on existing federal leases, regardless of surface ownership, would be subject to COAs by the authorizing officer. The BLM can deny surface occupancy on portions of leases with COAs to avoid or minimize resource conflicts if this action does not eliminate reasonable opportunities to develop the lease. • Valid existing leases would be managed under the stipulations in effect when the leases were issued; new stipulations proposed under this LUPA would apply only on new leases. See the glossary for definitions of stipulations versus COAs. • New information may lead to changes in delineated GRSG habitat. New habitat areas, or areas that are no longer habitat, may be identified. This adjustment would typically result in small changes to areas requiring the stipulations or management actions stated in this plan. Modifications to GRSG habitat would be updated in the existing data inventory through plan maintenance. • If an area is leased, it could be developed; however, not all leases would be developed within the life of this LUPA. • As the demand for energy increases, so will the demand for extracting energy resources in areas with potential. • Stipulations also apply to fluid mineral leasing on lands overlying federal mineral estate, which includes federal mineral estate underlying BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands. There are 49,868,700 acres of federal mineral estate within the planning area. • As discussed in Section 3.13, Mineral Resources, market circumstances will likely result in continued industry emphasis on increasing oil supplies and searching for additional natural gas supplies in the planning area. Much of the oil and gas supply growth within the planning area is expected to come from production in existing reservoirs, and new nonconventional resources plays. • As discussed in Section 3.13, Mineral Resources, There are new prospective oil and gas plays as well as expansions to existing areas within the planning area. The level of oil and gas exploration activity in the planning area is likely to increase during the life of this planning effort. If any of the plays are determined to be economic, it is anticipated that development within the planning area would also increase. • As discussed in Section 3.13, Mineral Resources, interest in geothermal in Nevada is expected to remain sporadic and be dependent upon market conditions and government incentive programs. However, geothermal exploration and development will continue in areas where resources are identified. Nature and Type of Effects The following analysis describes the nature and type of impacts that could affect fluid minerals in the planning area. Details on how the occurrence of each impact would vary by alternative are described under the various subheadings. Closing areas within GRSG habitat to fluid mineral leasing would directly impact the fluid minerals program by prohibiting the development of those resources on federal mineral estate. Fluid mineral operations would be limited in their choice of Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Fluid Minerals September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 775 project locations and may be forced to develop in areas that are challenging to access or have less economic resources because more ideal areas could be closed to leasing. This could raise the cost of fluid mineral development in the planning area and could result in operators moving to nearby private or state minerals with no such restrictions. Management actions that prohibit or restrict surface occupancy or disturbance (such as TLs, NSO stipulations, CSU stipulations, and limitations on the total amount of surface disturbance in areas) overlying federal fluid mineral resources would also directly impact the development of those resources by limiting the siting, design, and operations of fluid mineral development projects. This, in turn, could force operators to use more costly development methods than they otherwise might have used. Equipment shortages could result from application of TLs because a bottleneck may be created during the limited time period in which activity would be allowed. In areas where NSO stipulations are applied, federal fluid minerals could be leased, but the leaseholder/operator would have to use offsite methods such as directional drilling to access the mineral resource. The area where directional drilling can be effectively used is limited, meaning some minerals may be inaccessible in areas where an NSO stipulation covers a large area or where no leasing is allowed on surrounding lands. Applying COAs, which include RDFs (per Appendix A) and conservation measures outlined in Chapter 2 (Table 2-5, Description of Alternative Actions), to existing leases would directly impact fluid mineral operations. These RDFs and conservation measures would include standards such as noise restrictions, height limitations on structures, design requirements, water development standards, remote monitoring requirements, and reclamation standards. Application of these requirements through COAs would impact fluid mineral operations by increasing costs if it resulted in the application of additional requirements or use of more expensive technology (such as remote monitoring systems) than would otherwise have been used by operators. To avoid these costs, operators may move to nearby state or private minerals. Impacts from these COAs would be mitigated where exceptions limit their application. This would occur where a COA was not applicable (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or where site-specific consideration merited slight variation. Placing limits on geophysical exploration could reduce the availability of data on fluid mineral resources and could increase costs of fluid mineral development if the limits required use of more expensive technology. Timing limitations on geophysical exploration would delay development activities and could cause equipment shortages because all exploration would be occurring during the same time period. Requiring master development plans and unitization could cause direct impacts on fluid minerals through increased costs of fluid mineral extraction by delaying the permit approval process until such additional site-specific planning efforts are completed. However, unitization typically has been initiated at the operator’s discretion. Requiring reclamation bonds in the amount necessary to cover full reclamation upon completion of the project could deter fluid mineral exploration and development by increasing up-front costs when these costs could have previously occurred after economic resources had already been recovered. This would be a direct impact on fluid minerals. Identification of areas in which to acquire additional surface or mineral estate containing GRSG habitat would have no impacts on fluid minerals because it would not result in application of management actions to additional acres of surface or fluid mineral estate. If areas for acquisition were identified, acquisition would occur only in areas containing existing federal mineral leases. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Fluid Minerals 776 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement which are already subject to BLM management actions applicable to both the surface and the mineral estate through the fluid minerals program. Management actions creating ROW/SUA exclusion or avoidance areas could indirectly increase the cost of fluid mineral extraction by limiting the available means for transporting fluid minerals to processing facilities and markets. For example, new natural gas pipelines could not be built in an ROW/SUA exclusion area. Impacts would be mitigated where exceptions were allowed for co-location of new ROWs within existing ROWs to satisfy valid existing rights. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on fluid minerals and is therefore not discussed in detail: CTTM, recreation, range management, solid minerals, fire and fuels management, habitat restoration, and vegetation management. Impacts Common to Alt Alternatives There are no impacts that would be common to all alternatives. 4.14.1.1. Alternative A The No Action Alternative represents Continuation of Present Management for all the sub-regional LUPs considered in this programmatic LUP amendment. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline against which to compare other action alternatives and their impacts on resources and resource uses. The No Action Alternative is required by CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. As a baseline for comparison, the No Action Alternative is not required to meet the Agency Purpose and Need and; therefore, must be assessed in an environmental impact statement as a basis for comparison. The LUPs included in this programmatic amendment were developed and approved between 1982 and 2008. These LUPs collectively provide a varying range of goals, objectives, plan decisions, and allocations that reflect the issues at the time of their development. The No Action Alternative would continue implementing management decisions and agency policies under the current approved LUPs within the sub-region. Direction contained in existing statutes, regulations and policies would also continue to be implemented and may at times supplement provisions in existing LUPs. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management As discussed in Section 3.13, Mineral Resources, approximately 42,608,800 acres (97 percent) of lands open to geothermal leasing in the decision area is unleased. Leased lands within GRSG habitat are currently subject to existing GRSG stipulations (see Appendix G, Leasable Mineral Stipulations, Waivers, Modifications and Exceptions for a description of existing stipulations); existing geothermal leases within GRSG habitat would also be subject to these existing stipulations. Under Alternative A, it is projected that 243 new exploratory and development wells would be drilled on during the life of the LUP. Of these new wells, 152 are expected to be production wells and 76 would be injection wells; 25 power plants would come online as a result of these successful wells (see Appendix H, Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios). Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Fluid Minerals September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 111 Under Alternative A, BLM COAs and Forest Service stipulations could be applied to mitigate or prevent impacts on BLM-administered lands or other resources. BMPs could be incorporated as COAs. If COAs were applied, impacts would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. Geophysical exploration would continue to be allowed within the decision area. As discussed in Section 3.13, Mineral Resources, approximately 39,961,700 acres (91 percent) of lands open to oil and gas leasing in the decision area is unleased. Leased lands within GRSG habitat are currently subject to existing GRSG stipulations (see Appendix G, Leasable Mineral Stipulations, Waivers, Modifications and Exceptions for a description of existing stipulations), and existing oil and gas leases within GRSG habitat would also be subject to these existing stipulations. Under Alternative A, it is projected that 100 new exploratory and development wells would be drilled on during the life of the LUP. Of these new wells, 48 are expected to be producing oil and gas (see Appendix H, Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios). Under Alternative A, BLM COAs and Forest Service stipulations could be applied to mitigate or prevent impacts on BLM-administered lands or other resources. BMPs could be incorporated as COAs. If COAs were applied, impacts would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. Geophysical exploration would continue to be allowed within the decision area. Impacts from Lands and Realty Under Alternative A, the BLM and Forest Service would continue to manage existing exclusion and avoidance areas no additional impacts from lands and realty on fluid minerals. 4.14.1.2. Alternative B Impacts from Lands and Realty Under Alternative B, an additional 12,239,700 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion areas, and an additional 4,932,400 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance area. This would have the potential to affect fluid mineral exploration and development projects with associated ROWs. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative B, PPMAs would be closed to fluid minerals leasing, including winter concentration areas (Doherty et al. 2008; Carpenter et al. 2010). This stipulation would have the potential to directly affect approximately 1 1,397,200 acres. The BLM would also require design features on existing leases. No quantitative percentage limit, surface occupancy buffers, or timing limitation would apply to surface disturbance; rather, surface disturbance would prevent or minimize disturbance to GRSG and their habitat. Unitization would occur on a case-by-case basis. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Fluid Minerals 778 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement In addition to RDF and limitations on disturbance, noise limitations and structure height restrictions would apply under Alternative B. Cost impacts of these operating and siting constraints would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, geophysical exploration would be permitted within priority GRSG habitat areas with restrictions. These restrictions would likely reduce the amount of geophysical exploration within the decision area, which could reduce the amount of fluid mineral resources that are identified and developed. Overall, as a result of increased restrictions and limitations as compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would result in an increase in the magnitude and duration of effects on fluid minerals development over time. 4.14.1.3. Alternative C Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative C, all PPMAs would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. This would comprise 17,732,900 acres. As a result of no new leasing, no exploration or development would occur. Under Alternative C, the Forest Service and BLM would develop strategies to amend, cancel, or buyout existing leases and close those lands to leasing. This would reduce the existing fluid mineral leases. The BLM would not issue new fluid mineral leases, which would prevent the BLM from complying with federal energy policy (42 USC §13201 et seq.) to support domestic energy production. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative C, no lands within the decision area would be available for new ROWs. Because federally managed lands are closed to leasing under this alternative, there would be no impacts on public lands. However, Alternative C could decrease development of fluid mineral projects on private lands by decreasing the accessibility and availability to develop infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, transmission lines). 4.14.1.4. Alternative D Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative D, lands open and closed to geothermal leasing would be the same as described under Alternative A. However, all federal fluid minerals in PPMAs 12,693,300 acres (29 percent of lands open to fluid mineral leasing) would be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to an NSO stipulation that provides no exception, modification or waiver language. This NSO stipulation would affect 5,904,600 acres of unleased lands with high geothermal potential. These acres make up approximately 14 percent of all the unleased geothermal lands in the decision area. Lands within PGM As would also be subject to NSO, but there would be provisions for exceptions, modifications and waivers. There are no lands with high geothermal potential in PGMAs within the decision area. Under Alternative D, lands open and closed to oil and gas leasing would be the same as described under Alternative A. However, all federal fluid minerals in PPMAs 12,693,200 acres (29 percent of lands open to fluid mineral leasing) would be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to a NSO Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Fluid Minerals September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 779 stipulation that provides no exception, modification or waiver language. This NSO stipulation would affect 144,300 acres of unleased lands with high oil and gas potential. Lands within PGMAs would also be subject to NSO, but there would be provisions for exceptions, modifications and waivers. This NSO stipulation would be affect 0 acres of (0 percent) unleased lands with high oil and gas potential. Timing stipulations would be applied to new fluid mineral leases within PPMAs that would limit exploration and development operations during lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing seasons. Under Alternative D, geophysical exploration would be permitted within priority GRSG habitat areas with restrictions. These restrictions would likely reduce the amount of geophysical exploration within the decision area, which could reduce the amount of fluid mineral resources that are identified and developed. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative D, impacts would be the same as Alternative A in all areas except GRSG general and PPMAs, which would be designated as ROW/SUA avoidance. The BLM would allow ROW development within avoidance areas to occur if the development incorporates appropriate RDFs in design and construction (e.g., noise, tall structure, seasonal restrictions, etc.) and development results in no net un-mitigated loss of priority or general habitat. Facilities would have to be sited and developed in non-habitat, bundled with existing corridors or mitigated so that no habitat is loss. These limitations on new ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines, would limit the BLM’s ability to accommodate demand for fluid mineral ROW development, which in turn could restrict the availability of fluid minerals. 4.14.1.5. Alternative E Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative E, development in GRSG habitat would be avoided through the use of stipulations with exception, waiver, and modification language. The impacts on leasable minerals would be less than those described under Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative E, the impacts on fluid minerals would be less than those described under Alternative A. 4.14.1.6. Alternative F Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative F, 17,732,700 acres in PPMAs and PGMAs would be closed to geothermal leasing, which would increase impacts on fluid minerals compared with Alternative A. Impacts would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. Oil and Gas Under Alternative F, 17,732,900 acres in PPMAs (100 percent) and 5,039,400 PGMAs (100 percent) would be closed to oil and gas leasing, which would increase impacts on fluid minerals September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Fluid Minerals 780 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement compared with Alternative A. Of these lands, 222,500 acres (PPMAs) and 80,300 acres (PGMAs) have high potential. Impacts would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. In addition to applying the restrictive management under Alternative B to more acres, management under Alternative E would call for COAs implementing seasonal restrictions on vehicle traffic and human presence associated with exploratory drilling. This alternative also would limit new surface disturbance on existing leases to three percent per section, with some exceptions. Impacts from these operating and siting restrictions would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. Overall, as a result of increased restrictions and limitations as compared to Alternative A, Alternative F would result in an increase in the magnitude and duration of effects on fluid minerals development over time. 4.14.2. Locatable Minerals The locatable minerals program is non-discretionary for the BLM and the Forest Service. Within the planning area, all lands are generally open to mineral location under the 1 874 Mining Law. There are specific locatable mineral withdrawals for particular ROWs, designated wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern and other administrative needs. There are no locatable mineral withdrawals specific to protecting GRSG habitat. All locatable mineral activities are managed under the regulations at 43 CFR Part 3800 or 36 CFR § 228 through approval of a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operations. Mitigation of effects on GRSG and habitat are identified through the NEPA process approving plans of operation. Goals and objectives for locatable minerals are to provide opportunities to develop the resource while preventing undue or unnecessary degradation of public lands. Methods and Assumptions Analysis of impacts on locatable minerals from this EIS focuses on the impacts of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on locatable minerals would result from closure of an area to mineral exploration. An indirect impact would result from removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or indirect impacts on mineral material sales are described under indicators, below. Indicators Indicators for impacts on locatable minerals and the measurements used to describe the impacts (where available or appropriate) are described below: • Actions that reduce availability and opportunity for development of a resource (e.g., mineral withdrawal). • Amount of federal minerals available versus closed to development. Indirect impacts include loss of production of mineral resource for the public use and for the generation of sale revenues and tax revenues. • Actions placing restrictions or requirements that reduce efficiency and increase operational costs that could make development infeasible. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Locatable Minerals September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 781 • Amount of federal lands with restrictions (e.g., RDFs, PDFs, and TLs) Indirect impacts include reduced production of mineral resources for the public use and for the generation of tax revenues; possible adverse impact of higher cost of accessing portion of lease via more circuitous route for access road, electric utility lines, seasonal limitations to road use, or additional restrictions/requirements on development activities. • Actions that affect the ability to access minerals. • Amount of acres or miles that would affect the ability to access mining claims (e.g., ROW exclusions and disturbance caps). • Adverse impact of restrictions affecting the ability to access minerals that would otherwise be available, including limits to road construction, permanent road closures, avoidance, and exclusion areas. Assumptions Assumptions for this analysis include the following: • Any alternative that limits locatable mineral development (i.e., reduces the area available for development) will have some adverse impact on locatable minerals. • The 43 CFR § 3809 and 36 CFR § 228, Subpart A, regulations manage surface-disturbing activities on mining claims. • Mineral operations are sensitive to costs, especially when prices are depressed. • Validity of mining claims is based on profitability. • Ability to construct roads and pipelines on private lands to access federal minerals is subject to landowner approval, which is not guaranteed. • Mineral resources are not evenly distributed across the landscape. • Operators need predictable continuity of operations before acquiring or developing. • Development techniques are highly technical and not uniformly applicable. • A minimum of 5 years is needed for restoration of self-sustaining native grass/forb cover on reclamation. • A minimum of 1 0 years is needed for successful establishment or colonization by sagebrush on reclamation. • Implementing management actions for the following resources or resource uses would have negligible or no impact on locatable minerals and are, therefore, not discussed in detail: recreation management, range management, wind energy development, industrial solar, wild horse management, fluid minerals and solid minerals, non-energy leasable minerals, salable minerals, fuels management, fire operations, ESR, and habitat restoration. Nature and Type of Effects Management actions for resources and resource uses could affect potential locatable mineral development when they result in (1) reduced availability of locatable mineral resources, (2) September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Locatable Minerals 782 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement reduced access to new or existing mines due to restrictions on use of the overlying surface lands, and (3) reduced efficiency and increased operational costs that make potential locatable mineral development economically infeasible. Impacts Common to All Alternatives There are no impacts common to all alternatives. 4.14.2.1. Alternative A This alternative does not designate PPMAs or PGMAs in the planning area. This alternative will have no effect on locatable mineral management. Under Alternative A, 1,670,800 acres of existing habitat would remain withdrawn from location under the Mining Law of 1872. Exploration and mining would continue to be authorized under the BTM 43 CFR § 3809 surface management and the Forest Service 36 CFR § 228, Subpart A, regulations managing surface-disturbing activities on federal lands. Under Alternative A, 1,670,800 acres of federal mineral estate would remain withdrawn. Approximately 16,061,900 acres of federal mineral estate would remain open to locatable mineral entry. 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. 4.14.2.2. Alternative B This alternative designates PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area. In PPMAs, this alternative would propose withdrawal from mineral entry based on risk to the GRSG and its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development. 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. Like Alternative A, under Alternative B, 12,693,500 acres of PPM A would be recommended for withdrawal from location under the Mining Law of 1872. 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 prior existing, valid mining claims. Under Alternative B, approximately 4,664,700 acres of PGMA would remain open to locatable mineral entry, while all 12,693,500 acres of PPMA would be recommended for withdrawal from location. 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 claims. Impacts from these actions would be the same type as those described under Alternative A; however, total withdrawals (including lands currently withdrawn) under this alternative would increase 1 86 percent compared with Alternative A, thereby further limiting opportunities for locatable mineral development in the decision area. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Locatable Minerals September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 783 If the Secretary issues a Public Land Order to formally withdraw all lands in PPM As, as proposed by this alternative, the locatable mining operations in PPM As would require a validity examination for material changes and additional constraints, such as seasonal restrictions, could be applied. Once formally withdrawn, existing claims in PPMAs would be subject to validity examinations to determine whether or not the claim was valid prior to the withdrawal, and whether it remains valid, or the existing claims could be bought out. Under this alternative, BMPs would be mandatory as COAs within PPMAs. 4.14.2.3. Alternative C This alternative designates 17,732,900 acres of PPMAs in the planning area and would propose withdrawal from mineral entry in GRSG habitat based on risk to the GRSG and its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development. Management actions for mineral programs other than locatable minerals would not impact locatable minerals. Impacts from locatable mineral management actions are the same as Alternative B. 4.14.2.4. Alternative D This alternative designates PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area. The BLM and Forest Service authorize locatable mineral development under 43 CFR § 3809 and 36 CFR § 228, Subpart A, respectively. This alternative would apply mitigation and GRSG best management practices that minimize the loss of PPMAs through off-site mitigation within the planning area. Under Alternative D, additional restrictions and design features for locatable minerals may apply in PPMAs and PGMAs. To the extent practicable, surface disturbance could be limited, and enhancements of PPMAs through on-site and/or off-site mitigation could be requested. 4.14.2.5. Alternative E This alternative designates Occupied, Suitable, Potential, and Non-habitat in the planning area. This alternative incorporates a decision-making policy of “Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate,” which limits habitat disturbance, manage timing of operations, would apply mitigation and GRSG conservation efforts and aggressively engage in reclamation efforts as projects are completed, and target reclamation where the ecological site potential exists in SGMAs. Under Alternative E, additional restrictions and design features for locatable minerals would apply in SGMAs. To the extent practicable, surface disturbance would be limited, and enhancements of GRSG habitat through on-site and/or off-site mitigation would be requested. 4.14.2.6. Alternative F This alternative would have the same effect as Alternative B. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Locatable Minerals 784 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.14.3. Mineral Materials The salable minerals program is discretionary for the BLM and the Forest Service. However, within the planning area, most public lands are open to salable mineral material development. Specific closures of areas to salable mineral materials such as ACECs or crucial or essential wildlife habitat exist throughout the planning area. Some LUPs contain use and development restrictions in terms of seasonal timing limitations in relation to GRSG habitat and leks, similar to oil and gas leasing; however, this is not consistent across the planning area. These are identified mostly in the more recent LUPs and use similar buffers (e.g., 2 miles). No LUPs in the planning area contain specific goals, objectives, or management actions relative to conservation or protection of GRSG beyond the use restrictions identified above. Methods and Assumptions Analysis of impacts on mineral material sales from this EIS focuses on the impacts of conservation measures to protect GRSG. 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 sales disposal. An indirect impact would result from removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or indirect impacts on mineral material sales are described under indicators, below. Indicators Indicators for impacts on salable minerals and the measurements used to describe the impacts (where available or appropriate) are described below: • Actions that reduce the availability and opportunity for development of resources • Amount of federal minerals available versus closed to development Indirect impacts include loss of production of the mineral for public use and for revenues and tax revenues • Actions placing restrictions or requirements that reduce efficiency and increased operational costs that could make development infeasible • Acreage unavailable for surface disturbance • Indirect impacts include reduced production of mineral resources for the public use and for the generation of revenues and tax revenues; possible adverse impact of higher cost of accessing portion of lease via more circuitous route for access road, electric utility lines, seasonal limitations to road use or additional restrictions and requirements on development • Actions that affect the ability to access minerals • Acreage unavailable for surface disturbance • Indirect impacts include adverse impacts of restrictions affecting the ability to access minerals that would otherwise be available; includes limits to road construction, permanent road closures, avoidance, and exclusion areas Assumptions Assumptions for this analysis include the following: Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Mineral Materials September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 785 • The terms “salable minerals” and “mineral materials” are used interchangeably. • Any alternative that limits salable mineral development (i.e., reduces the area available for development) will have some adverse impact on the mineral materials. • The 43 CFR Part 3600 and 36 CFR § 228, Subpart C, regulations manage disposal of mineral materials. • Mineral operations are sensitive to costs, especially when prices are depressed. • Ability to construct roads and utilities on private lands to access federal minerals subject to landowner approval are not guaranteed. • Mineral resources are not evenly distributed across the landscape. • Operators need predictable continuity of operations before acquiring or developing land. • Development techniques are highly technical and not uniformly applicable. • Seasonal closures on travel may make full development infeasible. • A minimum of 5 years is needed for restoring self-sustaining native grass and forb cover on reclamation. • A minimum of 10 years is needed for successful establishment or colonization by sagebrush on reclamation. • Implementing management actions for the following resources or resource uses would have negligible or no impact on salable minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: recreation, range management, wind energy development, industrial solar, wild horse management, fuels management, fire operations, ESR, and habitat restoration. Nature and Type of Effects Management actions for resources and resource uses could affect potential salable mineral development when they result in (1 ) reduced availability of salable mineral resources, (2) reduced access to new or existing material sites due to restrictions on use of the overlying surface lands, and (3) reduced efficiency and increased operational costs that make potential salable mineral development economically infeasible. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Due to the definitions of the alternatives being analyzed, there are no goals common to all alternatives. 4.14.3.1. Alternative A This alternative does not designate PPMAs or PGMAs in the planning area. This alternative will have no effect on salable mineral management. Impacts from Lands and Realty September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Mineral Materials 786 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Management actions for programs related to infrastructure development other than lands and realty would not impact mineral materials. Therefore, only the impacts from lands and realty management actions are discussed in the paragraphs below. Under Alternative A, 17,456,300 acres (98 percent) of existing PPH and PGH would continue to be open to ROW location. However, construction of new roads would likely decrease on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered surface in the decision area that would continue to be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance or exclusion under this alternative, which would result in a decrease in demand for mineral materials in those areas. Impacts from this decrease in demand would be mitigated where new ROWs could be co-located within existing ROWs to satisfy valid existing rights. 4.14.3.2. Alternative B This alternative designates PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area. This alternative would close PPMAs to mineral material sales and require restoration of salable mineral pits no longer in use to meet GRSG conservation objectives. Impacts from Lands and Realty Management actions for programs related to infrastructure development other than lands and realty would not impact mineral materials. Therefore, only the impacts from lands and realty management actions are discussed in the paragraphs below. Impacts from Minerals Management Under Alternative B, federal mineral estate in PPMAs would be closed to mineral material disposal. The types of impacts from these closures would decrease access for local governments and members of the public to mineral material sites. In PPMAs, mineral material pits no longer in use would be restored to meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives. Requiring reclamation of mineral material pits no longer in use could increase costs on developers if the BUM and Forest Service required the developers to pay for the reclamation. Management of mineral materials outside of PPMAs would be the same as that under Alternative A. 4.14.3.3. Alternative C This alternative would have the same effect as Alternative B, but would apply to a larger area of PPMAs. 4.14.3.4. Alternative D This alternative designates PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area. This alternative allows for no new commercial mineral material sales in priority and general habitat. In PPMAs, this alternative would require restoration of salable mineral pits no longer in use to meet GRSG conservation objectives. Mineral material sales would be allowed in general habitat as required to meet federal, tribal, state, county, and public needs. Loss of habitat in general habitat would be offset through off site mitigation. Additional mitigation may be required to offset any net Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Mineral Materials September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 787 loss of habitat as a result of authorizing expansion of existing materials pits. Habitat loss in PPMAs would be offset through mitigation to ensure no net unmitigated loss. Designation of new community pits would be located outside of priority areas. Impacts from Lands and Realty Management actions for programs related to infrastructure development other than lands and realty would not impact mineral materials. Impacts from Minerals Management Under Alternative D, federal mineral estate in PPMAs would be closed to mineral material disposal. The types of impacts from these closures would decrease access for local governments and members of the public to mineral material sites. In PPMAs, mineral material pits no longer in use would be restored to meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives. Requiring reclamation of mineral material pits no longer in use could increase costs on developers if the BLM and Forest Service required the developers to pay for the reclamation. Management of mineral materials outside of PPMAs would be the same as that under Alternative A. 4.14.3.5. Alternative E Existing projects would operate under existing rules and regulations. New proposed projects would avoid or minimize conflicts in SGMAs which would be overseen by the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council. Habitat disturbance would be limited to 5 percent per year per 640 acres, unless habitat treatments show credible positive results, and would refer disturbance levels exceeding 5 percent per 640 acres to evaluation and consultation with the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. SGMAs apply only to lands within Nevada. Impacts from Lands and Realty Management actions for programs related to infrastructure development other than lands and realty would not impact mineral materials. Impacts from Minerals Management Under Alternative E, all federal mineral estate not closed to mineral material disposal under Alternative A would remain open. Additional restrictions would apply within the federal mineral estate within GRSG habitat, including maximum disturbance of no more than five percent of occupied habitat in each population area. Noise, structure height, and timing limitations would also apply. Impacts from these restrictions on mineral material development would be the same type as those described under Alternative D. Mitigation may also be required, which would increase costs of mineral material development. Federal mineral estate in the decision area outside occupied, suitable, and potential habitat would be subject to the same management as that under Alternative A. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Mineral Materials 788 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.14.3.6. Alternative F This alternative would have the same effect as Alternative B. 4.15. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 4.15.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on ACECs are as follows: • Potential degradation on the relevance and importance values of existing ACECs such as plant communities, wildlife, soil resources and other natural processes may be prohibitive to management direction to improve GRSG habitat. • Potential threat of irreparable harm to some AC EC relevance and importance values such as historical and cultural structures and sites may limit proposed management decisions to improve GRSG habitat. • Indicators of beneficial impacts on ACECs are proposed GRSG management decisions will defer to management decisions for existing ACECs that provide more restrictive protective measures. • Any ACECs designated for the protection of GRSG habitat would be managed as Zoological Special Interest Areas on Forest Service-administered lands. Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • Management decisions to improve GRSG habitat may result in degradation to vegetative relevance and importance values of some existing ACECs. • Management decisions to improve GRSG habitat by reducing or eliminating surface disturbances and human interaction would be beneficial to ACECs with Cultural or Historic relevance and importance values. • Designation of an ACEC does not prevent other appropriate resource uses so long as they are not detrimental to relevance and importance values. • Management decisions to improve GRSG habitat may result in unforeseen opportunities for noxious and invasive plant species to encroach on vegetative relevance and importance values. 4.15.2. Nature and Type of Effects ACECs cover a variety of different resources, each with different relevance and importance values. With these relevance and importance values there are specific management decisions which protect and preserve those values. In some cases the effects may be direct and in others the effects may be indirectly caused by primary or secondary impacts from GRSG habitat management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Areas of Critical Environmental Concern September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 789 activity. It is expected that proposed GRSG management decisions will defer to existing ACEC management decisions that are more restrictive in the protection of ACEC resources. ACECs with relevance and importance values that are specific to vegetative resources may be directly impacted by management decisions to improve or re-establish GRSG habitat. This may occur through localized changes wrought by large-scale surface disturbance to soils and existing vegetation. Surface disturbances can result in unforeseen opportunities for noxious and invasive plant species to encroach on protected vegetative resources. ACECs with relevance and importance values that are specific to historical and cultural resources may be both directly and indirectly impacted by GRSG habitat restoration management decisions. This may occur through physical impacts on cultural sites and historic structures. ACECs with relevance and importance values that are specific to other wildlife resources may be indirectly impacted by management decisions to improve or re-establish GRSG habitat. This may occur through changes in vegetative food sources or protective cover brought about by altering the vegetative landscape from scattered woodland to open sage brush steppe. ACECs with relevance and importance values that are specific to scenic or geologic resources may be impacted directly by GRSG habitat restoration management decisions. However, these impacts would probably be more short term rather than long term in duration. Vegetative manipulation would result in a highly visible in the short term, but would become less intrusive as time passes. Overall, the potential effect of impacts from proposed management decisions can only be discussed in very general terms. Since relevance and importance values cover a variety of resources, management decisions for GRSG habitat restoration must be addressed and analyzed in site-specific NEPA documents in order to accurately portray the potential impacts on ACEC relevance and importance values. Implementing management for the following resources would have no impact on ACECs and are therefore not discussed in detail: CTTM, recreation, lands and realty, range management, fluid minerals, solid minerals, mineral split-estate, fire and fuels management, and habitat restoration and vegetation management. 4.15.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives There are no impacts on ACECs that are common to all alternatives. 4.15.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative A, existing ACEC management decisions will continue to provide protective measures to relevance and importance values in those ACECs. 4.15.5. Alternative B Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative A. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives 790 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.15.6. Alternative C Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative C, the number of acres under ACEC management would increase exponentially. In certain circumstances, GRSG Management decisions may benefit and compliment management decisions protecting relevance and importance values in existing ACECs. It is also expected that more restrictive management decisions in existing ACECs would not be subordinate to proposed GRSG management decisions. 4.15.7. Alternative D Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative A. 4.15.8. Alternative E Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative A. 4.15.9. Alternative F Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Impacts from ACEC management would be the same as Alternative C; however, 10,776,400 fewer acres would be designated as ACECs than under Alternative C. 4.16. Water Resources 4.16.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on water resources are as follows: • More areas closed to activities that result in surface disturbance and cause erosion and sedimentation • More areas treated for fuels and invasive species, reducing wildfire potential and subsequent erosion and sedimentation Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • Climate change forecasts will generally result in less water availability throughout the planning area. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 791 • Areas closed to ROWs, travel management, mining, or with NSO stipulations will result in less potential for water erosion and sedimentation to streams and springs. • Projects that help restore watersheds, desirable vegetation communities, or wildlife habitats (including surface disturbance associated with these efforts) would benefit water resources over the long term. 4.16.2. Nature and Type of Effects Management actions could change the quality and accessibility of water features that serve as GRSG drinking sources. Drinking water accessibility and quality in turn affect the health and survival of the GRSG. Actions could also increase or decrease the ability of water sources to serve as mosquito breeding habitat, which could in turn increase or decrease, respectively, the risk of West Nile virus transmission to GRSG. Surface water quality is influenced by both natural and human factors. Aside from the natural factors of weather-related erosion of soils into waterways, surface water quality can be affected by the transport of eroded soils into streams due to improperly managed livestock grazing, introduction of waste matter such as fecal coliforms into streams from domestic livestock, and “low water” crossing points of roads, routes, and ways used by motorized vehicles. Surface-disturbing activities can remove or disturb essential soil-stabilizing agents, such as vegetation diversity, soil crusts, litter, and woody debris. These soil features function as living mulch by retaining soil moisture and discouraging annual weed growth (Belnap et al. 2001 ). Loss of one or more of these agents increases potential erosion and sediment transport to surface water bodies, leading to surface water quality degradation. Surface-disturbing activities under certain circumstances can also lead to soil compaction, which decreases infiltration rates and elevates potential for overland flow. Overland flow can increase erosion and sediment delivery potential to area surface water bodies, leading to surface water quality degradation. In areas with NSO stipulations, managed as ROW/SUA exclusion, or closed to mining activities, water quality would be protected since ground disturbance would be prohibited and soil erosion limited to natural processes. In areas managed as ROW/SUA avoidance, water quality would receive some protection since ground disturbance would often be limited. ROW/SUA avoidance areas would generally result in lower impacts on water quality, compared with areas not managed as ROW/SUA avoidance. Surface-disturbing activities within stream channels, floodplains, and riparian habitats are more likely to alter natural morphologic stability and floodplain function. Morphologic destabilization and loss of floodplain function accelerate stream channel and bank erosion, increase sediment supply, dewater near stream alluvium, cause the loss of riparian and fish habitat, and deteriorate water quality (Rosgen 1996). Altering or removing riparian habitats can reduce the hydraulic roughness of the bank and increase flow velocities near the bank (National Research Council 2002). Increased flow velocities near the bank can accelerate erosion, decreasing water quality. There are approximately 517.2 miles of 303(d) listed streams and 90 acres of 303(d) listed water bodies located within PPMAs and PGMAs in the planning area. When surface-disturbing impacts are allowed to alter natural drainage patterns, the runoff critical to recharging and sustaining locally important aquifers, springs/seeps/fens, wetlands, and associated riparian habitats is redirected elsewhere. As a result, these sensitive areas can be September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 792 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement dewatered, compromising vegetative health and vigor, while degrading proper function and condition of the watershed. Subsurface disturbances can alter natural aquifer properties (e.g., enhance hydraulic conductivity of existing fractures, breach confining units, and change hydraulic pressure gradients), which can increase potential for contamination of surface and groundwater resources. Furthermore, altering natural aquifer properties can dewater locally important freshwater sources (e.g., groundwater, springs, seeps, fens, and streams). Under dry conditions, surface-disturbing activities release dust into the air. During winter, wind-blown dust can settle on top of snow and affect the rate of snowmelt. Dust-covered snow versus clean snow can have albedo (reflectivity) values as low as 0.35, doubling the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Research and simulations based on observations in the Senator Beck Basin Study Area near Silverton, Colorado, indicate that excess dust on snow (versus pre-1800 conditions) increased the rate of snowmelt and advanced the timing of melting by about three to four weeks (Painter et al. 2007). Furthermore, results of studies conducted by Painter and others (2007) indicate that annual runoff is reduced by five percent under current dust conditions. Primary contributing factors for decreased runoff follow. Greater absorption of energy during snowmelt causes more of the snow to sublimate directly into the atmosphere. Earlier melting exposes the ground surface to sunlight and warmth, which both allow more water to evaporate directly from the soil and extend the growing season for plants that then can transpire additional water. It is this combined increase in evapotranspiration that appears to have the most impact on stream flow. Surface water runoff depends on both natural factors and land management. Natural factors include climate, geology and soils, slope, channel conditions, and vegetation type and density. Land use or management actions that alter these natural factors play a role in altering surface water runoff. Such actions include grading or compacting soils for new roads or well pads and calling for management prescriptions that alter the type or density of vegetation. Reducing water flow can have adverse impacts on the ecology of a watershed, its recreational potential, the availability of drinking water and water for other uses, and groundwater quality and quantity. Water quality impacts from reduced water supplies include increased water temperatures, pH levels, and alkaline levels. Reductions in water supply could result from consumptive uses of surface water or tributary groundwater sources that do not return water to the basin. Examples are evaporative loss from new surface water features, evapotranspiration from irrigation of vegetation, injection into deep wells, or use in drilling fluids that are later disposed of outside of the basin. Water right holdings and use also have the ability to impact water quantity on public lands. Both the States of Nevada and California are 'prior appropriation’ states, meaning that the first water right holder to put a water to beneficial use, i.e., with the earliest priority date, has the first right to the water. Any water right holders on waters either located on public land or upstream of public land, could potentially utilize all available water, making less water available for wildlife use and riparian habitat maintenance unless a prior federal right has been exercised, or an appropriated right has been issued to the BLM by the State. Water use on public lands primarily depends on the water rights associated with the source. Privately held water rights on public land can result in full appropriation of surface waters and Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 793 modification of riparian habitats. An appropriation of groundwater rights has the potential to reduce surface water flows. Although land management agencies may not have the ability to fully control all water uses on public land, the agencies should be actively involved in the States water rights processes, working with water right holders to ensure the use will not impact GRSG and acquiring water rights to protect habitat and ensure water sources for GRSG. Riparian areas are very productive and valuable parts of the ecosystem. They often act as transition zones between the aquatic and upland areas increasing benefits such as fish and wildlife habitat, erosion control, forage, late season stream flow, and water quality. Wetlands and meadows provide benefits by acting as reservoirs within the watershed regulating late season stream flow and increasing groundwater recharge. Since these areas generally have saturated soils, they are more vulnerable to soil compaction and rutting, making revegetation a difficult task. The riparian area is the section of land and water forming a transition from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems along streams and lakes. It supports high soil moisture and a diverse assemblage of vegetation and performs important ecological functions. It acts as a filtering system, stabilizes banks, and regulates stream water quality. The vegetation provides a buffer for the stream by slowing down water and settling out sediment and nutrients. Strong root masses decrease surface erosion by stabilizing the streambanks and are able to absorb floodwater without degrading during high stream flows. The vegetative cover associated with riparian areas provide a thermal break from radiant sunlight reaching the water surface increasing water temperatures and reducing oxygen levels. Lands that are open for fluid minerals leasing have the potential for future health and safety risks related to oil, gas, and geothermal exploration, development, operation, and decommissioning. The number of acres open for leasing is proportional to the potential for long-term direct health and safety impacts. Use, storage, and transportation of fluids, such as produced water, hydraulic fracturing fluids, and condensate, have the possibility of spills that could migrate to surface or groundwater, causing human health impacts. Additionally, some of the techniques used in mining activities, such as directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, could result in contamination of overlying aquifers and drinking water supplies (Osborn et al. 2011; Duke University 2012). Potential impacts from locatable mineral, mineral material, and non-energy leasable mineral activities and development include the release of pollutants capable of contaminating surface water during stormwater runoff or contaminating aquifers during groundwater recharge. Mineral activities and developments could also alter drainage patterns, which would affect stream hydrographs and water supplies. Discharge of mine water can alter water chemistry and impair natural stream morphologic conditions. Grazing by livestock and wild horses and burros can increase sediment and other nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) to streams through bank trampling and excrement. As stream banks break down, parts of the bank slough off and into the stream channel. This increase in sediment load can affect fish habitat and alter channel stability. Excrement, when added directly to a stream or within the riparian area, can increase the amounts of nutrients in streams. Urine has been found to have prolonged effects on nitrogen fixation in soil (Menneer et al. 2003). High amounts of nutrients can lead to increased aquatic plant and algal growth, which can decrease the dissolved oxygen content and affect fish. The BLM manages to ensure water quality complies with State Standards as mandated by the Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Administration (43 CFR 4180.2 (b)). The Forest Service manages livestock grazing to ensure compliance with appropriate water quality September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 794 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement standards under the direction contained in 36 CFR Part 222, Forest Service Manual 2200, and Forest Service Handbook 2209. For wild horses and burros, the BLM and Forest Service manage within existing herd management areas for healthy populations and to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance with respect to wildlife, livestock and other multiple uses. Vegetation management activities generally benefit water resources by restoring rangelands to native communities and reducing the potential for wildfire and sedimentation and erosion. Pinyon-juniper woodlands have increased thorough out the planning area since the early 1 900s due to increased livestock grazing and fire suppression. Early investigators thought that reduction in pinyon-juniper communities could result in higher water yields. Although conversion of pinyon-juniper woodlands to more herbaceous and shrub communities does not result in an increase to water yields (Follett and Stropki 2008), it can reduce wildfire risk. Invasive vegetation species can impact water resources by altering wildfire regimes and increasing sedimentation and erosion risk, thereby impacting water quality. These species are able to take advantage of soil disturbances and establish themselves and out-compete native species for resources. With few natural predators, invasive species are able to take advantage of favorable ecological conditions and spread at excessive rates. Most invasive weeds do not have strong root structures that are needed to hold soil in place. In many instances, accelerated erosion is seen in areas dominated by invasive species. Cheatgrass is one of the most common and prolific invasive weeds found within the planning area. Although cheatgrass is able to provide adequate cover to protect soils from erosion after invasion, this protection decreases during drought conditions and instances of die-off and results in an increased risk of wildfire (Pellant 1996). Effects of fire on water resources are determined largely by the severity of the fire, suppression tactics used for fire management and post-fire precipitation regimes (Neary et al. 2005). Higher-severity fires, typically associated with wildfire, often result in near complete consumption of vegetation and litter cover and can cause changes to soil chemistry resulting in hydrophobic soil conditions. As a result, stream flow responses in severely burned watersheds are typically higher, in some cases orders of magnitude, than in unbumed or lower severity burned watersheds. Additionally, increased flooding and debris flow risks can occur up to 5 years after a severe wildfire. Prescribed fire can be beneficial to water resources by reducing the risk of high severity wildfires in treated watersheds. Additionally, the purpose of a prescribed fire is rarely to consume all vegetation or cause high severity conditions. Streamflow responses after prescribed fires are often lower in magnitude as compared with wildfires and typically do not result in the drastic stream flow alterations (flooding and debris flows) as after wildfires (Neary et al. 2005). Fire suppression activities, such as building fire lines, drafting of water sources, applying fire retardants and foams, and driving cross-country can have direct impacts on water resources. Building fire lines and driving cross-country creates new roads and trails that can channelize flows and increase sedimentation and erosion to streams and springs. Chemical fire retardants most commonly used in current suppression activities are ammonium-based. Ecologically, these fire retardants produce effects similar to application of fertilizers (Little and Calfee 2003). This can result in changes to water quality and can result in increased algal biomass in water bodies. Additionally, some retardants can contain low quantities of chemicals that can be toxic to aquatic biota. The BLM and Forest Service have identified buffers along water systems to reduce the potential for retardant entering water bodies (Forest Service 201 Id; DOI and USDA 2013). Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 795 Drafting of water sources can reduce overall water available in streams and springs where drafting occurs. This can impact water rights and reduce water available to for habitat maintenance. Changes in vegetation communities due to wildfire can also affect water resources. Most wildfires in the planning area result in an increase to invasive vegetation communities, particularly cheatgrass. Cheatgrass communities often have shorter wildfire return intervals, altering the 32-70 return interval for sagebrush communities to a 5-year wildfire return interval (Pellant 1996). Roads and trails can impact water quality. Stream crossings, formed when roads and trails traverse streams, remove vegetation and create vectors for surface runoff and sediment movement directly into streams. When the vegetation is removed, the banks become more susceptible to erosion and can slough off into the channel. During times of high stream flows the bare banks are easily eroded, leading to channel downcutting and degradation. The roads and trails act as new channels, crisscrossing the landscape and concentrating water. When these tracks cross a stream, it is an open outlet for the water and sediment to enter. In some instances a road or trail can intercept the stream and divert the water onto it. Recreational activities, both motorized and non-motorized, often result in ground disturbance. These impacts are typically dispersed and small in size but can cause localized impacts on water resources by increasing erosion and sedimentation to streams and springs. Activities beneficial to water resources are primarily defined as improving conditions by enhancing or restoring degraded water quality or by reducing ongoing groundwater depletion. Changing grazing patterns in riparian areas further benefits the water quality and geomorphic function of streams. Management actions regarding closure or avoidance of specific areas, or restrictions of disturbance, protect environmental conditions and, thus, are beneficial. Mitigation measures also reduce the impacts on water resources from ongoing or future activities. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on water resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: mineral split-estate and ACECs. 4.16.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives This section will describe the impacts common to all alternatives, if applicable. The description of the impacts is the same throughout the alternatives; however, the degree of the impact would vary within each alternative. Impacts from Leasable , Salable , and Locatable Minerals Management Mineral development is generally associated with the risk of impairments to local surface waters and groundwater. Mineral development disturbs soils and can result in increased erosion and contamination of waterways via runoff. Mineral development increases the presence of petroleum-using vehicles and equipment on the land and increases the likelihood of chemical spills that can sink into the earth and contaminate groundwater. Mineral development can result in pools of standing water that 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. Impacts from Lands and Realty and Renewable Energy Management Lands and realty and renewable energy decisions affect where ground disturbing activities can and cannot occur. The use of ROW/SUA exclusion and ROW/SUA avoidance designations limit September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives 796 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement the amount of man-made runoff of soils and chemicals into waterways within those areas and are generally considered to be protective of water quality. ROW/SUA exclusion and avoidance are also seen to reduce the likelihood of chemical spills onto the ground, which can then sink into the earth and contaminate groundwater. Impacts from Livestock Grazing and Wild Horses and Burro Management Livestock and wild horses and burros generally cause decreases in water quality through the heavy trampling of soils and vegetation along and within natural water features that are also used by GRSG as drinking water sources. At the same time, water supply structures throughout the landscape that have been established for the benefit of livestock and wild horses and burros also often provide drinking water sources for GRSG. Impacts from Vegetation Management Vegetation management activities can result in short-term impacts on water quality due to increased erosion and sedimentation to water bodies. Long-term impacts are typically beneficial by reducing non-native communities and the risk to wildfire. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Effects of fire on water resources are determined largely by the severity of the fire, suppression tactics used for fire management and post-fire precipitation regimes. Hazardous fuels treatments will result in an overall decrease in wildfire potential, thereby decreasing impacts on water resources. Impacts from Travel and Transportation Roads and trails generally result in impacts on water quality by removing vegetation and creating vectors for surface runoff and sediment movement directly into streams. Roads and trails act as new channels, crisscrossing the landscape and concentrating water. When these tracks cross a stream, it is an open outlet for the water and sediment to enter. Areas closed or limited to travel and transportation would have lesser impacts on water resources. Impacts from Recreation Management In general, recreational activities can result in impacts on water quality. Both motorized and non-motorized activities can result in ground disturbance thereby increasing erosion and sedimentation to local water bodies. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management Riparian habitats are very productive and valuable parts of the ecosystem. They often act as transition zones between the aquatic and upland areas increasing benefits such as fish and wildlife habitat, erosion control, forage, late season stream flow, and water quality. It acts as a filtering system, stabilizes banks, and regulates stream water quality. The vegetation provides a buffer for the stream by slowing down water and settling out sediment and nutrients and acts as a thermal break from radiant sunlight reaching the water surface increasing water temperatures and reducing oxygen levels. Any actions that would restore or enhance riparian habitats would be beneficial to water resources. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to AH Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 797 4.16.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Under Alternative A, there are currently no lands designated by the BLM as GRSG existing habitat within the Sub-regional planning area. The LUPs do not contain special designations pertaining to managing GRSG, such as GRSG “Core Areas” or “Priority Habitat” or other types of references to relative habitat quality. There are no lands identified for PPH or PGH under Alternative A for GRSG management. Impacts from Lands and Realty Under Alternative A, 1 14,200 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance, 276,600,400 acres as exclusion areas, and 331,200 acres open for disposal. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative A, would be managed 276,600 acres as ROW/SUA exclusion and 1 14,200 acres as avoidance areas for wind energy. No ROW/SUA exclusion or avoidance areas have been identified for solar energy. Impacts from renewable energy management are similar to impacts from lands and realty management. Additionally, ROWs and SUAs associated with renewable energy management are typically large in size (several thousand acres) and in many cases require completely grading a site, particularly for solar projects. This amount of land disturbance can amplify impacts at the project level. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management No acres as closed to livestock grazing and 49,155,100 acres as open to livestock grazing under Alternative A. The BLM would continue to manage to ensure water quality complies with State Standards as mandated by the Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Administration (43 CFR 4180.2 (b)). The Forest Service manages livestock grazing under the direction in 36 CFR Part 222, Forest Service Manual 2200, and Forest Service Handbook 2209. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Management under Alternative A identifies 7,370,000 acres as HAs, 6,086,200 acres as HMAs, and 344,600 acres as wild horse territory areas. These areas would continue to be managed to meet AMLs and to achieve a natural ecological balance with respect to other uses. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative A, 1,670,800 acres would be managed as closed to fluid minerals, oil and gas and geothermal and identifies -acres as open to fluid minerals, oil and gas and geothermal within PPH and PGH. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Management under Alternative A identifies 1,670,800 acres petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry and 16,061,900 acres as open to locatable mineral exploration or development within PPH and PGH. All locatable mineral activities will continue to be managed under the regulations at 43 CFR 3800 through the approval of a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operations. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 798 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative A, 1,670,800 acres would be managed as closed to mineral material disposal and 16,061,900 acres would be managed as open for consideration for mineral material disposal on a case-by-case basis within PPH and PGH. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management under Alternative A does not identify any specific numbers of acres for vegetation treatment other than goals and objectives for managing of vegetation communities outlined in existing LUPs. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management under Alternative A does not specify any acres for hazardous fuels management. All existing LUPs do address fire suppression and hazardous fuels management. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Under Alternative A, 874,400 acres would be managed as closed to motorized vehicles, 4,1 13,300 acres would be managed as limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles, and 12,745,000 acres would be managed as open to all modes of cross country travel within PPH and PGH. Impacts from Recreation Management Management under Alternative A does not specify any areas as open or closed to recreation. All BLM and Forest Service districts manage for developed and dispersed recreation and some LUPs may identify areas where specific types of management are designated. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management All LUPs within the sub-region recognize importance of riparian areas and wetlands and include guidance for protection or enhancement of this resource. Priority riparian habitats are targeted for improvement while impacts on riparian areas as a result of management actions or authorizations are considered through the NEPA process. Many livestock grazing systems developed through the permit renewal process and through assessments of rangeland health are focused on improving riparian habitat conditions. In some cases, mitigation programs developed for land uses such as mining have resulted in restoration of thousands of acres of riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs and PGMAs. Condition and trend data for riparian and wetland habitats within the planning area suggest existing programs which directly or indirectly provide for riparian area management are only partially effective (refer to Section 3.4, Riparian Areas and Wetlands). Generally, restoration efforts have been focused on priority streams habitats, especially those supporting fisheries. Although highly important to GRSG, lentic riparian areas have received less focus likely because they are small in size, widespread and more difficult to manage. Under this alternative, condition and trend of riparian areas and wetlands in PPMAs or PGMAs is likely to improve but progress may not be consistent across the planning area. 4.16.5. Alternative B Alternative B generally reduces land disturbances and would result in fewer impacts on water resources associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/I Environmental Impact Statement 799 Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative B would identify 12,693,500 acres for PPMAs and 5,039,400 acres for PGMAs. Protecting GRSG habitat would result in few land disturbances and could result in reduced impacts on water quality. Protection measures may also include protecting existing water sources from future use and result in increases to water availability. Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative B, 4,932,400 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance, 12,693,500 acres as exclusion areas, and 233,900 acres no longer suitable for disposal. Management under Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Under Alternative B, 7,370,000 acres would be managed as herd areas, 6,086,200 acres as herd management areas, and 344,600 acres as wild horse territory areas. In addition, it would amend HMA and WHBT plans to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations. This could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. These areas would continue to be managed to meet AMLs and to achieve a natural ecological balance with respect to other uses. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative B, 12,693,900 acres within PPMA and 374,700 acres within PGM A would be managed as closed and 4,664,700 acres would be managed as open to fluid minerals, oil and gas, and geothermal. This alternative identifies actions and conservation measures for areas that are already leased. Management under Alternative B would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Alternative B would identify 12,693,900 acres within PPMA and 374,700 acres within PGMA petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry and 4,664,700 acres as open to locatable mineral exploration or development. All locatable mineral activities would continue to be managed under the regulations at 43 CFR 3800 through the approval of a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operations. Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative B, 12,693,900 acres within PPMA and 374,700 acres within PGMA would be managed as closed to mineral material disposal and 4,664,700 acres would be managed as open for consideration for mineral material disposal on a case-by-case basis. Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 800 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Management under Alternative B would not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management nor does it specify suppression activities. It does identify RDFs for fire suppression activities, general actions for pre- and post-fire treatment activities, timing of treatments, resting, and use of native plants for revegetation. Based on these actions, Alternative B could have fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Under Alternative B, 874,400 acres would be managed as closed to motorized vehicles, 18,900,100 acres as limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles, and 28,179,100 acres as open to all modes of cross country travel. Management under Alternative B would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management Management under Alternative B would not close any areas to recreation activities; it does specify that any BLM SRPs or Forest Service recreation permits must have a neutral or beneficial effect on priority habitat. Neutral or beneficial impacts on GRSG habitat could result in fewer impacts on water resources. Therefore, Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management Management under Alternative B would identify specific actions to improve and restore riparian habitats through management. These actions would include managing for proper functioning condition, reducing hot season grazing, utilizing herding and other techniques to distribute livestock, authorization of new water developments and modifications of existing developments out of riparian areas. Many of these actions are tools currently utilized by the agencies in the permit process to alleviate impacts due to grazing. However, many of the LUPs do not have these types of tools listed as requirements. Alternative B could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. 4.16.6. Alternative C Management under Alternative C would reduce land disturbances and would result in fewer impacts on water resources associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 801 Under Alternative C, 1 14,200 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance, 17,772,900 acres as exclusion areas, and 33 1,200 acres no longer suitable for disposal. Management under Alternative C would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative C, 620,400 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion areas and 1 14,200 acres would be managed as avoidance areas for wind energy. Approximately 17,732,900 acres are identified for exclusion for solar energy. Impacts from renewable energy management are similar to impacts from lands and realty management. Additionally, ROWs associated with renewable energy management are typically large in size (several thousand acres) and in many cases require completely grading a site, particularly for solar projects. This amount of land disturbance can amplify impacts at the project level. Management under Alternative C would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Management under Alternative C would identify 17,732,900 acres as closed to livestock grazing within PPMA. This alternative would eliminate grazing from occupied habitat. The BLM would continue to manage to ensure water quality complies with State Standards as mandated by the Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Administration (43 CFR 4180.2 (b)). The Forest Service manages livestock grazing under the direction in 36 CFR Part 222, Forest Service Manual 2200, and Forest Service Handbook 2209. Additionally, any water developments associated with livestock use would be removed, allowing water in springs and streams to stay within the natural systems. Alternative B should result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Management under Alternative C would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A, because of the restrictions on leasable minerals under Alternative C. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Management under Alternative C would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A because management would allow withdrawal of locatable minerals. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative C would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A because the planning area would be closed to salable minerals. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under Alternative C, removal of water developments associated with livestock management would allow water in springs and streams to stay within the natural systems. This would allow for riparian habitats and associated vegetation to restore back to more natural conditions. Alternative B should result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 802 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Welland Management Management under Alternative C would eliminate grazing from occupied GRSG habitat. Livestock use is one of the most damaging management activities to riparian habitats and water resources. By eliminating livestock grazing, impaired riparian habitats would be able to recover, allowing them to become functioning systems. This alternative also identifies actions including the removal of watering systems associated with livestock, allowing for further enhancement of riparian habitats and giving riparian systems the ability to recover more quickly. Management under Alternative C would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. 4.16.7. Alternative D Management under Alternative D would reduce land disturbances and would result in fewer impacts on water resources associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under Alternative D, 17,456,300 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance, 276,600 acres as exclusion areas, and 336,200 acres no longer suitable for disposal. Management under Alternative D would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative D, 17,732,900 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion and 114,200 acres as avoidance areas for wind energy. Under Alternative D, 17,732,900 acres would be identified for exclusion for solar energy. Impacts from renewable energy management are similar to impacts from lands and realty management. Additionally, ROWs and SUAs associated with renewable energy management are typically large in size (several thousand acres) and in many cases require completely grading a site, particularly for solar projects. This amount of land disturbance can amplify impacts at the project level. Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 803 Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative D within PPM A and PGMA, 1,670,800 acres would be managed as closed to fluid minerals, oil and gas and geothermal and identifies 16,061,900 acres as open to fluid minerals, oil and gas and geothermal. In addition. Management under Alternative D would list stipulations for NSO in priority GRSG habitat for currently unleased areas and require site-specific conservation measures for reducing land disturbance on leased areas. Alternative D should result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative D, 17,732,000 acres would be managed as closed to mineral material disposal and 0 acres as open for consideration for mineral material disposal on a case-by-case basis. Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Management under Alternative D would not identify any specific numbers of acres for vegetation treatment; however, it does have several actions specifying types of treatments and timing. Based on the actions associated with Alternative D, there should be fewer impacts on water resources overall than under Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Management under Alternative D would not specify any acres for hazardous fuels management. It does identify general actions for suppression activities, pre- and post-fire treatment activities, timing of treatments, resting, and use of native plants for revegetation. Based on these actions. Alternative D could have fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Management under Alternative D would identify 874,400 acres as closed to motorized vehicles, 16,858,200 acres as limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles, and 0 acres as open to all modes of cross country travel. Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management While management under Alternative D would not close any areas to recreation activities, it would specify that any SRPs or Forest Service SUAs must have a neutral or beneficial effect on priority habitat. It also would also specify that no new recreational facilities would occur in PPMAs and PGMAs. Neutral or beneficial impacts and no new recreational facilities in GRSG habitat could result in fewer impacts on water resources. Therefore, management under Alternative D could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 804 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Management under Alternative D would identify specific actions to improve and restore riparian habitats through management. These actions include restoration activities, vegetation treatments for native species, managing for proper functioning condition, reducing hot season grazing, utilizing herding and other techniques to distribute livestock, authorization of new water developments and modifications of existing developments out of riparian areas. Many of these actions are tools currently utilized by the agencies in the permit process to alleviate impacts due to grazing. However, many of the LUPs do not have these types of tools listed as requirements. Management under Alternative D would result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. 4.16.8. Alternative E Alternative E does not outline specific management actions and would result in similar impacts on water resources as Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative E would identify GRSG management areas and discuss collaboration through the ecosystem council, monitoring of habitat, predation controls, a mitigation banking program, mitigation of habitat, and limits disturbances greater than or equal to 5 percent of 640 acres. Mitigation of habitat, specifically restoration or creation of habitat could reduce impacts on water resources, but the result would be dependent on the actions occurring and location of the work. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas for ROW/SUA exclusion, ROW/SUA avoidance or areas available for disposal, rather it discusses following a strategy to avoid conflicts between habitat and ROWs and requires projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate in occupied and suitable habitat on disturbances greater than or equal to 5 percent of 640 acres. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas for ROW/SUA exclusion or ROW/SUA avoidance for renewable energy management, rather it discusses following a strategy to avoid conflicts between habitat and ROWs. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas open or closed to livestock grazing. It does identify strategies for improving GRSG habitat through prescribed grazing actions and ensuring grazing activities maintain or enhance SGMAs. Additionally, it requires meeting existing BLM and Forest Service policies such as meeting RAC Standards and Guidelines for Ecological Health as well as meeting proper functioning conditions in riparian areas Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 805 Management under Alternative E would not identify herd areas, herd management areas or wild horse territories. It does require management of wild horses and burros at AMLs. Existing BLM and Forest Service policies, as well as associated LUPS, already require management of wild horses and burros at AML. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas as closed or open to fluid minerals. It does require projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate in occupied and suitable habitat where disturbances are greater than or equal to 5 percent of 640 acres. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Loca table Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas for petition for withdrawal from mineral entry or open to locatable mineral exploration or development. It does require projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate in occupied and suitable habitat where features are greater than 32 acres. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas as closed to mineral material disposal or open for consideration for mineral material disposal. It does require projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate in occupied and suitable habitat on disturbances greater than or equal to 5 percent of 640 acres. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Management under Alternative E would not identify any specific numbers of acres for vegetation treatment. It does identify general actions that could be taken to improve habitat and vegetation communities including pinyon-juniper removal, plantings and seedings, and invasive weed treatments. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Management under Alternative E would not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management or post-fire rehabilitation treatments. It does identify general actions for suppression activities, particularly associated with improving initial attack suppression actions. Based on these actions, Alternative E could have fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Management under Alternative E would not identify areas as closed to motorized vehicles, or as limited to existing routes for motorized vehicles or as open to all modes of cross country travel. It would require collaboration between local, state, and federal agencies to designate OHV areas outside of GRSG management areas and would seek to avoid, minimize, or mitigate new activities. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 806 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Management under Alternative E would not identify areas as closed to recreational use or specify any conservation measurements associated with recreation. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian Areas and Wetland Management Management under Alternative E would maintain or achieving proper functioning condition and meeting the standards and guidelines for ecological health. Both of the actions are required under the Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Administration (43 CFR 4180.2 (b)). It does identify strategies for improving GRSG habitat through prescribed grazing actions, ensuring grazing activities maintain or enhance SGMAs and improving vegetation communities, which could occur in riparian habitats. Alternative E could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. 4.16.9. Alternative F Alternative F generally reduces land disturbances and would result in fewer impacts on water resources associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Under this alternative, there would be a 3 percent cap on disturbance within GRSG habitat. Once the cap is met, no new activities that would result in land disturbance would be authorized. This would have an overall benefit on water resources, specifically water quality. Management under Alternative F could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Under Alternative F, 17,732,900 acres would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion and 114,200 acres as avoidance areas for wind energy. No ROW/SUA exclusion or avoidance areas have been identified for solar energy. Impacts from renewable energy management are similar to impacts from lands and realty management. Additionally, ROWs and SUAs associated with renewable energy management are typically large in size (several thousand acres) and in many cases require completely grading a site, particularly for solar projects. This amount of land disturbance can amplify impacts at the project level. The 3 percent cap on disturbance would also reduce activities within GRSG habitat. Management under Alternative F could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Alternative F would rest 25 percent of PPMAs/PGMAs each year and limit vegetation utilization levels to 25 percent per year. These actions combined would reduce use in PPMAs/PGMAs. Range improvement construction would increase due to the need to fence out PPMAs/PGMAs areas from grazing use being permitted on adjacent areas. These actions would result in less grazing activities with PPMAs/PGMAs, thereby reducing impacts on water resources. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 807 Management under Alternative F could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Impacts are similar to Alternative A, except that wild horse AMLs would be reduced by 25 percent within occupied GRSG habitats. While impacts from wild horses and burros would remain, this would reduce the effects of wild horses described under Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Fewer mining activities permitted on the landscape under Alternative F would lessen impacts on water quality and could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Under this alternative, there would be a 25 percent reduction in AML in GRSG habitat. Fewer mining activities permitted on the landscape would lessen impacts on water quality. Alternative F could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Fewer mining activities permitted under Alternative F would lessen impacts on water quality and could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Fewer travel and transportation activities permitted under Alternative F would lessen impacts on water quality and could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Recreation Management Management under Alternative F would not close any areas to recreational activities; it would specify that any SRPs or Forest Service SUAs must have a neutral or beneficial effect on priority habitat. It would also specify that timing of certain recreational activities and prohibits cross-country travel in priority GRSG habitat. Neutral or beneficial impacts and no cross-country travel in GRSG habitat could result in fewer impacts on water resources. Therefore, Alternative F could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. Impacts from Riparian and Welland Management Management under Alternative F would not identify new water developments in occupied habitat unless it can be shown to benefit GRSG. It would also modify existing developments to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within GRSG habitats, make modifications where necessary, including dismantling water developments. Management under Alternative F could result in fewer impacts on water resources than Alternative A. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F 808 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.17. Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns) 4.17.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows: • Tribal interests in the development of management goals and objectives for GRSG management primarily focus on conservation of the species, and therefore are not considered an impact per se. Nevertheless, several Nevada tribes hold federal grazing permits that result in economic benefits. Those tribes also recognize that livestock grazing may lead to decreases in GRSG populations. Tribes that hold grazing permits attempt to balance the needs of maintaining traditional values with the economic benefits realized through livestock grazing. Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • Tribal interests in the development of goals and objectives for GRSG management primarily focus on conservation of the species. GRSG are important to tribal communities in maintaining traditional culture and values. Therefore, activities that harm GRSG populations would decrease tribal opportunities to maintain traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior. In addition, tribes rely on access to traditional pine nutting areas and juniper trees to maintain their cultural practices and values. Travel restrictions placed on roads could decrease tribal opportunities to access critical pine nutting areas. Thinning projects or the removal of pinyon and juniper trees to enhance GRSG habitat could decrease tribal opportunities to access pine nutting areas and juniper trees, although site-specific NEPA analyses completed prior to the implementation of any thinning project would include additional govemment-to-govemment consultation with tribes in order to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal concerns. Nevada tribes also hold federal grazing permits that result in economic benefits. Those tribes also recognize that livestock grazing may lead to decreases in GRSG populations. Tribes that hold grazing permits attempt to balance the needs of maintaining traditional values with economic benefits realized through livestock grazing. 4.17.2. Nature and Type of Effects The nature and type of most effects on tribal interests are general and non-quantifiable in nature. In general, activities that result in ground disturbance to lands currently or historically occupied by GRSG could decrease opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values if these activities result in decreases in GRSG populations. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, granting ROWs/SUAs for road and highway construction, wind energy development, vegetation treatments within sagebrush communities, development of leasable, locatable, salable, and fluid minerals, OHV use, SRPs/RSUAs, livestock grazing, and wild horse management practices. In addition, natural processes that are impossible to control likely add to the human-caused impacts on GRSG listed above, including climate change, drought, and lightning-caused fires. The general impacts on tribal interests that could result through the implementation of each alternative analyzed in this EIS are described below. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns ) September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 809 Tribes expressed several concerns not analyzed in detail in this EIS. One concern was with sonic booms from low-flying military aircraft. The recent “F-35A Training Basing” EIS published by the United States Air Force in June, 2012, specifically analyzed the effects of low-flying military fighter jets on GRSG (USAF 2012). Effects analyzed in the F-35A EIS included noise, sonic booms, and jet-bird collisions. The F-35A EIS concluded that, based on previous scientific studies, the effects of sonic booms on wildlife were “of short duration and rarely result in injury or negative population effects” (USAF 2012). Specifically regarding GRSG, the F-35A EIS notes that few studies have been conducted on the effects of low-flying aircraft and sonic booms on lekking behavior and hatching success. However, such studies on similar upland game birds, including the wild turkey and bobwhite quail, found no decreased success rate in either breeding or hatching success from low-flying fighter jets producing sonic booms (USAF 2012). The Summit Lake Tribe expressed concerns about on-going negotiations regarding road realignments and possible expansions of tribal reservation boundaries. The future status of these projects as they relate to GRSG planning efforts is unknown, but the potential approval of these types of projects or proposals would be subject to further analysis through the NEPA process or through legislative action. Finally, tribes expressed concerns that hunting permits continue to be issued while GRSG populations are dwindling. None of the alternatives analyzed below specifically address this issue. The States of Nevada and California control GRSG hunting within the study area; federal agencies have no jurisdiction regarding appropriate levels of hunting. 4.17.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Impacts on tribal interests that are common to all alternatives are applicable for Vegetation and Soils Management, Fire and Fuels Management, Wild Horse and Burro Management, Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Management, Fluid Minerals Management, Mineral split-estates Management, Renewable Energy Management, and Special Designations Management. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Restoring sagebrush habitat and resting PPMAs/PGMAs from livestock grazing could enhance GRSG populations. If this is the case, then these practices could help to ensure the survival of traditional tribal practices such as observing lekking behavior in future generations. Resting allotments, however, could also decrease economic revenue for tribes holding grazing permits, but such impacts could be temporary if grazing levels were restored following resting periods. Juniper and pinyon pine trees have both been identified as important to tribal communities for maintaining traditional cultural practices and values. Thinning or removal of juniper or pinyon pine trees could decrease tribal opportunities to maintain the practices and values centered upon these trees. However, site-specific NEPA analyses completed prior to the implementation of any thinning project would include additional government-to-govemment consultation with tribes in order to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal concerns. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Fire management activities, including prescribed bums and suppression tactics implemented to protect and preserve PPMAs/PGMAs could increase tribal opportunities for maintaining traditional cultural practices and values if their implementation resulted in increased or stabile GRSG populations. In addition, tribal economic interests could be maintained by applying September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives 810 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement appropriate and consistent grazing levels from year to year if fire and fuels management strategies help reduce the onset of catastrophic fires that result in the closing of grazing allotments permitted to tribes. Reductions in livestock grazing AUMs as part of fire/fuel management strategies, however, could decrease economic revenue to tribes that hold grazing permits. Impacts from Wild Horse and Burro Management Maintaining current wild horse and burro management strategies within PPMAs/PGMAs could decrease tribal opportunities to maintain specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if those current management practices have led to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Management Closing PPMAs/PGMAs to non-energy leasable minerals could increase tribal opportunities to maintain specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if the current leasing of non-energy minerals has led to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Leased Fluid Minerals Management All alternatives propose to maintain approximately 43.7 million acres open to oil/gas and geothermal exploration and development upon leased lands within PPMAs/PGMAs. This could decrease tribal opportunities to maintain specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if the leasing of fluid minerals has led to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Mineral Split-Estate Management All alternatives are either silent or propose to maintain mineral split-estate lands open to locatable, salable, oil/gas and geothermal exploration and development within PPMAs/PGMAs. This could decrease tribal opportunities to maintain specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if the permitting or leasing of minerals leads to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Renewable Energy Management Because all alternative propose or could lead to ROW/SUAs exclusions and avoidance in PPMAs and/or PGMAs habitat for renewable energy development (wind and solar), this could result in increased tribal opportunities to maintain specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if this management strategy leads to stabile or increased GRSG populations in the future. Impacts from Special Designations Management All alternatives are either silent or propose to maintain current acreage of ACECs/RNAs without creating new ACECs/RNAs specifically to protect GRSG habitat. As a result, this action would be neutral in its impacts on tribes regarding their maintenance of traditional cultural practices and values. In addition, creating new ACECs/RNAs within allotments used by tribes for economic benefits through livestock grazing may result in reductions in AUMs and decreases in tribal economic benefits, so the ‘no further action’ proposed by all alternatives concerning ACECs/RNAs also would be neutral in its impacts on tribal economic concerns. Alternatives C and F propose the creation of specific ACECs; in contrast, the remaining alternatives are silent or propose to maintain current acreage of ACECs/RNAs. However, no grazing changes are proposed within the ACECs of Alternatives C and F. As a result, this action Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives September, 20/3 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 811 would be neutral in its impacts on tribes regarding their maintenance of traditional cultural practices and values. In addition, creating new ACECs/RNAs within allotments used by tribes for economic benefits through livestock grazing would not reduce AUMs or decrease tribal economic benefits, so the ACECs would be neutral in their impacts on tribal economic concerns. 4.17.4. Alternative A Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative A does not propose establishing PPM As/PGM As with special management goals and objectives for GRSG management. As a result, this alternative could lead to decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if the non-establishment of PPMAs/PGMAs leads to future decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands , and Water Resources Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific drought management goals and objectives. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management By closing 0 acres to grazing management within GRSG habitat, this alternative could lead to decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices such as observing lekking behavior if current grazing management practices are decreasing GRSG populations. However, this alternative could help to maintain economic benefits to tribes that hold grazing permits if their current AUMs are not reduced in the future due to special management within GRSG habitat. Impacts from Climate Change Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific climate change management goals and objectives. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Petitioning to withdrawal 1.2 million acres of lands located within GRSG habitat from future mineral development could increase tribal opportunities to practice traditional cultural behavior and values such as observing lekking behavior if this management strategy stabilizes or increases GRSG populations. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Closing approximately 1.2 million acres could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the closures result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Minerals Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific unleased fluid minerals management goals and objectives. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management This alternative is expected to maintain tribal access to pine nutting areas and observing lekking behavior because future access to these areas would likely be maintained at current levels. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A 812 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management This alternative would leave approximately 16.8 million acres open without travel restrictions or open but limited to travel on existing roads within GRSG habitat. This would likely maintain current tribal access to important pine nutting areas and juniper trees used to maintain traditional tribal cultural practices and values. Impacts from Recreation Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific recreation management goals and objectives. 4.17.5. Alternative B Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative B would propose to establish approximately 17.7 million acres as PPMAs/PGMAs and establish management goals and objectives for specific resources within PPMAs/PGMAs that could stabilize or increase GRSG populations in the future. If successful, these management goals and objectives could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values such as observing lekking behavior. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands , and Water Resources Management This alternative is silent on specific drought management goals and objectives. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management By closing 0 acres to grazing management within PPMAs/PGMAs, this alternative could lead to decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices such as observing lekking behavior if current grazing management practices are decreasing GRSG populations. However, this alternative could help to maintain economic benefits to tribes that hold grazing permits if their current AUMs are not reduced in the future due to special management within PPMAs/PGMAs. Impacts from Climate Change Management This alternative is silent on specific climate change management goals and objectives. Impacts from Locatahle Minerals Management Withdrawing 17.6 million acres within PPMAs/PGMAs from future mineral development could increase tribal opportunities to maintain specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if the current permitting of locatable minerals has led to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Closing approximately 17.6 million acres could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the closures result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Minerals Management Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 813 Closing approximately 17.7 million acres (with exceptions) of unleased lands for oil/gas and geothermal exploration could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the closures result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Because this alternative proposes ROW/SUAs avoidance in PPMAs and/or PGMAs habitat, this could result in decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices through restrictions imposed on access to pine nutting areas and observing lekking behavior. However, exceptions to tribes to access current areas used for traditional practices could be granted in future site-specific NEPA analyses. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management This alternative would leave approximately 16.8 million acres open without travel restrictions or open but limited to travel on existing roads within PPMAs/PGMAs. This would likely maintain current tribal access to important pine nutting areas and juniper trees used to maintain traditional tribal cultural practices and values. Impacts from Recreation Management Allowing BLM SRPs and recreational SUAs in PPMAs only if they have neutral or beneficial benefits to GRSG populations could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if current management strategies approving SRPs and recreational SUAs such as OHV race events contribute to decreases in GRSG populations. 4.17.6. Alternative C Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative C would propose 17,732,900 million acres as PPMAs and establish management goals and objectives for specific resources within PPMAs that could stabilize or increase GRSG populations in the future. If successful, these management goals and objectives could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values such as observing lekking behavior. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands , and Water Resources Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific drought management goals and objectives. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management By closing nearly 1 8 million acres to grazing management, including all acres within PPMAs, this alternative could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices such as observing lekking behavior if this grazing management strategy leads to stabile or increases in future GRSG populations. However, this alternative may lead to decreases in economic revenue to tribes holding grazing permits if their current AUMs are reduced. Impacts from Climate Change Management September, ; 20/3 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C 814 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific climate change management goals and objectives. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Petitioning to withdrawal 12.6 million acres of lands located within PPMAs/PGMAs from future mineral development could increase tribal opportunities to practice traditional cultural behavior and values such as observing lekking behavior if this management strategy stabilizes or increases GRSG populations. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Closing approximately 12.6 million acres could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the closures result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Minerals Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific unleased fluid minerals management goals and objectives. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Because this alternative proposes ROW/SUA avoidance in PPMAs, this could result in decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices through restrictions imposed on access to pine nutting areas and observing lekking behavior. However, exceptions to tribes to access current areas used for traditional practices could be granted in future site-specific NEPA analyses. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management This alternative would leave approximately 47.1 million acres open without travel restrictions or open but limited to travel on existing roads within PPMAs. This would likely maintain current tribal access to important pine nutting areas and juniper trees used to maintain traditional tribal cultural practices and values. Impacts from Recreation Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific recreation management goals and objectives. 