County Commissioners Churchill County, Nevada 155 N

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA 155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110 Fallon, Nevada 89406 (775) 423-4092 Fax: (775) 423-7069 Contact Person: Pamela D. Moore, Deputy Clerk of the Board E-mail: [email protected]

****NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING****

PLEASE POST- NOTE: CHANGE OF DATE

PLACE OF MEETING: Churchill County Administration Building, Chambers, 155 North Taylor Street, Suite 145, Fallon, NV DATE & TIME: March 7, 2014 at 8:15a.m. TYPE OF MEETING: Regularly Scheduled County Commissioners' Meeting

Notes: I. These meetings are subject to the provisions ofNevada Open Meeting Law (NRS Chapter 241). Except as otherwise provided for by law, these meetings are open and public. II. Action will be taken on all Agenda items, unless otherwise noted. III. The Agenda is a tentative schedule. The Board of County Commissioners may act upon Agenda items in a different order than is stated in this notice- so as to affect the people's business in the most efficient manner possible. IV. In the interest of time, the Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to impose uniform time limits upon matters devoted to public comment. V. Any statement made by a member of the Board of County Commissioners during the public meeting is absolutely privileged.

Agenda:

1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Verification of the Posting of the Agenda. 4. Review and Adoption of Agenda: Action to approve the Agenda as submitted or revised. 5. Review and Adoption of Minutes: None. 6. Public Comment: Comment upon matters not on Agenda. 7. Appointments: 8:15 a.m. Consideration and possible action re : Recognition of Joseph R. Whimple for his retirement from years of service to Churchill County.

Agenda- Churchill County Commissioners March 7, 2014 Page 1 8:16a.m. Consideration and possible action re: Approval to submit grant application to the Nevada Court Improvement Program for $10,000 to support the implementation of the CASA of Churchill County Program, Shannon Ernst, Social Services Director. 8:20a.m. Consideration and possible action re: Approval to submit grant application to the Hearst foundation for $60,000 to support the implementation ofthe CASA of Churchill County Program, Shannon Ernst, Social Services Director. 8:30a.m. First Reading- Consideration and possible action re: Bill 20 14-A, Ordinance #71 , an ordinance making corrections, deletions, additions, and minor revisions to Title 13 Water and Sewer, Sections 13 .02.010 through 13.04.1060 and Sections 13.05.110 through 13.05.1110, Eleanor Lockwood, County Manager. 8. Letters Received: None. 9. Old Business: None. 10. New Business: A. Consideration and possible action re: Request to appoint the Planning Director as the acting Code Enforcement Officer, authorizing him to impose fines, fees, and other assigned duties to the Code Enforcement Officer. B. Consideration and possible action re: Request from Simmie Dee Travis to extend timelines on presentation of final maps for the El Rancho PUD per the Development Agreement approved in November 2008, Bill2008-I, Ordinance 103, APNs: 008-263-14, 18, and 21 consisting of 100.71± acres with 39.62± acres ofwater rights. C. Consideration and possible action re: A Division Into Large Parcels Map for APN: 004- 431-06 owned by New Nevada Lands (TCID #13-000) (Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 29 East, on the Lovelock Highway). D. Consideration and possible action re: A Division Into Large Parcels Map for APN: 004- 431-21 owned by NewNevadaLands (TCID #13-000) (Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 29 East, on the Lovelock Highway). E. Consideration and possible action re: Southwest Gas Franchise Extension Agreement. 11. Consent Items: (Action items generally not requiring discussion or explanation) All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and may be acted upon by the Board of County Commissioners with one action and without an extensive hearing. Any member of the board or any citizen may request that an item be taken from the Consent Agenda, discussed and acted upon separately during this meeting. Informational Items: A. Consideration and possible action re: Settlement Agreement and General Release with Saint Mary's Healthfirst for insurance premium refund. B. Consideration and possible action re: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) provides notice that staffhas reviewed the Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report for the former Lightning Lube at 1 South Maine Street, Fallon, Nevada. C. Consideration and possible action re: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) provides notice that staff has reviewed the Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report for the former Bootlegger Texaco Station at 16 North Maine Street, Fallon, Nevada.

Agenda- Churchill County Commissioners March 7, 2014 Page 2 D. Consideration and possible action re: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection provides notification of its review of the R-Spill Report filed on behalf of Smedley's Chevron at 1755 W. Williams Avenue, in Fallon, Nevada. E. Consideration and possible action re: Bureau of Land Management's notification of the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of a proposed Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale. F. Consideration and possible action re: The Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain District, provides a copy of its 2013 Annual Report. G. Consideration and possible action re: Senator Harry Reid responds to Churchill County's letter regarding Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PIL T). H. Consideration and possible action re: Western Counties Alliance provides an update on Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PIL T). Review: None. Committee and Departmental Reports: A. Treasurer's Report for January 2014. 12. Consider Future Agenda Items. 13. Commissioner and Departmental Reports. 14. Claims and Payroll Transmittals. 15. Adjournment. 16. Affidavit of Posting:

State ofNevada ) : ss County of Churchill )

L Pamela D. Moore, Deputy Clerk ofthe Board of County Commissioners, do hereby affirm that I posted, or caused to be posted, a copy ofthis notice ofpublic meeting, on or before the 3rd day of March, 2014, at the following locations in Churchill County, Nevada: I. City Hall; 2. County Administration Building; 3. Public Library; 4. Churchill County Law Enforcement Center; 5. The Churchill County Website @ .!.!w'-'-w'-'w:..:.."""'ch'""'u"""r~c~"'===~.!...¢..:.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 3rd day ofMarch, 2014, Pamela D. Moore. ~~ Agenda- Churchill County Commissioners March 7, 2014 Page 3 Endnotes: Disclosures: *Churchill County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Accommodations: *Churchill County will make all reasonable efforts to assist and accommodate physically handicapped persons desiring to attend. Persons who are disabled and require special assistance may contact the Churchill County Commission, in writing at 155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110, Fallon, Nevada 89406, or by calling (775) 423-4092. Procedures: *The schedule ofregular meetings of the Board ofCounty Commissioners is provided for by Title 2, Chapter 2.04, of the Churchill County Code. *The public meetings may be conducted according to rules ofparliamentary procedure. *Persons providing public comment will be asked to state their name for the record. *The Board ofCounty Commissioners reserves the right to restrict participation by persons in the public meeting where the conduct ofsuch persons is willfully disruptive to the people 's business. *All supporting materials for this Agenda, previous Agendas, or Minutes are available by requesting a copy from the Clerk's office, 775-423-4092. During the meeting, there will be one copy available for public inspection. Additional copies are available by making the request f rom the Clerk's office. Yo u are entitled to one copy ofthe supporting materials free ofcharge . *In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department ofAgricultur e policy, Churchill County is prohibited from discriminating on the basis ofrace , color, national origin, sex, age, or disability (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). To file a complaint ofdiscrimination, write USDA, Director, Office ofEqual Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S. W , Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3972 (voice), or (202)720-6382 (TDD).

Agenda- Churchill County Commissioners March 7, 2014 Page 4 Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: # ______Date Submitted: 2-24-2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 6, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Shannon Ernst, Churchill County Social Services Tenth Judicial District Court Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Approval to submit grant application to the Nevada Court Improvement Program for $10,000 to support the implementation of the CASA of Churchill County Program.

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (___) Resolution (___) Ordinance (lLJ Formal Action/Motion (_) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? NO

Recommended Board Action: I move to submit the grant request of$10,000 to the Nevada Court Improvement Program, as indicated by the signature of the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners.

Discussion: Churchill County Social Services, Civil District Attorney's Office and the Tenth Judicial District Court have partnered to develop a CASA Program of Churchill County and obtain grant funding for implementation and ongoing operations.

In January 2014 the National CASA accepted the letter of intent for development ofthe program and a grant totaling $70,066 was submitted to the Community Development Block Grant Program to assist the court youth dependents advocacy.

As of February 2014 Provisional Membership has been obtained and the committee is working to submit the full membership application to the National CASA.

The Court Improvement Committee met and a guest from the State program was present. During that meeting the committee was invited to submit an application to the State for additional funding to assist in the implementation of the program.

The application has been drafted and is attached. At this time we would like to proceed in submittal and only accept the funds, to be utilized as match, if full funding is obtained to implement the program.

Fiscal Impact: $10,000 Grant I $0.00 County

Explanation of Impact: $10,000 to the Tenth Judicial District Court Budget to support implementation of the CASA of Churchill County Program.

Funding Source: State Court Improvement Program

Reviewed By: ~ Le-lu:xrJ Date: Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager I '

~-~ Date: 2-/.?-'-/t'T1 Churili CD11tyneputy District Attorney

Date: ------Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Churchill County

Nevada Court Improvement Program

Grant Application

March 6, 2014 Proposal Table of Contents

1. Completed and Signed Cover Sheet 2. Proposal Executive Summary and Narrative 3. Budget Summary 4. Budget Narrative 5. Proof of Liability Insurance 6. Certifications 1- 6 7. Payee Registration 8. Original Signed Application 9. Application Check List 10. Letter of Support 1. Completed and Signed Cover Sheet NEVADA COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Entity: Churchill County, Nevada- 10th Judicial District Court Entity Director: Honorable Thomas Stockard street Address: 73 North Maine Street, Fallon. Nevada 89406 Mailing Address: 73 North Maine Street, Fallon. Nevada 89406 Legal Status of Entit;.z..:_:.... c_o_u_n_ty;_ · ______

Board of Directors: ./ Yes (If yes, attach list with names, affiliations, and addresses.) O_No Federal Tax ID Number: ------88-60000025 PR_OJECT MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATiON

Name: Shannon Ernst Title: Churchill County Social Services Mailing Address: 485 West B Street, Suite #1 05, Fallon, Nevada 89406 Email Address: [email protected] Telephone Number: 775-428-0211 Fax Number: _7_7_5_-4_2_3_-8_0_5_7______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Title of Proposed Project: Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Churchill County

Is this a new Project?_[{]__Yes _D_No (If no, how was this project previously funded, for what time period and for what amount:)------ Total Amount of CIP Funds Requested: _$_1_0_,o_o_o_.o_o--===------ Are There Other Funding Sources For This Project? [7] Yes (If Yes, please explain): Application pending Community Development Block Grant funding D_No What Outcome Number(s) and Activity/Project Description(s), in the CIP Strategic Plan, does this proposed project help move forward? (List all that apply.)

Outcome Number: _....:...._45 youth____ _ Activity/Project Description: Provide volunteer advocates to 45 court dependent youth Outcome Number: 10 volunteers Activity/Project Description: recruit and train 10 volunteers to provide advocacy to youth Outcome Number: ------300 Activity/Project Description: Provide a minimum of 300 training hours to advocates

Signature of Authorizing Official Date 2. Proposal Executive Summary and Narrative CASA of Churchill County

II. Executive Summary

Churchill County implemented a Court Improvement Council, known as the CIC. The council has fonned a membership to include, but is not limited to the following:

• District Judge • Court Appointed Counsel • District Attorney's Office • Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribal Child and Social Services • NAS Fallon Fleet and Family Services Domestic Violence Department • State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services • County Commissioner • Churchill County Social Services • Churchill County Juvenile Probation and Detention

Hearing proceedings for dependents takes approximately 24 months, but could be shortened if the system provided a voice and additional assistance to each youth. Currently our dependent youth have the opportunity to have legal representation appointed to them, but in most cases the attorneys assigned to these cases are overburdened and thus lack the time and in some case the expertise to fully represent the youth in a manner that truly expresses that youth's needs, wants and desires. Most youth within the court system are not sure of the process, their options, etc. which results in the youth being maintained in the foster care system far longer than necessary.

The goal of the court appointed advocates it to ensure all foster children have equal access to representation and have their needs met. This advocacy can assist in a more seamless process and in many cases reduce the time in foster care, currently at an average stay of 24 months. In a handful of cases youth have been maintained in foster care pending adoption, so they end up aging out with no complete process.

The State ofNevada Division of Child and Family Services works to appoint case workers to the cases, but at times this can be over 20 youth per worker, just for Churchill County, at a given point. With the increase of abuse and neglect cases the numbers continue to rise with no additional resources for the children. The program would allow for volunteers to be recruited and advocate for the youth as necessary to meet the needs of the dependents.

The proposal is to create a court advocacy program for the youth, such as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). The goal of the program is to obtain, train, appoint, and monitor a special advocate for each child in the care of the Division of Child and Family Services. ~ CASA of Churchill County c-.,._,CASA..... , _ ..,

Ill. Proposal Narrative

A. Description:

Our mission is to advocate for the best interests of children involved in the courts, primarily those who are victims of abuse and neglect.

We train and support community volunteers who provide quality advocacy to help assure each child is provided a safe, permanent, nurturing home.

The CASA of Churchill County Program proposes to:

Hire one full time Project Coordinator to recruit, train, and oversee ten court appointed volunteer special advocates.

The proposed program will located and overseen by the Tenth Judicial District and the Judge. The relation will allow for open conversation, timely appointment of volunteers, and direct monitoring by the court system.

B. Program I Issue:

Current hearing proceedings for dependents takes approximately 24 months, but could be shortened if the system provided a voice and additional assistance to each youth. Currently our dependent youth have the opportunity to have legal representation appointed to them, but in most cases the attorneys assigned to these cases are overburdened and thus lack the time and in some case the expertise to fully represent the youth in a manner that truly expresses that youth's needs, wants and desires. Most youth within the court system are not sure of the process, their options, etc. which results in the youth being maintained in the foster care system far longer than necessary.