4.17.7. Alternative D Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative D would propose approximately 17.7 million acres as PPMAs/PGMAs and establish management goals and objectives for specific resources within PPMAs/PGMAs that could stabilize or increase GRSG populations in the future. If successful, these management goals and objectives could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values such as observing lekking behavior. Impacts from Riparian Areas , Wetlands , and Water Resources Management This alternative proposes that District Managers or District Rangers consider changes to livestock grazing management within PPMAs/PGMAs to take into account drought conditions. This Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 815 management strategy could decrease the economic revenue of tribes that hold livestock grazing permits. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management By closing 0 acres to grazing management within PPMAs/PGMAs, this alternative could lead to decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices such as observing lekking behavior if current grazing management practices are decreasing GRSG populations. However, this alternative could help to maintain economic benefits to tribes that hold grazing permits if their current AUMs are not reduced in the future due to special management within PPMAs/PGMAs. Impacts from Climate Change Management Considering climate change and its effects on current and potential future changes in vegetation patterns in order to manage GRSG habitat may include treatments to eradicate invasive species, removal of piny on-juniper trees that have encroached into sagebrush habitats in lower elevations, and increasing the connectivity of sagebrush habitats. These management goals could increase opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if these management strategies stabilize or increase GRSG populations. The removal of piny on-juniper trees could decrease tribal opportunities for pine nutting and using juniper trees in traditional practices. However, site-specific NEPA analyses completed prior to the implementation of any thinning project or removal of pinyon-juniper habitat would include additional government-to-govemment consultation with tribes in order to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal concerns. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Petitioning to withdrawal 6.1 million acres of lands located within PPMAs/PGMAs from future mineral development could increase tribal opportunities to practice traditional cultural behavior and values such as observing lekking behavior if this management strategy stabilizes or increases GRSG populations. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Closing approximately 17.7 million acres could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the closures result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Minerals Management Applying NSO stipulations (no exceptions) within PPM As and NSO within PGM As (with exceptions) to unleased lands for oil/gas and geothermal exploration could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the NSO stipulations result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Because this alternative proposes ROW/SUA avoidance in PPMAs and/or PGMAs habitat, this could result in decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices through restrictions imposed on access to pine nutting areas and observing lekking behavior. However, exceptions to tribes to access current areas used for traditional practices could be granted in future site-specific NEPA analyses. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative D 816 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management This alternative would leave approximately 47.1 million acres open without travel restrictions or open but limited to travel on existing roads within PPMAs/PGMAs. This would likely maintain current tribal access to important pine nutting areas and juniper trees used to maintain traditional tribal cultural practices and values. Impacts from Recreation Management Allowing BTM SRPs and recreational SUAs in PPM As only if they have neutral or beneficial benefits to GRSG populations could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if current management strategies approving SRPs and RSUAs such as OHV race events contribute to decreases in GRSG populations. 4.17.8. Alternative E Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative E would not propose establishing PPMAs/PGMAs acres. Nevertheless, it does propose special management goals and objectives for GRSG management that could stabilize or increase GRSG populations in the future. If successful, these management goals and objectives could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values such as observing lekking behavior. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific drought management goals and objectives. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific grazing management goals and objectives. Impacts from Climate Change Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific climate management goals and objectives. Impacts from Locatah/e Minerals Management Petitioning to withdrawal 0 acres from future mineral development within PPMAs/PGMAs could lead to decreases in opportunities for traditional tribal practices such as observing lekking behavior if the current permitting of mineral developments is leading to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Closing 0 acres from future mineral material disposal within PPMAs/PGMAs could lead to decreases in opportunities for traditional tribal practices such as observing lekking behavior if the current permitting of mineral materials is leading to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Minerals Management This alternative proposes to maintain all unleased lands within PPMAs/PGMAs open to oil/gas and geothermal exploration and development. This could decrease tribal opportunities to maintain Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 817 specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if the leasing of fluid minerals leads to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management This alternative is expected to maintain tribal access to pine nutting areas and observing lekking behavior because future access to these areas would likely be maintained at current levels. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Unknown as this alternative is silent on specific travel management goals and objectives. Impacts from Recreation Management Allowing BLM SRPs and recreational SUAs such as OHV race events in PPMAs (with mitigation) could lead to decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if approving such events contribute to decreases in GRSG populations. 4.17.9. Alternative F Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative F would propose approximately 17.7 million acres as PPMAs/PGMAs and establish management goals and objectives for specific resources within PPMAs/PGMAs that could stabilize or increase GRSG populations in the future. If successful, these management goals and objectives could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional cultural practices and values such as observing lekking behavior. Impacts from Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Water Resources Management This alternative is silent on specific drought management goals and objectives. Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management By not closing any acres to grazing management within PPMAs/PGMAs, this alternative could lead to decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices such as observing lekking behavior if current grazing management practices are decreasing GRSG populations. However, this alternative could help to maintain economic benefits to tribes that hold grazing permits if their current AUMs are not reduced in the future due to special management within PPMAs/PGMAs. Impacts from Climate Change Management This alternative is silent on specific climate management goals and objectives. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Withdrawing 17.7 million acres within PPMAs/PGMAs from future mineral development could increase tribal opportunities to maintain specific traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if the current permitting of locatable minerals has led to decreases in GRSG populations. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Closing approximately 17.7 million acres could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the closures result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Unleased Fluid Minerals Management Closing all unleased lands within PPMAs/PGMAs (with exceptions) to further oil/gas and geothermal exploration and development could increase the opportunities for tribes to participate in traditional cultural practices such as observing lekking behavior if the closures result in increases or stabilization of GRSG populations. Impacts from Land Uses and Realty Management Because this alternative proposes ROW/SUA avoidance in PPMAs and/or PGMAs habitat, this could result in decreased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices through restrictions imposed on access to pine nutting areas and observing lekking behavior. However, exceptions to tribes to access current areas used for traditional practices could be granted in future site-specific NEPA analyses. Impacts from Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management This alternative would leave approximately 47.1 million acres open without travel restrictions or open but limited to travel on existing roads within PPMAs/PGMAs. This would likely maintain current tribal access to important pine nutting areas and juniper trees used to maintain traditional tribal cultural practices and values. Impacts from Recreation Management Allowing BLM SRPs and recreational SUAs in PPMAs only if they have neutral or beneficial benefits to GRSG populations could lead to increased opportunities for tribes to maintain traditional practices and values such as observing lekking behavior if current management strategies approving SRPs and SUAs such as OHV race events contribute to decreases in GRSG populations. 4.18. Climate Change 4.18.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows: • Change in available habitat for GRSG • More areas closed to activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions Assumptions The analysis includes the following assumptions: • There is a correlation between global concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Climate Change September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 819 • Future changes in precipitation and temperature regimes due to climate change will result in changes in vegetation, fire and fuels and water availability. 4.18.2. Nature and Type of Effects Management actions that could affect climate change would include actions that increase GHG emissions, actions that reduce GHGs emissions, actions that create carbon sinks, and actions that eliminate or damage carbon sinks. While GHG emissions or carbon sequestration may result from many of the proposed management actions, these changes would be quite small relative to state, national, or global GHG emissions. Relative to state and national GHG emissions, emission changes due to management actions associated with this LUPA would be negligible. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on climate change and are therefore not discussed in detail: CTTM, recreation, lands and realty, range management, mineral split-estate, and ACECs. 4.18.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives The Central Basin and Range REA developed climate envelope models to provide an indication of the magnitude and direction shift in climate regime as it relates to the current distribution of upland conservation elements (Comer et al. 2012a). These models indicate potential changes in vegetation species or distributions based solely on climatic changes and are not an attempt at predicting actual species movement since that can be a result of several factors (Comer 2012a). These climate envelopes were developed for the 2060 timeframe for a few species including piny on-juniper woodland, big sagebrush shrubland, mixed salt desert scrub, and GRSG. Within these models, ‘contraction’ indicates areas where the current climate characteristics will be replaced by a different climate regime. Overlap indicates areas where current climate characteristics will remain the same. ‘Expansion’ indicates where the climate regime for a modeled resource is forecasted to occur outside of the current distribution. Results of the climate envelopes for the conservation elements of interest within PPMAs/PGMAs are shown in Figures 4-1 to 4-5. Common among the vegetation assemblages, each model showed a shift in the movement and direction of assemblages in both elevation and a northerly direction. Between the sagebrush and salt desert scrub assemblages, it appears that where sagebrush is predicted to contract, salt desert scrub is predicted to expand. Additionally, salt desert scrub appears to be contracting mostly in the south where there could be potential for increasing Mojave species. This transition seems likely when coupled with the predicted temperature changes. Areas where future vegetation may become sparser could also become more susceptible to wind erosion, resulting in increasing expanses of desert pavement. Climate envelope results for the GRSG show a potential for a considerable change in GRSG core occupied habitat. The majority of the existing habitat will see contraction. Areas with overlap are located mostly in the north with little expansion of habitat (see Figure 4-1, Climate Envelope Changes for GRSG (Core Occupied Habitat) as of 2060). This map indicates where between 1 and 8 types are forecasted by 2060 to have climate envelopes overlapping current distributions; thus providing one indication of potential habitat resilience to climate-change refugia from Comer et al. 2012a. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Nature and Type of Effects 820 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Figure 4-2, Forecasted Climate Envelope Changes for Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub as of 2060; Figure 4-3, Forecasted Climate Envelope Changes for Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland as of 2060; and Figure 4-4, Forecasted Climate Envelope Changes for Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Within the Central Basin and Range as of 2060, show the bioclimate change envelopes for these of these vegetation communities. For the pinyon-juniper assemblage, it appears that expansion will mostly occur to the north and most of the contraction areas appear to occur at higher elevations. The majority of the pinyon-juniper habitat appears to overlap existing habitat. mm mmkmmm-mmm Bioclimate Change Summary: Greater Sage Grouse Legend CBR Boundary Stales Counties Open Water contraction overlap expansion (Comer et al. 2012a). Figure 4.1. Climate Envelope Changes for Greater Sage-Grouse (Core Occupied Habitat) as of 2060 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 821 a—— wtMP&massMBRL Bioclimate Change Summary: Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Legend CBR Boundary | | Stales Counties | Open Water contraction overlap expansion Results for each category (contraction, overlap, expansion) reflect agreement among 2 or more of 6 distinct spatial models (Comer et al. 2012a). Figure 4.2. Forecasted Climate Envelope Changes for Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub as of 2060 September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives 822 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Bioclimate Change Summary: Pinyon Juniper Woodland ® i Legend CBR Boundary ; ^ States I Counties H Open Water ]] contraction ]] overlap expansion Results for each category (contraction, overlap, expansion) reflect agreement among 2 or more of 6 distinct spatial models (Comer et al. 2012a). Figure 4.3. Forecasted Climate Envelope Changes for Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland as of 2060 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives September, 2013 Bioclimate Change Summary: Big Sagebrush Shrubiand Draft Resource Management 823 Plan/Environmental Impact Statement This could result in shifts in vegetation changes between sagebrush-dominated low elevations to more pinyon-juniper woodlands as well as altering current wildfire dynamics (Comer et al. 2012a). Figure 4-5, Potential Climate Change Refugia Based on 2060 Forecasts of Climate Envelopes for Major Vegetation Types within the Ecoregion, displays the combining of the climate change envelopes for the major vegetation classes by overlaying the results of each forecast. By displaying the ‘overlap’ areas for each vegetation type climate envelope forecast and focusing on where multiple ‘overlap’ areas intersect, one can identify where future climate regimes will potentially be the same as today (Comer et al. 2012a). These areas could be further evaluated and identified as potential GRSG focal areas. As discussed in the affected environment, the climate change forecast for temperature showed increases in daily maximum temperatures. The forecast for precipitation showed no strong trend toward either wetter or drier conditions for a majority of the planning area. This could mean that the current conditions of several years of drought with a few wet years could continue on into the future. Increasing temperatures coupled with the existing precipitation patterns could have an effect on the timing and quantity of water availability in most watersheds. Smaller snowpack melting earlier in the spring will result in earlier peak flows in streams and lower base flows later in the year. Lower base flows during typical drought years will be more severe and could result September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives Legend CBR Boundary States Counties 5 Open Water _ contraction overlap B expansion Results for each category (contraction, overlap, expansion) reflect agreement among 2 or more of 6 distinct spatial models (Comer et al. 2012a). Figure 4.4. Forecasted Climate Envelope Changes for Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubiand Within the Central Basin and Range as of 2060 824 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement in loss of flows in several stream and spring systems and loss of riparian habitat. Additionally, changes in timing of peak flows could impact storage potential in existing reservoirs. This map indicates where between 1 and 8 types are forecasted by 2060 to have climate envelopes overlapping current distributions; thus providing one indication of potential climate-change refugia from Comer et al. 2012a. Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or no impact on climate change and are therefore are not discussed in detail: mineral split-state, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management, riparian areas and wetland management, recreation management, CTTM, renewable energy, lands and realty, and ACECs. (Comer et al. 2012a) Figure 4.5. Potential Climate-Change Refugia Based on 2060 Forecasts of Climate Envelopes for Major Vegetation Types within the Ecoregion 4.18.4. Alternative A Climate impacts under Alternative A are identical to impacts resulting from current management as described above in Nature and Type of Effects and Impacts Common to All Alternatives. No changes to GHG emissions would occur. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 825 4.18.5. Alternative B Management under Alternative B would constrain resource use and would decrease any GHG emissions associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Management under Alternative B would result in overall conservation of PPMAs and PGMAs reducing anthropogenic disturbances and potential for GHG emissions. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Alternative B does not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management nor does it specify suppression activities. It does identify general actions for pre- and post-fire treatment activities, timing of treatments, resting, and use of native plants for revegetation. Based on these actions. Alternative B could have fewer impacts on climate change than Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Management under Alternative B would identify 12,693,500 acres within PPMA and 374,700 acres within PGM A petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry and 4,664,700 acres as open to locatable mineral exploration or development. Mining activities results in short-term and long-term emissions of GHGs during fuel combustion in vehicles, drill rigs, and construction equipment (EPA 2012); it also removes vegetation and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas of high potential to development would have the potential to result in fewer releases of GHGs in the planning area as compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Under Alternative B, 12,693,500 acres within PPMA and 374,700 acres within PGM A would be managed as closed to mineral material disposal and 4,664,700 acres as open for consideration for mineral material disposal on a case-by-case basis. Mining activities results in short-term and long-term emissions of GHGs during fuel combustion in vehicles, drill rigs, and construction equipment (EPA 2012); it also removes vegetation and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas of high potential to development would have the potential to result in fewer releases of GHGs in the planning area as compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative B 12,693,500 acres within PPMA and 374,700 acres within PGM A would be managed as closed and 4,664,700 acres would be managed as open to fluid minerals, oil and gas, and geothermal. In addition, this alternative identifies actions and conservation measures for areas that are already leased. Oil and gas development results in short-term and long-term emissions ot GHGs during fuel combustion in vehicles, drill rigs, and construction equipment (EPA 2012); it also removes vegetation and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas of high potential to development would have the potential to result in fewer releases of GHGs in the planning area as compared with Alternative A. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative B 826 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.18.6. Alternative C Management under Alternative C would constrain resource use and would decrease any GHG emissions associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management GHG emissions would be less than under Alternative A. Removing grazing would change habitat conditions, potentially increasing resistance to climate change effects. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Lo cat able Minerals Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Same as Alternative B. 4.18.7. Alternative D Management under Alternative D would constrain resource use and would decrease any GHG emissions associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Alternative D does not identify any specific numbers of acres for vegetation treatment; however, it does have several actions specifying types of treatments and timing. Based on the actions associated with Alternative D, there should be fewer impacts on climate change overall than in Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Alternative D does not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management. It does identify general actions for suppression activities, pre- and post-fire treatment activities. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative C September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 827 timing of treatments, resting, and use of native plants for revegetation. Based on these actions, Alternative D could have fewer impacts on climate change than Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under Alternative D within PPMA and PGMA, 1,670,800 acres would be managed as closed to fluid minerals, oil and gas and geothermal and manage 16,061,900 acres as open to fluid minerals, oil and gas and geothermal. In addition, management would list stipulations for No Surface Occupancy in priority GRSG habitat for currently unleased areas and conservation measures for reducing land disturbance on leased areas. Management under Alternative D would result in fewer impacts on climate change than Alternative A. Oil and gas development results in short-term and long-term emissions of GHGs during fuel combustion in vehicles, drill rigs, and construction equipment (EPA 2012); it also removes vegetation and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas of high potential to development would have the potential to result in fewer releases of GHGs in the planning area as compared with Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Management under Alternative D within PPMA and PGMA would manage 17,732,900 acres as closed to mineral material disposal and 0 acres as open for consideration for mineral material disposal on a case-by-case basis. Management under Alternative D would result in fewer impacts on climate change than Alternative A. Mining activities results in short-term and long-term emissions of GHGs during fuel combustion in vehicles, drill rigs, and construction equipment (EPA 2012); it also removes vegetation and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas of high potential to development would have the potential to result in fewer releases of GHGs in the planning area as compared with Alternative A. 4.18.8. Alternative E Alternative E does not outline specific management actions and would result in similar impacts on climate change as Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Alternative E does not identify any specific numbers of acres for vegetation treatment nor does it identify any general actions specifying types of treatments and timing. Impacts are the same as Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Alternative E does not specify any specific numbers of acres for hazardous fuels management or post-fire rehabilitation treatments. It does identify general actions for suppression activities, particularly associated with improving initial attack suppression actions. Based on these actions. Alternative E could have fewer impacts on climate change than Alternative A. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative E 828 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Same as Alternative A. 4.18.9. Alternative F Alternative F generally constrains resource use and would decrease any GHG emissions associated with a particular use compared with Alternative A. Resources affected are described below. Impacts from Greater Sage-Grouse Management Same as Alternative B. Impacts from Vegetation and Soils Management Under this alternative, there would be a 3 percent cap on disturbance within GRSG habitat. Once the 3 percent disturbance is met, no new activities that result in land disturbance would be authorized. This would have an overall benefit on climate change. Management under Alternative F would result in fewer impacts than Alternative A. Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management Under this alternative, there would be a 3 percent cap on disturbance within GRSG habitat. Once the cap is met, no new activities that would result in land disturbance would be authorized. This would have an overall benefit on climate change. Management under Alternative F would result in fewer impacts than Alternative A. Impacts from Leasable Minerals Management Under this alternative, there would be a 3 percent cap on disturbance within GRSG habitat. Once the cap is met, no new activities that would result in land disturbance would be authorized. This would have an overall benefit on climate change. Management under Alternative F would result in fewer impacts than Alternative A. Impacts from Locatable Minerals Management Under this alternative, there would be a 3 percent cap on disturbance within GRSG habitat. Once the cap is met, no new activities that would result in land disturbance would be authorized. This would have an overall benefit on climate change. Management under Alternative F would result in fewer impacts than Alternative A. Impacts from Salable Minerals Management Under this alternative, there would be a 3 percent cap on disturbance within GRSG habitat. Once the cap is met, no new activities that would result in land disturbance would be authorized. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Alternative F September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 829 This would have an overall benefit on climate change. Management under Alternative F would result in fewer impacts than Alternative A. 4.19. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice This section discusses social and economic impacts from proposed GRSG management actions related to other resources and resource uses. Existing social and economic conditions are described in Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. This section also addresses environmental justice impacts and the differences between alternatives for the social and economic impacts identified. 4.19.1. Methodology and Assumptions For the analysis of economic impacts, quantitative estimates are provided where sufficient data or estimates are available. IMPLAN was used to estimate impacts on outcomes, employment, and earnings in the study area, including those derived from the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect captures the impact of initial expenditures on subsequent rounds of expenditures derived from the initial income generated as well as the impact of initial expenditures in one sector of the economy on other interrelated sectors. This allows for a more complete picture of the economic impacts of the management alternatives in the planning area. For the analysis of social impacts, two other types of impacts were considered. The first is that derived from migration induced by management actions. These impacts are induced by economic opportunities that drive population into or out of specific areas and affect population growth as well as the demand for housing and public services. The second is that associated with specific interest groups, community livelihoods, or minority and low income populations (Environmental Justice). The following are summaries of the types of social and economic impacts and associated indicators of those impacts, from management actions related to the protection of GRSG within the study area: • Direct economic activity dependent on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered land and resource management o Qualitative assessment of the volume of economic activity dependent on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands and resources o Indirect impacts could be changes in economic activity • Overall employment, earnings, output, and earnings per job associated with economic activities impacted by management alternatives o Dollar value of output, earnings, and earnings per job; number of jobs o Indirect impacts would include changes in number of jobs • Tax revenues and payments to states and counties o Dollar value of tax revenues September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 830 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement o Indirect impacts would include changes in tax revenues • Other (nonmarket) values o Dollar value of consumer surplus associated with recreation activities; qualitative assessment of the non-use values attributable to GRSG populations and ranching activity o Indirect impacts would include changes in nonmarket values • Population o Qualitative assessment of potential increase or decrease in population o Indirect impacts would include changes in population • Housing and public services o Qualitative assessment of local availability of housing and public services o Indirect Impacts would include changes in availability of housing and public services. • Consistency with county LUPs o Qualitative assessment of consistency with county LUPs • Interest groups and communities of place o Qualitative assessment of alignment with interest group objectives and community livelihoods • Environmental Justice o Disproportionately high and adverse human health and/or environmental impacts Assumptions The following list presents the basic assumptions related to social and economic impact assessment for Alternatives A through F. • The analysis of economic impacts of management alternatives on grazing uses billed AUMs as a baseline, estimated as a ten-year average share of active AUMs. Active AUMs measure the amount of forage from land available for grazing. Forest Service terms this measure “permitted” AUMs. Billed AUMs measure the amount of forage for which BFM and Forest Service bill annually. Forest Service uses the term “authorized” AUMs for the same concept. The analysis uses two scenarios to describe a range of potential economic impacts of management alternatives on economic activity related to livestock grazing. • The quantitative (model-based) analysis of management alternatives affecting oil and gas development on federal lands assumes that operators who are unable to drill on federal lands would not access the same oil and gas from nearby private or state lands. This assumption makes the model-based analysis more conservative, showing worse impacts than might be the case. Note, however, that a shift to private or state lands could occur, meaning that the economic impacts of reduced drilling and production on federal lands could be softened by the concomitant increase in drilling on private or state lands. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Methodology and Assumptions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 831 Based on available information, several resource uses would not result in measurable or systematic social or economic impacts that would differ by alternative. Therefore, resource uses that are not discussed in detail are ACECs, wild horses and burros, solar energy, and wildland fire management. Effects regarding effectiveness and efficiency of implementing agency actions to achieve these objectives and resource outcomes are presented in respective resource sections within Chapter 4 and are not restated in this section to avoid redundancy. The analysis also does not address solar energy development in detail. There are no existing solar projects on GRSG habitat in the study area, and GRSG habitat does not overlap any Solar Energy Zones. The BLM also has not received any applications for solar energy development on GRSG habitat in the study area, and does not anticipate receiving any such applications. Therefore, the BLM does not anticipate any economic impacts associated with solar energy development across any of the alternatives. For further information, see Section 4.16, Renewable Energy. 4.19.2. Economic Impacts Impacts from Management Actions Affecting Grazing Allotments Overall Employment, Earnings, and Output per Job Impacted by Management Alternatives The potential impacts of management alternatives affecting grazing on output and employment were estimated quantitatively using the IMPLAN economic model. Detailed assumptions for the quantitative analysis are described in Appendix O, Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. Alternatives A, B, D, and E would have similar economic effects because they would maintain the same number of AUMs (AUMs would be reduced in Alternatives C and F). Chapter 2, Alternatives, and Section 4.9, Livestock Grazing, document other proposed management changes in detail, including changes in range improvements and vegetation treatments. This section focuses on the economic impacts of those changes. Note that the holders of grazing permits would maintain the right to implement the authorization they have under the permit. Thus, there would be no access-related impacts on permittees’ ability to manage their lands or livestock under any alternative. Estimates of impacts on jobs, earnings and output were obtained using the IMPLAN model. The model used 201 1 data for active AUMs, except for active AUMs in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, for which 2012 data were used. The model used an average of 2000 to 2011 data for billed AUMs, because billed AUMs fluctuate from year to year. From an economic perspective, the counties likely to be most affected by restrictions on livestock grazing would be those in which a relatively large portion of the economic base stems from livestock grazing. Table 3-78, Farm Earnings Detail, 2010 (2010 dollars), in Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, shows the approximate contribution of livestock grazing to overall county earnings, and indicates the counties in which livestock grazing contributes the greatest portion of overall earnings: Modoc (7.4 percent), Pershing (4.1 percent), and Nye (2.9 percent). In all other counties, the figure is lower than two percent. As noted in Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, research has demonstrated that in most cases public land grazing permits increase ranch property value beyond the additional forage value provided, evidently because federal permits are perceived as adding semi-private open space to the property. Thus, any restrictions to grazing on public lands could result in reductions in property values for the ranches. The extent of any impact could vary depending on September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts 832 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement the extent of restrictions of grazing on public lands, whether a grazing permit is not renewed in its entirety, and the land management decisions in the selected alternative. It should be noted that any premium to property values associated with a federal grazing permit is a result of amenity perception rather than ownership - since any public land grazing permit is associated with publicly, not privately, owned land. Vegetation treatments in all alternatives would generally have the effect of improving ecological condition and rangeland health, which would generally sustain current livestock operations and be beneficial to both wildlife and livestock (as well as livestock operators and local communities and counties). Forage availability may increase in the long term due to improved land health and forage productivity. However, required rest periods following treatments may impact the ability of livestock operators to fully utilize permitted AUMs in the short term. These short-term impacts would be limited except in cases where treatments involve large numbers of acres. Also, weed control treatments would increase forage availability in the long term by improving native plant productivity. The analysis calculated a range of economic impacts. The low impact scenario represents the case where ranchers continue to use as many of the initial billed AUMs as possible, using non-billed active AUMs as a buffer to absorb reductions in AUMs imposed by management alternatives. The high impact scenario represents the case where ranchers maintain a constant billed to active AUM ratio and reduce billed AUMs in proportion to the reduction in active AUMs. Further details are provided in Appendix O. Table 4-29 Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Livestock AUMs on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A, presents this range of estimates. Note that the employment estimates include the labor of farm proprietors, although not of unpaid family labor; if family labor were included, then labor use differences among alternatives would be larger. Alternative A — Under Alternative A, grazing on federal lands would not be affected. There would be no change in annual output, annual jobs, or annual earnings. Based on the location of current federal grazing lands, the economic contribution of grazing would be similar to the pattern under current management, with particular concentrations in Modoc County, California, and the Nevada counties of Pershing and Nye. Table 4.30. Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Livestock AUMs on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A Alternatives B, D, and E1 Alternative C Alternative F Low High Low High Low High Output See notes See notes -$ 129.1 -$143. 1 -$43.1 -$89.4 Employment See notes See notes -1,413 -1,565 -474 -978 Earnings See notes See notes -$47.1 -$52.2 -$15.7 -$32.6 Source: Calcu explained in th Note: Output £ 1 . Based on av or E. However on livestock m costs or lead tc ated using the IMPLAN model, applied to active AUMs for eac e text and in Appendix O. ind earnings are in millions of 2010 dollars. ailable AUMs, there would be no change in economic activity fr as described in the text, management actions in Alternatives B £ ovement, vegetation treatments, and range improvements, which other adverse economic impacts. i alternative (BLM 2013e), as om grazing in Alternatives B, D, ind D would result in restrictions may increase ranch operators’ Alternative B — Under Alternative B, economic activity attributable to grazing on federal lands with GRSG habitat is likely to be broadly similar to Alternative A because there would Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 833 be no changes in the amount of GRSG habitat open for grazing. Some decisions on livestock movement, range improvements, and vegetation treatments would be subject to the conservation, enhancement, or restoration of GRSG habitat. As noted above, vegetation treatments would generally have the effect of improving ecological condition and rangeland health, as forage availability typically increases following vegetation treatments in the long term due to improved land health and forage productivity. However, required rest periods following treatments may impact the ability of livestock operators to fully utilize permitted AUMs in the short term. Seasonal restrictions could also be imposed, requiring that permittees move their livestock elsewhere, which would result in added costs to their operations. The extent to which these additional constraints would reduce grazing economic activity is not clear, but Alternative B would likely result in some reductions in economic activity compared to Alternative A. Alternative C — Under Alternative C, economic activity attributable to grazing on federal lands would be reduced. PPMAs and PGMAs would be closed to livestock grazing, and livestock grazing on federal lands would be restricted to those allotments with no GRSG habitat. Adverse impacts on output, employment, and earnings would be greater in Alternative C than any other alternative. The economic impact of Alternative C may also be greater if the change in management actions, such as the removal of GRSG habitat from livestock grazing, impairs the economic viability of some grazing operations - especially if the land previously used by a ranch is then left deserted and unused. Alternative D — Economic activity due to grazing on federal lands with GRSG habitat is likely to be similar to Alternatives A and B because there would be no changes in the amount of GRSG habitat open for grazing. As noted above, vegetation treatments would generally have the effect of improving ecological condition and rangeland health, as forage availability typically increases in the long term due to improved land health and forage productivity. However, required rest periods following treatments may impact the ability of livestock operators to fully utilize permitted AUMs in the short term. Some restrictions on range improvements to protect GRSG habitat, or seasonal restrictions that could require permittees to move livestock off-range to protect habitat, could affect the availability of forage, but to a lesser extent than Alternative B. The extent to which these additional constraints would affect economic activity from grazing on federal lands is not clear. However, Alternative D would likely result in some reductions in economic activity compared to Alternative A (and the magnitude of impact would be lower than in Alternative B). Alternative E— Economic activity due to grazing on federal lands with GRSG habitat is likely to be similar to Alternatives A, B, and D because there would be no changes in the amount of GRSG habitat open for grazing. Vegetation treatments would generally have the effect of improving ecological condition and rangeland health, as forage availability increases in the long term due to improved land health and forage productivity. Required rest periods following treatments may impact the ability of livestock operators to fully utilize permitted AUMs in the short term. The extent to which these additional constraints would affect economic activity from grazing is not clear. However, Alternative E may result in some reductions in economic activity compared to Alternative A (in Nevada only; in California, the effects would be identical to Alternative A). The magnitude of impact would probably be lower than in Alternatives B or D. Alternative F — Under Alternative F, economic activity due to grazing on federal lands would be reduced because of the closure of some PPMAs and PGMAs to livestock grazing, as well as the action to rest a portion of PPMAs and PGMAs each year and limit utilization levels. Economic impacts on output, employment, and earnings are shown in Table 4-29 Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Livestock AUMs on Output, Employment, and Earnings September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts 834 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Compared to Alternative A. The impact of Alternative F may be greater than shown if the reduction in federal AUMs impairs the economic viability of some grazing operations; this would be truer if the land previously used by a ranch is then left deserted and unused. Other Values Associated with Livestock Grazing As described in Chapter 3, public land managed for livestock grazing provides both market values and nonmarket values; the latter include open space and western ranch scenery, which provide value to some residents and outside visitors, and ranches may also provide some value to the non-using public (e.g., the cultural icon of the American cowboy). Some residents and visitors also perceive nonmarket opportunity costs associated with livestock grazing; in addition, some of the lifestyle value of ranching is likely to be captured in markets (e.g., property values of ranches adjacent to public lands). The “Other Values” section in Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, and Appendix N provide additional discussion of these values. Overall, the process for incorporating potential nonmarket values associated with the management of public land for livestock grazing into analyses of net public benefits remains uncertain. Since the scientific and economic literature on the topic does not provide adequate data or a consensus theoretical framework from which to analyze these values further, the BTM and Forest Service did not attempt to quantify these values for the present study. To the degree that there are net benefits associated with nonmarket values attached to livestock grazing and ranching, these would be greatest in Alternatives A and E, as both of these alternatives are likely to result in similar levels of livestock grazing operations in the study area. If the net nonmarket value associated with livestock grazing and ranching is positive, then that value would be greatest under Alternatives A and E, lower under Alternative D, lower still in Alternative B, lower in Alternative F, and lowest of all under Alternative C, in line with the expected impacts on market values discussed above. Impacts from Management Actions A ffecting Recreation Overall Employment , Earnings, Output, and Earnings per Job Impacted by Management Alternatives As discussed in Chapter 3, service related sectors, including many typically linked to recreational activities such as the accommodation and food services industry, are important sources of employment and earnings throughout the study area. Although management activities included in the proposed alternatives could affect recreational activities (e.g., OHV use in dispersed areas), the effects are not projected to be substantial. Designating OHV use as limited in certain areas (i.e., limited to existing roads and routes, possibly during specific times of year) would have the effect of creating a network of OHV routes rather than allowing open exploration in these areas. However, there would still be ample opportunities for adventure and exploration, and BLM recreation specialists expect that overall use would not change. On both BLM and Forest Service lands, agency recreation specialists predict the alternatives will not result in measurable impacts on recreation visitor days. BLM Special Recreation Permits and Forest Service Special Use Permits that are in PPMAs and PGMAs could be modified in some alternatives. This could result in a loss of commercial revenue to recreation service providers, as well as loss of permit-generated fee revenue for the BLM and Forest Service as managing agencies. However, for several reasons, the BLM predicts that any losses would be relatively small. This is because the distance needed to avoid sensitive habitat is relatively small (usually four miles at most). The BLM and the permit holder would sometimes Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 835 he able to avoid impacts altogether by modifying the time of use; and there are relatively few activities that the BLM would permit in the first place that would have impacts on GRSG. Thus, although specific permit modifications are not prescribed at the level of this EIS and, it is not possible to quantify the economic impacts, any impacts are likely to be small. For all of Alternatives B through F, the net economic effect on recreational activity is not possible to quantify, but would likely be very small. The primary effect on recreational activity would be related to change in designation from open to limited for OHV use, and as noted above (and in Section 4.18, Recreation), BLM recreation specialists expect that use overall would not change. Alternative A — Under Alternative A, existing recreation opportunities in the study area would be maintained. Alternative A would not result in impacts on revenue of commercial recreation service providers or managing agencies attributable to BLM SRPs and Forest Service SUAs, as it would result in no changes to current management. Alternative B — The restrictions on BLM SRPs and Forest Service SUAs documented in Section 4.18, Recreation, may result in modifications for some types of permitted uses (e.g., OHV races) on PPM As, potentially resulting in fewer opportunities for this type of event. As noted above, the OHV area designation change on PPMAs (from open to limited) may result in small changes in patterns of OHV travel in the study area, but public lands recreation specialists do not anticipate any changes in recreational use. The economic effect from recreational activity is not possible to quantify, but if there is any difference versus Alternative A from restrictions on BLM SRPs and Forest Service SUAs, it is likely to be very small. Alternative C — Economic impacts of Alternative C with respect to BLM SRPs and Forest Service SUAs are the same as Alternative A. There would be no anticipated change in economic impacts with respect to the OHV area designation change on PPMAs/PGMAs because public lands recreation specialists do not anticipate any changes in recreational use. Thus, economic impacts with respect to recreation would be the same as in Alternative A. Alternative D — Under Alternative D, BLM SRPs and Forest Service SUAs could be restricted for some types of permitted uses (e.g., OHV races) on PPMAs and PGMAs, which may (but would not necessarily, for the reasons noted above) result in reduced economic activity associated with these events. There would be no anticipated change in economic impacts with respect to the OHV area designation change on PPMAs/PGMAs, because public lands recreation specialists do not anticipate any changes in recreational use. The economic effect from recreational activity is not possible to quantify, but if there is any difference versus Alternative A from restrictions on BLM SRPs and Forest Service recreation permits, it is likely to be very small. Alternative E — Alternative E would result in the same economic impacts related to recreation as in Alternative A. Alternative F — Alternative F would result in the same economic impacts related to recreation as in Alternatives B and D. Other Values Associated with Recreation As described in Chapter 3, only a portion of the value of recreation on public lands is captured in the marketplace. Here, the concept of consumer surplus is used to measure the “non-market” portion of recreation value. As noted in Chapter 3 and Appendix N, these nonmarket values are not directly comparable to output, earnings, or jobs associated with various resource uses September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts 836 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered lands, which are described elsewhere in this section. As discussed above, recreation specialists believe the alternatives would not result in measurable changes in recreational activities or patterns. Therefore, there would be no change in non-market recreation values. Impacts from Management of Oil and Gas Leases Overall Employment, Earnings, Output, and Earnings per Job Impacted by Management Alternatives The potential impacts of management alternatives affecting oil and gas drilling, completion, and production on overall employment, earnings, and output were estimated quantitatively using the I M PLAN model. BLM calculated these impacts from an estimate of the number of wells expected to be drilled and completed, and the amount of oil and gas produced, as well as per- well and per-barrel estimates of economic output, earnings, and employment. These estimates are documented in detail in Appendix O. Based on the restrictions identified for the management alternatives, BLM oil and gas specialists projected that the number of wells and volume of production would be the same for Alternatives A, C, D, and E. In Alternatives B and F, management actions would restrict exploration and development activity such that no new wells would be drilled (BLM 2013f). As a result, no new wells would be completed, and no oil would be produced, on GRSG habitat. Existing wells, and wells not on GRSG habitat, would not be affected under any alternative. For analytical purposes, to highlight the lower economic activity in Alternatives B and F, new wells were assumed to be drilled and completed over 20 years at a uniform rate, and the oil from completed wells was also assumed to be produced at a uniform rate over 20 years. Thus, the total economic activity associated with oil and gas development and production was estimated by summing economic activity from drilling, completion, and total oil production for each completed well, then dividing by 20 to produce an approximate annual figure for comparison with baseline data. The results are presented in Table 4-30, Average Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Oil and Gas on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A. Table 4.31. Average Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Oil and Gas on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A Stein Alternatives C, D, and E Alternatives B and F Output No change -$86.9 Employment No change -175.0 Earnings No change -$10.8 Source: Calculated using BLM (20 1 3f) and the IMPLAN model, as explained in the text and in Appendix O, Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. Note: Dollar figures are in millions of yeai -2010 dollars. The results focus on new wells on new leases, rather than new wells on existing leases. However, it is conceivable that in Alternatives B and F, the number of new wells on existing leases could be lower than in Alternative A. This could happen if the NEPA review during the exploration stage (Application for Permit to Drill) identifies conflicts with GRSG habitat and the BLM Field Office thus requires protective measures beyond normal drilling review requirements. If the operator then determines that the increased requirements would make it economically not feasible Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 837 to continue the exploration process, and decides not to continue exploration activity, this could result in reduced drilling activity from new wells on existing leases (BLM 20 1 3 f). This would mean that the economic impacts of Alternatives B and F could be greater than those shown in Table 4-30, Average Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Oil and Gas on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A. The economic impact of decreases in oil and gas development in the study area under Alternatives B and F would be principally felt in areas that are being explored for oil and where workers and service providers reside. Although most of the current production in the study area is in Nye County and Eureka County (see Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice), the restrictions in Alternatives B and F on oil and gas exploration are not expected to result in any economic impacts on these counties. Instead, the BLM expects the economic impacts to occur primarily in Elko County, the most significant area for current exploration activity (BLM 201 31). Impacts from Management of Locatable and Salable Minerals As described in Chapter 3, the study area produces several salable and locatable minerals, including gold, silver, copper, and sand and gravel. GRSG habitat management alternatives would impose restrictions on development of mineral production, particularly under Alternatives B and F, which would close PPMAs to mineral material sales and require restoration of salable mineral pits no longer in use to meet GRSG conservation objectives (see Section 4.14, Minerals - Salable). Also, under Alternatives B and F some lands would be petitioned for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (see Section 4.13, Minerals - Locatable). Any