Directly the Court Improvement Committee (CIC) has identified the need to reduce time for pennancy hearings. The CASA program will allow for advocate to monitor the calendar to shorter the timeframe of hearings, provide valuable information from the dependent and ensure vital timelines, appointments, and other infonnation is gathered to proceed in all hearings.

The goal is to provide all youth 18 and younger with an advocate. Currently 45 youth are dependents of the court.

Within six months of program implementation, July 1, 2014, a minimum of ten volunteer advocates will be recruited, trained and assigned dependent.

The goal is to further recruit advocates to address the need and limit cases loads.

Full Policies and Procedure Manual attached with outcomes

C. Program Description

Churchill County proposes to create a court advocacy program for the youth, such as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). The goal of the program is to obtain, train, appoint, and monitor a special advocate for each child in the care of the Division of Child and Family Services.

The request for funding is to support the implementation of the program. The program will require a full time Coordinator to conduct the following:

• Outreach to obtain volunteers • Training of the volunteers • Coordinating communication with the judicial system • Appointing volunteers based on case load • Maintaining all case files • Monitoring ongoing cases

The CASA program shall be located and managed by the Tenth Judicial District Court of Churchill County. Currently the Board of County Commissioners have approved the structure to appoint an overseeing Advisory Committee and Charter. The goal is to obtain funding to hire one FTE Project Coordinator that shall be supervised by the District Judge. CASA of Churchill County

Program Structure

Churchill County Board of County Commission

CASA Advisory Committee lOth Judical Judge

Court Administrator Program Coordinator CASA of Churchill County CASA~ c-.._ ..... s....: ... ~· ..

• Goals: 1. Obtain qualified FTE Project Coordinator 2. Recruit and train a minimum often qualified volunteer advocates 3. Court appoint special volunteer advocates to dependent your 18 years of age and younger • Target Population: 1. Dependent youth of the court 2. 18 years of age or younger • Service Area: 1. 10th Judicial District 2. Churchill County, Nevada • Proposed Project Staff: 1. 1 FTE Project Coordinator 2. 10 Volunteer Special Advocates • Collaboration for Proposed Project: 1. CIC Committee of Churchill County 2. Public Defenders 3. Division of Child and Family Services 4. Churchill County Juvenile Probation 5. Churchill County Social Services 6. Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribal Social Services 7. Churchill County District Attorney's Office 8. NAS Fallon Fleet and Family Services 9. Domestic Violence Intervention, Inc. CASA of Churchill County CASA~ c..,..-,. .. ,_s,...... ,.._.,.. rot Clll~DUH

.. D. Logic Model: Attached PROGRAM/INITIATIVE NAME: Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Churchill County

Driving Need for Project: Churchill County currently has 45 youth dependents of the court. Each youth is appointed a public defender, but has not current advocate to communicate to the courts their needs. The implementation of a national recognized volunteer program shall assist in obtaining, training and appointing volunteers of the commun ity to advocate for the youth and assisting in decreasing the stay in foster care.

Measurable Objectives: Obtain a minimum of 10 community volunteers to receive a 300 hours in special advocacy training to be appointed to 45 court dependent youth in Churchill County.

Target Population: Court dependent youth 18 and younger

lmoacts Creation of Policy Policy Manual Manual that detail practices and polices of the program Policy Manual

Policy manual Create and implement Plan to be developed Creation of recruitment plan for and implemented by Create interest for recruitment polices CASA volunteers the Program Director the Program by September 15, 2014 Policy manual Screen potential Screening process and 15 to 20 applicants Creation of CASA volunteers and applications designed selected for the application and accept applications by the Program training process screening polices Director by October 15h, 2014.

Create and implement I Program Director will 15 to 20 applicants training program create training program will begin the initial I Creation of training I Policy manual based on National 40 hour training program CASA standards and process will begin the training for potential CASA Volunteers by November 1st1h, 2014

Conduct training for Program Director will 10 applicants will 10 applicants will Program CASA Volunteer conduct a minimum of complete the 40 have the knowledge Implementation applicants 40 hours (as required hours of training and skill base by National CASA) of necessary to become CASA training for the CASA Volunteers prospective CASA Volunteers; training to be completed by December 15h, 2014.

10 applicants will be 1OthJudicial District 10 CASA Volunteers Implementation of the Program sworn in as CASA Court Judge by CASA program in Implementation Volunteers January 151, 2015 Churchill County

Each CASA Change in practices in CASA Volunteers will I 10 1h Judicial District Volunteer will be that each 4328 Increase the safety be assigned to cases Court Judge will begin assigned no more (Dependency) case and wellbeing of each assigning cases to than two cases at a will have a CASA youth assigned a CASA Volunteers in time, for a potential assigned to advocate CASA January, of 20 youth receiving on behalf the youth 2015. Program services at one time. and that youth's best Director will oversee interest. each case. PROGRAM/INITIATIVE NAME: Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA} of Churchill County

Driving Need for Project: Churchill County currently has ---- youth dependents of the court. Each youth is appointed a public defender, but has not current advocate to communicate to the courts their needs. The implementation of a national recognized volunteer program shall assist in obtaining, training and appointing volunteers of the community to advocate for the youth and assisting in decreasing the stay in foster care.

Measurable Objectives: Obtain a minimum of 10 community volunteers to receive a 300 hours in special advocacy training to be appointed to 45 court dependent youth in Churchill County.

Target Population: Court dependent youth 18 and younger

....., ~; •· ·)ProJect I Acti¥ities 11; ,;;"":,;.,··. Process .eS~.· ·,~,i;-,(~. ,; Ou~puts Outcofue_s · ' . Impacts Development of Manual to be Creation of Policy Policy Manual Policies and developed by the Manual that detail Procedures Manual Program Director and practices and polices for the Program approved by the of the program Advisory Board by Policy Manual August 301h, 2014 Policy manual Create and implement Plan to be developed Creation of recruitment plan for and implemented by Create interest for recruitment polices CASA volunteers the Program Director the Program by September 15, 2014 Policy manual Screen potential Screening process and 15 to 20 applicants Creation of CASA volunteers and applications designed selected for the application and accept applications by the Program training process screening polices Director by October 15h, 2014.

Create and implement Program Director will 15 to 20 applicants training program create training program will begin the initial I Creation of training I Policy manual based on National 40 hour training program CASA standards and process will begin the training for potential CASA Volunteers by November 1stth , 2014

Each CASA Change in practices in CASA Volunteers will I 1OthJudicial District Volunteer will be that each 4328 Increase the safety be assigned to cases Court Judge will begin assigned no more (Dependency) case and wellbeing of each assigning cases to than two cases at a will have a CASA youth assigned a CASA Volunteers in time, for a potential assigned to advocate CASA January, of 20 youth receiving on behalf the youth 2015. Program services at one time. and that youth's best Director will oversee interest. each case. CASA of Churchill County CASA~ e- ..W\..,-. ...

E. Evaluation Methodology: 1. August 1, 2014 • Hiring of Project Coordinator 2. August 30, 2014 • Revise and approve Polices and Procedures Manual 3. September 15, 2014 • Develop a volunteer recruitment plan 4. November 1, 2014 • Create and Implement Training Program for Special Advocate Volunteers 5. January 1, 2015 • Ten Special Advocate Volunteers will be recruited, trained, and sworn in by the Tenth Judicial Courts 6. January 1, 2016 • Reduce a minimum of 50% of dependents permancy hearing from 24 months to 18 months

Each item shall be evaluated based on the timeline. Barriers identified shall require additional collaboration with agencies, steering committee and Advisory Committee to overcome. At present no barriers have been identified or projected.

F. Sustainability Plan: Budget- Travel: Provided adequate funding for Project Coordinator and Specia l Advocate to travel to obtain training and make necessary visits to dependents and partners Technology: Obtain computer and proper licenses for case management software to track cases and create communication Cell Phones: Provide cell phones and service to Project Coordinator and up to ten Special Advocates during on call status Security: Obtain federal, State, and local background checks with proper finger printing for all staff and volunteers of program to meet National standards Media: Provide adequate media outreach to educate the community on the program and recruit volunteers. TV, Social Media, Posters, brochures, and information packets will be developed to meet National standards

Current Funding: No funding has been obtained to date. Pending Funding: 1. Federal application has been made to the State Community Development Block Grant Program- unofficial notice anticipated March 30, 2014 2. Foundation application has been prepared and will be submitted March 7, 2014 for the Hearst Foundation- anticipated award by June 30, 2014 CASA of Churchill County CASA~ c-"""...... ,;tto~o-..,_,.. ' ll l(ft·UU"

Future Suitability Plan:

As of January 2015 the CASA of Churchill County Program will be eligible for National CASA funding.

Additional renewal grants will be submitted to above agencies and additional funding sources will be researched 3. Budget Summary NEVADA COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSAL BUDGET SUMMARY

Applicant Name: Churchill County, Nevada

Project Name: Court Appointed Speical Advocates (CASA) of Churchill County

Amount of Cash I Revenue Received Funding Amount Category Total Project Costs In-Kind Match for from Other Funding Requested from CIP Each Category * Sources Volunteer Training and program participation $3,200 $0 $3,200 $0

Membership Fees $250 $0 $250 $0 Personnel Costs $58,911 $0 $0 $58,911 Cell Phone- Coordianator I Volunteer $2,400 $1 ,982 $0 $418 Technology I Equipment $1,700 $1 ,700 $0 $0 Copy I Printing $0 $0 $0 Postage $100 $0 $100 $0 Supplies $500 $0 $500 $0 Security- Background checks and finger prints $1,100 $1,100 $0 MEDIA- Public Awareness and $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0

Travel $3,218 $3,218 $0 $0

$0 $0 Total Budget $73,379 $10,000 $4,050 $59,329

*Approved applications will be required to document a 33.33% match of the CIP funded award amount. This match may be cash or in-kind time contributions. 4. Budget Narrative NEVADA COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PROPOSAL BUDGET NARRATIVE

Applicant Name: Churchill County, Nevada

Project Name: Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Churchill County

Budget Narrative:

CATAGORY Description CIP In-Kind Cash Other Funding - Sub-Totals Request Match/ Federal & County Foundation (PENDING) Volunteer Training 10 volunteers @ 40 $0 $3,200 $0 $0 $3,200 and program hours each @ $8.00 I participation- hour Volunteer hours Memberships National CASA $0 $0 $ 250 $0 $250 Membership Personnel Project Coordinator $0 $0 $0 $58,911 $58,911 $29.17 I hour FTE Cell Phone- Cell phone for $1,982 $0 $0 $418 $2,400 Coordinator I Coordinator and on-call Volunteer Volunteers 2@ $100 I mo. @ 12 months Technology I Case management $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $1,700 Equipment software License $500 Computer $1 ,200 Postage program $0 $ 100 $0 $0 $100 communication Supplies General office supplies $0 $ 500 $0 $0 $500 for operation Security Background and $ 1 '100 $0 $0 $0 $1 ,100 fingerprints for Program staff and volunteers 11 @ $100 each

Travel Staff and Volunteer $ 3,218 $0 $0 $0 $3,218 mileage for training and program participant outreach- 5500 miles @.58 I mile Media Public Awareness and $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 volunteer recruitment- TV I Posters I Radio/ Print Funding Totals $10,000 $3,800 $250 $59,329 $73,379 5. Proof of Liability Insurance NEVADA PUBLIC AGENCY INSURANCE POOL CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION issued to

Churchill Countv

The Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool (hereinafter NPAIP) certifies that the above-mentioned entity is a participating Member of NPAIP for the period beginning July 1, 2012 expiring July 1, 2013.

As a participating member, this entity is entitled to all the rights, privileges and protections and subject to all the duties and responsibilities under the lnterlocal Cooperative Agreement and Bylaws of NPAIP and the coverage forms issued by NPAIP.

The following coverage forms apply to NPAIP and its Members:

Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool Coverage Form: # NPAIP 201213

The lines of coverage and key limits of liability afforded to NPAIP members, subject to the coverage application and subject to additional sublimits as stated in the NPAIP Coverage Form, are summarized as follows:

Property/Crime/Equipment Breakdown

Blanket Limit per schedule of locations $ 300,000,000 per loss Sublimit for earthquake coverage $ 100,000,000 annual aggregate Sublimit for flood coverage $ 100,000,000 annual aggregate Sublimit for flood coverage zone A $ 10, 000,000 annual aggregate Sublimit for Equipment Breakdown, Boiler & Machinery $ 60,000,000 each accident Sublimit for Money & Securities including Dishonesty $ 500,000 each loss

Casualty

Bodily Injury, Property Damage, Personal Injury, Employment Based Benefits Administration, $10,000,000 per event Law Enforcement Activities, and Wrongful Acts $10,000,000 annual aggregate

Certain sublimits apply. All sublimits are a part of and not in addition to the Limits of Liability.

Participating member' s Maintenance Deductible of $50,000 for each and every loss and/or claim and/or event.

This certificate is not a contract of insurance and does not bind NPAIP as such. The coverages provided will be governed by the terms and conditions of NPAIP Coverage Form and by the lnterlocal Cooperative Agreement and Bylaws of NPAIP; and all claims, questions or disputes will be settled by reference to the same.