entity that holds valid existing rights to locatable mineral development would not be affected by a withdrawal of lands from locatable mineral entry because the valid existing right would supersede a withdrawal if it occurs. Section 4.13, Minerals - Locatable, provides more information about valid existing rights; also, see the definition of valid existing rights in Chapter 8, Acronyms and Glossary. For areas without a valid existing right, if an area is withdrawn for locatable mineral entry, an applicant wishing to stake a claim would be required to pay for a mineral examination to determine if the claim is valid, based on geological potential and expected economic viability. The applicant would pay the cost of the mineral examination. This would hinder exploration or claim activity for some operators and some claims, depending on the size of the claim, expected return on investment, and the operator’s ability to invest capital upfront in the process. However, because all of this information is site-specific, it is not possible to determine the specific economic impacts of the petition for withdrawal under Alternatives B and F. BLM specialists generally expect that the production of gold, silver, and copper would remain the same across all alternatives (BLM 2013g), at least in the first three to five years after any withdrawal from locatable mineral entry is implemented. In the long run, production of locatable minerals would be affected only to the degree that the cost of conducting a mineral examination would affect individual operators’ decisions to pursue claim, which would depend on site-specific and operator-specific conditions. Closing PPMAs to mineral material sales in Alternatives B, D, and F would increase costs for commercial and public users of mineral materials. Because transportation of mineral materials is typically a cost driver, especially for municipal users, closing pits in PPMAs could have a measurable financial impact on entities that depend on sand and gravel from BLM-administered lands. The BLM would attempt to reduce this impact by identifying new pits proximate to identified needs, but at the stage of this analysis - without knowing the location, timing, and September, 20 J 3 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts 838 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement amounts needed - it is not possible to determine the economic impacts on either municipal or commercial entities. Overall, economic activity associated with management of locatable minerals would be the same for Alternatives A, C, D, and E, and may be lower under Alternatives B and F depending on site-specific and operator-specific conditions. Economic activity associated with salable mineral materials would be the same for Alternatives A, C, and E, and may be lower under Alternatives B, D, and F. The reductions are not possible to quantify for this EIS, but the BLM believes they would be small at least in the short run (three to five years after implementation). Impacts from Management Actions Affecting Geothermal Exploration and Development Economic impacts from geothermal exploration and development are a function of construction and operation expenditures for geothermal electricity development, including drilling wells, constructing power plants, and operating facilities. BLM developed a RFDS for geothermal development, which serves as a basis for analyzing impacts resulting from future leasing and development of federal geothermal resources within the decision area over the next 20 years. The RFDS analysis predicts that in Alternative A, approximately 25 power plants will come online over the next 20 years as a result of continued exploration and development activity. The RFDS analysis also notes that in the remaining alternatives, exploration and development activity would be restricted (to varying degrees) due to restrictions associated with GRSG habitat conservation. For the purposes of the economic analysis, BLM assumed that about two-thirds of the new power plants would use traditional hydrothermal technology and the remaining plants would use Enhanced Geothermal Systems. BLM also assumed that the plants would come online on a roughly uniform schedule, so that half of the plants would be online halfway through the 20-year forecast period. Thus, the analysis of economic activity from plant construction reflects a typical year (i.e., for Alternative A, about 1.25 plants constructed) and the analysis of economic activity from plant operation reflects the midpoint year (ten new plants online). To estimate economic activity associated with geothermal development, BLM first used the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s JEDI model to determine approximate capital and operating costs associated with a representative power plant, based on a 15 MW nameplate capacity and typical conditions for the planning area. BLM then used IMPLAN, calibrated to the specific region of the socioeconomic study area, to calculate the total (i.e., direct, indirect and induced) impacts associated with a given direct expenditure. Table 4-31, Economic Impact of Management Actions Affecting Geothermal Exploration and Development Compared to Alternative A, presents the resulting estimates of output, employment, and earnings estimates for activities related to geothermal development for Alternatives B, C, D, E and F, compared with Alternative A. Table 4.32. Economic Impact of Management Actions Affecting Geothermal Exploration and Development Compared to Alternative A Alt B- Alt A AltC- Alt A Alt D- Alt A Alt E- Alt A Alt F - Alt A Construction (representative for one year) Output -$25.8 -$36.8 -$22.1 $0.0 -$36.8 Employment -166 -237 -142 0 -237 Earnings -$9.8 -$14.0 -$8.4 $0.0 -$14.0 Operations (for year 10 of planning period Output -$8.6 -$12.3 -$7.4 $0.0 -$12.3 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts September, 20/3 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 839 Alt B- Alt A Alt C- Alt A Alt I)- Alt A Alt E - Alt A Alt F- Alt A Employment -70 -99 -60 0 -99 Earnings -$6.6 -$9.4 -$5.6 $0.0 -$9.4 Source: Calculated using the IMPLAN model as explained in the text and in Appendix O, Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. Notes: Output and earnings are in millions of year 2010 dollars. Average earnings per job are in 2010 dollars. The economic impact for operations in year 10 of the planning period represents the point at which half of the expected geothermal power plants have been developed and are operating. Alternative A — Under Alternative A, BLM predicts geothermal exploration and development activity would proceed according to the Geothermal RFDS scenario. This entails 243 new exploratory and development wells would be drilled, of which 1 52 are expected to be production wells, 76 would be injection wells, and 15 would be exploratory wells that would not be converted into either production or injection wells. As a result of these successful wells, 25 power plants would come online (BLM 201 3h). Alternative B — Under Alternative B, lands with high geothermal potential that overlap PPMAs would be closed to geothermal leasing, exploration and development. It is uncertain which future geothermal projects would be located within these lands; however, it is estimated that geothermal exploration and development could be reduced by 20 to 50 percent (BLM 201 3h). BLM used the midpoint of this range to estimate expected reductions in output, employment, and earnings compared to Alternative A. Alternative C — Under Alternative C, closure of public lands to fluid mineral leasing would restrict the amount of new geothermal leasing exploration and development that would otherwise occur. It is estimated that geothermal exploration and development would be reduced by 30 to 70 percent (BLM 20 1 3h). The BLM used the midpoint of this range to estimate expected reductions in output, employment, and earnings compared to Alternative A. Alternative D — Under Alternative D, NSO restrictions would reduce the availability of PPMAs and PGMAs to geothermal exploration and development. As a result, it is estimated that geothermal exploration and development could be reduced by approximately 20 to 40 percent (BLM 20 1 3h). BLM used the midpoint of this range to estimate expected reductions in output, employment, and earnings compared to Alternative A. Alternative E — Under Alternative E, it is estimated that drilling and exploration would be close to that in Alternative A (BLM 20 1 3h). Thus, BLM predicts there would be no reduction in output, employment or earnings compared to Alternative A. Alternative F — Constraints on geothermal leasing, exploration and development in this alternative would be similar to those in Alternative C (BLM 20 1 3h). Thus, the BLM estimated that reductions in output, employment, and earnings would be identical to those of Alternative C. Geographically, the impacts associated with reduced geothermal exploration and development would most likely be felt in Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe Counties, since that is where most geothermal electrical generation is occurring on federal lands today (see Chapter 3). Impacts from Management Actions Affecting Wind Energy Development As described in C hapter 3, Affected Environment, some wind projects have either been proposed or are in the monitoring stage in the study area. Currently existing or proposed wind energy ROWs in the study area include approximately 150 MW of installed capacity. BLM’s current September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts 840 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement projections for wind energy in the study area are for the installation of approximately 1,556 MW of installed capacity in the reasonably foreseeable future. Under Alternative A, the expectation would be maintained. Although specific impacts have not been quantified at this time, BLM anticipates that Alternatives B through F may restrict approval of several of the projects (BLM, 201 3i), resulting in lower annual output, employment, and earnings relative to Alternative A. Alternative A — Under Alternative A, BLM predicts that the installation of approximately 1,556 MW of installed capacity in the reasonably foreseeable future would be maintained (BLM 201 3j). Alternatives B and C — Impacts on wind energy development are expected to be greatest under Alternatives B and C because these alternatives would place the most restrictions on development by designating habitat as exclusion areas. BLM is unable to quantify the impacts of these restrictions at this time. However, BLM anticipates that the restrictions on development under Alternatives B and C would cause the greatest expected reductions in output, employment, and earnings compared to Alternative A. Alternatives D, E, and F — Management under Alternatives D, E, and F would place restrictions on the development of wind energy to a greater extent than under Alternative A, but to a lesser extent than under Alternatives B and C. BLM is unable to quantify the impacts of these restrictions at this time. Note that restrictions in Alternative E would affect Nevada only. Impacts from Management Actions Affecting Land and Realty and Travel Management Direct Economic Activity Dependent on BLM-administered and Forest Service-administered Land and Resource Management Management actions that affect development of infrastructure could have important hindering effects on the growth of economic activity in the area. Limitations on new ROWs for power lines, pipelines, and access routes or restrictions to route construction and to travel on existing roads could increase the cost of new economic investments or make them no longer economically viable. Additional information about changes in cost effectiveness and efficiency associated with restrictions on ROW, corridors, and treatments are discussed in Section 4.15, Lands and Realty and Section 4.7, Vegetation and Soils. A qualitative discussion of the potential for economic impacts from restrictions to land use and transportation is provided below for each alternative. Alternative A — Alternative A would place the fewest restrictions on ROW development and route construction and maintain the largest area open to travel, among the alternatives. Alternative B — Management actions under Alternative B to protect GRSG habitat would impact lands and realty through the closure of areas to ROW and special use authorizations, additional criteria for land exchanges, and limitations on new mineral development and road construction. Motorized travel would be limited to existing routes in PPMAs unless BLM or Forest Service has completed travel management plans which designate specific roads (routes) for motorized travel. Routes constructed in excess of a 3 percent disturbance cap would face increased costs with mitigation resulting from the loss of habitat. Alternative B would impose limitations and added costs to future economic investments in the study area compared with Alternative A. Alternative C — Under Alternative C, impacts on ROW authorizations would be similar to Alternative B, but would apply to a larger land area and there would be no designated corridors to accommodate new ROW infrastructure. Additionally, travel management under Alternative C would have similar impacts as Alternative B, with added restrictions: route construction would Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 841 require a 4-mile buffer from leks in PPMAs and PGMAs. Alternative C would impose the most limitations and added costs to future economic investments in the study area. Alternative D — ROW development and SUAs under Alternative D would also face restrictions, but these would be more limited than under Alternatives B and C. Restriction and costs to infrastructure development under Alternative D would be greater than under Alternative A but less than under Alternatives B or C. Alternative E— Management under Alternative E would have similar impacts as Alternative A, and less than under Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative F — Impacts from Alternative F are the same as or similar to those under Alternative D, except that Alternative F would further restrict the construction of new routes by not allowing new routes within a 4-mile buffer from leks. Impacts from Management Actions Affecting Special Status Species Other Values Associated with Populations of GRSG As described in Chapter 3, economists and policy makers have long recognized that rare, threatened, and endangered species have economic values beyond those associated with active “use” through viewing or hunting. Chapter 3 and Appendix N document current methods to estimate these “non-use” values, including a description of the literature review that the BLM and Forest Service conducted to determine if there were existing non-use value studies for GRSG. Although there are no existing studies on valuation specific to the GRSG, several studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals for bird species with similar characteristics find average stated willingness-to-pay between $15 and $58 per household per year in order to restore a self-sustaining population or prevent regional extinction (see Appendix N for details). These values represent a mix of use and non-use values, but the non-use components of value are likely to be the majority share since the studies primarily address species that are not hunted. Since GRSG protection is a public good available to all households throughout the intermountain west, if similar per-household values apply and if even a small portion of the per-household value represents a non-use value, then the aggregate regional non-use value could be substantial. However, the BLM and Forest Service did not quantify the aggregate value because of several factors, including uncertainty associated with the comparability of the existing studies to the GRSG context and the documented difference between stated and actual willingness-to-pay. From a qualitative perspective, however, the non-use values associated with populations of GRSG would be expected to correspond to the degree of habitat protection associated with each alternative. Current management. Alternative A, provides the least amount of protection for GRSG in the planning area and consequently could result in the most impacts on GRSG. As a result, to the degree that there are non-use values associated with populations of GRSG, management under Alternative A would have the greatest adverse impacts on those values. As discussed in Section 4.6, Special Status Species, most of the management actions under the alternatives would be beneficial for GRSG. It is therefore estimated that, compared with Alternative A, each alternative would have a positive impact on non-use values associated with populations of GRSG. However, because so many factors (e.g., vegetation and soils management, livestock grazing management, fire and fuels management, and wild horse and September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts 842 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement burro management) impact the protectiveness of each alternative, it is difficult to anticipate the comparative protection, and therefore non-use values, provided by Alternatives B through F. Impacts on Tax Revenues and Payments to States and Counties Reductions in economic activity have the potential to result in reduced tax revenues for local and state governments as well as the federal government. At the state level, these could take the form of reductions in mineral severance taxes or oil and gas production taxes, sales and use taxes, or (in California only) personal and corporate income taxes. At the local level, revenues could be reduced if property or sales taxes decrease. The alternatives are unlikely to have a significant impact on state tax revenues. As described in Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, most Nevada state revenues come from sales and use taxes, the Modified Business Tax, and minerals taxes (predominantly on gold and silver production). Nevada’s overall economic output, which provides a measure of its sales tax base, was over $124 billion in 2010, and the reductions in output anticipated due to the most restrictive alternative (Alternative F) would result in a reduction of at most $224 million, amounting to less than 0.2 percent of total output. Furthermore, some of these reductions in output would occur in California, which had a 2010 gross state product of over $1.8 trillion (BEA 2013). In both states, the stability of other sources of economic activity and resulting revenue - including but not limited to severance taxes from gold, silver and copper production in Nevada, and corporate and individual income taxes from a wide variety of industries in California - would avert significant impacts on state government revenues. As noted in the analysis of economic impacts from locatable mineral production, BLM specialists generally expect that the production of gold, silver, and copper would remain the same across all alternatives (BLM 2013g), at least in the first three to five years after any withdrawal from locatable mineral entry is implemented. In the long run, production of locatable minerals would be affected to the degree that the cost of conducting a mineral examination would affect individual operators’ decisions to pursue claim, which would depend on site-specific and operator-specific conditions. If operators’ decisions are constrained, this could have a corresponding impact on state and local tax revenues. Local government tax revenues may however, be substantially affected in specific areas that would experience dramatic reductions in economic activity. Although specific impacts on local government tax revenues could not be quantified, the anticipated reductions in economic activity suggest that certain regions could be most affected by reductions in local tax revenues: • In Alternatives C and F: Modoc County, California, and the Nevada counties of Pershing and Nye (because of reduced livestock grazing) • In Alternatives B, C, D, and F: Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe Counties in Nevada (because of reduced geothermal exploration and development) • In Alternatives B and F: Elko County (because of reduced oil and gas exploration and production) Summary of Economic Impacts Table 4-32, Average Annual Impact on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A, provides a summary of potential effects of management alternatives on employment, earnings, and employment in the study area. Alternative A represents impacts associated with current management. The differences shown in the table are derived from Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 843 summing the estimated reductions for each alternative related to livestock grazing (using the midpoint of the low and high scenarios in Table 4-29 Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Livestock AUMs on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A, as well as data from Table 4-30, Average Annual Impact of Management Actions Affecting Oil and Gas on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A, and Table 4-31 Economic Impact of Management Actions Affecting Geothermal Exploration and Development Compared to Alternative A. Although the quantitative analysis includes only earnings and employment affected by management impacts on grazing, oil and gas, and geothermal exploration and development, these activities capture the substantial majority of the economic impact of the alternatives. Table 4.33. Average Annual Impact on Output, Employment, and Earnings Compared to Alternative A Alt B- Alt A Alt C - Alt A Alt D- Alt A Alt E - Alt A Alt F- Alt A Values Output -$121.3 -$185.2 -$29.5 $0.0 -$202.3 Employment -411 - 1 .825 1 -202 0 -1,237 Earnings -$27.2 -$73.1 -$14.0 $0.0 -$58.4 Percentage of 2010 baseline values Employment -0.11% -0.51% -0.06% 0.00% -0.34% Earnings -0.16% -0.44% -0.08% 0.00% -0.35% Source: Impacts are calculated using t baseline is calculated from value of in Environmental Justice. Note: Output and earnings values are le IMPLAN model, as explained in the text and in Appendix O. Percent of 2010 ipacts and baseline information provided in Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and n millions of year 2010 dollars. The analysis shows that the reductions in economic output, employment and earnings would be greatest under Alternatives C and F, and there would also be reductions in Alternatives B and D. The reductions in Alternative C would correspond to approximately 0.5 percent of total 2010 employment, and 0.4 percent of total earnings, in the study area. Reductions in Alternative F would correspond to approximately 0.3 percent each of 2010 employment and 2010 earnings in the study area. Corresponding percentages could not be calculated for output, since baseline output could not be calculated for the counties of the study area (it is available only at the state level). In Alternative B, the reductions are due partly to anticipated reductions in oil exploration and development (about 40 percent of earnings and employment) and partly to geothermal exploration and development (about 60 percent), and therefore would occur primarily in Elko, Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe Counties in Nevada. In Alternative C, two-thirds or more of the reductions would be due to reductions in livestock grazing (68 percent of earnings, 73 percent of output and 82 percent of employment reductions); thus, the impacts would occur primarily in Modoc County, California, and the Nevada counties of Pershing and Nye, with additional impacts - due to reduced geothermal development - in Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe Counties in Nevada. In Alternative D, the reductions are entirely due to anticipated reductions in geothermal exploration and development, and therefore would occur primarily in Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe Counties in Nevada. In Alternative F, a portion of the reductions would be due to lower oil development (19 percent of earnings, 43 percent of output, and 14 percent of employment), which would primarily affect Elko County, Nevada. Reductions would also occur in livestock grazing (41 percent of earnings. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Economic Impacts 844 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 33 percent of output, and 59 percent of employment reductions), which would occur primarily in Modoc County, California, and the Nevada counties of Pershing and Nye. Reductions in geothermal development, accounting for 40 percent of earnings, 24 percent of output, and 27 percent of employment, would probably affect primarily Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe Counties in Nevada. Some differences among the alternatives could not be quantified. Among these are state and local tax revenues; however, tax revenues are largely tied to economic output and earnings, so the relative magnitude of impacts on local and state governments can be observed based on the information presented above. 4*19.3. Social Impacts Impacts from Management Actions Affecting Migration Population The decrease in employment opportunities in the study area that would accompany Alternatives B, C, D, and F may impact the capacity of the study area to attract and retain its labor force, with possible consequences for population growth. Specific counties and communities most likely affected would be those linked to employment reductions, which vary by alternative but are discussed immediately above. The counties that would likely experience most of the reductions are: • In Alternatives C and F: Modoc County, California, and the Nevada counties of Pershing and Nye (because of reduced livestock grazing) • In Alternatives B, C, D, and F: Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe Counties in Nevada (because of reduced geothermal exploration and development) • In Alternatives B and F: Elko County (because of reduced oil and gas production) As shown in Chapter 3, all of these counties experienced substantial population growth over the period 1990-2010, except Lander County, Nevada, which saw a decrease of about 8 percent, and Modoc County, California, whose population stayed essentially constant. All of the counties experienced somewhat more measured growth over the period 2000-2010, except Lander and Modoc (which stayed about the same) and Nye and Washoe (which saw substantial increases). Given this fact and the relatively small projected changes in employment in Alternatives B and D, population impacts would not be substantial in these alternatives. However, population impacts could be measurable in Alternatives C and F, especially for the counties that are most affected by reductions in livestock grazing. Housing and Public Sennces Housing demand would not be affected in a substantial way by any of the alternatives. Reductions in employment opportunities could affect population, but under no alternatives would population be increased, meaning that the alternatives would not affect housing demand in a way that could be adverse for most populations in the area. Demand for public service also would not increase, for the same reason. However, the abilities of counties to supply public services could be reduced in Alternatives C and F, in accordance with Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Social Impacts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 845 potential reductions in local tax revenues. State tax revenues would not be affected substantially, as documented in the section on fiscal conditions. Impacts from Management Actions Affecting Specific Groups and Communities Consistency with County Land Use Plans The decision under consideration may result in amended BLM and Forest Service management and LUPs throughout Nevada and Northeast California. The BLM and Forest Service management and LUPs must be consistent with state and local LlJPs to the extent possible, and any amendments to be made would aim to maintain this consistency. This would be the case under all alternatives. Interest Groups and Communities of Place As described in Chapter 3, there is a range of interest groups in the study area with overlapping and divergent interests. Groups centered on recreation interests, grazing, mining, land development, infrastructure development, business development, and conservation of natural resources would be impacted differently by the management alternatives. Within these interest groups, there are more specific ones that could be particularly affected. Among the interest groups most likely to be affected by the choice of alternative are those associated with livestock grazing, geothermal resource exploration and development, oil exploration, and wildlife conservation. Specific communities will also not be impacted in the same way by the management alternatives. Communities with more diversified economies, and particularly those less dependent on grazing, will likely be less impacted than those that do depend heavily on grazing. Although economic impacts would also occur for oil development and geothermal interests, the reductions in grazing availability proposed in Alternatives C and F would likely have a more substantial impact on the ranching industry than reductions in oil and geothermal exploration would have on the oil and geothermal industries. BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands and federal grazing permits are relatively important for maintaining the economic viability of grazing, and reducing or eliminating grazing on GRSG habitat could have adverse effects on quite a few ranch operators. Comparatively, the proposed restrictions on oil and geothermal development would affect several operators but would not have a substantial adverse effect on oil or geothermal development generally in the counties that make up the study area. In addition, oil and gas developers could move to private or state land - potentially even tapping the same federal resources using directional drilling - and still be profitable. The BLM and Forest Service reviewed the scoping report to identify any comments related to specific communities that may be particularly affected by various management alternatives. Two scoping comments identified the agricultural sector in Lassen County, CA, as making a significant contribution to the county’s economy; county-level data on employment and earnings (see Appendix M) shows that this is indeed the case, although crops provide two-thirds of farm receipts, and changes to livestock grazing and ranching would likely have relatively small effects on the county’s economy (see Table 3-78 of Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice). Several commenters expressed concern that employment, fiscal contributions, and other beneficial economic effects of mining - including communities surrounding mining operations - could be negatively impacted by the choice of management alternative. However, the BLM’s analysis shows that production of locatable minerals would be unaffected by the choice of alternatives at September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Social Impacts 846 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement least in the short run. In the long run, production of locatable minerals would be affected only to the degree that the cost of conducting a mineral examination would affect individual operators’ decisions to pursue claim, which would depend on site-specific and operator-specific conditions. Closing PPMAs to mineral material sales in Alternatives B, D, and F would increase costs for commercial and public users of mineral materials, but as discussed above, without knowing the location, timing, and amounts needed, it is not possible to determine the economic impacts on either municipal or commercial entities. One scoping comment identified Eureka County, NV as a particularly vulnerable area, explaining that eighty-one percent of Eureka County’s land area is made up of federally administered land. However, no particular impacts were identified that would affect the economic or social conditions in this county. This is supported especially by the fact that nearly 80 percent of employment and over 90 percent of earnings in Eureka County are due to mining, including oil and gas (see Appendix M). As noted earlier, the BLM does not expect mineral production to differ among the alternatives at least in the first three to five years following implementation; longer term impacts are uncertain, and depend on site-specific and operator-specific characteristics. During cooperating agency review of this LUPA/EIS, Nye County, Nevada, commented that 98 percent of the county’s land area is federally administered. The county also expressed concern about certain impacts identified in the administrative draft LUPA/EIS, and the BLM and Forest Service modified portions of the analysis in order to ensure that impacts on Nye County (and other counties in the study area) are characterized as specifically as possible given the information available. Summary of Social Impacts Management under Alternatives B, C, D, and F - and especially Alternatives C and F - could have the effect of limiting the attraction and retention of population in the study area. These impacts would not be homogeneous throughout the study area, but would be concentrated in specific communities where GRSG habitat intersects with resources important to employment opportunities. Communities with strong interest groups focused on livestock grazing or oil and geothermal development would likely experience adverse impacts from Alternatives B, C, D, and F, but especially Alternatives C and F. 4.19.4. Environmental Justice Impacts The BLM and Forest Service considered information on the presence of minority and low-income populations (from Chapter 3) along with additional information, described in this section, to assess the potential for the alternatives to result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. Although conservation measures would be implemented consistently across all identified habitat, with no discrimination over particular populations, environmental justice guidance requires agencies to consider also whether their actions could unintentionally result in disproportionately high and adverse effects. To help guide the analysis of potential environmental justice impacts, the BLM and Forest Service considered the information gathered in the Economic Strategies Workshop that was conducted in June 2012. That workshop was convened to identify public concerns related to potential social, economic and environmental justice impacts that could result from the management alternatives. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Environmental Justice Impacts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 847 None of the public comments received during that workshop called out a specific concern related to minority populations (BLM 2012g). The BLM and Forest Service also reviewed the scoping report for the present EIS to identify any comments related to environmental justice issues. The only scoping comments identified that related to minority or low-income populations were several comments pertaining to the cultural significance of the GRSG to Native American tribes, with one commenter specifically calling out the Yomba Shoshone. Potential Impacts on Minority Populations As discussed in Chapter 3, CEQ guidance identifies a community or a specific population group as a minority population when either: (1 ) minorities in the affected area exceed 50 percent of the total population; or (2) the percentage of minorities in the affected area is meaningfully greater than the percentage in the general population or appropriate unit of geographical analysis. Based on the description of minority presence in the study area in Chapter 3, and based on definitions in relevant guidance, no minority populations were identified in the study area. Smaller communities where minority presence is “meaningfully greater” than in the state as a whole, although not identified in Chapter 3, may also exist in the study area, given its large geographic coverage. The extent to which existing minority populations are disproportionately impacted by high and adverse human health or environmental effects depends on the existence of high and adverse human health or environmental effects from management alternatives on any of the resources analyzed, and whether minority populations are particularly vulnerable to these impacts or more likely to be exposed to such impacts. Adverse impacts of alternatives were identified under the various resources analyzed and are described in their respective sections of Chapter 4. One issue of potential concern relates to interests of Native American tribes. BLM’s consultation and outreach efforts to Native American tribes resulted in a number of concerns expressed by tribal leaders and members: see Section 3.18, Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns). Most of these concerns relate to viability of GRSG populations, although at least one tribe, the Summit Lake Tribe, expressed concern that habitat conservation in some alternatives could negatively impact road realignment projects near their reservation and plans to expand their reservation boundaries because their reservation is surrounded by priority habitat. Section 4.21, Tribal Interests, describes these and other tribal concerns in detail, and also addresses how the alternatives would affect tribal interests. That section notes that the future status of the Summit Lake Tribe road realignment and reservation boundary expansion projects as they relate to GRSG planning efforts is unknown. In addition, several tribes (the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Fort McDermitt Tribe, and Yomba Shoshone Tribe) hold grazing permits on either BLM or Forest Service lands. In all three cases, the allotments could be affected by GRSG management actions (i.e., they have no tribal treaty rights associated with the grazing permit or the allotment they use). Although this may affect the tribes’ ability to manage livestock, from an environmental justice perspective it does not represent a disproportionate impact since the tribes would not be singled out or disproportionately affected. Rather, they would experience the same adverse effects as other users of federal grazing allotments, which could include the loss of part or all of their allotment in Alternatives C and F. BLM and Forest Service also considered the possibility that the employment losses, especially those anticipated in Alternatives C and F, could disproportionately affect minority populations. If employment losses - such as the estimated reduction of 1,825 jobs in Alternative C relative to September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Environmental Justice Impacts 848 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Alternative A - were to affect minority populations disproportionately, this could be considered a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority populations. However, these job losses would occur over a relatively broad geographic area, and over a number of different economic sectors (keeping in mind that the employment losses include related industries, not just the industries directly affected), including mining, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, and others. Given the sectoral and geographic dispersion of the impacts, and the fact that employment in these industries is not overly concentrated within any particular racial or ethnic group, the BLM and Forest Service find no evidence to support the idea that these job losses would affect minority populations disproportionately. Thus, based on available information about the nature and geographic incidence of impacts, neither specific minority populations nor tribal populations would be exposed to disproportionately high and adverse impacts under any of the management alternatives considered. Potential Impacts on Low-Income Populations Virtually all of the counties in the study area have a concentration of low income populations that exceeds the state average, as discussed in Chapter 3, including both Lassen and Modoc Counties in California and seven of the ten Nevada counties (Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Nye, Pershing, Washoe, and White Pine). It is also possible that there are smaller communities in the remaining counties (Churchill, Elko, and Lincoln) that constitute low-income populations, given the large geographic spread of each county. The extent to which low-income populations are disproportionately impacted by high and adverse human health or environmental effects depends on the existence of high and adverse human health or environmental effects from management alternatives on any of the resources analyzed, and whether low-income populations are specifically vulnerable to these impacts or more likely to be exposed to such impacts. Accordingly, similar to the analysis for minority populations, the BLM and Forest Service reviewed the impacts of alternatives described in the respective sections of Chapter 4. Based on available information about the nature and geographic incidence of impacts, the BLM and Forest Service identified a potential concern about disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low-income populations in Modoc County in California, and Nye County in Nevada, related to economic and social effects. This is based on relatively high poverty rates (18.4 percent for Modoc County and 18.9 percent for Nye County) and the identification of these counties as experiencing potentially substantial reductions in employment or earnings associated with livestock grazing in Alternatives C and F. Poverty rates in several other Nevada counties are as high (Eureka at 16.2, and White Pine at 15.5 percent), but these counties are not identified as having substantial effects due to anticipated reductions in employment from oil, geothermal or grazing in any of the alternatives. As reported in Chapter 3, Modoc County experienced essentially flat population from 1990 to 2010. Modoc County also had the second-highest proportion of residents over the age of 65 (19.7 percent), which may indicate a relatively high number of residents who survive on a fixed income. This could help to mitigate some adverse impacts related to public lands management, as retired citizens are more likely to have income from Social Security, pensions and retirement accounts, which would not be tied to local economic activity. Farm operations contribute 12.7 percent of employment and 22.1 percent of earnings (making it among the largest sectors overall, and the largest primary productive sector). About one-third of Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Environmental Justice Impacts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 849 cash receipts are from grazing and ranching; if grazing and ranching also generates about one-third of the overall agricultural employment and earnings, then any substantial reduction in grazing would have a measurable impact on economic activity in the county. The Modoc County LUP notes the importance of public land grazing allotments to economic viability of ranches, stating that federal and state lands occupy over three quarters of the county and that the economy of the county depends on commercial and business activities operated on those lands, including grazing. Nye County experienced a large increase in population from 1990 to 2010 (147 percent, larger than any other county in the study area). Nye County had the highest proportion of residents over the age of 65 (23.4 percent), which may indicate a relatively high number of residents who survive on a fixed income, although, as in Modoc County, this could be a mitigating factor since retired citizens are more likely to have income from Social Security, pensions and retirement accounts, which would not be tied to local economic activity. Unemployment was higher in Nye County in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 201 1 than in any other county in the study area, with the 201 1 rate at 16.5 percent (Table 3-75, Annual Unemployment, 2007-201 1, in Section 3.23, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice). Farm operations contribute just 2.1 percent of employment and 3.1 percent of earnings, which represents a smaller contribution than mining, construction, retail trade, local government, professional and technical services, or several other sectors; however, nearly all of the farm-related receipts (95 percent) are from grazing and ranching, so that any substantial reduction in grazing would have an important impact on economic activity in the county. With these considerations in mind, the BLM and Forest Service believe that Alternatives C and F could result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low-income populations in Modoc County and Nye County, especially, and also possibly in Fassen County. Based on available evidence, there would not be disproportionately high and adverse impacts on other communities, nor would there be disproportionately high and adverse impacts associated with Alternatives A, B, D, or E. Table 4-33, Environmental Justice Impacts, provides a summary of the findings of this analysis with respect to disproportionately high and adverse effects of the alternatives Table 4.34. Environmental Justice Impacts Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Dispropor- tionately high and adverse impacts on minority populations No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Dispropor- tionately high and adverse impacts on low-income populations No Impact No Impact Dispropor- tionately high and adverse impact related to employment/ earnings from ranching and grazing (Modoc County) No Impact No Impact Dispropor- tionately high and adverse impact related to employment/ earnings from ranching and grazing (Modoc County) September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Environmental Justice Impacts 850 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 4.20. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Section 102(c) of NEPA requires disclosure of any adverse environmental impacts that could not be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which there are no mitigation measures. Some unavoidable adverse impacts occur as a result of implementing the LUPA. Others are a result of public use of BLM -administered and Forest Service-administered lands within the planning area. This section summarizes major unavoidable impacts discussions of the impacts of each management action (in the discussion of alternatives) and provides greater information on specific unavoidable impacts. Planned activities would produce some level of air emissions, even with mitigation. However, none of the activities proposed in this LUPA/EIS would produce adverse impacts on the air quality resource, based on the definitions above. Surface-disturbing activities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts. Although these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible, unavoidable damage would be inevitable. Permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would be unlikely under all of the action alternatives. These would most likely decrease erosion and increase the relative abundance of species within plant communities, the relative distribution of plant communities, and the relative occurrence of serai stages of those communities. These activities would also intrude on the visual landscape. This type of development is most likely to occur under Alternative A. The other action alternatives place many restrictions on many types of development, which would most likely result in fewer visual intrusions and fewer instances of unavoidable wildlife habitat loss. Unavoidable damage to cultural resources from permitted activities could occur if resources undetected during surveys were identified during surface-disturbing activities. In these instances, further activity would cease on discovery of a cultural resource, and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize damage or loss. This scenario is most likely to occur under Alternative A since it would place the fewest restrictions on surface disturbing activities. Unavoidable loss of cultural resources would also occur, due to nonrecognition, lack of information and documentation, erosion, casual collection, and inadvertent destruction or use. Broad-scale sampling and classification of areas with a high likelihood of containing cultural and resources would be expected to greatly reduce the probability of unavoidable adverse impacts on the resource. Wildlife, livestock, and wild horses as well as other herbivores consume vegetation and impact soils through hoof action and possible compaction. When these impacts are kept at appropriate levels natural processes such as plant growth and recovery, freeze-thaw periods and microbial activity in the soil surface result in recovery from these impacts and maintain site stability and health. Vegetative treatments promoting recovery of GRSG would result in the destruction of the target species, be it annual grass, noxious weed, encroachment of juniper or changes in the age classes of a sagebrush stand. Some level of competition for forage between these species, although mitigated to the extent possible, would be unavoidable. Instances of displacement, harassment, and injury could also occur. These types of scenarios are most likely to occur under Alternative A. The other action alternatives would place restrictions on many development and surface-disturbing activities, which would make the likelihood that displacement, harassment, and injury would occur to be much lower than Alternative A. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Unavoidable Adverse Impacts September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 851 Recreation, development of mineral resources, and general use of the decision area would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire and the need for its suppression. These activities, combined with continued fire suppression, would also affect the overall composition and structure of vegetation communities; this could increase the potential for high-intensity wildland fires. Restrictions on development under all of the action alternatives would be expected to decrease the potential for ignitions in the decision area. As recreation demand increases, recreation use would disperse, creating unavoidable conflicts between recreation users, such as those seeking more primitive types of recreation, and motorized users sharing recreation areas. In areas where development would be greater, the potential for displaced users would increase. Under all of the action alternatives, restrictions on development would be expected to reduce the potential for displaced recreational users. Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the decision area to protect GRSG habitat and other important values, by their nature, affect the ability of operators, individuals, and groups who use the public lands to do so without limitations. Although attempts would be made to minimize these impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts in the number and miles of roads or trails available for recreational use could occur under all of the action alternatives. Minimization would include limiting them to the level of protection necessary to accomplish management objectives and providing alternative use areas for affected activities. 4.21. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. An irretrievable commitment of a resource is one in which the resource or its use is lost for a period of time (e.g., extraction of any locatable mineral ore or oil and gas). An irreversible commitment of a resource is one that cannot be reversed (e.g., the extinction of a species or loss of a cultural resource site without proper documentation). Implementation of the LUPA management actions for all alternatives, except Alternative A, would result in fewer surface-disturbing activities, mineral and energy development, and ROW development that results in loss of irreversible or irretrievable resources. Although new soil can develop, it is a slow process. Soil erosion or the loss of productivity and soil structure might be considered irreversible commitments to resources. Surface-disturbing activities, therefore, would remove vegetation and accelerate erosion, which would contribute to irreversible soil loss. However, many of the management actions in the LUPA are intended to reduce the magnitude of these impacts and to restore some of the soil and vegetation lost. Such disturbances would occur to the greatest degree under Alternative A, which would allow many more surface-disturbing activities, compared to the action alternatives. Laws protecting cultural resources would mitigate irreversible and irretrievable impacts on cultural resources from permitted activity. BLM OHV use areas open to cross-country use could have some resources destroyed. This would be especially true in areas of high cultural sensitivity. Such destruction would be irreversible and irretrievable. Alternative A would have the greatest potential for a loss of cultural resource information. September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 852 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Development of mineral resources (e.g., oil, gas, coal, sand, and gravel) is irreversible. If these nonrenewable resources were extracted for consumption or use, they would be irreversibly removed. BLM Handbook H- 1624-1, Planning for Fluid Minerals (BLM 1990a), acknowledges leasing of oil and gas resources as an irreversible commitment. As noted above, this would be most likely under Alternative A. 4.22. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity Section 102(c) of NEPA requires discussion of the relationship between local, short-term uses of human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of resources. As described in the introduction to this chapter, short-term is defined as anticipated to occur within the first 5 years of implementation of the activity; long term is defined as following the first 5 years of implementation but within the life of the LUPA. Short-term use of the air quality resource would not affect long-term productivity, except that air quality emissions in high enough concentrations could reduce vegetation and plant vigor. However, these types of impacts are not expected for any of the action alternatives since they would restrict development. Additionally, management actions would result in various short-term impacts, such as increased localized soil erosion, fugitive dust emission, and vegetation loss or damage and decreased visual resource quality. These impacts would be expected only under Alternative A, which it would allow the most surface-disturbing activities. Other surface-disturbing activities, including transportation and utility corridor construction, and mineral resource development would result in the greatest potential for impacts on long-term productivity. Management prescriptions and RDFs are intended to minimize the effect of short-term commitments and to reverse change over the long term. These prescriptions and the associated reduction of impacts would be greatest under Alternative C, with Alternative B close behind for such resources as vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, some impacts on long-term productivity might occur, despite the prescriptions intended to reduce impacts on GRSG habitat. ROWs/SUAs and short-term use of an area to foster energy and minerals would result in long-term loss of soil productivity and vegetation diversity. Impacts would persist as long as surface disturbance and vegetation loss continue. In general, the loss of soil productivity would be directly at the point of disturbance; even so, long-term vegetation diversity and habitat value could be reduced due to fragmentation and the increased potential for invasive species to spread from the developments or disturbances. Alternative A would have the greatest potential for short-term loss of productivity and diversity due to the high level of potential development and the lack of stringent mitigation and reclamation standards contained in Alternatives B, C, D, and F. Alternative C would provide the greatest long-term productivity by excluding development in many areas through closures or application of severe restrictions on development. ROWs/SUAs and the short-term use of GRSG habitat, for energy and minerals could impair the long-term productivity of GRSG populations. This would happen by displacing animals from primary habitats and removing components of these habitats that might not be restored for more than 20 years. These short-term uses could also affect the long-term sustainability of some special status species. The potential for these impacts would vary by alternative because long-term deterioration of GRSG habitat as a result of mineral activity would be more evident under Alternative A. The short-term resource uses associated with travel and transportation and Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity > September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 853 mineral development (individual short OHV trips, oil and gas seismic exploration, natural gas test well drilling, and the noise associated with these activities) would have adverse impacts on the long-term productivity of GRSG populations. This would be the case if these resource uses were to infringe on GRSG winter habitat, brood-rearing habitat, and summer habitat. These activities, though short-term individually, could have collective long-term impacts on GRSG productivity and health if they were to increase in the long term September, 2013 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences This page intentionally left blank Chapter 5. Cumulative Impacts This page intentionally left blank Chapter 5. Cumulative Impacts This page intentionally left blank Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 857 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 hut 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Analysis Methodology This page intentionally left blank Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 857 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Analysis Methodology 858 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 ' September, 2013 859 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Table 5.1. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Greater Sage-Grouse Subpopulation 860 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 861 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 862 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement g _o o <4-1 o C/3 G OJ _> s O OJ Vh g _o G .O 2L Oh < G OJ _> ’5 o : E o' > .a oj O -rt QJ n U ^ & OJ — Oh c/5 rG on tj O O g -2-J OJ g ° e ^ < .g o -&j 2 s g 2 Q 2 s -1 C/3 o s bfl Git bfl c/3 OJ 2 £ C/3 43 2 2 o O , c/5 on o G .o 2 o G .2 03 CJ o hJ g o S' C/3 § G -2 b/j Th .OJ 2> on OJ m I '-2 '-,_i T o i = ^ ' 03 g : § 2 i G G ' rG ^ 03 G 2 7 -J G o G hG C 03 o T3 f. 1 — 1 G G cx> OJ aj OJ r— ^ - hO .S on C .2 > M © o CJ 4—* H 03 ts 2 G G 5j - z G O O 2 O Oh c/} G 2 G3 g > N OJ _ C3 OJ a cs T3 OJ N C c3 OJ CJ OJ C< OJ G § G 2 G G3 3 £ 2 G ■G ^ 03 > "G OJ G Z > r OJ z^z W jT S-H G g on g .1 G onJ OJ r. CQ o o 'G 2 o 0 -2 1 o O Z G O U _G O o G Z -J CJ < G OJ g 7j > OJ z Q w o Z 2 o Oh G "G G > OJ z Q 2h* w G C G OJ on G G c/3 0 C3 G 7 G O. 1 G Z3 03 a t CJ C/3 C/3 03 Q ^ 2-g W c/3 G 2 o Oh G G G > OJ z Q Z w _o G 2 O Oh G G G > OJ z Q W _o G G Oh o O- G G G > OJ Z 4—* C/3 03 OJ o CJ *C C/3 5 w Z o. o Oh G G G > OJ z Q S w G .2 CJ G a ‘o CJ to OJ Q 0J ,g > -hH o o cr> CJ < > O O aj D2 .a 73 G .Oh G ^ C+H >' ° 2Z c/3 OJ os ° g 3> 00 M o S-H 03 CL l OJ r^ .Lh S-H - _ OJ G .& G > 7 ? Z1 oj G , > o o >. Vh G ' 2 'a on G 7 §| c3 ZL oj ^ g >7 ’S r-O CJ L-H 03 X) C3 <-h C/3 LL CJ oj C3 ’ — 1 73 O ^ Z o G o o 4— » . X-s 4—* 03' Ch £ OJ « a oj 03 dj ¥2 2 OJ H2 o OJ T3 OJ S-H CJ 03 O OO in (N 2 G 00 2 o o on G _o 3 03 O 2 ^ O o % o Z ZO G" -7 O fl g“2 G 7 U G C/3 P ^ SL OJ =3 OJ m z G on 2 g G g 2 c/5 G O g M1' OJ S-H C O O CL OJ on 03 CJ o hG C/5 22 t« OJ G 'HH 7 .G ^ C/5 Oj G m OJ C/3 G G OJ CG OJ G on 2 on] c O on on on ,5 o o Q. G u < <4- o 04 E 03 z G H j- hG Gh oj N G G H OJ 2 OJ . c-j G O C/3 Z * Jh O hG I C3 "O 03 > OJ £ s OJ 2Z o O C/3 Z G S-H 03 N 03 ZU OJ 2 OJ Ch X OJ G G c/5 G G OJ Gh G Cl Cl Cl Cl o o O o < Cl d Cl Cl c 03 C3 cX CX o -a "b b b CS cs cX cx 4-» > > > > C3 CL> (D (D CD c X X X o b b X3 b o o o o 3 CO CO CO CO CJ 4X» 2d +D 2d O CD CD CD CD -j u> 5-i Vh sJ C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 Q Q d d >> >> PP pq pq pq c oo o C 4— * o T3 c b ■H— « o CD C/ CD CD b s CD 03 CX o 5-. S-H CD o3 CD 4-> S-i b b S-H a a. o o oo "C CJ U < O c. Cl Cl O xi i r~| X Q oo C/3 C/3 C/3 -o ■b b C2 S-H S-H S-H * ^ 03 CX CX ii £ b CD CD CD o CO co CO b CD Cl c o C/3 < CD .Cl X 00 b CJ b S-H < CS Oci cX £ ?4-< CD CD o -1^ CO a> C.T3 E « oo X JJ CD D- o CD b 'S C/3 r-> C3 b o DQ > < s C/3 X X o 'S ti o b CD 3 CO Z a w z OO b o CO Vh b o o c/l ► b c/5 b CO Vh > Ofl| O 2 b o CO C GO b C3 pi >. w SH (L) 00 CX Pi w S-H a/ oo b CG Pi ^ . U4 S-. dJ oo b 03 pi w s- aj oo| 03 pi _>» pq S-H dJ 00 b CO Pi >. W > W Q S-H a> oo CG Pi w Q G oo r~j cX pi w b H O tZ b in 03 dJ O 03 O in ■o oo g 'o 00 Ph .g b a> C3 X o CO o o ■or oo . g ^ g pi — 01 ^ P-H C Z .2 . D 03 pq o O oo w E dJ Cl E -a b 03 aj Pi b X o b C/5 dJ PP JH re £ b 'a 5 3 D4 CD 12 Q o 58 oo i ■| < 3 pi b ^ Ph • X X u x o b Q < co Pi CO 0 1 G O p z a ^■2 D g J-H G C <8 a I 03 CD 03 ft Z o- < 'O 61) o .a 'pm G CD G CVS 'G CJ X) oh 3 .3 S3 ° .2 2 3 © S3 S 03 g W O ■S3 O ■° <8 Xj P> 'C s CJ ^ c/3 G W ^ I ^ § ^ Pm ’ — 1 CD CP 4-m o C/3 CJ Pm cj 03 SO n oo a, g '■a a 03 4=1 T3 oj T3 I 0) > o 2 CL 3 03 '2 z G ^3 cl 2 CC3 73 2 33 C3 Qj 73 3 OJ GO 33 <4P © CD G 73 CL) Osi -Cj 03 33 03 "33 03 > CL) z G ^ S3 C/3 2 03 '33 OJ 03 33 33 ■c p 5 ° Z 0h o\ U3 -O o G (N w r"> .32 ”2 |0 C/5 c/5 ~ aj cj cd pM g 4—* < aj G3 o 33 CL) -X 03 ■ o 33“ ^ 2 2 Is -a cl g G3 S ^ Cd 'TO CD 03 2 si 3 c CL) z CD 2 33 £ O s *g 3 C/3 O o o n K z J CO CD c p T3 r~* on "3 a CD OP c/3 ^ Ch ^ .2 '> HH CD CCS Sh - ^ O Oh OU < z o P(C oo .2 -a G CD Oh IT) rn Oh O Sh 5^ OhP az CD G3 G G3 G Of) 3 23 © SGh ■z < CL, Oh ou < z S3 G O o O 5b 5b oo CD CD CD J-H Ph Pm P -O -O — <» — * — > C/3 C/3 C/3 CD CD CD 33 33 . r-| ■J— ' _P _G S3 3G 33 P so S3 O a ©0 23 S3 u CL g CL z > CD 33 C3 CD o a CxD .2 G3 S3 (D CL DO 1 2 -> CD y, z « 2 2JZ I 1 O CD • — J-< CP n_^ < w -cf Z o '5b OJ ■S3 G CD £ o o^ 00 _g ’-a CD CL O CD f— 1 o ob 73 G 73 D D Oh C4G qtj 00 00 r ^ a Z -2 o CD G •- "O CJ CJ CJ 03 CL CL CL .2 Z C/3 C/3 C/3 «— 1 CL' — o o o CL OJ ’-4= < G 03 03 03 ^ 03 CD CD CD C/3 4rX xz 2G P G3 CL Os — O c CL CL CL £ p < < < G <-H O o o o oo or 00 00 CJ CD CJ OJ Ph Ph Pm Pm P P P P =3 S3 Zj CZ) C/3 C/3 CS) CD CJ CJ CJ rH <—] C"] r—1 4— » 4— > 4— • 4— ) _g .s r~] 33 ^ r-j P ^ r-| 4—* 4—* 4—* 4—* £ s £ o Ph <8 c3 73 D sp S3 O ^H o 4— » 03 a X 4—* Ch Ph CJ w CD CL L 2 O o 03 o CL 3 C/3 03 CL 73 Pm CJ Ol X W C/3 C/1 O 4— i CJ G 4-h C/3 o C/3 CD tj 03 C/3 o CJ 03 ’ C o CD OJ J-H CL z 03 23 CJ CJ S $ p= 03 -C 03 cd Ph 73 03 03 CD Ch CD CJ 03 o o hJ s-l s-O ”3 D O U CL O CL CD G3 S3 -2 a Sh Ct . Of)1^ O 73 Sh G CL G G u w z o oo G G D g CL jO D > D Q 73 G S3 D g CL _0 D > D Q c .2 CD < "g c © *5jd| D a: 32 3 (Z) Sh D 3= P ”g 2 D -G O D o D 33 G hJ O C/3 . U CL Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 867 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts September, 20/3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 868 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 869 in the region is at high risk of displacement by piny on-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 1 1 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone III 870 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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. 201 1). 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 871 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone III 872 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 HI Actions by Category Quinn Population Southeast Nevada Subpopulation Central Nevada Subpopulation Northwest Interior Population Mining 0 1 1 0 Infrastructure (ROW) 0 2) 0 0 Fluid Minerals 0 0 3 0 Renewable energy 0 0 0 0 Fuels/Vegetation treatments o J 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 September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Fnvironmental Impact Statement 873 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 September ; 2013 874 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 111. 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; Feu 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. 201 1). Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone III September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 875 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 1, II, IV, V, and VI), eheatgrass 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 eheatgrass 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone 111 876 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, ; 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 877 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). September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone III 878 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 879 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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; Elolloran 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone IV 880 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 PM Us 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 comer of the subpopulation. Less than 350,000 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone / V September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 881 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 "> J 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone IV 882 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 BFM 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 / V September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 883 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone IV 884 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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. 1 45). 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. 53.4. 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; 1 1 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 885 Over 5.6 million acres (22,735 square kilometers; 43.5 pereent) 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone V 886 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement • The remaining PMUs within the Northeast C al i fom ia/North west 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 156,1 1 1 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 5 1 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 887 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. 201 1) 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 Subpopnlation 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 o J 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 Califomia/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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone V 888 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 889 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/Northwestem 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Management Zone V 890 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 Califomia/Northwestem 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 BFM land/0 percent Forest Service), and V (91 percent of BFM 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 891 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 1 0-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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Conclusion 892 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 PPM A 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 893 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 PPM As. 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Vegetation and Soils 894 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 (Manieretal. 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. A Itemati ves A na lysis Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Soil Resources September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 895 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 non- BLM- 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Riparian Areas and Wetlands 8% Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 897 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 deerease 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative C 898 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 bum. 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 high- intensity fires. Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternatives Analysis September ; 2013 899 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 aflect vegetation health, which consequently makes vegetation more vulnerable September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative A 900 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 901 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 September, 20/3 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative B 902 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 903 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative F 904 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 3 1 existing special use permits for these uses, but no permits are currently approved or in development. Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Travel and Transportation Management September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 905 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative A 906 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 907 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative E 908 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 PPM A, 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 September, 2013 Table 5.5. Renewable Energy ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas by Alternative (BLM- and Forest Service-administered Lands) Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 909 Vh 03 & p o oi c/5 03 o c © p C/5 o o' c p o o , — 1 c/5 o rn '$■ -a C _o ON o' o' C3 o ON u. (N C3 Od ’ — 1 C c o o C/5 C/5 p p o o 4_» 4—. O V-I O Vh C3 C3 ca S-. Cd O C/5 £ o I ^ ^ • — < J-i pi o £ o C/5 "O d T3 o O •£ w Z £ Z P P $-< — o (Z £ o C/5 1 O o o o o o o o m En a> >0 rn ON > o' r-~ o ci CO r- oo (N o r- c Q rn 01 r-H L=, QJ P3 o JZ < z '5 s-T p o n c z t/5 C/5 r-J , , c o o o o c o cs o v© NO cz o oo OO ON M o' rn r f ON O rn ro C/5 C/5 C/5 £ G n O C3 Z o 03 O C/5 o j-t i-H o cd o o o C/5 P '3 •£ C/5 . o w < C/5 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Renewable Energy Resources 910 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 FUPs. 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 BFM and Forest Service Fands 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 BFM and Forest Service Fands and Realty Programs. Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative A September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 911 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 I) 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 RED 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternative D 912 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 913 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Locatable Minerals 914 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 1 872 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 September, 2013 915 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Table 5-5 shows the total acreage withdrawn, recommended for withdrawal, and open to loeatable mineral entry. This alternative emphases conservation, maintenance, and enhancement of PPMA while managing loeatable mineral development. This alternative would be more restrictive to loeatable 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 loeatable 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 loeatable 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 1 00 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Mineral Materials 916 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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. S 3.3.1. 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 September 2013 917 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Mineral Materials 918 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 September 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 919 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternatives Analysis 920 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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 bum, or that can be allowed to bum 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) September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 921 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; C02 emissions for all of Nevada were 0.7 percent and California were 6.5 percent of total US C02 emissions (2010 numbers; El A 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 September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Alternatives Analysis 922 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 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. IJ Alt. C Alt. 1) Alt. E Alt. F Employment (20 1 0)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 -3 jo 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, 20 1 0 to 20 1 8-2020 10.0% 9.8% 9.3% 9.9% 1 0.0% 9.5% Source: Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Re Development Department of California (2013) (projected empl reported in Section 4.21, Socioeconomics and Environmental . direct, indirect, and induced effects from IMPLAN; see Appen for a detailed description of this model. 1 . The source of 2010 employment data used in this table diffe and Environmental Justice, so there may be differences betwee 2. The values for livestock grazing represent the midpoint of ft Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. 3. Due to inconsistent projection years in the underlying data, from 2020 projections for Churchill and Washoe Counties, anc Where the underlying data sources do not provide county-leve based on the county shares of current employment. labilitation (2013a, 2013b, 2013c), and Employment oyment data), modified by estimates from IMPLAN ustice. Changes related to specific sectors include dix M, Detailed Employment and Earnings Data, rs from that used in Section 3.22, Socioeconomics n the estimates shown. le low and high scenarios described in Section 4.21, projected 2018-2020 employment is calculated 12018 projections for the remaining counties. 1 employment projections, they were imputed 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) September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 923 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. September, 2013 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts This page intentionally left blank Chapter 6. Consultation and Coordination This page intentionally left blank Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 927 6.1. Introduction This chapter describes the public outreach and participation opportunities made available through the development of this LUPA/EIS and consultation and coordination efforts with tribes, government agencies, and other stakeholders. This chapter also lists the interdisciplinary team of staff who prepared the LUPA/EIS. The BLM and Forest Service land use planning activities are conducted in accordance with requirements of the NEPA, CEQ regulations, BLM policies and procedures implementing NEPA, and US Department of Agriculture and Forest Service policies and procedures implementing NEPA. The NEPA and associated laws, regulations, and policies require the BLM and Forest Service to seek public involvement early in and throughout the planning process to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to proposed actions and to prepare environmental documents that disclose the potential impacts of proposed actions and alternatives. Public involvement and agency consultation and coordination, which have been at the heart of the planning process leading to this draft LUPA/EIS, were achieved through Federal Register notices, public and informal meetings, individual contacts, media releases, and the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Northeastern California and Nevada Sub-Region project website (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/westem. html). 6.2. Collaboration Federal laws require the lead agency to consult with certain federal and state agencies and entities and Native American tribes (40 CFR 1502.25) during the NEPA decision-making process. Federal agencies are also directed to integrate NEPA requirements with other environmental review and consultation requirements to reduce paperwork and delays (40 CFR 1500.4-5). In addition to formal scoping (Section 6.4.1, Scoping Process), the BLM and Forest Service have implemented an extensive collaborative outreach and public involvement process that has included coordinating with cooperating agencies, holding public scoping meetings, and holding a socioeconomic workshop. The BLM and Forest Service will continue to meet with interested agencies and organizations throughout the planning process, as appropriate, and will continue coordinating closely with cooperating partners. 6.2.1. Native American Tribal Consultation The BLM and Forest Service began tribal consultation by requesting a consultation meeting with area tribes to discuss the details of the GRSG planning efforts. Each of the tribes was also invited to participate in the planning effort as cooperating agencies. The list of tribes contacted, as well as the results of consultation to date, are described in Section 3.6.4, Tribal Interests, and are detailed in Table 3-87, Tribal Consultation and Outreach Efforts for the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS. The draft LUPA/EIS will be provided to the tribes concurrently with its release to the public. September, 2013 Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination Introduction 928 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 6.2.2. California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Consultation The draft LUPA/EIS will be provided to the California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices concurrently with its release to the public. 6.2.3. US Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation To comply with Section 7(c) of the ESA, the BLM and Forest Service consulted USFWS early in the planning process. USFWS provided input on planning issues, data collection and review, and alternatives development in their role as a cooperating agency. 6.3. Cooperating Agencies A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or Native American tribe that enters into a formal agreement with a lead federal agency to help develop an environmental analysis. More specifically, cooperating agencies “work with the BFM, sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks” (BFM Fand Use Planning Handbook H- 1601-1). On December 7, 201 1, the BFM wrote to 52 local, state, federal, and tribal representatives, inviting them to participate as cooperating agencies for the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-region FUPA/EIS. Twenty-two agencies agreed to participate on the EIS as designated cooperating agencies, all of which have signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the BFM (Table 6-1, Cooperating Agencies). Some agencies are participating as cooperating agencies under the larger umbrella of the national-level MOUs described below. The Forest Service and USFWS are participating in the EIS process as cooperating agencies at a national level, and both agencies have signed MOUs at a national level. Since starting on May 18, 2012, the BFM has conducted eight meetings to date with cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies were also encouraged to attend the scoping open houses and provide comments during the scoping period (Section 6.4.1, Scoping Process). These agencies have been engaged throughout the planning process, including during alternatives development. Table 6.1. Cooperating Agencies Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Agencies that Accepted Agencies that Signed MOUs Counties Churchill County X X County of Carson City Douglas County Elko County X X Esmeralda County Eureka County X X Humboldt County X X Lander County X Lassen County X X Lincoln County X X Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Consultation September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 929 Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Agencies that Accepted Agencies that Signed MOUs Lyon County Mineral County Modoc County X X Nye County X X Pershing County X X Storey County Washoe County X X White Pine County X X State Agencies Nevada Department of Agriculture Nevada Division of Minerals X Nevada Department of Transportation X X Nevada Department of Wildlife X X Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources X X Office of the Governor - Nevada N/A Federal Agencies Department of Defense Fallon Naval Air Station X X Department of Defense Nellis Air Force Base X X Federal Highway Planning Administration - Nevada X X Natural Resources Conservation Service X X US Fish and Wildlife Service X X US Forest Service X X Tribes Alturas Rancheria Battle Mountain Band Cedarville Rancheria Confederated Tribes of Goshute Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe Duckwater Shoshone Tribe X Elko Band Ely Shoshone Tribe Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe X Fort Bidwell Reservation Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe X Goshute Tribe Greenville Rancheria Hanylekim Maidu Hungry Valley Community Ibapah Goshute Tribe X Klamath Tribes Lovelock Indian Colony Pit River Tribe of California Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe X X Reno-Sparks Indian Colony South Fork Band Summit Lake Paiute Tribe X X Susanville Indian Rancheria X X Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Walker River Paiute Tribe X Washoe Tribe X X Wells Band Winnemucca Colony Council September, 2013 Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination Cooperating Agencies 930 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Agencies that Accepted Agencies that Signed MOUs Yerington Paiute Tribe Yomba Shoshone Tribe X Other Nevada Mining Association N/A Nevada National Association of Counties 6.4. Public Involvement Public involvement is a vital and legal component of both the LUPA and EIS processes. Public involvement vests the public in the decision-making process and allows for full environmental disclosure. Guidance for implementing public involvement under NEPA is codified in 40 CFR Part 1506.6, thereby ensuring that federal agencies make a diligent effort to involve the public in the NEPA process. Section 202 of the FLPMA directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish procedures for public involvement during land use planning actions on BLM-administered lands. These procedures can be found in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-l 601-1; BLM 2005a). Public involvement for the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-region LUPA/EIS includes the following: • Public scoping before beginning NEPA analysis to determine the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the LUPA/EIS • Public outreach via newsletters and press releases throughout the LUPA/EIS process • Collaboration with federal, state, local, and tribal governments, and cooperating agencies throughout the LUPA/EIS process • Public review and comment on the draft LUPA/EIS • Public review and comment on the final LUPA/EIS 6.4.1. Scoping Process The formal public scoping process for the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-region LUPA/EIS began on December 9, 2011, with the publication of the notice of intent in the Federal Register (76 Federal Register 77008-77011). The notice of intent notified the public of the BLM’s intent to prepare EISs and supplemental EISs to incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures into LUPs; it also initiated the public scoping period. A notice of correction to the notice of intent was released on February 10, 2012 (77 Federal Register 7178-7179). The notice of correction extended the scoping period until March 23, 2012. Project Website The BLM launched a national GRSG conservation website as part of its efforts to maintain and restore GRSG habitat on public lands. The national website is available on the Internet at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html. The BLM has also launched a Great Basin regional website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/ more/sagegrouse/westem.html. These sites are regularly updated to provide the public with the latest information about the planning process. The Great Basin website provides background information about the project, Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination Public Involvement September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 931 a public involvement timeline, maps of the planning areas, and copies of public information documents and notice of intent. The dates and locations of scoping open houses were also announced on the Great Basin website. Press Release A press release was made available on the national and Great Basin region websites on December 8, 201 1, announcing the scoping period for the EIS process. The Nevada and California BLM State Offices also distributed press releases on January 4, 2012, announcing the scoping period for the EIS process. The press releases provided information on the scoping open houses being held and described the various methods for submitting comments. A second press release was posted on the national and Great Basin websites on February 7, 2012, announcing the extension of the public scoping period to March 23, 2012. A third press release was issued on the national and Great Basin websites on February 9, 2012, announcing the addition of National Forests to the GRSG planning efforts. Public Scoping Open House The BLM hosted seven open houses to provide the public with an opportunity to become involved, learn about the project and the planning process, meet the planning team members, and offer comments. The open house was advertised via press release and the Great Basin website. The scoping meetings were held in an open house format to encourage participants to discuss concerns and questions with the BLM and other agency staff representatives. The location and date of the open houses were as follows: • Tonopah, Nevada - January 9, 2012 • Ely, Nevada - January 10, 2012 • Elko, Nevada - January 11, 2012 • Winnemucca, Nevada - January 12, 2012 • Alturas, CA - January 18, 2012 • Susanville, CA- January 19, 2012 • Reno, Nevada - January 30, 2012 Scoping Comments Received Detailed information about the comments received can be found in the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report , finalized in May 2012 (BLM 2012b). A total of 585 unique written submissions were received for the Great Basin region. Of these, 428 were specific to California and Nevada. The issues identified during public scoping and outreach are described in Section 1.5.2, Issues Identified for Consideration in the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments, of this LUPA/E1S. These issues guided the development of alternative management strategies outlined in Chapter 2 of this LUPA/EIS. September, 2013 Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination Scoping Process 932 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 6.4.2. Future Public Involvement Public participation efforts will be ongoing throughout the remainder of the LUPA/EIS process. One substantial part of this effort is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on this draft LUPA/EIS during the comment period. The proposed LUPA/Final EIS will respond to all substantive comments received during the 90-day comment period. Records of Decision will then be issued by the BLM and the Forest Service after the release of the proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the Governor’s Consistency Review, and any resolution of protests received on the proposed LUPA/Final EIS. 6.5. List of Preparers This LUPA/EIS was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of staff from the BLM, Forest Service, and Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. (see Table 6-2, List of Preparers). In addition, staff from numerous federal, state, and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations contributed to developing the LUPA/EIS. The following is a list of people that prepared or contributed to the development of the LUPA/EIS. Table 6.2. List of Preparers Name Role/Responsibility BLM-Nevada Nevada State Office Joe Tague Branch Chief Marguerite Adams Planning and Environmental Coordinator Chris Rose Public Affairs Dan Kozar Lead GIS Specialist Paul Roush Contract Sage Grouse Wildlife Biologist Sandra Brewer Wildlife Biologist Paul Petersen Asst. Fire Management Officer Sarah Peterson Hydrologist Mike Boomer Fire Planner Sandy Gregory Fuels Management Specialist Mark Coca Weed Management Specialist Alan Shepherd Wild Horse and Burro Specialist Robert Bunkall GIS Specialist Michael Schade GIS Specialist Scott Murrellwright Geologist Sheila Mallory Geologist Mike Tietmeyer Range Management Program Lead Mary Figarelle Lead Realty Specialist Bryan Hockett Archaeologist Barb Keleher Outdoor Recreation Planner Leo Drumm Outdoor Recreation Planner Leisa Wesch GIS Specialist John Wilson Wildlife Biologist/Healthy Landscapes Dave Davis Geologist Lorenzo Trimble Geologist John Menghini Petroleum Engineer Battle Mountain District Doug Furtado District Manager Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination Future Public Involvement September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 933 Name Role/Responsibility Michael Vermeys Assistant Field Manager, Renewable Resources, Mt. Lewis Field Office Wendy Seley Realty Specialist, Tonopah Field Office Carson City District John Neill Assistant Manager, Stillwater Field Office Elko District Tyson Gripp Natural Resource Specialist Carol Evans Fisheries Biologist Victoria Anne Planning and Environmental Coordinator Ely District Mike Herder Associate District Manager Paul Podborny Wildlife Biologist Winnemucca District Amanda De Forest Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist BLM-California Northern California District Nancy Haug District Manager Jeff Fontana Public Affairs Officer Alt uras Field Office Megan Oyarzun G1S Specialist Arlene Kosic Wildlife Biologist Casey Boespflug Zone Fuels Specialist Alan Uchida Rangeland Management Specialist, Noxious Weed, and ES&R Coordinator Eagle Lake Field Office Rhonda (Sue) Noggles Planner Dereck Wilson Supervisory Rangeland Management Specialist Marisa Williams Outdoor Recreation Planner Surprise Field Office Elias Flores Wildlife Biologist Dan Ryan Realty Specialist Roger Farschon Contract Planning and Environmental Coordinator BLM-National Operations Center Josh Sidon Socioeconomics Frank Quamen Wildlife Biologist US Forest Service Randy Sharp Contractor Project Liaison David Reis Travel Management Dustin Bambrough Range Paul Bartschi GIS Pam Bode NEPA/Planning Chris Colt Wildlife Biologist Madelyn Dillon Land / Special Uses Dale Harber Minerals Pam Heavysege NEPA Records Management Kolleen Kralick Cultural/Tribal Tim Love GIS Tim Metzger Fire Chris Miller Economist Craig Morris Analyst Cory Norman Fire/Fuels Lara Oles GIS Glen Stein Team Lead EMPSi: Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. David Batts Program Manager September, 2013 Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination List of Preparers 934 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Name Role/Responsibility Holly Prohaska Project Manager Peter Gower Deputy Project Manager Meredith Zaccherio Biologist and Project Support Drew Vankat Project Support Jennifer Thies Project Support Marcia Rickey GIS Specialist Jenna Jonker G1S Specialist Jordan Tucker GIS Specialist and Project Support Kate Krebs Special Designations and Project Support Amy Cordle QA/QC Constance Callahan QA/QC and Project Support Jeff Johnson QA/QC Annie Daly Project Support Laura Long Technical Editor Randy Varney Technical Editor Cindy Schad Word Processor Lauren Zielinski Project Support ICF International Team Rob Fetter Project Manager - Socioeconomics Alex Uriarte Project Assistance Roy Allen Project Assistance Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination September, 2013 Chapter 7. References This page intentionally left blank Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 937 Abatzoglou, J. T. and C. A. Kolden. 2011. “Climate change in western deserts: Potential for increased wildfire and invasive annual grasses.” Rangeland Ecology and Management 64 (5):47 1 -478. Agee, J. K. 1993. Eire eeology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. Aldrich, J. W. 1963. “Geographic orientation of American tetraonidae.” Journal of Wildlife Management 27:529-545. Aldridge, C. L., and M. S. Boyce. 2007. “Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse.” Ecological Applications 1 7:508-526. Aldridge, C. L., and R. M. Brigham. 2002. “Sage -grouse nesting and brood habitat use in southern Canada.” Journal of Wildlife Management 66:433 444. . 2003. “Distribution, status and abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, in Canada.” Canadian Field Naturalist 1 1 7:25-34. Aldridge, C. L., S. E. Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, and M. A. Schroeder. 2008. “Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence.” Diversity and Distributions 14:983-994. Alevy, Jonathan, Elizabeth Fadali, and Thomas Harris. 2007. Analysis of Impacts of Public Land Grazing on the Elko County Economy: Part III: Economic Impacts of Federal Grazing in Elko County. Technical Report UCED 2006/7-03. University of Nevada, Reno. Alliance for Green Heat. 2011. 2010 Census shows wood is fastest growing heating fuel in US: Rural low-income families the new growth leaders in renewable energy production. Internet website: http://www.forgreenheat.org/resources/press.pdf Amstrup, S. C., and R. L. Phillips. 1977. Effects of Coal Extraction and Related Development on Wildlife Populations: Effects of Coal Strip Mining on Habitat Use, Activities and Population Trends of Sharp-Tailed Grouse ( Pedioecetes phasianellus). Annual progress report. Denver Wildlife Research Center. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC. . 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7 th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC. Armentrout, D. J., and F. Hall (compilers). 2005. Conservation Strategy for Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus urophansianus) and Sagebrush Ecosystems within the Buffalo-Skedaddle Population Management Unit. Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, California. Armour, C. L., D. A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. “The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems.” Fisheries 16(1): 7-11. Armstrong, .1. C. 2007. “Improving sustainable seed yield in Wyoming big sagebrush.” Thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. September, ; 2013 Chapter 7 References 938 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Atamian, M. T., J. S. Sedinger, J. S. Heaton, and E. J. Blomberg. 2010. “Landscape-level assessment of brood rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse in Nevada.” Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1533-15 43. Baker, W. L. 2006. “Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:177-185. . 2009. Fire Ecology in Rocky Mountain landscapes. Island Press, Washington DC. . 2011. Pre-Euro-American and recent fire in sagebrush ecosystems. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 185-201. Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, C. M. D’Antonio, and J. Gomez-Dans. 2012. “Introduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980-2009).” Global Change Biology 19:173-183. Baldwin, Donald. 1970. Bird Feathers from Hogup Cave. In: Hogup Cave , C. Melvin Aikens (editor). Anthropological Papers No. 93. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. pp. 267-269. Baldwin, C. K., F. H. Wagner, and U. Lall. 2003. Water Resources. In: F. H. Wagner (editor), Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Regional Climate-Change Assessment pp. 79-112. Barnett, J. K., and J. A. Crawford. 1994. “Pre-laying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon.” Journal of Range Management 47:114-118. Baxter, R. J., J. T. Flinders, and D. L. Mitchell. 2008. “Survival, movements, and reproduction of translocated Greater Sage-Grouse in Strawberry Valley.” Journal of Wildlife Management 72:179-186. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce). 2012a. Local area personal income and employment methodology. Internet website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/pdf/lapi2010.pdf. . 2012b. Regional Economic Information System, local area personal income and employment. Internet website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. . 2013. Widespread economic growth in 2012 (Table 4, Current-Dollar GDP by State). Internet website: https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/20 1 3/pdf/gsp06 1 3 .pdf. Accessed in June 2013. Beck, T. D. I. 1977. “Sage grouse flock characteristics and habitat selection in winter.” Journal of Wildlife Management 41:1 8-26. Beck, J. L., J. W. Connelly, and K. P. Reese. 2009. “Recovery of greater sage -grouse habitat features in Wyoming big sagebrush following prescribed fire.” Restoration Ecology 17:393 403. Becker, J. M., C. A. Duberstein, J. D. Tagestad, J. L. Downs. 2009. Sage-Grouse and Wind Energy: Biology, Habits, and Potential Effects from Development. Prepared for the US Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest Energy. PNNL- 18567. Beever, E. A., and C. L. Aldridge. 2011. “Influences of free coaming equids on sagebrush ecosystems, with a focus on greater sage -grouse.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), Chapter 7 References September. 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 939 Greater Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. University of California Press. Berkeley. Pp. 273-290. Belnap, J., J. H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. “Biological soil crusts: Ecology and management.” US Department of the Interior. Tech. Ref. 1730-2. Belsky, A. J. 1986. “Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence.” The American Naturalist, Vol 127, No. 6:870-892. Bengston, Ginny. 2006. Z?ureau of Land Management Winnemucca Field Office Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Final Ethnographic Assessment. Report on file with the Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 2010. Ethnographic Assessment for the Newe (Western Shoshone): Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project in Nevada. Report on file with the Bureau of Land Management Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. Berger, J. 1986. Wild Horses of the Great Basin: Social Competition and Population Size. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. “Invasive species and coal bed methane development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128:381 -394. Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. “Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions.” Streamsides Management: Forestry and Fishery Interaction. University of Washington, College of Forest Research, Seattle. Pp. 191-232. Bestelmeyer, Brandon T., Joel R. Brown, Kris M. Flavstad, Robert Alexander, George Chavez, and Jeffrey Herrick. 2003. “Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands.” Journal of Range Management 56:114-126. BIA (US Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs). 2012. BIA 2012 Tribal Entities List. Internet website: http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/TribalGovemmentServices/ TribalDirectory/. Accessed September 5, 2013. Blackburn, W. H., P. T. Tueller. 1970. “Pinyon and juniper invasion in black sagebrush communities in east central Nevada.” Ecology 51:841-848. Blaisdell, J. P., R. B. Murray, and E. D. McArthur. 1982. Managing Intermountain Rangelands-Sagebrush Steppe Ranges. US Forest Service General Technical Report INT-134. Ogden, Utah. Blank, R. R., and T. A. Morgan. 2012. “Cheatgrass invasion ‘engineers’ the soil to facilitate its growth.” Abstract. Society for Range Management. 65:0162. BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1969. Habitat Management Plan: Disaster Peak Wildlife Habitat Area. Paradise Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 940 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 1974. Revised Aquatic Habitat Management Plan: Mahogany Creek Habitat Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. December 1974. . 1975. Sonoma Mountain Habitat Management Plan. Sonoma-Gerlach Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Winnemucca, Nevada. July 1975. . 1976. Owyhee Desert Habitat Management Plan. Surprise Field Office. . 1978. Fox Mountain-Granite Range Habitat Management Plan. Sonoma-Gerlach Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. Revised 1989. . 1980. Jackson Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan. Paradise-Denio Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 1981. Pine Forest Habitat Management Plan. Sonoma-Gerlach Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 1982a. Paradise Denio Management Framework Plan. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 1982b. Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 1982c. Aquatic Habitat Management Plan: North Fork, Little Humboldt River. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. October 1982. . 1983. Soldier Meadows Desert Dace Habitat Management Plan. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 1984. Manual 8400 — Visual Resource Management. Rel. 8-24. BLM, Washington, DC. April 5, 1984. . 1985a. Wells Resource Management Plan. Elko District Office, Nevada. July 1985. . 1985b. Sonoma Creek Aquatic Management Plan. Sonoma-Gerlach Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 1985c. Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC. . 1986a. Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan. Mt. Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain District, Battle Mountain, NV, March 1986. . 1986b. Handbook H-8410-1 — Visual Resource Inventory. Rel. 8-28. Washington, DC. January 17, 1986. . 1986c. Handbook H-843 1-1 — Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Rel. 8-30. Washington, DC. January 17, 1986. . 1986d. Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Washington, DC. . 1987a. Elko Resource Management Plan. Elko District Office, Nevada. March 1987. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 941 . 1987b. Shoshone-Eureka RMP Amendment. Battle Mountain Field Office, Nevada. . 1987c. Pine Dunes Research Natural Area Management Plan. Susanville District Office, California. . 1987d. Shoshone-Eureka Wilderness Recommendations. Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada. February 3, 1987. . 1987e. Little Owyhee-Snowstorm Habitat Management Plan. Paradise-Denio Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 1987f. Pine Nut Habitat Management Plan. Carson City District Office, Carson City, Nevada. . 1987g. BLM Manual H-4 120-1 : Grazing Management. Rel. 4-85. Washington, DC. August 24, 1987. . 1988a. Shoshone-Eureka Rangeland Program Summary. Battle Mountain District, Nevada. December 1988. . 1988b. Policy Manual 1613 — Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Washington, DC. September 29, 1988. . 1990a. Handbook H-1624-1 — Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources. Washington, DC. May 1990. . 1990b. Condor Canyon Habitat Management Plan: Las Vegas, Nevada, Caliente Resource Area. N5-WHA-T27. Las Vegas District Office. . 1990c. Habitat Management Plan: Montana-Double H Wildlife Habitat Area. Paradise-Denio Resource Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. November 1990. . 1990d. Manual 8160 — Native American Coordination and Consultation. Rel. 8-58. Washington, DC. January 26, 1990. . 1991a. Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. Washington, DC. . 1991b. Eagle Lake Basin Plan. Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, California. . 1991c. Riparian- Wetland Initiative for the 1990s. BLM/WO/GI-91/001+4340. . 1 99 1 d. Record of Decision for California Statewide Wilderness Study Report. California State Office, Sacramento, CA. . 1 99 1 e Record of Decision for the Nevada Statewide Wilderness Study Report. Nevada State Office, Reno, NV. . 1992a. Pine Forest Recreation Management Plan. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. September 1992. . 1992b. Manual 9015 — Integrated Weed Management. Washington, DC. December 2, 1992. September, 20 13 Chapter 7 References 942 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 1994. Handbook H-8160 — General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation. Rel. 8-65. Washington DC. November 3, 1994. . 1996. Partners Against Weeds; Final Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO, January 1996. . 1997a. Tonopah Resource Management Plan. Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada. October 1997. . 1997b. Geothermal Leasing — Tonopah Planning Area. Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada. October 1997. . 1997c. Water Canyon Recreation Area Environmental Assessment, Management Plan, Record of Decision and Cooperative Management Agreement. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. August 15, 1997. . 1997d. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Idaho State Office, Boise. . 1998a. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management on BLM-Administered Lands in California and Northwestern Nevada, Final Environmental Impact Statement. California State Office, Sacramento, CA, April 1998. . 1998b. Central Nevada Communications Sites Amendment. Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada. August 21, 1998. . 1998c. Pulling Together: A National Strategy for Management of Invasive Plants. Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 2nd edition. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. . 1999. Desatoya Mountains Ecosystem Management Plan. Battle Mountain Field Office and Carson City Field Office, Nevada. July 7, 1999. . 2000. Interdisciplinary Management Plan for the Silver Saddle Ranch and the Ambrose Carson River Natural Area. Carson City Field Office, Carson City, Nevada. November 2000. . 2001a. Carson City Consolidated Resource Management Plan. Carson City Field Office, Nevada. May 2001. . 2001b. North Douglas County Specific Management Plan Amendment. Carson City Field Office, Nevada. June 2001. . 2001c. Southern Washoe County Urban Interface Plan Amendment. Carson City Field Office, Nevada. January 2001. . 200 Id. Pine Forest Recreation Plan Activity Plan for Pine Forest Recreation Area. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. . 2002a. Programmatic Environmental Assessment Geothermal Leasing and Exploration Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area. Battle Mountain Field Office, Nevada. August 2002. . 2002b. Geothermal Resources Leasing — Winnemucca District Office Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 943 . 2002c. Shoshone-Eureka RMP Amendment for Fire Management. Mt. Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada. . 2002d. Aquatic Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Level III Survey Procedures — Transect Method. Elko Revised Handbook, BLM Manual 6720-1. Elko District Office, Nevada. . 2003a. Forestry Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment. NV-020-02-05. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. December 2003. . 2003b. Manual 620 — Wildland Fire Management, Chapter 3, Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation. Washington, DC. September 2003. . 2004a. Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan. Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area. Black Rock Field Office, Winnemucca District Office, July 2004. . 2004b. Carson City Field Office Fire Management Plan. Carson City District Office, Nevada. . 2004c. Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Record of Decision. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. June 2004. . 2004d. BLM Conservation Efforts for Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service in response to notice of 90-day petition finding for the Greater Sage-Grouse. Washington, DC. . 2004e. Instruction Memorandum 2004-227, Bureau of Land Management’s Biomass Utilization Strategy. Washington, DC. August 16, 2004. . 2004f. Manual 81 10 — Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources. Rel. 8-73. Washington, DC. December 3, 2004. . 2004g. Handbook H-8 120-1 — Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation. Rel. 8-75. Washington, DC. December 3, 2004. . 2005a. Llandbook H-l 601-1 — Land Use Planning Handbook. Rel. 1-1693. Washington, DC. March 11, 2005. . 2005b. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM- Administered Lands in the Western United States. FES 05-11. June 2005. . 2005c. Oil and Gas Resources Leasing Environmental Assessment and Record of Decision. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. October 2005. . 2005d. Water Canyon Implementation Plan Amendment Environmental Assessment and Decision Record. Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. August 2005. BLM 2006. Oil and Gas Leasing within Portions of the Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain District, Environmental Assessment NV063 EA06092. FONSI and Record of Decision. November 27, 2006. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 944 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 2007a. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. Washington, DC. September 2007. . 2007b. Denton-Rawhide Mine Land Sale Plan Amendment. EA-NV-030-07-021 . Carson City Field Olfice, Nevada. August 2007. . 2007c. Handbook H- 1742-1 : Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation. Washington, DC. February 12, 2007. . 2007d. Ely Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely field office/blm programs/planning/ ely_rmp_2007.html. . 2007e. Eagle Lake Field Office — Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/eaglelake/ propRMP-FEIS.html. . 2007f. Surprise Field Office — Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/surprise/ propRMP-FEIS.html. . 2008a. Alturas Resource Management Plan. Alturas Field Office, California. April 2008. . 2008b. Eagle Lake Resource Management Plan. Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, California. April 2008. . 2008c. Surprise Resource Management Plan. Surprise Field Office, Cedarville, California. April 2008. . 2008d. Ely Resource Management Plan. Ely District Office, Nevada. August 2008. . 2008 e. Handbook H- 1790-1 — NEPA Handbook. Rel. 1-1710. Washington, DC. January 30, 2008. . 2008f. Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy Final EIS. Alturas Field Office, California. December 15, 2008. . 2008g. Oil and Gas Leasing within the Western Portion of the Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain District, Environmental Assessment NV063-EA08-032. March 2008. . 2008h. Geothermal Resources Leasing in Churchill, Mineral, and Nye Counties, Nevada. Carson City Field Office, Nevada. March 2008. . 2008i. Instruction Memorandum 2009-043 — Wind Energy Development Policy. Washington, DC. December 19, 2008. . 2008j. Handbook 1740-2 — Integrated Vegetation Management. Washington, DC. March 25, 2008. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 945 . 2009a. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in the 1 1 Western States. Washington, DC. January 2009. . 2009b. Environmental Assessment Integrated Weed Management Program. EA Number CA320-07-13. Alturas Field Office, California. . 2009c. Instruction Memorandum 2009-120 — Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Updated Contract Clause for Utilization of Woody Biomass. Washington, DC. May 12, 2009. . 2010a. Carson City District 2011 Geothermal Leasing. DOI-BLM-NV-CO 10-20 10-0020- EA. Carson City District, Nevada. October 2010. . 2010b. Instruction Memorandum 2011-061 — Solar and Wind Applications — Pre- Application and Screening. Washington, DC. October 2010. . 2010c. Instruction Memorandum 2011-060 — Solar and Wind Applications — Due Diligence. Washington, DC. October 2010. . 2010d. Winnemucca District Office - Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blm_information/rmp/ draftrmp _eis.html. . 2011a. BLM Instructional Memorandum 2012-44 — BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. BLM Washington Office, Washington DC, December 27, 2011. . 2011b. Nobles Trail/Humboldt Wagon Road Management Plan, Shasta and Lassen Counties, California, and Pershing and Washoe Counties, Nevada. Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, California. . 2011c. Handbook H- 1730-1 — Resource Management During Drought. Chapter 2. Washington, DC. . 201 Id. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office. Sensitive Species List. October 2011. . 201 le. BLM Manual 8320 — Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services (Public). Release 8-81. Washington, DC. March 29, 2011. . 201 If. BLM Manual 1626 — Travel and Transportation Manual. Release 1-1731. Washington, DC. July 14, 2011. . 20 1 1 g. Instruction Memorandum 2011-059 — National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Right-of-Way Authorizations. Washington, DC. February 7, 2011. . 201 lh. Instruction Memorandum 2011-003 — Solar Energy Development Policy. Washington, DC. October 7, 2010. . 201 li. Supplement to the Draft Programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. Washington State Office, Washington DC. October 2011. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 946 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 201 lj. Battle Mountain District Office - Socioeconomic Baseline Assessment Report. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/ battlemountain field/ blm_information/rmp. Par.7232. File. dat/BMDO_SE_FINAL_l 121 1 1 .pdf. . 2012a. Instruction Memorandum 2012-169 — RMP Alternative Development for Livestock Grazing. Washington, DC. . 2012b. Manual 6340 — Management of Designated Wilderness Areas. Rel. 6-135. Washington, DC. July 13, 2012. . 2012c. BLM Manual 6220 — National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and Similar Designations. Washington, DC. . 201 2d. BLM Manual 6400 — Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning, and Management. Washington, DC. . 2012e. BLM Manual 6280 — Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation. Washington, DC. . 201 2f. BLM Manual 6310 — Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands. Rel. 6-129. Washington, DC. March 15, 2012. . 2012g. BLM Manual 6320 — Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process. Rel. 6-130. Washington, DC. March 15, 2012. . 2012h. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments and Record of Decision for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. Washington, DC. October 2012. . 20 1 2i. BLM Northern California Region Fire Management Plan. . 20 1 2j . Battle Mountain Drought Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2012- 0005-EA. Battle Mountain District, Nevada. June 14, 2012. . 2012k. Manual 6330 — Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Rel. 6-134. BLM, Washington, DC. July 13, 2012. . 20121. Data from BLM Rangeland Administration System. . 2012m. BLM Handbook 8342 — Travel and Transportation. Release 8-82. Washington, DC. March 16, 2012. . 2012n. September 2012 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-NV-L000-2012-0003-EA. Ely District Office, Nevada. April 13, 2012. . 2012o. Summary of Nevada-Northeast California Sub-Region Economic Strategies Workshop: Carson City, Nevada, June 28, 2012. . 2012p. Recreation Management Information System. . 20 1 2q. BLM Defers Final Decision on China Mountain Wind Project. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/info/newsroom/2012/March-2012_News/ idaho blm defers final.html. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 947 . 20 1 2r. Biomass. California. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/ biomass.html. _. 2012s. FY2011 BLM Expenditures: FY2011 BLM Labor Summary and FY2011 BLM Non-Labor Summary. . 2013a. Carson City District Drought Management Plan, Carson City District Office, NV. . 2013b. Land and Mineral Legacy Rehost 2000 System (LR2000). . 2013c. Carson City District Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impacts Statement. Socioeconomic Baseline Assessment Report. Internet website: https://www.blm.gov/ epl-front-office/projects/lup/22652/42252/44902/CCD_SEbaseline_20 130111 _508_(2).pdf. . 2013d. BLM California Wind Applications and Authorizations. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/pa/energy.Par.5556.File.dat/ BLMWindApplications&AuthorizationsApril20 13.pdf. . 2013e. Grazing Impacts. Personal communication. Mike Tietmeyer, Rangeland Management Specialist, . Nevada State Office, Reno, NV, May and June 2013. . 201 3f. Oil and Gas Data. Personal communication. John Menghini, Petroleum Engineer. Nevada State Office, Reno, NV, May and June 2013. . 2013g. Locatable, Salable, and Solid Leasable Minerals. Personal communication. Scott Murrellwright, Geologist, Nevada State Office, Reno, NV, May and June 2013. . 201 3h. Geothermal RFD. Personal communication. Sheila Mallory, Geologist, Nevada State Office. Reno, NV, June 2013. . 20 1 3i. Solar and Wind Information. Personal communication. Wendy Seley, Nevada State Office, Reno, NV, May 2013. . 20 1 3j . Wind-Based Energy Projects. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada, Ely Field Office. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office/blm_programs/energy/ wind-based_energy.print.html. BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management) and DOE (US Department of Energy). 2003. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. February 2003. Internet website: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33530.pdf. BLM and Forest Service (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Oil and Gas Leasing Operations. . 2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. Website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html, accessed on September 1, 2013. . 2011. Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Greater Sage-Grouse. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 948 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 2012. National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy: Land Use Plan Amendments and Environmental Impact Statements, Scoping Summary Report. May 2012. BLM and Forest Service (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service) GIS. 2013. GIS data created in the analysis of the alternatives, affected environment, and impact analysis on the BLM’s eGIS server, using data from the Department of the I nterior, Nevada State Office and California Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise Field Offices, and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. March-August 2013. BLM and Forest Service and US Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the National Environmental Policy Act Process. June 23, 2011. BLM and National Landscape Conservation System. 2006. National Scenic and Historic Trails Program. Washington, DC. BLM and Nevada Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. MOU for Water Quality Management Activities within the State of Nevada. September 2004. BLM and US Navy (Department of Defense). 2000. Fallon Range Training Complex Requirements EIS. Carson City and Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada. April 14, 2000. Blomberg, E. J., J. S. Sedinger, M. T. Atamian, and D. V. Nonne. 2012. “Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations.” Ecosphere 3(6):55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ESll-00304. BLS (US Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012a. CPI Inflation Calculator. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm/. . 2012b. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/lau/ data.htm. Boarman, W. I., and B. Heinrich. 1999. Common Raven. In: A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). The Birds of North Americano. 476. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Bradbury, J. W., R. M. Gibson, C. E. McCarthy, and S. L. Vehrencamp. 1989. “Dispersion of displaying male sage grouse: II. The role of female dispersion.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:15-24. Bradley, B. A. 2010. “Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional change: Hierarchical modeling of risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and invasive species in Nevada, USA.” Ecography 33:198-208. Bradley, B. A., and J. F. Mustard. 2006. “Characterizing the landscape dynamics of an invasive plant and risk of invasion using remote sensing.” Ecol. Appl. 16:1 132-1 147. Braun, C. E. 1995. “Distribution and status of sage grouse in Colorado.” Prairie Naturalist. 27:1-9. . 1998. “Sage grouse declines in western North America: What are the problems?” In: Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). Pp. 139-156. Chapter 7 References September. 2013 949 Draft Resource Management Plan/Lnvironmental Impact Statement Braun, C. E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. W. Gashwiler, and M. H. Schroeder. 1976. “Conservation committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated avifauna.” Wilson Bulletin 88:1 65- 171. Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Alderidge. 2002. “Oil and gas development in western North America: Effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on Sage Grouse.” Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349. Briske, D. D., J. D. Derner, D. G. Milchunas, and K. W. Tate. 2011. “An evidence -based assessment of prescribed grazing practices.” In: D. D. Briske. Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Resources: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps. USDA National Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Pp. 23-74. Brooks, M. L., and D. A. Pyke. 2001. “Invasive plants and lire in the deserts of North America.” In: K. E. M. Galley and T. P. Wilson (editors). Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1 1, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. Pp. 1-14. Brown, G. W. 1983. Forestry and water quality. Oregon State University Bookstore, Inc., Corvallis. Brown, K. G., and K. M. Clayton. 2004. Ecology of the Greater Sage-Grouse (C entrocercus urophasianus ) in the Coal Mining Landscape of Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. Final Executive Summary Report 2004. Thunder River Wildlife Consulting, Gillette, Wyoming. Brown, G. W., and J. T. Krygier. 1970. “Effects of clearcutting on stream temperature.” Water Resources Research 6:1133-1139. Brown, J. K. 1982. “Fuel and fire behavior prediction in big sagebrush.” US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper INT-290. Ogden, Utah. . 1995. “Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management.” In: Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, September 18-22, 1994. Pp. 171-178. Brown, T. J., B. L. Hall, and A. L. Westerling. 2004. “The impact of twenty-first century climate change on wildland fire danger in the western United States: An applications perspective.” Climate Change 62:365-388. Bryant, L. D. 1985. ‘Livestock management in the riparian ecosystem.’ Paper presented to North American Conference, University of Arizona, Tucson. April 16-18, 1985. Bunting, S. C. 1984. ‘Fires in sagebrush-grass ecosystems: successional changes.” In: K. Sanders and J. Durham (editors). Rangeland Fire Effects: A Symposium. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. Pp. 7-11. . 1990. “Prescribed fire effects in sagebrush-grasslands and pinyon-juniper woodlands.” In: M. E. Alexander and G. F. Bisgrove (technical coordinators). “The art and science of fire management.” Proceedings of the First Interior West Fire Council Annual Meeting and Workshop. Kananaskis Village, Alberta. Information report NOR-X-309. Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre. Edmonton, Alberta. October 24-27, 1988. Pp. 176-181. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 950 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Bunting, S. C., B. M. Kilgore, C. L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for Prescribed Burning Sagebrush-Grass Rangelands in the Northern Great Basin. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-231. Ogden, Utah. Burton, T. A., S. J. Smith, and E. R. Cowley. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. BLM/OC/ST- 1 0/003+ 1 737+REV. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado. Cagney, J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. Rashford, M. Smith, and J. Williams. 2010. “Grazing Influence, Objective Development, and Management in Wyoming’s Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat.” Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin B-1203, University of Wyoming, Laramie. California Department of Conservation. 2010. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal - Assessment Process. Internet website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/for_operators/Pages/assessments.aspx. California Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2007. California’s tax system — A primer. California State Board of Equalization. 2012. California property tax. An overview. Publication 29, November. Internet website: http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf. CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2005. Version 1.0. The sagebrush bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing sagebrush habitats and associated birds in California. PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, California. Internet website: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. Carpenter, J., C. Aldridge, and M. S. Boyce. 2010. “Sage -grouse habitat selection during winter in Alberta.” Journal of Wildlife Management -74:1806-1814. Carson City. 2006. Carson City Master Plan. Carson City, Nevada. April 6, 2006. Casazza, M. L., P. S. Coates, and C. T. Overton. 2011. “Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse.” In: M. K. Sandercock, K. Martin, and G Segelbacher (editors). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Grouse. University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 151-167. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2005. State Wildlife Action Plan. Sacramento, California. CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 2012. “Invasive species.” The Northern American Mosaic: An Overview of Key Environmental Issues. Commission for Environmental Cooperation document. Pp. 1-4. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. CEQ Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. US Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, DC. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ ej_guidance_nepa_ceql297.pdf. Chambers, J. C. 2008. Invasive Plant Species and the Great Basin. USDA-USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, Nevada. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 951 Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 1993. Managing change, livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Produced for the Environmental Protection Agency by the Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc., Eagle, Idaho. Christiansen, T. 2009. Fence Marking to Reduce Greater Sage -Grouse Collisions and Mortality Near Farson, Wyoming — Summary of Interim Results. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, unpublished interim report. Churchill County. 2007. Water Resource Plan. Fallon, Nevada. October 8, 2003. . 2010. Churchill County Master Plan. Fallon, Nevada. September 2, 2010. Internet website: http://www.churchillc0unty.0rg/D0cumentCenter/H01ne/View/l 577. City of Caliente. 2011. Envision Caliente: City of Caliente, Nevada Master Plan. Caliente, Nevada. City of Reno. 2012. Reno Economy. Internet website: http://reno. gov/index. aspx?page=l 19. Clark, L., J. Hall, R. McLean, M. Dunbar, K. Klenk, R. Bowen, and C. A. Smeraski. 2006. “Susceptibility of greater sage -grouse to experimental infection with West Nile virus.” Journal of Wildlife Diseases 42:1442. Clary, W. P, and B. F. Webster. 1989. Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the Intermountain Region. General Technical Report INT-263. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. CNIC (Commander Navy Installations Command). Undated. Naval Air Station Fallon, installation welcome page. Internet Web site: http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Fallon/index.htm. Accessed September 9, 2013. Coates, P. S., and D. J. Delehanty. 2004. “The effects of raven removal on sage-grouse nest success.” Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference 21:17. . 2008. “Effects of environmental factors on incubation patterns of Greater Sage-Grouse.” The Condor 110:627-638. . 2010. “Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators.” Journal of Wildlife Management 74:240-248. Coates, P. S., Z. B. Lockyer, M. A. Farinha, J. M. Sweeney, V. M. Johnson, M. B. Meshriy, S. P. Espinosa, D. J. Delehanty, and M. L. Casazza. 2011. Preliminary Analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse Reproduction in the Virginia Mountains of Northwestern Nevada: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1182. Coates, P. S., and M. L. Casazza. In prep. (A). Avoidance by greater sage-grouse of pinyon pine and juniper tree encroachment within sagebrush ecosystem. . In prep. (B). Winter habitat selection of greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State DPS. Collins, E. I. 1984. Preliminary classification of Wyoming plant communities. Wyoming Natural Heritage Programs and The Nature Conservancy. Cheyenne, Wyoming. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 952 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Comer, P. J., P. J. Crist, M. S. Reid, J. Hak, H. Hamilton, B. Unnasch, I. Varley, et al. 2012a. Central Basin and Range Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Report. Prepared for the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. . 2012b. A Rapid Ecoregional Assessment of the Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregion. Report, appendices, and databases provided to the Bureau of Land Management. Condon, L., P. J. Wiesberg, and J. C. Chambers. 2011. “Abiotic and biotic influences on Bromns tectorum invasion and Artemisia tridentata recovery after fire.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 20:597-604. Congressional Research Service. 2012. Forest Service Payments to Counties — Title I of the Federal Forests County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2012: Issues for Congress. R42452. Internet website: http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R42452.pdf. Connelly, J. W. 1982. An ecological study of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Washington State University, Pullman. Connelly, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1997. “A review of long-term changes in sage grouse populations in western North America.” Wildlife Biology 3:229-234. Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000a. “Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985. Connelly, J. W., A. D. Apa, R. B. Smith, and K. P. Reese. 2000b. “Effects of predation and hunting on adult sage grouse Centrocereus urophasianus in Idaho.” Wildlife Biology > 6:227-232. Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho, USA. Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Connelly, J. W., E. T. Rinkes, and C. E. Braun. 2011. “Characteristics of greater sage-grouse habitats: A landscape species at micro and macro scales.” Studies in Avian Biology : 69-83. Cooper, S. V., P. Lesica, and G. M. Kudray. 2007. Post-fire Recovery of Wyoming Big Sagebrush Shrub-Steppe in Central And Southeast Montana. The Montana Natural Heritage Program, United States Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Helena. Crawford, J. A., R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C. Mosley, M. A. Schroeder, T. D. Whitson, R. F. Miller et al. 2004. “Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.” Journal of Range Management 57:2-19. Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, and P. K. Holmgren. 1994. “Intermountain flora.” Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West , U.S.A., Vol. 5. Asterales. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. Dalldorf, K. N., S. R. Swanson, D. F. Kozlowski, K. M. Schmidt, R. S. Shane and G. Fernandez. 2013. “Influence of Livestock Grazing Strategies on Riparian Response to Wildfire in Northern Nevada.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 66:1, 34-42. January 1, 2013. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 953 Davies, K. W. 2010. “Revegetation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush steppe.” Rangeland Ecology <£ Management 63:564-571. Davies, K. W„ C. S. Boyde, J. L. Beck, J. D. Bates, T. J. Svejcar, and J. G. Gregg. 2011. “Saving the sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush.” Biological Conservation 144:2573-2584. D’Azevedo, Warren I. (editor). 1986. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Delong, A. K., J. A. Crawford, and D. C. Delong, Jr. 1995. “Relationships between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests.” Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88-92. Deur, Douglas. 2010. Ruby Pipeline Ethnographic Study, Fort Bidwell Indian Community: Barrel Springs Traditional Cultural Property Report. BLM Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. Diamond, J. M., C. A. Call, and N. Devoe. 2009. “Effects of targeted cattle grazing on fire behavior of cheatgrass -dominated rangeland in the northern Great Basin, USA.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:944-950. Doherty, M. K. 2007. “Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: A comparison of natural, agricultural, and effluent coal -bed natural gas aquatic habitats.” Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham. 2008. “Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development.” Journal of Wildlife Management 72:187-195. Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. Kiesecker. 2011. Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: systematic planning for greater sage-grouse in their eastern range. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Cooper Ornithological Society, Berkeley. Pp. 505-516. DOI (US Department of the Interior). 2004. National Sage -Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. WO IM 2005-024. Washington, DC. . 2006. 620 DM 3: Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook. Version 1.3. October 2006. . 2008. Departmental Manual Part 522: Adaptive Management. February 1, 2008. . 2012. Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/pilt/index.cfm. DOI and USDA 2013. Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. NFES 2724. DOI (US Department of the Interior), Forest Service (US Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service), DOE (US Department of Energy), US Department of Defense, US Department of Commerce, EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Association of State Foresters. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. January 2001. Douglas County. 2007. Open Space Plan. Minden, Nevada. July 1, 2007. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 954 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 2012. Comprehensive Master Plan. Minden, Nevada. March 2012. Drought Monitor Archives. Not dated. Internet website: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ archive.html. Accessed July 11,2013. Duke University. 2012. “Hydraulic fracturing likely did not create fissures, but gas from leaking well casings could exploit them.” ScienceDaily . Internet website: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/1207091 5541 1 .htm. Dunn, P. O., and C. E. Braun. 1986. “Late summer-spring movements of juvenile sage grouse.” Wilson Bulletin 98:83-92. Eberhardt, L. L., A. K. Majorowicz, and J. A. Wilcox. 1982. “Apparent rates of increase for two feral horse herds.” Journal of Wildlife Management 46 (2):367-374. Eddleman, L. E., and P. S. Doescher. 1999. “Current issues in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem: grazing, fire and other disturbances.” In: P. G. Entwistle, A. M. DeBolt, J. H. Kaltenecher, and K. Steenhof (compilers), Proceedings: Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems Symposium. BLM Publ. No. BLM/ID/PT-001 001=1 150. Boise, Idaho. Pp. 21-23. Ehrhart, R. C., and P. L. Hansen. 1997. Effective Cattle Management in Riparian Zones: A Field Survey and Literature Review. Montana Bureau of Land Management Riparian Technical Bulletin 3. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, University of Montana, Missoula. EIA (United States Energy Information Administration). 2013. Independent Statistics and Analysis. State-Level Energy- Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000-2009. N.p., n.d. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/. Eichhorn, L. C., and C. R. Watts. 1984. “Plant succession of bums in the River Breaks of central Montana.” Proceedings of the Montana Academy of Sciences 43:21-34. Eiswerth, M. E., and J. S. Shonkwiler. 2006. “Examining post -wildfire reseeding on arid rangeland: a multivariate tobit modeling approach.” Ecological Modeling 192:286-298. Elko County. 2003. Elko County, Nevada, General Open Space Plan. Elko, Nevada. September 2003. . 2007. Water Resource Management Plan. Elko, Nevada. September 2007. . 2008. Public Lands Policy Plan. Elko, Nevada. . 2010. Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resources Management Plan. Elko, Nevada. . 2012. Elko County, Nevada Division of Natural Resource Management Greater Sage Grouse Management and Conservation Strategy Plan. Internet website: http://www.elkocountynv.net/meetings/board_of_commissioners/docs/ Elko County Public Land Use Natural Resource Management Plan Approved_Final.pdf. Ellis, K. L. 1984. “Behavior of lekking sage-grouse in response to a perched golden eagle.” Western Birds 15:37-38. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 955 . 1985. Effects of a new transmission line on the distribution and aerial predation of breeding male sage-grouse. Final report. Elmore, W., and B. Kauffman. 1994. “Riparian and watershed systems: Degradation.” In: M. Vavra, W. A. Laycock, and R. D. Pieper (editors). Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Soc. for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. Eng, R. L., and P. Sehladweiler. 1972. “Sage grouse winter movements and habitat use in central Montana.” Journal of Wildlife Management 36: 141-1 46. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Memorandum: Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards. Washington, DC. . 2002. Directional Drilling Technology. Prepared for EPA by Advanced Resources International. Washington, DC. . 2007. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Washington, DC. . 2010. Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Washington, DC. July 2010. . 2012. Emissions from the oil and natural gas industry. Last updated October 10, 2012. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/basic.html. Accessed on February 1, 2013. Epanchin-Niell, R. S., M. B. Hufford, C. E. Aslan, J. P. Sexton, J. D. Port, and T. M. Waring. 2009. “Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes.” Front. Ecol. Environ. doi:l 0.1 890/090029. Esmeralda County. 2011. Master Plan. Goldfield, Nevada. December 7, 2011. . 2013. Public Lands Policy Plan. Goldfield, Nevada. Eureka County. 2010. Master Plan. Eureka, Nevada. April 6, 2010. Internet website: http://www.co.eureka.nv.us/PDF/Master_Plan_Final_2010.pdf. ENEL Green Power. 2013. Stillwater Solar Geothermal Flybrid Project. Internet website: http://www.enelgreenpower.com/en-GB/ena/power_plants/wm/Stillwater_Solar/index.aspx. Fiero, Bill. 1986. Geology of the Great Basin. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV. Fischer, A., W. L. Wakkinenk, P. Reesea, and J. W. Connelly. 1997. “Effects of prescribed fire on movements of female sage grouse from breeding to summer ranges.” Wilson Bulletin 109:82-91 . Fitch, L., and N. Ambrose. 2003. Riparian Areas: A User's Guide to Health. Lethbridge, Alberta: Cows and Fish Program. ISBN No. 0-7785-2305-5. Fleishman, E., J. Thomson, B. G. Dickson, D. S. Dobkin, and M. Leu. 2012. Current and Projected future Connectivity of Habitat for Breeding Birds in Central Nevada. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno. Forest Service (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1986a. Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Humboldt National Forest. Sparks, NV, August 1986. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 956 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 1986b. Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Toiyabe National Forest. Sparks, NV, August 1986. . 1990. Manual 1500, External Relations. June 1, 1990. . 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, Washington, DC. October 13, 2000. . 2004a. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. All US Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 538. . 2004b. Handbook 1509.13-3 — American Indian and Alaska Native Relations Handbook. March 3, 2004. . 2005. Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. 70 Federal Register 68264. November 9, 2005. . 2006a. Manual 1920 — Land Management Planning. 1900-2006-2. Washington, DC. . 2006b. Handbook 1909.12 — Land Management Planning. 1909.12-2006-9. Washington, DC. . 2007a. Santa Rosa Ranger District Travel Management Plan. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. . 2007b. White Pine & Grant-Quinn Oil and Gas Leasing Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. . 2009a. Record of Decision: USDA Forest Service Designation of Section 368 Energy Corridors on National Forest System Land in 10 Western States. Washington Office, Washington DC. January 15, 2009. . 2009b. Austin and Tonopah Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Tonopah, NV. . 2009c. Ely Ranger District Travel Management Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Ely, NV. . 2009d. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. . 2009e. Manual 7700 — Travel Management. January 8, 2009. . 2009L Handbook 7709.55 — Travel Planning. January 8, 2009. . 2010. Elkhom Vegetation Treatment Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. . 2011a. Aurora Area Geothermal Leasing Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. . 2011b. McGinness Hills Geothermal Power Plan Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. . 2011c. Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and, and [sic] Sensitive Species. July 27, 2011, update. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 957 . 201 Id. Nationwide Aerial Application of Fire Retardant on National Forest System Lands. Record of Decision. United States Department of Agriculture. . 2012a. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 — NEPA Handbook. . 2012b. Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. September 18, 2012. . 2012c. Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Districts Combined Travel Management Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. . 20 1 2d. North Schell Restoration Project. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. . 201 2e. Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. Internet website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/pct. Accessed on November 26, 2012. . 20121'. National Visitor Use Monitoring, Round 2 Results. . 2012g. Personal communication. Chris Miller, to Rob Fetter, ICF International. August 2012. . 2013a. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Fire Management Plan. . 2013b. FACTS activity database. Forest Service fuels related treatments on Forest Service-administered lands within the planning area. Accessed on May 7, 2013. . 2013c. Natural Resource Management Forest Service WEB, Special Use Database System. . 2013d. Recreation and Tribal Grazing. Personal communication. Chris Miller. June 2013. . 201 3e. Secure Rural Schools. Payment and Receipts. Payment Report ASR 10-1 FY2012. Internet website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/securepayments/projectedpayments. . 2013f. Expenditures on National Forests. Personal communication. Susan Winter, to Alex Uriarte, April 2013. . 20 1 3g. Human Resources Management, Human Resources Reporting Center. Active Position Organizational Listing worksheets, by region. Internet website: http://fsweb.asc.fs.fed.us/HRM/reports/gen_reports.php. Forests and Rangelands. 2006. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10- Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. December 2006. Formann, R. T. T., and L. E. Alexander. 1998. “Roads and their major ecological effects.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207 . Fowler, Catherine. 1986. “Subsistence.” In: W. D’Azevedo (editor). Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Pp. 43-97. . 2002. “In the Shadow of Fox Peak: An Ethnography of the Cattail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Stillwater Marsh.” Second Edition. Reno: Nevada Humanities Committee. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 958 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Garate, Donald T. 1975. Red Rock to Ravendale: Memories of a Northern California Community. Lassen County Historical Society, Susanville, California. Garrott, R. A., and L. Taylor. 1 990. “Dynamics of a feral horse population in Montana.” Journal of Wildlife Management 54 (4):603-612. Garrott, R. A., D. B. Siniff, and L. L. Eberhardt. 1991. “Growth rates of feral horse populations.” Journal of Wildlife Management 55(4):641 -648. Garton, E. O., J. W. Connelly, J. S. Home, C. A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. “Greater sage-grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 293-381. GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory) 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1 .0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, Nevada. Internet website: www.gbbo.or/bird_conservation_plan.html. Accessed May 2013. . 2012. Bird Population Responses to Projected Effects of Climate Change in Nevada: An Analysis for the 2012 Revision of the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Prepared for Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. Final Report. February 27, 2012. Gelbard, J. L., and J. Belnap. 2003. “Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape.” Conservation Biology 17:420-432. Geothermal Energy Association. 2010. Geothermal power booming in Nevada: GEA expects 30-year economic output of $22.5 billion. Internet website: http://www.nye-renewables.com/docs/2010_GEA_NV_Geothermal Boom.pdf. Germino, M. J. 2012. “Hydro-climate effects on rangeland ecosystems soils in the Great Basin: thresholds and transformations.” Great Basin Climate Change Forum. Desert Resea. Gibson, R. M., and J. W. Bradbury. 1986. “Male and Female Mating Strategies on Sage Grouse Leks. In: Ecological Aspects of Social Evolution: Birds and Mammals, D. I. Rubenstein and R. W. Wrangham (editors). Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Pp. 379-398. Gilmore, Harry W. 1953. “Hunting habits of the early Nevada Paiutes.” American Anthropologist, 55, No. 1:148-153. Gratson, M. W. 1993. “Sexual selection for increased male courtship and acoustic signals and against large male size at sharp-tailed grouse leks.” Evolution 47:691-696. Grayson, Donald K. 1977. “A Review Of The Evidence For Early Holocene turkeys in the Northern Great Basin.” American Antiquity 42: 1 1 0- 1 14. . 1979. “Mount Mazama, Climatic Change, and Fort Rock Basin Archaeofaunas.” In: Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, Payson D. Sheets and Donald K. Grayson (editors). Academic Press, New York, New York. Pp. 427-457. . 1993. The Deserts Past: A Natural History of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 959 Grayson, Donald K., and Paul W. Parmalee. 1988. “Hanging Rock Shelter.” In: Danger Cave, Last Slipper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas , Donald K. Grayson (editor), Anthropological Papers 66 (Part 1). American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. Pp. 105-115. Green, B. H., and H. D. Smith. 1981. “Habitat utilization by sage sparrows in mixed desert shrub community.” Abstract. Encyclia 58:159. Green, J. S., and J. T. Flinders. 1980. “ Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammal.” Species, No. 125. Greenleaf Power. 2013. Honey Lake. Internet website: http://www.greenleaf-power.com/facilities/honey-lake.html. Gregg, M. A. 1991. “Use and selection of nesting habitat by sage grouse in Oregon.” Master’s thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. Gregg, M. A., J. A. Crawford, M. S. Drut, and A. K. DeLong. 1994. “Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon.” Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162-166. Gregg, M. A., J. K. Barnett, and J. A. Crawford. 2008. “Temporal variation in diet and nutrition of preincubating Greater Sage-Grouse.” Rangeland Ecol. Mgt. 61(5):535-542. Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. “A meta -analysis for greater sage -grouse nesting and brood rearing habitats.” Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1 ):42 -50. Hanf, J. M., P. A. Schmidt, and E. B. Groshens. 1994. “Sage grouse in the high desert of central Oregon: results of a study, 1988-1993.” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Series P-SG-01, Prineville, Oregon. Hanes, Richard C. 1982. “Cultural persistence in Nevada: Current Native American issues.” Journal of Great Basin and California Anthropology , Vol. 4, No. 2:203-221 . . 1995. Treaties, Spirituality, and Ecosystems, American Indian Interests in the Northern Intermontane Region of Western North America. All US Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 234. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/234. Hann, W. J., and D. L. Bunnell. 2001. “Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:389-403. Hann, Wendel J., Ayn Shlisky, Doug Havlina, Kathy Schon, Stephen W. Barrett, Thomas E. DeMeo, Kelly Pohl, et al. 2008. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Guidebook. Version 1 .3.0. Homepage of the Interagency and The Nature Conservancy Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management. Internet website: www.frcc.gov. Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. The Stephen Green Press, Brattleboro, Vermont. Headwaters Economics. 2012. Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT). Internet website: http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt. Heizer, Robert F. (editor). 1978. Handbook of North American Indians , Volume 8, California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 960 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Hironaka, ML, M. A. Fosberg, and A. H. Winward. 1983. “Sagebrushgrass habitat types of southern Idaho.” Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station , Bulletin 35, Moscow, Idaho. Hockett, Bryan. 2007. “Nutritional Ecology of Late Pleistocene to Middle Holocene Subsistence in the Great Basin: Zooarchaeological Evidence from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter.” In: Kelly Graf and Dave Schmitt (editors), Pa/eoindian. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Pp. 204-230. Hockett, Bryan, and Eric Dillingham. 2004. Paleontological Investigations at Mineral Hill Cave. Technical Report 18. Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada. Hockett, Bryan, and Dennis Jenkins. (In press). “Identifying stone tool cut marks and the Pre-Clovis occupation of the Paisley Caves.” American Antiquity. Holechek, J. L. 1988. “An approach for setting the stocking rate.” Rangelands 10(1). Holechek, J. L., R. D. Piper, and C. H. Herbel. 1998. Range Management: Principles and Practices. Third edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Holloran, M. J. R. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response to Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Laramie. Holloran, M. J. R., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. “Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitat.” Condor 107:742-52. Holloran, M. J. R., R. C. Kaiser, and W. Hubert. 2010. “Yearling greater sage-grouse response to energy development in Wyoming.” Journal of Wildlife Management 74:65-72. Homer, C. G., T. C. Edwards, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, and K. P. Price. 1993. “Use of remote sensing methods in modeling sage grouse winter habitat.” Journal of Wildlife Management 57:78-84. Howard, H. 1952. “The prehistoric avifauna of Smith Creek Cave, Nevada, with a description of a new gigantic raptor. Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin 51 (Part 2):50-54. Hulbert, L. C. 1955. “Ecological studies of Bromus tectorum and other annual bromegrasses.” Ecological Monographs. 25:181-213. Hultkrantz, Ake. 1986. “Mythology and Religious Concepts.” In: W. D’Azevedo (editor), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Pp. 630-640. Humboldt County. 2002. Humboldt County Master Plan. Nevada. . 2003. Humboldt County Master Plan Open Space Element Amendment. Nevada. Hupp, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1989. “Topographic distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter.” Journal of Wildlife Management 53:823-829. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core writing team: R. K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger [editors]). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 961 Jackson, S. D. 2000. “Overview of Transportation Impacts on Wildlife Movement and Populations.” In: T. A. Messmer and B. West (editors) “Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma.” The Wildlife Society : 7-20. James, S. R. 2004. “Mineral Hill Cave Avifauna.” In: B. Hockett and E. Dillingham (editors). Paleontological Investigations at Mineral Hill Cave. Technical Report No. 18, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada. Pp. 136-142. Janson, R. G. 1946. “A survey of the rabbits of Utah with reference to their classification, distribution, life histories and ecology.” Master’s thesis. Utah State University, Logan. Michael Jennings, D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Peet, O. Loueks, D. Glenn-Lewin, A. Damman, M. Barbour, et al. 2004. “Guidelines for describing associations and alliances of the US national vegetation classification.” The Ecological Society of America Vegetation Classification Panel Version 4.0. Jenkins, Dennis, L., Davis, L., Stafford, T. W., Campos, P., Hockett, B., Jones, G. Cummings. et al. 2012. “Clovis Age western stemmed projectile points and human coprolites at the Paisley Caves.” Science 337:223-228. Jennings, Jesse D. 1957. “Danger Cave.” Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 14. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. Johnsgard, P. A. 1983. Grouse of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. . 2002. Grassland Grouse and Their Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, and London. Johnson, D. H., M. J. Holloran, .1. W. Connelly, S. E. Hanser, C. L. Amundson, and S. T. Knick. 2011. “Influences of environmental and anthropogenic features on greater sage -grouse populations.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), “Greater sage -grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Studies in Avian Biology 38. University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 407 450. Johnson, G. D., and M. S. Boyce. 1991. “Survival, growth, and reproduction of captive-reared sage grouse.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:88-93. Johnson, G. D., and S. E. Stephens. 2011. “Wind power and biofuels: a green dilemma for wildlife conservation.” In: D. E. Naugle (editor). Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. Pp. 131-156. Jones, A. L. (editor). 2012. Best Management Practices for Siting, Developing, Operating and Monitoring Renewable Energy in the Intermountain West: A Conservationists Guide. Special publication. Wild Utah Project. Salt Lake City, Utah. Kaiser, R. C. 2006. “Recruitment by greater sage-grouse in association with natural gas development in western Wyoming.” Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie. Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson. 2009. “Global climate change impacts in the United States.” National Science and Technology Council, Cambridge University Press. Kartesz, J. T. 1994. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 962 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Kelly, Isabel. 1932. “Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiutes.” American Archaeology and Ethnology , Vol. 31, No. 3:67-210. . 1938. “Northern Paiute tales.” The Journal of American Folklore Vol. 51, No. 202:363-438. Kempthorne, Dirk. 2009. Climate Change and the Department of the Interior. Amendment No.l, Secretarial Order 3226. January 16, 2009. Kirol, C. P, J. L. Beck, .1. B. Dinkins, and M. R. Conover. 2012. “Greater sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing microhabitat selection in xeric big sagebrush.” Condor 1 14:75-89. Klebenow, D. A. 1969. “Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho.” Journal of Wildlife Management 33:649-662. Klebenow, D. A., and G. M. Gray. 1968. “Food habits of juvenile sage grous q.” Journal of Range Management 2 1 : 80-83. Knapp, P. A. 1996. “Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert.” Global Environmental Change 6(l):37-52. Knight, R. L., H. A. L. Knight, and R. J. Camp. 1995. “Common ravens and number and type of linear rights-of-way.” Biological Conservation 74:6-67. Knick, S. T. 2011. “Historical development, principal federal legislation and current management of sagebrush habitats: implications for conservation.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Studies in Avian Biology 38:13-32. University of California Press, Berkeley. Knick, S. T., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. “Connecting pattern and processing greater sage -grouse populations and sagebrush landscapes.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), “Greater sage -grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Studies in Avian Biology 38:383-405. University of California Press, Berkeley. Knick, S. T., and J. W. Connelly. 2011. “Greater sage-grouse and sagebrush — Introduction to the landscape.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Cooper Ornithological Society, University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 1-9. Knick, S. T., S. E. Hanser, R. F. Miller, D. A. Pyke, M. J. Wisdom, et al. 2011. “Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Kolada, E. J., J. S. Sedinger, M. L. Casazza. 2009a. “Nest site selection by greater sage-grouse in Mono County, California.” Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1333-1340. . 2009b. “Ecological factors influencing nest survival of greater sage-grouse in Mono County, California.” Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1341-1347. Kramer, A. T., and K. Havens. 2009. “Plant conservation genetics in a changing world.” Trends in Plant Science 14:599-607. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 963 Kucera, T. E. 1992. “Influences of sex and weather on migration of mule deer in California.” Great Basin Naturalist 52:122-130. Lammers, W. M, and M. W. Collopy. 2007. “Effectiveness of avian predator perch deterrents on electric transmission lines.” Journal of Wildlife Management 71 :2752-2758. Lander County. 2010. Master Plan. Battle Mountain, Nevada. October 28, 2010. Internet website: http://landercountynv.org/images/stories/general_files/Planning_and_Zoning/ LanderMasterPlanfinalall.pdf. . 201 1. Water Resources Plan. Battle Mountain, Nevada. March 24, 2011. Larrucea, E. S., and P. F. Brussard. 2008. “Habitat selection and current distribution of the pygmy rabbit in Nevada and California, USA.” Journal of Mammalogy 89:691-699. Lassen County. 1999. General Plan. September 21, 1999. Internet website: http:// www.co.lassen.ca.us/govt/dept/planning building/planning division/general area plans. asp. . 2012. Lassen County Fire Safe Plan. Launchbaugh, K., B. Brammer, M. L. Brooks, S. Bunting, P. Clark, J. Davison, M. Fleming, et al. 2007. Interactions Among Livestock Grazing, Vegetation Type, and Fire Behavior in the Murphy Wildland Fire Complex in Idaho and Nevada. US Geological Survey Open Tile Report 2008-1214. July 2007. Learning, George F. 2010. The Impact of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County, Nevada. LeBeau, C. W. 2012. “Evaluation of Greater sage-grouse reproductive habitat and response to wind energy development in south-central, Wyoming.” Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie. Leonard, K. A., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. “Distribution, movements and habitats of sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus on the Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho: Changes from the 1950s to the 1990s.” Wildlife Biology 6:265-270. Leu, M., S. E. Hanser, and S. T. Knick. 2008. “The human footprint in the West: A large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts.” Ecological Applications 18:1 1 19-1 139. Lincoln County (Nevada). 2007. Master Plan. September 4, 2007. Internet website: http://www.lincolncountynv.org/planning/Master_Plan_09-07.pdf. . 2010. Public Lands Policy Plan. . 2011. Open Space and Community Lands Plan. September 2011. Little, E. E., and R. D. Calfee. 2003. Effects of Fire-Retardant Chemical Products on Fathead Minnows in Experimental Streams. US Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Final report to the USDA Forest Service, Wildland Fire Chemical Systems (91260). Lockyer, Z., P. S. Coates, M. L. Casazza, S. Espinosa, D. L. Delehanty. In review. Linking nest site selection to nest survival in greater sage-grouse. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 964 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Lyon, A. G. 2000. “The potential effects of natural gas development of sage grouse hear Pinedale, Wyoming.” Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie. Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. “Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486491. Lyon County, Nevada. 2010. Comprehensive Master Plan. December 23, 2010. Mack, R. N., and D. A. Pyke. 1983. “The demography of Bromus tectorum: variation in time and space.”./ Ecol. 71:69-93. Manier, D. J., D. J. A. Wood, Z. H. Bowen, R. M. Donovan, M. J. Holloran, L. M. Juliusson, K. S. Mayne, et al. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1098, Fort Collins, Colorado. Martin, J. W., and B. A. Carlson. 1998. “Sage sparrow ( Amphispiza helli)P In: A. Poole and F. Gill (editors), The Birds of North America , No. 326. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Martin, R. E., and D. B. Sapsis. 1991. “Fires as agents of biodiversity: pyrodiversity promotes biodiversity.” In: R. Harris, D. Erman, and H. Kemer (editors). Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northwestern California, Santa Rosa, California. Pp. 150-157. Maser, C., .1. W. Thomas, and R. G. Anderson. 1984. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands — The Great Basins of Southeastern Oregon: The Relationship of Terrestrial Vertebrates to Plant Communities and Structural Conditions. General Technical Report PNW-172. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Masto, Catherine Cortez. 2011. Personal communication. Catherine Cortez Masto, with Ramona Morrison, Vice Chairman, Nevada Board of Agriculture. January 25, 2011. McEvoy, D. J., J. L. Huntington, .1. Abatzoglou, L. Edwards. 2012. “An Evaluation of multi-scalar drought indices in Nevada and eastern California.” Earth Interactions 16:1-18. Meehan, W. R. (editor). 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society publication. Meents, J. K., B. W. Anderson, and R. D. Ohmart. 1982. “Vegetation relationships and food of sage sparrows wintering in honey mesquite habitat.” Wilson Bull. 94:129-138. Meinke, C. W., S. T. Knick, and D. A. Pyke. 2009. “A spatial model to prioritize sagebrush landscapes in the intermountain west (U.S.A.) for restoration.” Restoration Ecology 17:652-659. Menard C., P. Duncan, G. Fleurance, J. Georges, and M. Lila. 2002. “Comparative foraging and nutrition of horses and cattle in European wetlands.” Journal of Applied Ecology 39:120-133. Menneer, John C., Stuart Ledgard, Chris McLay, and Warwick Silvester. 2003. “The effect of a single application of cow urine on annual N2 fixation under varying simulated grazing intensity, as measured by four 15N isotope techniques.” Plant and Soil 254:469-480. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 965 METI Corp./Economic Insights of Colorado. 2012. USDA Forest Service Protocols for Delineation of Economic Impact Analysis Areas. Miller, R. F., and L. L. Eddleman. 2000. Spatial and Temporal Changes of Sage Grouse Habitat in the Sagebrush Biome. Oregon State University Agriculture Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 151. Miller, R. F., and J. A. Rose. 1999. “Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe.” Journal of Range Management 52:550-559. Miller, R. F., and R. J. Tausch. 2001. “The role of fire in pinyon and juniper woodlands: A descriptive analysis.” In: K. E. M. Galley and T. P. Wilson (editors). Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1 1 . Tallahassee, Florida, Tall Timbers Research Station. Pp. 15-30. Miller, R. F., T. J. Svejcar, and N. E. West. 1994. “Implications of livestock grazing in the intermountain sagebrush region: Plant composition.” In: Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management. Miller, R. F., S. T. Knick, D. A. Pyke, C. W. Meinke, S. E. Hanser, M. J. Wisdom, and A. L. Hild. 2011. “Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation.” In: S. T. Knick and C. J. W. (editors). Greater sage-grouse: Ecology of a landscape species and its habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 145-184. Modoc County. 1988. Modoc County General Plan. Alturas, California. . 1995. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. “Declining mountain snowpack in western North America.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49. NACO (National Association of Counties). 2012. Find a county. Internet website: http://www.naco.org/counties/pages/findacounty.aspx. . 2013. Policy Brief. Continue mandatory funding for the payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) program. Internet website: http://www.naco.org/legislation/policies/Documents/PublicLands/ ry— pilt.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. 2012. Public school revenue sources. Internet website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_sft.asp. National Fire Planning Operations Reporting System. Data included 2008-2012. National Research Council. 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. National Academy of Science. Washington, DC. Natural Resource Industry Institute. 2011. An Economic Overview of Nevada’s Minerals Industry, 2010-2011 . Internet website: http://www.nevadamining.org/issues_policy/pdfs/NVMA_201 0 Economic_Overview.pdf. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 966 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Naugle, D. E., K. E. Doherty, B. L. Walker, M. J. Holloran, and H. E. Copeland. 2011. “Energy development and greater sage-grouse.” In: S. T. Knick and C. J. W. (editors), “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology of a landscape species and its habitats.” Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 489-504. NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures). 2013. Federal and state recognized tribes. Internet website: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/tribal/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized- tribes.aspx. NDOW (Nevada Department of Wildlife). 1986. Desatoya Range Bighorn Sheep Habitat Management Plan. Reno, NV. . 1993. Big Game Habitat Management Plan. 1993. . 1997. Elk Species Management Plan. February 8, 1997. . 1999a. Lincoln County Elk Management Plan. July 1999. . 1999b. Pahranagat Valley Native Fishes Management Plan. . 1999c. White Pine County Elk Management Plan. March 1999. . 2001. Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. Reno, Nevada. October 2001. . 2002. Population Management Unit (PMU) boundaries. . 2004a. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin. December 2004. . 2004b. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California. First edition: June 30, 2004. . 2006a. Management Plan for Mule Deer. . 2006b. Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout. . 2012a. Nevada Sage-Grouse Conservation Project, Interim Performance Report. December 2012. . 2012b. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Categorization Executive Summary. . 2013. Wildlife Action Plan. Wildlife Action Plan Team. January 2013. NDOW and CDFW. 2012. Unpublished and internal lek site data from NDOW Chet Van Dillon (CDFW) and Brian Ehler (CDFW), modified by California BLM to reflect most current data. Neary, Daniel G., Kevin C. Ryan, Leonard F. DeBano (editors). 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Nelle, P. J., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. “The long-term effect of fire on sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats on the Upper Snake River Plain.” Journal of Range Management 53:586-591. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 967 State of Nevada. 2001. Nevada Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy. Carson City, NV. October 2001. . 2004. State of Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Team. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California. 1st ed. 2004. Carson City, NV. . 2012. State of Nevada Strategic Plan for Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. Governor’s Sage-Grouse Advisory Committee. Carson City, NV, July 31, 2012. Nevada Bat Working Group. 2006. Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Reno, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. Undated. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Oil and Gas Historical Summary (Modified from NBMG Bulletin 104, 1988). Internet website: http://www.nbmg. unr.edu/Oil&Gas/HistoricalSummary.html. Accessed September 4, 2013. . 2000. Geothermal Resources in Nevada. Map 126. Prepared in cooperation with the Nevada Division of Minerals and the US Department of Energy. Internet website: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/ml26.pdf. . 2010. The Nevada Mining Industry. Internet website: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/ mi/ 10. pdf. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1985. Nevada Summary Policy Plan for Public Lands. Division of State Lands. Carson City, Nevada. . 1993. State of Nevada Drought Plan. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Planning. Carson City, Nevada. . 1999. Lands Identified for Public Acquisition. Division of State Lands. Carson City, Nevada. . 2003. Nevada’s 2003 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan — Assessment and Policy Plan. Division of State Parks. Carson City, Nevada. Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation. 2013a. Reno Sparks MSA — Long-Term Industrial Employment and Projections, 2010-2020. Research and Analysis Bureau. Internet website: http://www.nevadaworkforce.com/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=497. Accessed in June 2013. . 2013b. Western Central Counties - Long Term Industrial Employment and Projections, 2010-2020. Research and Analysis Bureau. Internet website: http://www.nevadaworkforce.com/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=197. Accessed in June 2013. . 2013c. Balance of State Long-Term Industrial Employment and Projections, 2008-2018. Research and Analysis Bureau. Internet website: http ://www.nevada work- force.coin/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=l 97. Accessed in June 2013. Nevada Department of Taxation. 2012. Annual Report Fiscal 2010-2011. Internet website: http://tax. state. nv.us/pubs.htm#annual report. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 1999. Smoke Management Program Plan. Bureau of Air Quality Planning. Carson City, Nevada. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 968 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 2007. Solid Waste Management Plan. Carson City, Nevada. Nevada Governor’s Sage-Grouse Conservation Team. 2004. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California. Internet website: http://www.ndow.org/wild/ conservation/sg/plan. . 2010. Nevada energy and infrastructure development standards to conserve greater sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Carson City, NV, Pp. 9-11. Nevada Indian Territory. 2012. Indian Territory Brochure. Internet website: http://www.nevadaindianteiTitory.com/images/IndianTerritoryBrochure.pdf. Nevada Mining Association. 2010. Issues and Policy: Taxation. Internet website: http://www.nevadamining.org/issues_policy/taxation.php. Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. 2003. Nevada Comprehensive Preservation Plan. Carson City, Nevada. Nevada Weed Action Committee. 