Wayne~ E~arJSO:,MBA>CPCUM Executive DirectOr CHURCHILL COUNTY SCHEDULE OF SUB-ENTITIES INCLUDED IN COUNTY'S COVERAGE

Road Commission Planning Commission Parks & Rec Commission Museum Board Library Board Fire Board Cemetery Board Board of Equalization Churchill County Senior Center CC Communications Churchill County Volunteer Fire Department 6. Certifications 1- 6 Administrative Office of the Courts/Nevada Supreme Court Court Improvement Program (CIP)

CERTIFICATION# 1

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions

Instructions for Certification

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which th is transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to whom this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed ci rcumstances.

4. The terms "covered transaction ", "debarred", "suspended", "ineligible", "lower tier covered transaction ", "participant", "person", "primary covered transaction", "principal", "proposal" and "voluntarily excluded", as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549: 45 CFR Part 76. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations or the definitions.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting th is proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, the prospective lower tier participant shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred , suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension , Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion- Lower Tier Covered Transactions" will be included, without modification , in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.

7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon the certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that the prospective participant is not debarred , suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless the participant in a covered transaction knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency of determining the eligibility of the principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List (of excluded parties).

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to requ ire establishment of a system of record s in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not requ ired to exceed that wh ich is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary cou rse of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under Paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in th is transaction, in addition to other

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevada Court Improvement Prog ram Certification #1 13 of 29 remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies , including debarment and/or suspension.

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions

(1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither the prospective participant or the prospective participant's principals is presently debarred, suspended , proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction by any Federal department or agency.

(2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

Suspension. An action taken by a suspending official in accordance with these regulations that immediately excludes a person from participating in a covered transaction for a temporary period, pending completion of an investigation and such legal, debarment, or Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act proceedings as may ensue. A person so excluded is "suspended".

Voluntary Exclusion or Voluntarily Excluded. A status of nonparticipation or limited participation in covered transactions assumed by a person pursuant to the terms of a settlement.

Chair BOCC Signature Title

Churchill County. Nevada Grantee Legal/Corporate Name Date

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevad a Court Improvement Program Certification #1 14 of 29 Administrative Office of the Courts/Nevada Supreme Court Court Improvement Program (CIP)

CERTIFICATION# 2

Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

Instructions for Certification

1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification set out below.

2. The certification set out below is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the agency, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

3. For grantees other than individuals, Alternate I applies.

4. For grantees who are ind ividuals, Alternate II applies.

5. Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known , they may be identified in the grant application. If grantee does not identify the workplace at the time of the application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in the office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requ irements.

6. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other areas where work under the grant take place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g. all vehicles of a mass authority of State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performance in concert halls or radio studios).

7. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the agency of the change(s) if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph five).

8. Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to the certification. Grantee's attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules:

Controlled substances means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S. C. #12) and as further defined by regulations (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15);

Conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of Nolo Contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both , by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statues;

Employee means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (I) All direct charge employees; (II) All indirect charge employees under their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and (Ill) Temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requ irement, consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of sub-recipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevad a Court Improvement Program Certifi cation #2 15 of 29 Alternate I -Grantees Other Than Individuals

The grantee certifies that it will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:

(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession , or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;

(b) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:

(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees or drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;

(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a) ;

(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will :

(1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction.

(e) Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under paragraph (d) (2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; (f) Taking one of the following actions, with in 30 calendar days of receiving notice under paragraph (d) (2), with respect to any employee who is convicted:

(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) , (d) , (e) and (f) .

(g) The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant:

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE:

73 North Maine Street Fallon Churchill Nevada 89406 STREET ADDRESS CITY COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE

Are there workplaces on file that are not identified [X YES NO here? D

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevada Court Improvement Program Certification #2 16 of 29 Alternate II -Grantees Who Are Individuals

(a) The grantee certifies that, as a condition of the grant, he or she will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of controlled substance in conducting any activity with the grant;

(b) If convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any grant activity, he or she wi ll report the conviction, in writing, within 10 calendar days of the conviction , to every grant officer or other designee, unless the Federal agency designates a central point for the receipt of such notices. When notice is made to such a central point, it shall include identification number(s) of each affected grant.

[55 FR 2160, 21702, May 25, 1990]

Chair, BOCC Signature Title

Churchill County, Nevada Grantee Legal/Corporate Name Date

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevada Court Improvement Prog ra m Certifi cation #2 17 of 29 Administrative Office of the Courts/Nevada Supreme Court Court Improvement Program (CIP)

CERTIFICATION# 3

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal , amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form 111, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with its instructions.

(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31 , U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Chair, BOCC Signature Title

Churchill C 0unty, Nevada Grantee Legal/Corporate Name Date

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevada Court Improvement Program Certification #3 18 of 29 Administrative Office of the Courts/Nevada Supreme Court Court Improvement Program (CIP)

CERTIFICATION #4

Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke

Public Law 103-227, Part C- Environmental Tobacco Smoke, also known as the Pro-Children Act of 1994 (ACT), requires that smoking not be permitted in any portion of any indoor facility owned or leased or contracted for by an entity and used routinely or regularly for the provision or health, day care, education, or library services to children under the age of 18, if the services are funded by Federal programs either directly or through State or local governments, by Federal grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee. The law does not apply to children's services provided in private residences, facilities funded solely by Medicare or Medicaid funds, and portions of facilities used for inpatient drug or alcohol treatment. Failure to comply with the provisions of the law may result in the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of up to $1 ,000 per day and/or the imposition of an administrative compliance order on the responsible entity.

By signing and submitting this application, the applicant/grantee certifies compliance with the requirements of the Act. The applicant/grantee further agrees that the language of this certification will be included in any sub-awards which contain provisions for children's services and that all sub-grantees shall certify accordingly.

Chair, BOCC Signature Title

Churchill County, Nevada Grantee Legal/Corporate Name Date

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevada Court Improvement Program Certification #4 19 of 29 Administrative Office of the Courts/Nevada Supreme Court Court Improvement Program (CIP)

CERTIFICATION# 5

Certification Regarding Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations

A final rule of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) went into effect on August 16, 2004, which created, among other things, a new Part 87 Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations, and revised the Department's uniform administrative requirements at 45 CFR Parts 74, 92 and 96 to incorporate the requirements of Part 87.

The Administration of Children and Families (ACF) is committed to providing State Administrators, State Grant Managers and subsequently sub grantees with the most accurate and concise information to help guide program activities. This regulation addresses several key Equal Treatment issues that require full compliance by Federally-funded State Programs, sub grantees, grantees and contractors.

Issues include:

• Nondiscrimination against religious organizations; • Ability of religious organizations to maintain their religious character, including the use of space in their facilities, without removing religious art, icons, scriptures, or other religious symbols; • Prohibition against the use of Federal funds to finance inherently relig ious activities, except where Federal funds are provided to religious organizations as a result of a genuine and independent private choice of a beneficiary or through other indirect funding mechanisms, such as certificates or vouchers; and • Application of State or local government laws to rel igious organizations.

NOTE: Neither the Department (DHHS) nor any State or local government and other intermediate organizations receiving funds under any Department (DHHS) program shall, in the selection of service providers, discriminate for or against an organization on the basis of the organization's rel igious character or affiliation.

It is imperative that State sub grantees, grantees and contractors policies reflect the Equal Treatment Regulations.

The full text of the final rule may be accessed via the Internet at http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/requlations/index. html

This certification is a material representation of fact upon wh ich reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by 45 CFR Part 87, Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations as revised in the Department's uniform Administrative requirements identified above. Any organization that fails to file the required certification shall be subject to disqualification of their application.

Chair, BOCC Signature Title

Churchill County, Nevada Grantee Legal/Corporate Name Date

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevad a Court Improvement Program Certification #5 20 of29 Administrative Office of the Courts/Nevada Supreme Court Court Improvement Program (CIP)

CERTIFICATION# 6

Certification of Assurances

The applicant certifies that: To the best of my knowledge and belief, information in this proposal is true and correct, the document has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant and applicant will comply with the following assurances if the assistance is approved.

1. The entity is a non-profit organization, or government agency, incorporated and qualified in the State of Nevada and has filed all required reports with the Secretary of State, OR, 2. The entity is an incorporated for-profit organization, qualified to conduct business in the State of Nevada. 3. The non-profit organization is governed by a board of trustees, which reflects the racial, ethnic, economic and social composition of the State of Nevada. 4. The entity has access to and can document a 33.33% match from sources other than the Federal Government, if applicable. 5. The entity requires employees, volunteers and trustees to maintain the confidentiality of any information , which would identify dependent children, parents of dependent children, or foster parents. 6. The entity provides services without any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, handicap, age, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry. 7. The entity will complete required financial reports, as well as a final performance report and will cooperate with the AOC regarding any financial audits or program reviews . The entity has workman's compensation coverage, and other proof of insurance as required, and has supplied the AOC with evidence of this coverage. 8. The entity has a research confidentiality policy that states that dependent children's and parents of dependent children's identity will not be released for research purposes.

Shannon, CCSS Director Name and Title Signature Date

Carl Erquiaga Chairperson of the Board Signature Date

AOC Certifications Dev. March 2009 Nevada Court Improvement Program Certification #6 21 of 29 7. Payee Registration Mail or fax to: STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE STATE OF NEVADA 555 E WASHINGTON AVE STE 4300 VENDOR REGISTRATION LAS VEGAS NV 89101-1071 PHONE: 702/486-3810 or 702/486-3856 FAX: 702/486-3813 All sections are mandatory and require completion. IRS Form W-9 will not be accepted in lieu of this form. 1. NAME For ro rietorshi , rovide ro rietor's name in first box and DBA in second box. Legal Business Name, Proprietor's Name or Individual's Name Doing Business As (DBA) Churchill County, NV

2. ADDRESS/CO NT ACT INFORMATION Address A - Physical address of Address B ~ Company Headquarters D Individual's Residence D Additional Remittance- PO Box, Lockbox or another physical Is this a US Post Office deliverable address? [!I Yes D No location. Address Address 155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110 Address Address

City I State I Zip Code City I State I Zip Code Fallon NV 89406 E-mail Address E-mail Address [email protected] Phone Number I Fax Number Phone Number I Fax Number 775-423-6028 775-423-7069 Primary Contact Primary Contact Kelly G. Helton

3. ORGANIZATION TYPE AND TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN) Check only one organization type and supply the appl icable Social Security Number (SSN) or Employee Identification Number (EIN). For proprietorship, provide SSN or EIN, not both. D Individual (SSN) D LLC tax classification: SSN D Sole Proprietorship (SSN or EIN) D Disregarded Entity D Partnership (EIN) D Partnership Name associated with SSN: D Corporation (EIN) D Corporation EIN ~ Government (EIN) 88-6000025 D Tax Exempt/Nonprofit (EIN) New TIN'? ~No DYes - Provide previous TIN & effective date. D Trust/estate (SSN or EIN) Previous TIN: Date:

D In-State (Nevada) D Nevada Business License Number: D DBE Certificate#:

4. ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER Per NRS 227, payment to all payees of the State of Nevada will be electronic. Complete the foiJowing information AND provide a copy of a voided imprinted check for the account. If there are no checks for the account, restate the bank information on company letterhead. Individuals may provide a signed letter. A deposit slip will not be accepted. For a savings account, provide a signed letter with the bank information. Information on this form and the support documentation must match. Allow I 0 working days for activation The information is for address ~ A DB 0Both Bank Name I Bank Account Type Provide an e-mail address for receiving Direct Deposit Remittance Wells Fargo Bank ~ Checking D Savings Ad vices. Transit Routing Number I Bank Account Number [email protected] 321270742 6091452914 D Do not have a bank account. 5. IRS FORM W-9 CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: I. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me), and 2. I am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding, and 3. I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (as defined by IRS Form W-9 rev January 2011).

KTLVEN-01 Rev071JI 8. Original Signed Application 9. Application Check List APPLICATION CHECKLIST

To ensure that you have included all of the following items in your proposal, please place a check mark next to each item listed below. The application should be assembled in the order in which these items are listed. Place this form at the back of the proposal packet.

Completed and Signed Cover Sheet

Proposal Executive Summary and Narrative

Completed Budget Summary and Narrative

Proof of Liability Insurance

Signed Certifications 1 thru 6

Payee Registration- Substitute Form IRS W-9

One Completed Application with Original Signatures

Application Checklist

Nevada Court Improvement Program Application Checklist 22 of 29 10. Letter of Support TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT 1 CHURCHILL COUNTY 73 NORTH MAINE STREET, SUITE B THOMAS L. STOCKARD STATE OF NEVADA DISTRJ CT JUDGE FALLON, NEVADA 89406 (775) 423-6088 FAX (775) 423-8578 February 11, 2014

Court Improvement Program Supreme Court of Nevada 201 S Carson St, Ste 250 Carson City, NV 89701

RE: Grant Application- Churchill County CASA Program

Dear Ms. Malzahn-Bass:

I am writing this letter to indicate my strong support for the development of a CASA program to assist the children of Churchill County. Since taking the bench in July, 2012 I have become heavily involved with Access to Justice. I currently serve on the Rural Concerns subcommittee as Chairman. In this capacity, I have become concerned about whether we as a community are providing our youngest litigants the necessary assistance and guidance to help them through the Court system and to provide them with the tools to become contributing members of society. Though in Churchill County we appoint attorneys, to assist with the legal representation, I have come to realize that are youth are in need of someone who can truly mentor and be there for them in a supportive role. CASA trained volunteers will certainly fill this gap.

I am fully supportive of the application for this grant and it is my intention to house the program's director in an office at the Court house to ensure he or she has the full cooperation and assistance of the Court as the program is developed and volunteers are trained in their duties.