2000. Nevada’s Coordinated Invasive Weed Strategy. Carson City, Nevada. Northeast California Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2006a. Conservation Strategy for Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) and Sagebrush Ecosystems within the Massacre Population Management Unit. . 2006b. Conservation Strategy for Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and Sagebrush Ecosystems within the Vya Population Management Unit. NPS (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 1997. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. US Department of Interior, National Park Service. Washington, DC. . 2012. California National Historic Trail. Internet website: http://www.nps.gov/cali/ planyourvisit/directions.htm. Accessed on November 26, 2012. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2000. .2011. Practice Documentation Guide 528-1: Prescribed Grazing. March 2011. . 2012. Sage-Grouse Initiative Status Report Fiscal Year 2010-201 1. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2012. Classes of Wind Power Density at 10m and 50m. Internet website: http: //rredc.nrehgov/wind/pubs/atlas/tables/l-lT.html. Accessed December 2012. NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Produced by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team. Washington D.C. December 21, 2011. NV Energy. 2013. Geothermal Projects. Internet website: https://www.nvenergy.com/ renewablesenvironment/renewables/geothermal.cfm. Nye County (Nevada). 1996. Tri-Party Framework for Interactions to Address Public Lands Issues in Nye County. August 14, 1997. Chapter 7 References September, 20/3 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 969 . 2009. Title 7 of the Nye County Code (Comprehensive Land Use and Management Plan for Federal and State Lands within Nye County). August 24, 2009. . 2011. Comprehensive Master Plan. June 7, 2011. Internet website: http://www.nyecounty.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/14049. . 2012. Personal communication. Levi Kryder (Nye County) to Brian Arnme (BLM), September 2012. Olmstead, David L., and Omer C. Stewart. 1978. “Achumawi.” In: R. F. Heizer (editor). Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Pp. 225-235. ONRR (US Department of Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue). 2012. Personal communication. Nathan Brannberg, ONRR, to Josh Sidon, BLM, July 26, 2012. Ormat. 2012. Ormat announces commercial operation of Mcginness Hills geothermal power plant. July 2012. Internet website: http://www.ormat.com/news/latest-items/ormat-announces- commercial-operation-mcginness-hills-geothermal-power-plant. Osborn, Stephen G., Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson. 201 1. “Methane Contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 108^No. 20 (May 17,2011): 8172-8176. Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1998. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird Communities. Western Working Group of Partners in Flight, Boise, Idaho. Painter, T. H., A. P. Barrett, C. C. Landry, J. C. Neff, M. P. Cassidy, C. R. Lawrence, K. E. McBride, and G. L. Farmer. 2007. “Impact of disturbed desert soils on duration of mountain snow cover.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L12502, doi: 10.1029/2007GL030284. Parmalee, Paul W. 1970. “Birds from Hogup Cave.” In: C. Melvin Aikens (editor), Hogup Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 93. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Pp. 263-266. . 1988a. “Avian remains from Danger Cave.” In: Donald K. Grayson (editor), Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas. Anthropological Papers 66 (Part 1). American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. Pp. 37-43. . 1988b. “Mollusks and birds from Last Supper Cave.” In: Donald K. Grayson (editor). Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas. Anthropological Papers 66 (Part 1). American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. Pp. 75-80. Patricelli, Gail L., J. L. Blicksley, S. Hooper. In review. Incorporating the Impacts of Noise Pollution into Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning. Department of Evolution and Ecology. University of California Davis. Patterson, R. L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Sage Books Inc., Denver, Colorado. Payne, G. F., J. W. Foster, and W. C. Leininger. 1983. “Vehicle impacts on northern Great Plains range vegetation.” Journal of Range Management 36:327-331. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 970 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Pellant, M. 1990. The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle — Are there any solutions? In: E. Durant McArthur, Evan M. Romney, Stanley D. Smith, Paul T. Tueller (compilers), Proceedings — Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-Off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management, Las Vegas, Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. April 5-7, 1989. Pp. 11-17. . 1996. “Use of indicators to qualitatively assess rangeland health.” In: N. E. West (editor), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proc. 5th International Rangeland Congress. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. Pp. 434-435. Pershing County. 2002. Master Plan. April 5, 2002. Internet website: http://pershingcounty.net/ images/stories/pc files/planning/Pershing_County_Master_Plan 2002.pdf. . 2010. Natural Resources Management Plan: Natural Resources and Federal or State Land Use. October 22, 2010. Petersen, K. L., and L. B. Best. 1985. “Nest-site selection by sage sparrows.” Condor 87:217-221. Petersen, S. L., T. K. Stringham, and B. A. Roundy. 2009. “A process-based application of state-and-transition models: A case study of western juniper ( Juniperus occidentals) encroachment.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:186-192. Platts, W. S. 1990. Fish, wildlife, and livestock: Protection of riparian areas. In: Western Wildlands. Summer 1990. Pp. 16-19. Prichard, D., H. Barrett, J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, P. Hansen, et al. 1993. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. TR 1737-9. Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737, Service Center, Lakewood, Colorado. Prichard, D., D. Bridges, S. Leonard, R. Krapf, and W. Hagenbuck. 1994. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian- Wetland Areas. TR 1737-11. Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-94/008+1737, Service Center, Lakewood, Colorado. Prichard, Don, et al. 1998. Riparian Area Management. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Function Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-15, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Prichard, Don, et al. 1999. 2003. Riparian Area Management. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Function Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-16, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Pruett, C. L., M. A. Patten, and D. H. Wolfe. 2009. “Avoidance behavior by prairie grouse: Implications for development of wind energy.” Conservation Biology 23:1253-1259. Pyke, D. A. 2011. “Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), “Greater sage -grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Studies in Avian Biology 38. University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 531 -548. Pyne. 2004. “Pyromancy: Reading stories in the flames.” Consemation Biology 18: 874-877. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 971 Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2005. Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation Comprehensive Resource Management Plan. Washoe County, Nevada. Redmond, Kelly T. “Great Basin weather and climate: Winter recap, current status, summer prospects.” Great Basin Climate Forum (conference). Reno, Nevada. May 3, 2013. Reichler, Thomas, and Kim Junsu. 2008. “How well do coupled models simulate today's climate?” Bull. Amer. Meteor: Soc. 89:303-311. Reinkensmeyer, D. P. 2000. “Habitat associations of bird communities in shrub-steppe and western juniper woodlands.” Master’s thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. Reisner, Michael D., James B. Grace, David A. Pyke, and Paul Doescher. 2013. “Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems.” Journal of Applied Ecology 10.1111/1 365-2664. 1 2097. Repasky, R. R., and D. Schluter. 1994. “Habitat distributions of wintering sparrows along an elevational gradient: Tests of the food, predation and microhabitat structure hypotheses.” Journal of Animal Ecology 63:569-582. Reynolds, T. D. 1981. “Nesting of the sage thrasher, sage sparrow, and Brewer's sparrow in southeastern Idaho.” Condor 83:61-64. Rhodes, E. C., J. D. Bates, R. N. Sharp, and K. W. Davies. 2010. “Fire effects on cover and dietary resources of sage-grouse habitat.” Journal of Wildlife Management 74:755-764. Rich, T. D. 1980. “Nest placement in sage thrashers, sage sparrows and Brewer’s sparrows.” The Wilson Bulletin 92:362-368. Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, et al. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York. Internet Web site: http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ Accessed September 4, 2013. Richards, R. T., J. C. Chambers, and C. Ross. 1998. “Use of native plants on federal lands: Policy and practice.” Journal of Range Management 5 1 :625 -632. Rimbey, Neil R., L. Allen Torell, and John A. Tanaka. 2007. “Why grazing permits have economic value.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 32(1 ):20-40. Rishel, G. B., J. A. Lynch, and E. S. Corbett. 1982. “Seasonal stream temperature changes following forest harvesting.” Journal of Environmental Quality 11:112-116. Rosgen, D. L. 1997. “A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.” Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, 1997. Rotenberry, J. T., and J. A. Wiens. 1980. “Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis.” Ecology 61 : 1228-1250. Rowland, M. M., L. H. Suring, and M. J. Wisdom. 2010. “Assessment of Habitat Threats to Shrublands in the Great Basin: A Case Study.” In: J. M. Pye, H. M. Rauscher, Y. Sands, D. C. Lee, and J. S. Beatty (editors). Environmental Threat Assessment and Application to Forest September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 972 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Rangeland Management. U S Forest Service, General Technical Report, PNW, Bozeman, Montana. Pp. 673-685. Sada, Don, et al. 2001. Riparian Area Management, A Guide to Managing, Restoring and Conserving Springs in the Western United States. Technical Reference 1737-17, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Sather-Blair, S., P. Makela, T. Carrigan, and L. Anderson. 2000. A Framework to Assist in Making Sensitive Species Habitat Assessments for BLM-Administered Public Land in Idaho: Sage Grouse ( Centorcercus urophasianus). US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho. Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler- Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Schaefer, R. J., D. J. Thayer, and T. S. Burton. 2003. “Forty-one years of vegetation change on permanent transects in northeastern California: Implications for wildlife.” California Fish and Game 89(2):55-71. Schoenberg, T. J. 1982. “Sage grouse movements and habitat selection in North Park, Colorado.” Master’s thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Schroeder, M. A. 1995. Productivity and Habitat Use of Sage Grouse in North-Central Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Job Progress Report Project W-96-R, Olympia, Washington. Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. “Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) .” In: A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). The Birds of North America , No. 425. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, P. A. Diebert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, C. W. McCarthy. 2004. “Distribution of sage grouse in North America.” Condor 106:363-376. Sevon, M., J. French, J. Curran, and R. Phoenix. 1999. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Quinn River/Black Rock Basins and North Fork Little Humboldt River Sub-Basin. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Federal Aid Project F-20-27 Job 113-P.Carson City, NV. Shasta County. 2004. General Plan. September 2004. Sheley, Roger L., and Janet K. Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Pp. 85-96. Shlisky, A., J. Waugh, P. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, M. Manta, H. Santoso, E. Alvarado, et al. 2007. Fire, Ecosystems and People: Threats and Strategies for Global Biodiversity Conservation. The Nature Conservancy Global Fire Initiative Technical Report 2007-2. Short, Karen C. 2013. A Spatial Database of Wildfires in the United States, 1992-2011 [FPA FOD 20 130422]. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Chapter 7 References September. 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 973 Shultz, B., and K. McAdoo. 2002. Common Sagebrush in Nevada. University of Nevada, Reno. SP-02-02. Siskiyou County. 2010. Siskiyou County General Plan. Yreka, California. Sousa, W. P. 1984. “The role of disturbance in natural communities.” Annual Review Ecological Systems 15:353-391. Stephens, S. L., J. J. Moghaddas, C. Edminster, C. E. Fiedler, S. Hasse, M. Harrington, J. E. Keeley, et al. 2009. “Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels and potential fire severity in western US forests.: Ecological Applications 1 9(2):305-320. Stevens, B. S. 201 1. “Impacts of fences on greater sage -grouse in Idaho: Collision, mitigation, and spatial ecology.” Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. Steward, Julian H. 1936. “Myths of the Owens Valley Paiute.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 34, No. 5:355-440. . 1941. “Culture element distributions: XIII Nevada Shoshone.” Anthropological Records Vol. 4, No. 2:209-360. University of California Press, Berkeley. . 1943. “Culture element distributions: XXIII Northern and Gosiute Shoshoni.” Anthropological Records Vol. 8, No. 3:263-392. University of California Press, Berkeley. Stewart, Omer. 1941. “Culture element distributions: XIV Northern Paiute.” Anthropological Records Vol. 4, No. 3:361-446. University of California Press, Berkeley. Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, et al. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Stiver, S. J, E. T. Rinkes, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. US Bureau of Land Management Report, Idaho State Office, Boise. Storey County (Nevada). 1994. Master Plan. April 21, 1994. Summit Lake Paiute Tribal Council, Summit Lake Land Use Committee, and Lumose and Associates, Inc. 2000. Summit Lake Paiute Land Use Plan. Summit Lake Paiute Council of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Summit Lake Indian Reservation, Nevada Sveum, C. M., J. A. Crawford, and W. D. Edge. 1998 “Use and selection of brood-rearing habitat by sage grouse in south-central Washington.” Great Basin Naturalist 58:344-351. Tang, Guoping, and John A. Arnone, III. 2013. “Trends in surface air temperature extremes in the Great Basin during the 20th century from ground-based observations.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres , SN 2169-8996. Unpublished manuscript accepted March 27, 2013. Tausch, R. J., and R. S. Nowak. 1999. Fifty Years of Ecotone Change Between Shrub and Tree dominance in the Jack Springs Pinyon Research Natural Area. USDA, Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-00. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 974 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Taylor, R. L., D. E. Naugle, and L. S. Mills. 2012. Viability Analyses for Conservation of Sage-Grouse Populations: Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming Final Report. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming. Wildlife Biology Program University of Montana BLM Contract 09-3225-0012 Number G09AC00013. February 27, 2012. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. Thurow, T. L., and C. A. Taylor, Jr. 1999. “Viewpoint: The role of drought in range management.” Journal of Range Management 52:413 419. Tisdale, E. W. 1994. “Great Basin region sagebrush types.” In: T. N. Shiflet (editor), Rangeland Cover Types. Soc. Range Manage., Denver, Colorado. Pp. 40-46. Tisdale, E. W., and M. Hironaka. 1981. “The sagebrush-grass region: a review of the ecological literature.” Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, Bulletin 33, Moscow, Idaho. TMRPA (Truckee [Nevada] Meadows Regional Planning Agency). 2007. Regional Plan. July 19, 2007. Reno, NV. . 2010. Wider Region Stakeholders Profile Report: An Analysis of Neighboring Local Governments, Regional Organizations, Native American Tribes and Economic Development Organizations. Internet website: http://tmrpa.org/uploads/misc/568683765-Regional%20Stake- holder%20Profile%20Report%20-%20Final%20Report%20for%20Web%20Publishing.pdf. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2001. Great Basin: An Ecoregion-Based Conservation Blueprint. Reno, Nevada. Torell, L. Allen, Neil R. Rimbey, Octavio A. Ramirez, and Daniel W. McCollum. 2005. “Income earning potential versus consumptive amenities in determining ranchland values.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(3):537-560. Trimble, S. 1989. The Sagebrush Ocean. University of Nevada Press, Reno. Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissel. 2000. “Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities.” Conservation Biology 14:18-30. USAF (United States Air Force). 2012. F-35A Training Basing Environmental Impact Statement. Internet website: http://www.f-35atrainingeis.com/. pp. BO-78; Appendix B-41. US Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 Census of Population. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/st-co/index.html. . 2000 Census of Population. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/ intercensal/st-co/index.html. _. 2009. Table 4. Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2009. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/index.html. . 2010a. 2010 Census of Population. Internet website: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ data/. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 975 . 2010b. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. . 2010c. State and Local Government Finances by Level of Government and by State: 2009-10. State and Local Government Finances. Internet website: http://www.eensus.gov/govs/estimate/. . 2010d. American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2006-2010. . 2011. Selected Housing Characteristics. 2007-20011 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. American Factfinder. Internet website: http://factfinder2.census.gov. . 2012a. Commuter patterns for counties in California and Nevada, generated from Census Bureau database OnTheMap. Internet website: http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. . 2012b. How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html. USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2013. Water Supply Outlook for the Western United States, October 18, 2012. Internet website: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/wsf/westwide.html. USDA and DOI (US Department of Agriculture and US Department of the Interior). 2001 . A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10- Year Comprehensive Strategy. Washington, DC. USDA ERS (US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service). 2012. Commodity Costs and Returns. Internet website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs- and-retums.aspx. Accessed August 2012. USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1997. National Range and Pasture Handbook. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1982. Aquatic Habitat Management Plan; North Fork, Little Humboldt River, Nevada. . 1986a. Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. August 25, 1986. . 1986b. Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. 1986. . 1988. Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge Water Management Plan. 1988. . 1994a. Big Spring Spinedace Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. January 20, 1994. . 1994b. Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. June 1994. . 1995. Lahontan cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi ) Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. . 1997a. Railroad Valley Springfish Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. March 15, 1997. . 1997b. Recovery Plan for the Rare Species of Soldier Meadows. Portland, Oregon. May 27, 1997. . 1998a. Recovery Plan for the Aquatic and Riparian Species of Pahranagat Valley. Portland, Oregon. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 976 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement . 1998b. Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin. Portland, Oregon. April 27, 1998. . 1999. Draft Big Spring Spinedace Recovery Implementation Plan. . 2001a. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge Wildland Fire Management Plan. September 2001. . 2001b. Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management Plan. September 2001. . 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. August 30, 2002. . 2003. Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy for Columbia Spotted Frog ( Rana luteiventris ) Toiyabe Great Basin Subpopulation. September 30, 2003. . 2007. Recovery Plan for the Carson Wandering Skipper. Sacramento, California. September 13, 2007. . 2010a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus nrophasianus ) as Threatened or Endangered. 75 Federal Register 13910. March 23, 2010. . 2010b. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pygmy Rabbit as Endangered or Threatened. 75 Federal Register 60516, September 30, 2010. . 2012. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Lakeview, Oregon. September 27, 2012. . 2013a. Greater Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus nrophasianus ) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Conservation Objectives Team, Denver, Colorado. February 2013. . 2013b. National Wetlands Inventory Database. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/. Accessed May 2013. USFWS and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003. Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions. 68 Federal Register 15100. March 28, 2003. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2006a. The National Map. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Fire Regimes layer. (2006, September - last update). US Department of Interior, Geological Survey. Internet website: http:gisdata.usgs.net/website/landfire/ [2013, May 3].— PG 40. . 2006b. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Condition Class layer. (2006, September - last update). US Department of Interior, Geological Survey. Internet website: http:gisdata.usgs.net/website/landfire/ [2013, May 3]. — PG 98. . 2006c. Effects of Fire in the Northern Great Plains; Effects of Fire on Some Undesirable Species. Internet website: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/fire/undesire.htm. Accessed January 29, 2013. - PG 143 Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 977 Vavra, M., W. A. Laycock, and R. Pieper (editors.) 1994. “Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the west.” Society of Range Management. Denver, Colorado. Wakkinen, W. L., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 1992. “Sage grouse nest locations in relation to leks ."Journal of Wildlife Management 56:381-383. Walker, Jr., and E. Deward. 2010. Ethnographic Assessment of the Ruby Pipeline Right-of Way (RPROW). Report on file with the BLM Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. Walker, R. H., and G. A. Buchanan. 1982. “Crop manipulation in integrated weed management systems.” Weed Sci. 30:17-24. Walker, B. L, D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. “Greater sage-grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss.” Journal of Wildlife Management 71 :2644-54. Walker B. L, and D. E. Naugle. 2011. “West Nile virus ecology in sagebrush habitat and impacts on greater sage-grouse populations.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), “Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats,” Studies in Avian Biology No. 38:127-144. Washoe County (Nevada). 2005a. Comprehensive Plan. June 21, 2005. . 2005b. Water Resources Management Plan, Nevada. January 18, 2005. . 2008. Open Space & Natural Resource Management Plan. January 2008. Weiss, N. T., and B. J. Verts. 1984. “Habitat and distribution of pygmy rabbits ( Sylvilagus idahoensis ) in Oregon.” Great Basin Naturalist 44:563-571. Welch, A. H., D. J. Bright, and L. A. Knochenmus (editors). 2007. Water Resources of the Basin and Range Carbonate-Rock Aquifer System, White Pine County, Nevada, and the Adjacent Areas in Nevada and Utah: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5261. West, N. E. 1984. “Successional patterns and productivity potentials of pinyon-juniper ecosystems.” In: “Developing strategies for rangeland management.” Nat. Res. Council/National Acad, of Science. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. BLM Library Request. Pp. 1301-1332. . 1988. “Intermountain deserts, shrub steppes and woodlands.” In: M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings (editors). North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Pp. 209-230. . 1999. Managing for biodiversity of rangelands. In: W. W. Collins and C. O. Qualset (editor). Biodiversity in Agro-Ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Pp. 101-126. Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hildalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. “Warming and earlier spring increase Western US forest wildfire activity.” Science , Vol. 313:940-943. WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2011. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage -Grouse. Unpublished report. Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. “Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: Ecological and management implications.” In: E. Durant McArthur, Evan M. Romney, Stanley D. Smith, and Paul T. Tueller (compilers). Proceedings — Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, September, 2013 Chapter 7 References 978 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and other aspects of shrub biology and management, Las Vegas, Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, Utah: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 4-10. April 5-7, 1989. White, Eric M., and Darren Gooding. 2012. Estimation of National Forest Visitor Spending Averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring Round 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. White Pine County. 2006. Water Resources Plan. August 2006. . 2007. Public Lands Policy Plan. May 2007. . 2009. Comprehensive Master Plan. January 2009. Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry 1981. “Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments.” Ecological Monographs 51:21-42. Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2937305. Wilcox B. P., M. S. Seyfried, D. D. Breshears, and J. J. McDonnell. 2012. “Ecohydrologic connections and complexities in drylands: new perspectives for understanding transformative landscape change.” Ecohydrology 5:143-144. DOE 10.1002/eco.l251 . Williams, J. E., C. W. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck (editors). 1997. “Watershed restoration: principles and practices.” American Fisheries Society , Bethesda, Maryland. Williams, Colin F., Marshall J. Reed, Robert H. Mariner, Jacob DeAngelo, and Peter S. Galanis, Jr. 2008. Assessment of moderate- and high-temperature geothermal resources of the United States: US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3082. Williams, M. I., G. B. Paige, T. L. Thurow, A. L. Hild, and K. G. Gerow. 2011. “Songbird relationships to shrub -steppe ecological site characteristics.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 64:109-118. Winward, A. H. 1991. Management in the Sagebrush Steppe. Agricultural Experiment Statistics. Oregon State University Special Report 880, Corvallis. Wisdom, M. J., C. W. Meinke, S. T. Knick, and M. A Schroeder. 2011. “Factors associated with extirpation of sage -grouse.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). “Greater sage -grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Studies in Avian Biology 38:451-472. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wolfe, M. L. 1980. “Feral horse demography: A preliminary report.” Jo urnal of Range Management 33 (5):354-360. Wolfe, M. L., L. C. Ellis, and R. MacMullen. 1989. “Reproductive rates of feral horses and burros.” Journal of Wildlife Management 53 (4):916-919. Workman, J. P. 1986. Range Economics. Macmillan, New York, New York. WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2013. Climate of Nevada, Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/nevada/. Accessed April 27, 2013. Chapter 7 References September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 979 Wyman, S., et al. 2006. Riparian area management: grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado. Yoder, J. M., D. A. Swanson, and E. A. Marschall. 2004. “The cost of dispersal: Predation as a function of movement in ruffed grouse.” Behavioral Ecology 15:469-476. Young, .1. A., and R. Evans. 1989. “Dispersal and germination of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) seeds.” Weed Science 37:201-206. Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, Kansas. Young, J. A., and B. A. Sparks. 2002. Cattle in the Cold Desert. Expanded edition. University of Nevada Press, Reno. Young, B. E., K. R. Hall, E. Byers, K. Gravuer, G. Hammerson, A. Redder, and K. Szabo. 201 1. “A natural history approach to rapid assessment of plant and animal vulnerability to climate change.” In: J. Brodie, E. Post, and D. Doak (editors). Conserving Wildlife Populations in a Changing Climate. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Zou, L., S. N. Miller, and E. T. Schmidtmann. 2006. “Mosquito larval habitat mapping using remote sensing and GIS: implications of coalbed methane development and West Nile virus.” Journal of Medical Entomology 43:1034-1041. September, 2013 Chapter 7 References This page intentionally left blank Chapter 8. Acronyms and Glossary This page intentionally left blank Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 983 8.1. Acronyms ADH all designated habitat ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern AML appropriate management level AMP Allotment Management Plan AMS analysis of the management situation AOI Annual Operating Instructions APD application for permit to drill AQI air quality index AQRV air quality related values AUM animal unit month BAPC Bureau of Air Pollution Control BAQP Bureau of Air Quality Planning BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management BLM S BLM Sensitive BMP best management practice °C degrees Celsius C custodial management category CA California CAA Clean Air Act CARB California Air Resources Board CBR Central Basin and Range CCDAQ Clark County, Health District, Air Pollution Control Division CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFL cycle first listed CFR Code of Federal Regulations September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Acronyms 984 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement cm Centimeter CO carbon monoxide C02e carbon dioxide gross emissions COA Conditions of Approval COT Conservation Objectives Team CSU controlled surface use CTTM comprehensive travel and transportation management CWA Clean Water Act CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area DFC desired future condition DOI United States Department of the Interior EA environmental assessment EDRR Early Detection, Rapid Response EIS environmental impact statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area ERS United States Department of Agriculture Economic Resource Service ESA Endangered Species Act ESD Ecological Site Description ESR emergency stabilization and rehabilitation °F degrees Fahrenheit FARD functional at risk with downward trend FARN functional at risk with no trend FARU functional at risk with upward trend FC Federal listed as a candidate species FC (w) Federal candidate species warranted for listing FE Federally listed as endangered FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Acronyms September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 985 FMP Fire Management Plan FMIJ Fire Management Unit Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual FT Federally listed as threatened FWFMP Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy FY fiscal year GBBO Great Basin Bird Observatory GHG greenhouse gas GIS Geographic Information Systems GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse H2S hydrogen sulfide HA herd area HGWP high global warming potential HMA herd management area I improve management category IM Instructional Memorandum IMP Interim Management Plan IMPLAN Impact analysis for Planning IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IMTs Nevada Interagency Incident Management Team JEDI National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Jobs and Economic Development Impact model kWh/m2/day kilowatt hours per square meter per day LANDFIRE Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project LCAPCD Lassen County Air Pollution Control District LRMP land and resource management plan September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Acronyms 986 LUP land use plan LUPA land use plan amendment LWCs Lands with Wilderness Characteristics M maintain improvement category MAFFS Modular Airborne Firefighting System MIS Management Indicator Species MCF thousand cubic feet g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter MCAPCD Modoc County Air Pollution Control District MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality MDFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks MFP Monitoring Framework Plan MOU memorandum of understanding MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program MW megawatt NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NBR Northern Basin and Range NCA National Conservation Area NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFDRS National Fire Danger Rating System NFMA National Forest Management Act NHT national historic trail NCL nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NSO no surface occupancy NTT Sage-Grouse National Technical Team NV Nevada Chapter 8 Acronyms and G/ossaiy Acronyms Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 987 NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring NWAP Nevada Wildlife Action Plan O3 ozone OHV off-highway vehicle ON A outstanding natural area ONRR Office of Natural Resource Revenue ORV outstanding remarkable values PACs priority areas for conservation Pb lead PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement PFC proper functioning condition PGH preliminary general habitat PGMA preliminary general management area PIET payment in lieu of taxes PLO Public Land Order PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns PM 10 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns PMA-3 Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Mitigation Bank Program PMU Population Management Units ppb parts per billion PPE1 preliminary priority habitat ppm parts per million PPMA preliminary priority management area RAC Resource Advisory Council RDFs required design features REA Rapid Ecoregional Assessment RFDS Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario RMIS Recreation Management Information System RMP resource management plan September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Acronyms 988 RNA research natural area ROD record of decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROW right-of-way RSUA Recreation Special Use Authorization S&G standards and guidelines SC State listed as species of special concern (no legal status) SE State listed as endangered SGMA sage-grouse management area (Nevada State Alternative) SO2 sulfur dioxide SO42- sulfates SOP standard operating procedure SUP Special Use Permit SRMA Special Recreation Management Area SRP Special Recreation Permit SRU special recreational use ST state listed as threatened SUA Special Use Authorization TL timing limitation TMA Travel Management Area TNC The Nature Conservancy TNR temporary nonrenewable TTM Travel and Transportation Management US United States USAF US Air Force USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDA-APFIIS United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Acronyms Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Fnvironmental Impact Statement 989 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USG Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups USGS US Geological Survey VDDT Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool VMS Visual Management System VOC volatile organic compounds VR1 visual resource inventory VRM visual resource management WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies WCAQMD Washoe County Air Quality Management Division WEG Wild Earth Guardians WFIBT wild horse and burro territories WSA Wilderness Study Area WSR Wild and Scenic River WUI wildland urban interface WWEC West-Wide Energy Corridor WWP Western Watershed Project 8.2. Glossary 2008 WAFWA Sage grouse MOU. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) among Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA); US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS); US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and the US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. The purpose of the MOU is to provide for cooperation among the participating state and federal land, wildlife management and science agencies in the conservation and management of sage -grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) sagebrush (. Artemisia spp.) habitats and other sagebrush -dependent wildlife throughout the western US and Canada and a commitment of all agencies to implement the 2006 WAFWA Conservation Strategy. 2011 Partnership MOU: A partnership agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and USFWS in 2011. This MOU is for range management - to implement Natural Resources Conservation Service practices on adjacent federal properties. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 990 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Acquisition. Acquisition of lands can be pursued to facilitate various resource management objectives. Acquisitions, including easements, can be completed through exchange, Land and Water Conservation Fund purchases, donations, or receipts from the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act sales or exchanges. Activity plan. A type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan)\ an activity plan usually describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan objectives. Examples of activity plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, recreation area management plans, and grazing plans. Actual use. The amount of animal unit months consumed by livestock based on the numbers of livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator and confirmed by periodic field checks by the BLM. Adaptive management. A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-based process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, and practices. Administrative access. A term used to describe access for resource management and administrative purposes such as fire suppression, cadastral surveys, permit compliance, law enforcement and military in the performance of their official duty, or other access needed to manage BLM- or Forest Service-administered lands or uses. Air basin. A land area with generally similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout. To the extent possible, air basin boundaries are defined along political boundary lines and include both the source and receptor areas. Air pollution. Degradation of air quality resulting from unwanted chemicals or other materials occurring in the air. All designated habitat (ADH). Includes preliminary priority habitat (PPH), preliminary general habitat (PGH), and linkage/connectivity habitat. Allotment. An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments generally consist of BLM lands but may include Forest Service-administered lands or other federally managed, state-owned, or private lands. An allotment may include or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. Allotment management plan. A concisely written program of livestock grazing management, including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific, multiple-use management goals in a grazing allotment. An AMP is prepared in consultation with the permittee(s), lessee(s), and other affected interests. Livestock grazing is considered in relation to other uses of the range and to renewable resources, such as watershed, vegetation, and wildlife. An AMP establishes seasons of use, the number of livestock to be permitted, the range improvements needed, and the grazing system. Alluvial soil. A soil developing from recently deposited alluvium and exhibiting essentially no horizon development or modification of the recently deposited materials. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 991 Alluvium. Clay, silt, sand, gravel, or other rock materials transported by moving water. Deposited in comparatively recent geologic time as sorted or semi-sorted sediment in rivers, floodplains, lakes, and shores, and in fans at the base of mountain slopes. Ambient air quality. The state of the atmosphere at ground level as defined by the range of measured and/or predicted ambient concentrations of all significant pollutants for all averaging periods of interest. Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and decisions of approved Resource Management Plans or management framework plans. Usually only one or two issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area. Animal unit month (AUM). The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent for a period of one month. Anthropogenic disturbances. Features include but are not limited to paved highways, graded gravel roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated facilities, pipelines, landfills, agricultural conversion, homes, and mines. Aquatic. Living or growing in or on the water. Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Special Area designation established through the BLM’s land use planning process (43 CFR 1610.7-2) where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. The level of allowable use within an ACEC is established through the collaborative planning process. Designation of an ACEC allows for resource use limitations in order to protect identified resources or values. Atmospheric deposition. Air pollution produced when acid chemicals are incorporated into rain, snow, fog, or mist and fall to the earth. Sometimes referred to as “acid rain” and comes from sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, products of burning coal and other fuels and from certain industrial processes. If the acid chemicals in the air are blown into the area where the weather is wet, the acids can fall to earth in the rain, snow, fog, or mist. In areas where the weather is dry, the acid chemicals may become incorporated into dust or smoke. Attainment area. A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard for that specific pollutant. Authorized /authorized use. This is an activity (i.e., resource use) occurring on the public lands that is either explicitly or implicitly recognized and legalized by law or regulation. This term may refer to those activities occurring on the public lands for which the BLM, Forest Service, or other appropriate authority (e.g., Congress for RS 2477 rights-of-way, FERC for major, interstate rights-of-way), has issued a formal authorization document (e.g., livestock grazing lease/permit; right-of-way grant; coal lease; oil and gas permit to drill; etc.). Formally authorized uses typically involve some type of commercial activity, facility placement, or event. These formally authorized uses are often spatially or temporally limited. Unless constrained or bounded by statute, regulation, or an approved land use plan decision, legal activities involving public enjoyment and use of the public lands (e.g., hiking, camping, hunting, etc.) require no formal BLM or Forest Service authorization. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 992 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Avoidance/avoidance area. These terms usually address mitigation of some activity (i.e., resource use). Paraphrasing the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20), avoidance means to circumvent, or bypass, an impact altogether by not taking a certain action, or parts of an action. Therefore, the term "avoidance" does not necessarily prohibit a proposed activity, but it may require the relocation of an action, or the total redesign of an action to eliminate any potential impacts resulting from it. Also see “right-of-way avoidance area ” definition. Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a planning decision unless the plans specify that they are mandatory. Big game. Indigenous, ungulate (hoofed) wildlife species that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bison, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope. Biodiversity (biological diversity). The variety of life and its processes, and the interrelationships within and among various levels of ecological organization. Conservation, protection, and restoration of biological species and genetic diversity are needed to sustain the health of existing biological systems. Federal resource management agencies must examine the implications of management actions and development decisions on regional and local biodiversity. Biological soil crust. A complex association between soil particles and cyanobacteria, algae, microfungi, lichens, and bryophytes that live within or atop the uppermost millimeters of soil. BLM Sensitive Species. Those species that are not federally listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act, but that are designated by the BLM State Director under 16 USC 1536(a)(2) for special management consideration. By national policy, federally listed candidate species are automatically included as sensitive species. Sensitive species are managed so they will not need to be listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Candidate species. Taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their status and threats to propose the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published periodically in the Federal Register (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual). Casual Use. Casual use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public lands, resources, or improvements. For examples for rights of ways see 43 CFR 2801.5. For examples for locatable minerals see 43 CFR 3809.5. Categorical exclusion. A category of actions (identified in agency guidance) that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required (40 CFR 1508.4), but a limited form of NEPA analysis is performed. Checkerboard. This term refers to a land ownership pattern of alternating sections of federally owned lands with private- or state-owned lands for 20 miles on either side of a land grant railroad (e.g., Union Pacific, Northern Pacific, etc.). On land status maps this alternating ownership is either delineated by color coding or alphabetic code resulting in a "checkerboard" visual pattern. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 993 Chemical vegetation treatment. Application of herbicides to control invasive species/noxious weeds and/or unwanted vegetation. To meet resource objectives the preponderance of chemical treatments would be used in areas where cheatgrass or noxious weeds have invaded sagebrush steppe. Clean Air Act of 1963 (as amended). Federal legislation governing air pollution control. Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended). Federal legislation governing water pollution control. Climate change. Any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: • natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; • natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and • human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., driving automobiles) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.). Closed area. An area where one or more uses are prohibited either temporarily or over the long term. Areas may be closed to uses such as, but not limited to, off-road vehicles, mineral leasing, mineral or vegetative material collection, or target shooting. In off-road vehicle use closed areas, motorized and mechanized off-road vehicle use is prohibited. Use of motorized and mechanized off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer (43 CFR 8340.0-5). Collaboration. A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands. Collaboration may take place with any interested parties, whether or not they are a cooperating agency. Communications site corridor. A collection of communications sites or facilities along a route that provides continuous radio coverage along the route and that is usually associated with cellular wireless technology. (FSH 2709.1 1 -Communication Site Management, 90. 5-Definitions) Comprehensive trails and travel management. The proactive interdisciplinary planning; on-the-ground management and administration of travel networks (both motorized and non-motorized) to ensure public access, natural resources, and regulatory needs are considered. It consists of inventory, planning, designation, implementation, education, enforcement, monitoring, easement acquisition, mapping and signing, and other measures necessary to provide access to public lands for a wide variety of uses (including uses for recreational, traditional, casual, agricultural, commercial, educational, landing strips, and other purposes). Condition class (fire regimes). Fire regime condition classes are a measure describing the degree of departure from historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. One or more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, introduced insects or disease, or other management activities. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 994 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Conditions of Approval. Additional requirements associated with an approved Application for Permit to Drill for a federal leasable mineral to ensure environmental protection, safety, and/or conservation of the mineral resource. Conformance. A proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of the approved land use plan. Conservation measures. Measures to conserve, enhance, and/or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. Conservation plan. The recorded decisions of a landowner or operator, cooperating with a conservation district, on how the landowner or operator plans, within practical limits, to use his/her land according to its capability and to treat it according to its needs for maintenance or improvement of the soil, water, animal, plant, and air resources. Conservation strategy. A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and animals that are designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the IJSFWS or National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries to be federal candidates under the ESA. Controlled surface use (CSU). CSU is a category of moderate constraint stipulations that allows some use and occupancy of public land while protecting identified resources or values and is applicable to fluid mineral leasing and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells and/or pads). CSU areas are open to fluid mineral leasing but the stipulation allows the BLM to require special operational constraints, or the activity can be shifted more than 200 meters (656 feet) to protect the specified resource or value. Cooperating agency. Assists the lead federal agency in developing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. These can be any agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501 .6). Any tribe or Federal, State, or local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by agreement with the lead agency. Council on Environmental Quality. An advisory council to the President of the US established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs to analyze and interpret environmental trends and information. Criteria pollutant. The US EPA uses six “criteria pollutants” as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and lead. Crucial wildlife habitat. The environment essential to plant or animal biodiversity and conservation at the landscape level. Crucial habitats include, but are not limited to, biological core areas, severe winter range, winter concentration areas, reproduction areas, and movement corridors. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossaty Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 995 Cultural resources. Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources include archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and scientific uses, and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social and/or cultural groups. Cumulative effects. The direct and indirect effects of a proposed project alternative’s incremental impacts when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of who carries out the action. Decision area. Public lands and mineral estate within the planning area that are encompassed by all designated habitat (ADH) (which includes preliminary priority habitat [PPH], preliminary general habitat [PGH], and linkage/connectivity habitat). Deferred/deferred use: To set-aside, or postpone, a particular resource use(s) or activity(ies) on the public lands to a later time. Generally when this term is used the period of the deferral is specified. Deferments sometimes follow the sequence timeframe of associated serial actions (e.g., action B will be deferred until action A is completed, etc.). Degraded vegetation. Areas where the plant community is not complete or is under threat. Examples include missing components such as perennial forbs or cool season grasses, weed infestations, or lack of regeneration of key species such as sagebrush or cottonwoods trees. Designated roads and trails. Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM or Forest Service where some type of motorized/nonmotorized use is appropriate and allowed, either seasonally or year-long (H- 1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). Desired future condition. For rangeland vegetation, the condition of rangeland resources on a landscape scale that meet management objectives. It is based on ecological, social, and economic considerations during the land planning process. It is usually expressed as ecological status or management status of vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, and age and size class of species) and desired soil qualities (soil cover, erosion, and compaction). In a general context, desired future condition is a portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved. Desired outcomes. A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective. Direct impacts. Direct impacts are caused by an action or implementation of an alternative and occur at the same time and place. Directional drilling. A drilling technique whereby a well is deliberately deviated from the vertical in order to reach a particular part of the oil- or gas-bearing reservoir. Directional drilling technology enables the driller to steer the drill stem and bit to a desired bottom hole location. Directional wells initially are drilled straight down to a predetermined depth and then gradually curved at one or more different points to penetrate one or more given target reservoirs. This specialized drilling usually is accomplished with the use of a fluid-driven downhole motor, which turns the drill bit. Directional drilling also allows multiple production and injection wells to be drilled from a single surface location such as a gravel pad, thus minimizing cost and the surface impact of oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation facilities. It can be used to reach a target located beneath an environmentally sensitive area (Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas 2009). September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 996 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Disposal lands. Transfer of public land out of federal ownership to another party through sale, exchange. Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Desert Land Entry or other land law statutes. Disruptive activities. Those public land resource uses/activities that are likely to alter the behavior, displace, or cause excessive stress to existing animal or human populations occurring at a specific location and/or time. In this context, disruptive activity(ies) refers to those actions that alter behavior or cause the displacement of individuals such that reproductive success is negatively affected, or an individual's physiological ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. This term does not apply to the physical disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or features. When administered as a land use restriction (e.g., No Disruptive Activities ), this term may prohibit or limit the physical presence of sound above ambient levels, light beyond background levels, and/or the nearness of people and their activities. The term is commonly used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (e.g., breeding, nesting, birthing, etc.), although it could apply to any resource value on the public lands. The use of this land use restriction is not intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses. Diversity. The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, communities, habitats, or habitat features per unit of area. Easement. A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another’s real property for access or other purposes. Ecological Site. A distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation. Emergency stabilization. Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources, to minimize threats to life or property resulting from the effects of a fire, or to repair/replace/construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources. Emergency stabilization actions must be taken within one year following containment of a wildfire. Endangered species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Under the Endangered Species Act in the US, “endangered” is the more-protected of the two categories. Designation as endangered (or threatened) is determined by USFWS as directed by the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1544). Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation. The Act is administered by two federal agencies, USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The purpose of the Act is to protect species and also the ecosystems upon which they depend (16 US Code 1531-1544). Enhance. The improvement of habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory components and/or attributes of the plant community to meet sage -grouse objectives. Environmental assessment. A concise public document prepared to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. It includes a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives considered, environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and individuals consulted. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/tjivironmental Impact Statement 997 Environmental impact statement (E1S). A detailed statement prepared by the responsible official in which a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment is described, alternatives to the proposed action are provided, and effects are analyzed (BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands). Evaluation (plan evaluation). The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 analysis are still valid and whether the plan is being implemented. Exchange. A transaction whereby the federal government receives land or interests in land in exchange for other land or interests in land. Exclusion Areas. An area on the public lands where a certain activity(ies) is prohibited to insure protection of other resource values present on the site. The term is frequently used in reference to lands/realty actions and proposals (e.g., rights-of-way, etc.), but is not unique to lands and realty program activities. This restriction is functionally analogous to the phrase "no surface occupancy" used by the oil and gas program, and is applied as an absolute condition to those affected activities. The less restrictive analogous term is avoidance area. Also see “ right-of-way exclusion area ” definition. Exemplary (vegetation). An area of vegetation that does not show signs of degradation and which may serve as a comparison to illustrate what the vegetation potential is for a given type of environment. Exemplary vegetation meets A-ranked viability criteria as described by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Existing routes. The roads, trails, or ways that are used by motorized vehicles (jeeps, all-terrain vehicles, motorized dirt bikes, etc.), mechanized uses (mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, game carts), pedestrians (hikers), and/or equestrians (horseback riders) and are, to the best of BLM’s knowledge, in existence at the time of RMP/EIS publication. Exploration. Active drilling and geophysical operations to: a. Determine the presence of the mineral resource; or b. Determine the extent of the reservoir or mineral deposit. Extensive recreation management area (ERMA). Administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services program investments. ERMAs are managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other resources and resource uses. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976, often referred to as the BLM’s “Organic Act,” which provides most of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction policy, and basic management guidance. Federal mineral estate. Subsurface mineral estate owned by the US and administered by the BLM. Federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction is composed of mineral estate underlying BLM lands, privately owned lands, and state-owned lands Fire frequency. A general term referring to the recurrence of fire in a given area over time. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 998 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Fire management plan (FMP). A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and related activities within the context of approved land/resource management plans. It defines a program to manage wildland fires (wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use). The plan is supplemented by operational plans including, but not limited to, preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, and prevention plans. Fire Management Plans assure that wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated. Fire Regime Condition Classification System (FRCCS). Measures the extent to which vegetation departs from reference conditions, or how the current vegetation differs from a particular reference condition. Fire suppression. All work and activities connected with control and fire-extinguishing operations, beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. Fluid minerals. Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources. Forage. All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals. Forage base. The amount of vegetation available for wildlife and livestock use. Fragile soils. Soils having a shallow depth to bedrock, minimal surface layer of organic material, textures that are more easily detached and eroded, or are on slopes over 35 percent. Fugitive dust. Significant atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular material exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Common sources of fugitive dust include unpaved roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and heavy construction operations. General sage -grouse habitat. Is occupied (seasonal or year-round) habitat outside of priority habitat. These areas have been identified by the BLM and Forest Service in coordination with respective state wildlife agencies. Geographic Information System (GIS). A system of computer hardware, software, data, people, and applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and display a potentially wide array of geospatial information. Geophysical exploration. Efforts to locate deposits of oil and gas resources and to better define the subsurface. Geothermal energy. Natural heat from within the Earth captured for production of electric power, space heating, or industrial steam. Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome; usually not quantifiable and may not have established timeframes for achievement. Grandfathered right. The right to use in a non-conforming manner due to existence prior to the establishment of conforming terms and conditions. Grazing preference. Grazing preference or preference means a superior or priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee. (43 CFR 4100.0-5). Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 999 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Grazing system. Scheduled grazing use and non-use of an allotment to reach identified goals or objectives by improving the quality and quantity of vegetation. Include, but are not limited to, developing pastures, utilization levels, grazing rotations, timing and duration of use periods, and necessary range improvements. Groundwater. Water held underground in soil or permeable rock, often feeding springs and wells. Guidelines (BLM). Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, sometimes expressed as BMPs. Guidelines may be identified during the land use planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they are mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 CFR 4180.2. Guidelines (Forest Service). A constraint on decision-making that allows for departure from its terms, as long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Habitat. An environment that meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal, or spatial characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for part or all of their life cycle. Hazardous material. A substance, pollutant, or contaminant that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Communication site. Sites that include broadcast types of uses (e.g., television, AM/FM radio, cable television, broadcast translator) and non-broadcast uses (e.g., commercial or private mobile radio service, cellular telephone, microwave, local exchange network, passive reflector). Impact. The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action. Impairment. The degree to which a distance of clear visibility is degraded by man-made pollutants. Implementation decisions. Decisions that take action to implement land use planning; generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR 4.410. Implementation plan. An area or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use plan. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans. Indicators. Factors that describe resource condition and change and can help the BLM and Forest Service determine trends over time. Indirect impacts. Indirect impacts result from implementing an action or alternative but usually occur later in time or are removed in distance and are reasonably certain to occur. Intermittent stream. An intermittent stream is a stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface sources such as melting snow in mountainous areas. During the dry season and throughout minor drought periods, these streams will not exhibit flow. Geomorphological characteristics are not well defined and are often inconspicuous. In the absence of external limiting factors, such as pollution and thermal modifications, species are scarce and adapted to the wet and dry conditions of the fluctuating water level. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 1000 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Invertebrate. An animal lacking a backbone or spinal column, such as insects, snails, and worms. The group includes 97 percent of all animal species. Key wildlife ecosystems. Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species in which are found those physical and biological features 1) essential to the conservation of the species, and 2) which may require special management considerations or protection. Land health condition. A classification for land health which includes these categories: “Meeting Land Health Standard(s)” and “Not Meeting Land Health Standard(s)”. • Meeting Land Health Standard(s): Lands for which health indicators are currently in acceptable condition such that basic levels of ecological processes and functions are in place. This rating includes the following subcategories: o Fully Meeting Standard(s): Lands for which there are no substantive concerns with health indicators o Exceeding Standard! s): Lands for which health indicators are in substantially better conditions than acceptable levels. o Meeting Standard(s) with Problems: Lands which have one or more concerns with health indicators to the degree that they are categorized as meeting the Land Health Standards, but have some issues which make them at risk of becoming “not meeting.” • Not Meeting Land Health Standard(s): Lands for which one or more health indicators are in unacceptable conditions such that basic levels of ecological processes and functions are no longer in place. Land health trend is used to describe these classes further. It includes these categories: upward, static, and downward. • Upward Trend: lands which have shown improving indicator conditions over time. • Static Trend: lands which have shown no clear improvement or decline in indicator conditions over time. • Downward Trend: lands which have shown declining indicator conditions over time. Land tenure adjustments. Land ownership or jurisdictional changes. To improve the manageability of the BLM lands and their usefulness to the public, the BLM has numerous authorities for repositioning lands into a more consolidated pattern, disposing of lands, and entering into cooperative management agreements. These land pattern improvements are completed primarily through the use of land exchanges but also through land sales, through jurisdictional transfers to other agencies, and through the use of cooperative management agreements and leases. Land treatment. All methods of artificial range improvement arid soil stabilization such as reseeding, brush control (chemical and mechanical), pitting, furrowing, water spreading, etc. Land use allocation. The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future conditions (H- 1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1001 Land use plan. A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of land use plan level decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and management framework plans (from H- 1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). Land use plan decision. Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. Decisions are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR 1600. When they are presented to the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals. Late brood-rearing area. Habitat includes mesic sagebrush and mixed shrub communities, wet meadows, and riparian habitats as well as some agricultural lands (e.g. alfalfa fields, etc.). Leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. These include energy-related mineral resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and geothermal, and some non-energy minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. Geothermal resources are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. Lease. Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides the BLM’s authority to issue leases for the use, occupancy, and development of public lands. Leases are issued for purposes such as a commercial filming, advertising displays, commercial or noncommercial croplands, apiaries, livestock holding or feeding areas not related to grazing permits and leases, native or introduced species harvesting, temporary or permanent facilities for commercial purposes (does not include mining claims), residential occupancy, ski resorts, construction equipment storage sites, assembly yards, oil rig stacking sites, mining claim occupancy if the residential structures are not incidental to the mining operation, and water pipelines and well pumps related to irrigation and nonirrigation facilities. The regulations establishing procedures for processing these leases and permits are found in 43 CFR 2920. Lease stipulation. A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the time of the lease sale. Lek. A traditional courtship display area attended by male sage -grouse in or adjacent to sagebrush dominated habitat. A lek is designated based on observations of two or more male sage -grouse engaged in courtship displays. Sub -dominant males may display on itinerant strutting areas during population peaks. Such areas usually fail to become established leks. Therefore, a site where less than five males are observed strutting should be confirmed active for two years before meeting the definition of a lek (Connelly et al 2000, Connelly et al. 2003, 2004). Each state may have a slightly different definition of lek, active lek, inactive lek, occupied lek, and unoccupied leks. Regional planning will use the appropriate definition provided by the state of interest. Lek Complex. A lek or group of leks within 2.5 km (1.5 mi) of each other between which male sage-grouse may interchange from one day to the next. Fidelity to leks has been well documented. Visits to multiple leks are most common among yearlings and less frequent for adult males, suggesting an age related period of establishment (Connelly et al. 2004). Active Lek. Any lek that has been attended by male sage -grouse during the strutting season. Inactive Lek. Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was no strutting activity throughout a strutting season. Absence of strutting grouse during a single visit is insufficient September, ; 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 1002 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement documentation to establish that a lek is inactive. This designation requires documentation of either: 1 ) an absence of sage -grouses on the lek during at least 2 ground surveys separated by at least seven days. These surveys must be conducted under ideal conditions (April 1 -May 7 (or other appropriate date based on local conditions), no precipitation, light or no wind, half-hour before sunrise to one hour after sunrise) or 2) a ground check of the exact known lek site late in the strutting season (after April 15) that fails to find any sign (tracks, droppings, feathers) of strutting activity. Data collected by aerial surveys should not be used to designate inactive status as the aerial survey may actually disrupt activities. Occupied Lek. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the prior 10 years. Unoccupied Lek. A lek that has either been “'destroyed” or “abandoned.” Destroyed Lek. A formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has been destroyed and is no longer suitable for sage -grouse breeding. Abandoned Lek. A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active during a period of 10 consecutive years. To be designated abandoned, a lek must be “inactive” (see above criteria) in at least four non -consecutive strutting seasons spanning the 10 years. The site of an “abandoned” lek should be surveyed at least once every 1 0 years to determine whether it has been re -occupied by sage -grouse. Lentic. Pertaining to standing water, such as lakes and ponds. Linkage Habitat (connectivity/1 inkage areas, linkages). Areas that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of Greater Sage-Grouse and to maintain ecological processes. Loeatable minerals. Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale. Long-term effect. The effect could occur for an extended period after implementation of the alternative. The effect could last several years or more. Lotic. Pertaining to moving water, such as streams or rivers. Management decision. A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management decisions include both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions. Management zone. Two types of management zones are addressed: • Colorado Management Zones - 21 Greater Sage-Grouse management zones comprised of preliminary priority habitat (PPH), preliminary general habitat (PGH), and linkage/connectivity habitat in order to manage disturbance caps and be able to identify specific habitat areas. • Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zones - 7 Greater Sage-Grouse management zones established based on populations across the entire range of the Greater Sage-Grouse. Northwest Colorado falls into WAFWA Management Zones II and VII. WAFWA management zones are used in the cumulative effects analysis. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Fnvironmental Impact Statement 1003 Master Development Plans. A set of information common to multiple planned wells, including drilling plans, Surface Use Plans of Operations, and plans for future production. Mechanized transport. Any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving parts. Mineral. Any naturally formed inorganic material, solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be extracted from the earth, any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (as stone, coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground. Under federal laws, considered as locatable (subject to the general mining laws), leasable (subject to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920), and salable (subject to the Materials Act of 1947). Mineral entry. The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any locatable minerals it may contain. Mineral estate. The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. Mineralize. The process where a substance is converted from an organic substance to an inorganic substance. Mineral materials. Common varieties of mineral materials such as soil, sand and gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended. Mining claim. A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having acquired the right of possession by complying with the Mining Law and local laws and rules. A mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There are four categories of mining claims: lode, placer, millsite, and tunnel site. Mining Law of 1872. Provides for claiming and gaining title to locatable minerals on public lands. Also referred to as the “General Mining Laws” or “Mining Laws.” Mitigation. Includes specific means, measures or practices that could reduce, avoid, or eliminate adverse impacts. Mitigation can include avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, minimizing the impact by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring the affected environment, reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Modification. A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied. Monitoring (plan monitoring). The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions and collecting and assessing data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions. Motorized vehicles or uses. Vehicles that are motorized, including but not limited to jeeps, all-terrain vehicles (all-terrain vehicles, such as four-wheelers and three-wheelers), trail motorcycles or dirt bikes, and aircrafts. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 1004 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Multiple-use. The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (FLPMA) (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual). Municipal watershed. A watershed area that provides water for use by a municipality as defined by the community and accepted by the State. National Conservation Area. Area designated by Congress, generally, to conserve, protect, enhance, and properly manage the resources and values for which it was designated for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations (BLM Manual 6220). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190. Establishes environmental policy for the nation. Among other items, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider environmental values in decision-making processes. National Historic Trail. A congressionally designated trail that is an extended, long-distance trail, not necessarily managed as continuous, that follows as closely as possible and practicable the original trails or routes of travel of national historic significance. The purpose of a National Historic Trail is the identification and protection of the historic route and the historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. A National Historic Trail is managed in a manner to protect the nationally significant resources, qualities, values, and associated settings of the areas through which such trails may pass, including the primary use or uses of the trail (BLM Manual 6250, NHT Administration). National Register of Historic Places. A listing of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural sites of local, state, or national significance established by the Historic Preservation Act of, 1966 and maintained by the National Park Service. Native vegetation. Plant species which were found here prior to European settlement, and consequently are in balance with these ecosystems because they have well developed parasites, predators, and pollinators. Natural processes. Fire, drought, insect and disease outbreaks, flooding, and other events which existed prior to European settlement, and shaped vegetation composition and structure. Non-energy leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Non-energy minerals include resources such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossaiy Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1005 Nonfunctional condition. Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris to dissipate energies associated with (low events, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. No surface occupancy (NSO). A major constraint where use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells and/or pads) are prohibited to protect identified resource values. Areas identified as NSO are open to fluid mineral leasing, but surface occupancy or surface-disturbing activities associated with fluid mineral leasing cannot be conducted on the surface of the land. Access to fluid mineral deposits would require horizontal drilling from outside the boundaries of the NSO area. Noxious weeds. A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the US. Objective. A description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and measured and, where possible, have established timeframes for achievement. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) (off-road vehicle). Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designated for travel on or immediately over land, water or other natural terrain, excluding: ( 1 ) any non-amphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense emergencies (43 CFR 8340.0-5). Open. Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to OHV use. Ozone. A faint blue gas produced in the atmosphere from chemical reactions of burning coal, gasoline, and other fuels and chemicals found in products such as solvents, paints, and hairsprays. Paleontological resources. The physical remains or other physical evidence of plants and animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for correlating and dating rock strata and for understanding past environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life. Particulate matter (PM). One of the six “criteria” pollutants for which the US EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Particulate matter is defined as two categories, fine particulates, with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (PM 10) or less, and fine particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Perennial stream. A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow. Permitted use. The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in AUMs (43 CFR 4100.0-5) (from H-4 180-1, BUM Rangeland Health Standards Manual). September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 1006 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Permittee. A person or company permitted to graze livestock on public land. Physiography. The study and classification of the surface features of the earth. Plan of Operations. A Plan of Operations is required for all mining activity exploration greater than 5 acres or surface disturbance greater than casual use on certain special category lands. Special category lands are described under 43 CFR 3809.1 1(c) and include such lands as designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System, and areas closed to offload vehicles, among others. In addition, a plan of operations is required for activity greater than casual use on lands patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act with Federal minerals where the operator does not have the written consent of the surface owner (43 CFR 3814). The Plan of operations needs to be filed in the BLM field office with jurisdiction over the land involved. The Plan of Operations does not need to be on a particular form but must address the information required by 43 CFR 3809.401(b). Planning area. The geographical area for which resource management plans are developed and maintained. The Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area boundary includes public lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, within five BLM Districts in Nevada (Battle Mountain, Carson City, Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca) and three BLM Field Offices in California (Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise), as well as public lands managed by the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction. Planning criteria. The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamlines and simplifies the resource management planning actions. Planning issues. Concerns, conflicts, and problems with the existing management of public lands. Frequently, issues are based on how land uses affect resources. Some issues are concerned with how land uses can affect other land uses, or how the protection of resources affects land uses. Policy. This is a statement of guiding principles, or procedures, designed and intended to influence planning decisions, operating actions, or other affairs of the BLM or Forest Service. Policies are established interpretations of legislation, executive orders, regulations, or other presidential, secretarial, or management directives. Preliminary General Habitat (PGH). Areas of seasonal or year-round Greater Sage-Grouse habitat outside of preliminary priority habitat (PPH). Preliminary General Management Area (PGMA). BLM and FS lands identified requiring special management to sustain sage-grouse populations, but that are not as important as PPMAs. The PGMAs are derived from and generally follow the PGH boundaries (see in Chapter 3) but may be modified in extent based on the objectives of each alternative. Likewise, management strategies applied to the PGMAs may vary by alternative. Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH). Areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations; include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1 007 Preliminary Priority Management Area (PPMA). BLM and FS lands identified to be managed as having the highest value to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations. The PPMAs are derived from and generally follow the PPH boundaries (see in Chapter 3) but may be modified in extent based on the objectives of each alternative. Likewise, management strategies applied to the PPMAs may vary by alternative. Prescribed fire. A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements (where applicable) have been met prior to ignition. Primitive route. Any transportation linear feature located within areas that have been identified as having wilderness characteristics and not meeting the wilderness inventory road definition (BLM Manual 63 10 - Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands). Priority sage -grouse habitat. Areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable sage -grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, late brood -rearing, and winter concentration areas. These areas have been identified by the BLM and Forest Service in coordination with respective state wildlife agencies. Project area. The Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area boundary includes public lands managed by the BLM, within the five BLM Districts in Nevada (Battle Mountain, Carson City, Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca) and three BLM Field Offices in California (Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise), as well as public lands managed by the Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Proper functioning condition. A term describing stream health that is based on the presence of adequate vegetation, landform and debris to dissipate energy, reduce erosion and improve water quality. Public domain. The term applied to any or all of those areas of land ceded to the Federal Government by the Original States and to such other lands as were later acquired by treaty, purchase or cession, and are disposed of only under the authority of Congress. Public land. Land or interest in land owned by the US and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the US acquired ownership, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos (H- 160 1-1, BLM Land Use Planning Flandbook). Also includes lands owned by the US and administered by the Forest Service. Range Improvement. The term range improvement means any activity, structure or program on or relating to rangelands which is designed to improve production of forage; change vegetative composition; control patterns of use; provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; and provide habitat for livestock and wildlife. The term includes, but is not limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical means to accomplish the desired results. Range improvement project. An authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed to improve production of forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the condition of rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. This definition includes, but is not limited to: structures, treatment projects and use of mechanical devices, or modifications achieved through mechanical means. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 1008 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Raptor. Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks, such as hawks, owls, falcons, and eagles. Reasonable foreseeable development scenario. The prediction of the type and amount of oil and gas activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on geologic factors, past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest. Reclamation. The suite of actions taken within an area affected by human disturbance, the outcome of which is intended to change the condition of the disturbed area to meet pre-determined objectives and/or make it acceptable for certain defined resources (e.g., wildlife habitat, grazing, ecosystem function, etc.). Recreation management area. Includes special recreation management areas (SRMAs) and extensive recreation management areas (ERMAs); see SRMA and ERMA definitions. Recreation experiences. Psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism participants as a direct result of their on-site leisure engagements and recreation-tourism activity participation or by nonparticipating community residents as a result of their interaction with visitors and guests within their community or interaction with the BLM or Forest Service and other public and private recreation-tourism providers and their actions. Recreation opportunities. Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure activity to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added beneficial outcomes. Recreation settings. The collective distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence and sometimes actually determine what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. Reference State. The reference state is the state where the functional capacities represented by soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity are performing at an optimum level under the natural disturbance regime. This state usually includes, but is not limited to, what is often referred to as the potential natural plant community. Rehabilitate. Returning disturbed lands as near to its predisturbed condition as is reasonably practical or as specified in approved permits. Renewable Energy. Energy resources that constantly renew themselves or that are regarded as practically inexhaustible. These include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass. Although particular geothermal formations can be depleted, the natural heat in the Earth is a virtually inexhaustible reserve of potential energy. Required Design Features. Means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. A suite of features that would establish the minimum specifications for certain activities (i.e., water developments, mineral development, and fire and fuels management) and mitigate adverse impacts. These design features would be required to provide a greater level of regulatory certainty than through implementation of Best Management Practices. In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to be effective when implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the project- specific level when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) and/or may require slight variations from what is described in the EIS/RMP amendment (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossaiy Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1009 in design features would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual project development and environmental review. Resource management plan (RMP). A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that establishes, for a given area of land, land-use allocations, coordination guidelines for multiple-use, objectives, and actions to be achieved. Restore/restoration. Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and structure that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over the long term. The long-term goal is to create functional, high quality habitat that is occupied by sage -grouse. Short-term goal may be to restore the landform, soils and hydrology and increase the percentage of preferred vegetation, seeding of desired species, or treatment of undesired species. Restriction/restricted use. A limitation or eonstraint on public land uses and operations. Restrictions can be of any kind, but most commonly apply to certain types of vehicle use, temporal and/or spatial constraints, or certain authorizations. Revegetate/revegetation. The process of putting vegetation back in an area where vegetation previously existed, which may or may not simulate natural conditions. Revision. The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning area affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. Right-of-way (ROW). An easement, lease, permit, or license to occupy, use, or traverse public lands granted for pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other facilities and systems for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of water; pipelines and other systems for the transportation or distribution of liquids and gases, other than water and other than oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced therefrom, and for storage and terminal facilities in connection therewith; pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems, and conveyor belts for transportation and distribution of solid materials, and facilities for the storage of such materials in connection therewith; systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy, except that the applicant shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act, including part I thereof (41 Stat. 1063, 16 USC 791a-825r; PL 102-486, 1992); systems for transmission or reception of radio, television, telephone, telegraph, and other electronic signals, and other means of communication; roads, trails, highways, railroads, canals, tunnels, tramways, airways, livestock driveways, or other means of transportation except where such facilities are constructed and maintained in connection with commercial recreation facilities on lands in the National Forest System; or such other necessary transportation or other systems or facilities which are in the public interest and which require rights-of-way over, upon, under, or through such lands. Right-of-way avoidance area. An area identified through resource management planning to be avoided but may be available for ROW location with special stipulations. Right-of-way exclusion area. An area identified through resource management planning that is not available for ROW location under any conditions. Riparian area. A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 1010 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. Riparian zone. An area one-quarter mile wide encompassing riparian and adjacent vegetation. Road. A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use. Rotation. Grazing rotation between pastures in the allotment for the permitted time. Routes. Multiple roads, trails and primitive roads; a group or set of roads, trails, and primitive roads that represents less than 100 percent of the BLM transportation system. Generically, components of the transportation system are described as “routes.” Sale (public land). A method of land disposal pursuant to Section 203 of FLPMA, whereby the US receives a fair-market payment for the transfer of land from federal ownership. Public lands determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM. Lands suitable for sale must be identified in the RMP. Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not identified in the current RMP, or that meet the disposal criteria identified in the RMP, require a plan amendment before a sale can occur. Saturated soils. Occur when the infiltration capacity of the soil is exceeded from above due to rainfall or snowmelt runoff. Soils can also become saturated from groundwater inputs. Scenic byways. Highway routes that have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural, or historical value. An essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor. The corridor may contain outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other natural elements. Scoping process. An early and open public participation process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. Season of use. The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as specified in the grazing lease. Seeding. Seeding is a vegetation treatment that includes the application of grass, forb, or shrub seed, either aerially or from the ground. In areas of gentle terrain, ground applications of seed are often accomplished with a rangeland drill. Seeding allows the establishment of native species or placeholder species and restoration of disturbed areas to a perennial-dominated cover type, thereby decreasing the risk of subsequent invasion by exotic plant species. Seeding would be used primarily as a follow-up treatment in areas where disturbance or the previously described treatments have removed exotic plant species and their residue. Short-term effect. The effect occurs only during or immediately after implementation of the alternative. Special recreation management area (SRMA). An administrative public lands unit identified in land use plans where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September 2013 Draft Resource Management 1011 Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Special recreation permit (SRP). Authorization that allows for recreational uses of public lands and related waters. Issued as a means to control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, and provide for the health and safety of visitors. Commercial SRPs are also issued as a mechanism to provide a fair return for the commercial use of public lands. Special status species. BLM special status species are: (1) species listed, candidate, or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act; and (2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species Act that are designated as BLM sensitive by the BLM State Director(s). All federally listed candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the five years following delisting are conserved as BLM sensitive species, forest Service special status species are: federally listed threatened and endangered species, designated by the USPWS under the ESA; sensitive species, designated by the Regional forester with each forest Service region; and management indicator species, designated for each forest unit within the individual LUPs during the planning process. Split estate. This is the circumstance where the surface of a particular parcel of land is owned by a different party than the minerals underlying the surface. Split estates may have any combination of surface/subsurface owners: federal/state; federal/private; state/private; or percentage ownerships. When referring to the split estate ownership on a particular parcel of land, it is generally necessary to describe the surface/subsurface ownership pattern of the parcel. Stabilize. The process of stopping further damage from occurring. Standard (BLM). A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., land health standards). To be expressed as a desired outcome (goal). Standard (Forest Service). A mandatory constraint on decision-making. Not meeting a standard would require a site-specific forest plan amendment. Standard lease terms and conditions. Areas may be open to leasing with no specific management decisions defined in a Resource Management Plan; however, these areas are subject to lease terms and conditions as defined on the lease form (Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas; and Form 3200-24, Offer to Lease and Lease for Geothermal Resources). State. A state is comprised of an integrated soil and vegetation unit having one or more biological communities that occur on a particular ecological site and that are functionally similar with respect to the three attributes (soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) under natural disturbance regimes. Strongholds. Large areas of intact habitat where habitats and populations appear stable (Wisdom et al. 2011). Stipulation (general). A term or condition in an agreement or contract. Stipulation (oil and gas). A provision that modifies standard oil and gas lease terms and conditions in order to protect other resource values or land uses and is attached to and made a part of the lease. Typical lease stipulations include No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Timing Limitations (TL), and Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Lease stipulations are developed through the land use planning (RMP) process. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and G/ossaiy Glossary 1012 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Suitable River. An eligible river segment found through administrative study to meet the criteria for designation as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as specified in Section 4(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (BLM Manual 6400, Wild and Scenic Rivers). Surface disturbance. Suitable habitat is considered disturbed when it is removed and unavailable for immediate sage -grouse use. a. Longterm removal occurs when habitat is physically removed through activities that replace suitable habitat with long term occupancy of unsuitable habitat such as a road, power line, well pad or active mine. Long-term removal may also result from any activities that cause soil mixing, soil removal, and exposure of the soil to erosive processes. b. Short-term removal occurs when vegetation is removed in small areas, but restored to suitable habitat within a few years (< 5) of disturbance, such as a successfully reclaimed pipeline, or successfully reclaimed drill hole or pit. c. Suitable habitat rendered unusable due to numerous anthropogenic disturbances d. Anthropogenic surface disturbance are surface disturbances meeting the above definitions which result from human activities. Surface-disturbing activities. An action that alters the vegetation, surface/near surface soil resources, and/or surface geologic features, beyond natural site conditions and on a scale that affects other public land values. Examples of surface disturbing activities may include: operation of heavy equipment to construct well pads, roads, pits and reservoirs; installation of pipelines and power lines; and the conduct of several types of vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, etc.). Surface disturbing activities may be either authorized or prohibited. Surface use(s). These are all the various activities that may be present on the surface or near-surface (e.g., pipelines), of the public lands. It does not refer to those subterranean activities (e.g., underground mining, etc.) occurring on the public lands or federal mineral estate. When administered as a use restriction (e.g.. No Surface Use [ NSU 7), this phrase prohibits all but specified resource uses and activities in a certain area to protect particular sensitive resource values and property. This designation typically applies to small acreage sensitive resource sites (e.g., plant community study exclosure, etc.), and/or administrative sites (e.g., government ware-yard, etc.) where only authorized, agency personnel are admitted. Sustained yield. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple uses. Temporary /temporary use. This term is used as the opposite of the term permanent/ permanent use. It is a relative term and has to be considered in the context of the resource values affected and the nature of the resource use(s)/activity(ies) taking place. Generally, a temporary activity is considered to be one that is not fixed in place and is of short duration. Terrestrial. Living or growing in or on the land. Threatened species. Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range Under the Endangered Species Act in the US, ‘threatened” is the lesser-protected of the two categories. Designation as threatened Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1013 (or endangered) is determined by USFWS as directed by the Endangered Species Act (16 US Code 1531-1544). Timber. Standing trees, downed trees, or logs which are capable of being measured in board feet. Timing Limitation (TL). The TL stipulation, a moderate constraint, is applicable to fluid mineral leasing, all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells and/or pads), and other surface-disturbing activities (i.e., those not related to fluid mineral leasing). Areas identified for TL are closed to fluid mineral exploration and development, surface-disturbing activities, and intensive human activity during identified time frames. This stipulation does not apply to operation and basic maintenance activities, including associated vehicle travel, unless otherwise specified. Construction, drilling, completions, and other operations considered to be intensive in nature are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, such as workovers on wells, is not permitted. TLs can overlap spatially with NSO and CSU, as well as with areas that have no other restrictions. Administrative activities are allowed at the discretion of the Authorized Officer. Total dissolved solids. Salt, or an aggregate of carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides, sulfates, phosphates, and nitrates of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, potassium, and other cations that form salts. Total maximum daily load. An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding applicable water quality criteria. Trail. A linear route managed for human-power (e.g., hiking or bicycling), stock (e.g., equestrian), or off-highway vehicle forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. Transition. A shift between two states. Transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity or direction of factors that produced the change. Instead, they require new inputs such as revegetation or shrub removal. Practices, such as these, that accelerate succession are often expensive to apply. Transmission. The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group of lines and associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed for delivery to consumers, or is delivered to other electric systems. Transmission is considered to end when the energy is transformed for distribution to the consumer. Transportation system. The sum of the BLM’s recognized inventory of linear features (roads, primitive roads, and trails) formally recognized, designated, and approved as part of the BLM’s transportation system. Travel management areas. Polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been taken to classify areas open, closed or limited, and have identified and/or designated a network of roads, trails, ways, landing strips, and other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning area. All designated travel routes within travel management areas should have a clearly identified need and purpose as well as clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and seasons or timeframes for allowable access or other limitations (BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook). Trespass. Any unauthorized use of public land. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary 1014 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Tribal interests. Native American or Native Alaskan economic rights such as Indian trust assets, resource uses and access guaranteed by treaty rights, and subsistence uses. llnderstory. That portion of a plant community growing underneath the taller plants on the site. Unitization. Operation of multiple leases as a single lease under a single operator. Utility corridor. A designated parcel of land that is either linear or areal in character. Utility corridors are not usually wider than five miles; are limited by technological, environmental, and topographical factors; and are set in width as identified by the special use permit or right-of-way issued. Designation criteria are set forth in Section 503 of FLPMA for special use permits and rights-of-way; and 43 CFR 2802.1 1 for rights-of-way. Valid existing rights. Documented, legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or entity to use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include but are not limited to fee title ownership, mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, acquired, leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time. Vegetation manipulation. Planned alteration of vegetation communities through use of mechanical, chemical, seeding, and/or prescribed fire or managed fire to achieve desired resource objectives. Vegetation treatments. Management practices which change the vegetation structure to a different stage of development. Vegetation treatment methods include managed fire, prescribed fire, chemical, mechanical, and seeding. Vegetation type. A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based upon and named after the apparent dominant plant species. Visibility (air quality). A measure of the ability to see and identify objects at different distances. Visitor day. Twelve visitor hours that may be aggregated by one or more persons in single or multiple visits. Visual resources. The visible physical features on a landscape, (topography, water, vegetation, animals, structures, and other features) that comprise die scenery of the area. Warranted but precluded. When the public files a petition with USFWS to have a species listed under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS can make one of three findings: listing is warranted; listing is not warranted; or listing is warranted but precluded. The warranted by precluded listing indicates that a species should be listed based on the available science, but listing other species takes priority because they are more in need of protection. Watershed. Topographical region or area delineated by water draining to a particular watercourse or body of water. West Nile virus. A virus that is found in temperate and tropical regions of the world and most commonly transmitted by mosquitoes. West Nile virus can cause flu-like symptoms in humans and can be lethal to birds, including sage-grouse. Wildcat well. An exploratory oil well drilled in land not known to be an oil field. Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary September, 2013 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 1015 Wilderness. A congressional ly designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, that is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1 ) generally appears to have been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. The definition is contained in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891). Wilderness characteristics. Wilderness characteristics attributes include the area’s size, its apparent naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They may also include supplemental values. Lands with wilderness characteristics are those lands that have been inventoried and determined by the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. Wilderness Study Area (WSA). A designation made through the land use planning process of a roadless area found to have wilderness characteristics, as described in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wildland fire. Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Wildland fires are categorized into two distinct types: • Wildfires: Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires. • Prescribed fires: Planned ignitions. Wildland fire use. A term no longer used; the new terminology is “managed fire” (see “ managed fire” definition). A vegetation treatment that involves taking advantage of a naturally-ignited wildland fire in an area where fire would benefit resources. Wildland fire use would be conducted in specific areas needing treatment after a site-specific plan and NEPA analysis are completed and only if predetermined prescriptive parameters (e.g., weather/fire behavior) can be met. Until this planning and NEPA analysis are accomplished, wildland fires would be suppressed using an appropriate management response. Wildland-urban interface (WUI). The line, area or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Withdrawal. An action that restricts the use of public land and segregates the land from the operation of some or all of the public land and mineral laws. Withdrawals are also used to transfer jurisdiction of management of public lands to other federal agencies. Winter concentration areas. Sage -grouse winter habitats which are occupied annually by sage -grouse and provide sufficient sagebrush cover and food to support birds throughout the entire winter (especially periods with above average snow cover). Many of these areas support several different breeding populations of sage -grouse. Sage -grouse typically show high fidelity for these areas, and loss or fragmentation can result in significant population impacts. September, 2013 Chapter 8 Acronyms and Glossary