This grant would allow us the opportunity to get this program off the ground. We appreciate your consideration of our application. ? ly,:>%

Thomas L. Stockard Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: # ______Date Submitted: 2-24-2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 6, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Shannon Ernst, Churchill County Social Services Tenth Judicial District Court Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Approval to submit grant application to the Hearst foundation for $60,000 to support the implementation of the CASA of Churchill County Program.

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance (__x__} Formal Action/Motion (__) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? NO

Recommended Board Action: I move to authorize the Director of Social Services to electronically submit the grant request of$60,000 to the Hearst Foundation

In January 2014 the National CASA accepted the letter of intent for development of the program and a grant totaling $70,066 was submitted to the Community Development Block Grant Program to assist the court youth dependents advocacy.

As of February 2014 Provisional Membership has been obtained and the committee is working to submit the full membership application to the National CASA.

The application has been drafted and is attached. At this time we would like to proceed in submittal and only accept the funds, if full funding is obtained to implement the program.

Fiscal Impact: $60,000 Grant I $0.00 County

Explanation of Impact: $60,000 to the Tenth Judicial District Court Budget to support implementation of the CASA of Churchill County Program.

Funding Source: Hearst Foundation

Prepared By: Shannon Ernst ~ Date: 2-24-14

Date:

Date: Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

Dashboard My Profile Logout

Please enter a Project Title below and click save in order to return to the application in the future. While not all fields are required for submission, they are required for our review process, so please complete this in full except where noted. L---~B~ac~k~~~ IL-__~ P~rin~t~~

GRANT INFORMATION

After entering Project Title, please immediately click save to create a record of your application in the system Project Title 0 2014-02-25 Churchill County Nevada Amount Requested $60,000.00 Implement a court appointed special advocate program for Churchill County, Nevada. The modeled volunteer Purpose of Grant/Goal 0 program will provide 10 volunteer advocates for up to 45 court dependent youth , along with mentoring and adult guidance.

PREVIOUS FUNDING

First Time "" y Grantee v es

PROPOSAL NARRATIVE

The proposal narrative is a critical part of our review process. Please use these headers to frame the various sections of your narrative: I) Executive Summary, II) Organizational History and Purpose, Ill) Statement of Need, and IV) Program Description. We encourage you to edit the document entirely before cutting and pasting in the below text field . Upon completion, please confirm that there is a blank line between each section.

Total character count should not exceed 18,000 (including spaces).

I) Executive Summary -Please summarize the key points of your proposal and describe the relevance of your request.

II) Organizational History and Purpose -Please tell us about the organization's history, mission, governing structure, staff size, principal activities, and major accomplishments. Please include evidence of client and community support

Ill) Statement of Need - Please identify the needs that the request addresses. Please substantiate your case with pertinent data, including detailed demographic information about the populations you seek to assist.

IV) Program Description• - Describe the program's activities.

-Document the size and characteristics of the population to be served by the program(s).

-Outline the strategy/methodology and timeline to be used in the development and implementation of the program(s).

-How does this program(s) enhance the existing services in the community?

*If the request is for general support, please use above questions in relation to broad organizational activities.

https:/ /hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordi... 2/25/2014 Grant Application Page 2 of6

Proposal I) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Narrative Churchill County implemented a Court Improvement Council, known as the CIC. The council has formed a membership to include, but is not limited to the following: • District Judge • Court Appointed Counsel • District Attorney's Office • Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribal Child and Social Services • NAS Fallon Fleet and Family Services Domestic Violence Department • State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services • County Commissioner • Churchill County Social Services • Churchill County Juvenile Probation and Detention (Letters of Support are on file)

During the CIC planning and program delivering discussions a factor was identified. Youth that have been removed from their homes and placed into the foster care system did not have a real voice in their court proceedings. There was gap of advocacy which has been not been provided to ensure youth are provided information and support to clearly express their wants and needs. Churchill County is located within the Tenth Judicial System and has 49 foster youth at the present time, survey in attachment 3. This is a growing number each year. Hearing proceedings for dependents takes approximately 24 months, but could be shortened if the system provided a voice and additional assistance to each youth. Currently our dependent youth have the opportunity to have legal representation appointed to them, but in most cases the attorneys assigned to these cases are overburdened and thus lack the time and in some case the expertise to fully represent the youth in a manner that truly expresses that youth's needs, wants and desires. Most youth within the court system are not sure of the process, their options, etc. which results in the youth being maintained in the foster care system far longer than necessary. The goal of the court appointed advocates it to ensure all foster children have equal access to representation and have their needs met. This advocacy can assist in a more seamless process and in many cases reduce the time in foster care, currently at an average stay of 24 months. In a handful of cases youth have been maintained in foster care pending adoption, so they end up aging out with no complete process. The State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services works to appoint case workers to the cases, but at times this can be over 20 youth per worker, just for Churchill County, at a given point. With the increase of abuse and neglect cases the numbers continue to rise with no additional resources for the children . The program would allow for volunteers to be recruited and advocate for the youth as necessary to meet the needs of the dependents. Churchill County proposes to create a court advocacy program for the youth , such as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). The goal of the program is to obtain, train , appoint, and monitor a special advocate for each child in the care of the Division of Child and Family Services. The request for funding is to support the implementation of the program. The program will require a full time Coordinator to conduct the following : • Outreach to obtain volunteers • Training of the volunteers • Coordinating communication with the judicial system • Appointing volunteers based on case load • Maintaining all case files • Monitoring ongoing cases

Churchill County has applied to the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association for full membership. Currently the County's Statement of Intent for membership has been approved (copy of letter in attachment 4). A steering Committee has been formed to ensure all aspects meet the program and community requirements and needs. The current estimate for final approval is April2014. The intent is to implement the program (if funded) July 1st, 2014. The committee would continue to develop the program to meet the standards during implementation.

II) ORGANIZATION HISTORY AND PURPOSE The CASA program shall be located and managed by the Tenth Judicial District Court of Churchill County. Currently the Board of County Commissioners have approved the structure to appoint an overseeing Advisory Committee and Charter. The goal is to obtain funding to hire one FTE Project Coordinator that shall be supervised by the District Judge. As outlined in section I, the Project Coordinator shall obtain , train , and appoint a minimum of 10 volunteers the first year. The overall goal of the program is to provide advocacy to all court dependents, with one volunteer per two youth. (Program Flow Chart Available)

To date the program accomplishments have been : 1. Obtain approval of structure and policies by Board of County Commissioners https://hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordi... 2/25/2014 Grant Application Page 3 of6

2. Obtain local support from Child and family Services, District Judge, Juvenile Probation , Social Services, Public defenders, and State and National CASA Association 3. Approval for Provisional Membership with the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association and have a pending application on file for full membership.

Our mission is to advocate for the best interests of children involved in the courts, primarily those who are victims of abuse and neglect. We train and support community volunteers who provide quality advocacy to help assure each child is provided a safe, permanent, nurturing home.

Ill) STATEMENT OF NEED

The Tenth Judicial District Court falls within Churchill County, Nevada. Currently over 45 dependents are a ward of the court and in are need of permanent placements. The appointment of a special advocate shall allow for the court to obtain vital information regarding the youth's needs, wants, and proceed to provide permanent placement to meet those needs in a more expedited manner The goal of the program is to reduce proceedings from 3 years to 18 months.

IV) PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The program shall obtain, train , appoint and monitor special volunteers over a minimum of 45 youth 18 and younger that are dependents of the court. The volunteer base to recruit shall be selected based on race, ethnicity and cultural backgrounds to advocate for the youth being served.

Proposed timeline: July 1, 2014 Hire Project Coordinator September 1, 2014 Obtain necessary training for accreditation October 1, 2014 Recruit volunteers January 1, 2015 Obtain necessary volunteer training for accreditation January 1, 2015 Appoint Volunteers to Cases

Currently Churchill County provides public defenders to all cases to work with the State Division of Child and family Services, but lacks the advocacy to obtain certain information to meet the youth's needs. This program will provide wrap around service coordination and the voice to be heard for the youth directly and report to the Court

EVALUATION I GOALS

Briefly describe your organization's Evaluation Process for the near-term and long-term, and how the results will be used by the organization. EVALUATION PROCESS The program during the first year shall be evaluated on the following : 1.Recruitment of necessary volunteers to meet the needs of the youth 2.Decrease of court dependency appointment (reduction of time to permanent hearing) Evaluation f) 3.0ngoing participation by supporting agencies: Process a.Division of Child and Family Services b.Social Services c.Juvenile Probation d.District Attorneys Office e.Public Defenders Please include findings from Previous Evaluations, if available. Previous ..,., . . Evaluation v NONE- lmplementalion projected as of July 1 , 2014

You will be asked to add three Benchmarks/Goals for the proposal at the bottom of the page.

DESCRIPTORS OF YOUR GRANT

Relating to your request for funding , please select the one or two most appropriate descriptions from the following fields. Population Served Disadvantaged/Underserved ;Multiply Challenged Age Group Children (1-12);Adolescents (13-18)

https://hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordl... 2/25/2014 Grant Application Page 4 of6

Program Area ~ SOCIAL SERVICE;Foster Care Ethnicity ~ General/Non-specific Other Ethnicity ~

FINANCIAL$

Please use exact figures, do not round . These figures should match the figures in the attached budgets and audits. If they do not, please explain in Notes on Financials. If you are a fundraising arm , please use the financials of the organization you support.

Date of Most ~ 02/11/2014 Current Fiscal Year Recent Audit ~ Audited Total Current Revenues $ $ 10,000 Assets$ ~ ~ Audited Total Current Expenses $ Liabilities $ Audited Total Projected Fiscal Year Revenues$ ~ Audited Operating Projected Revenues $ ~ $ 10,000 Revenues$ Audited Non Operating Projected Expenses $ ~ $ 70 ,066 Revenues$ Audited Total Program Budget $ 77 ,518 Expenses$ ~ $

Audited Operating Expenses$ Audited Non- Operating Expenses$

Operating ~ Reserves$ Notes on Financials ~ Implementation projected as FY14-15 (July 1, 2014)

~ State- Community Development Block Grant (PENDING) Funders State - Nevada Court improvement Program Please enter the most recent market value of organization's Institutional Endowment and prior two years on same date. Please specify date, e.g. 06/30/2011 , 06/30/2010 and 06/30/2009. If no endowment, please enter 0. Most Recent Date 06/03/2013 Most Recent$ Prior Year Date 02/11/2014 Prior Year$ 2 Years Ago Date 02/11/2014 2 Years Ago$

REVENUE SOURCES

Please use audit's Statement of Activities to calculate the percentage contribution of various revenue sources, as listed below. Total should equal 100%. If a required field is not applicable, please enter 0.

Private ~ Government % Contributions% 100 %

Earned Income % ~ Investments % ~ Tuition Fees % Please list below any other sources of revenue not indicated above. Other Revenue 1 ~ Grants Other Revenue % 100 % Other Revenue 2 ~ N/A Other Revenue %

EXPENSE ALLOCATION

Please use audit's Statement of Activities to calculate the percentage allocation of expenses, as listed below. Total should equal 100%. If a required field is not applicable, please enter 0. Program Expenses % 100 %

https:// hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordl... 2/25/2014 Grant Application Page 5 of6

Fundraising Expenses% Administrative Expenses%

FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS

If you are applying for Education, please complete the below information using official statistics on your institution. Please complete all applicable fields. If you are applying for funding in Culture, Health, or Social Services, please save now and proceed to the extreme bottom of the page to provide contact information.

FINANCIAL AID INFORMATION

Tuition$ Endowment for Financial Aid $ ~ Room and Board Endowment per Student$ ~ $ Average Financial Endowment Disbursements% ~ Aid Package$

ENROLLMENT

Enrollment Total # 45 Enrollment Ma!;, ~ 50 %

Enrollment Female% 50%

ETHNICITY ENROLLMENT

Total of all Ethnicity Enrollment fields should equal 100% African American 5 % % Asian/Pacific Islander% 2 % Caucasian% 40 % Hispanic/latino% 25 % Native American 25 % % Other% 3 %

POPULATION

low Income% ~ 100 % First Generation %

Non-Traditional% ~

FACULTY

Faculty Total# Faculty Male % Full-time Faculty Faculty Female % # 100 % Part-time Faculty #

https ://hearst.foundationconnect. org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication. aspx?Recordl... 2/25/2 0 14 Grant Application Page 6 of6

FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS (COMPLETE THE SECTIONS BELOW) Undergraduate# Full-time %

Graduate# Part-time % Retention % Minority Retention Rate %

GRADUATION RATE

Graduation Rate Minority Graduation Rate 4yrs% 4yrs% Graduation Rate Minority Graduation Rate Syrs% Syrs%

Graduation Rate Minority Graduation Rate 6yrs% 6yrs%

Average Years to Graduate#

SYSTEM INFORMATION

Request ID 14-87407 Organization Name Churchill County, Nevada L---~B~ac~k~~~ LI --~P~ri~nt~~ CONTACT ROLE

All applicants need to complete this section to identify the leader of the organization. To add contacts, click New. This will display a separate screen where you can search for contacts and add new ones. Action Contact Name Organization Name Role I Shannnon Ernst Churchill County, Nevada Program or Project Lead I Wade Carner Churchill County, Nevada Executive Leadership (non-specific) I

ATTACHMENTS

Organizational Budget.pdf

Corporate and Foundation Funding.pdf

Board Member lnformation.pdf

IRS Documentation.pdf

Institutional Endowment Report.pdf

https :// hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication. aspx?Recordl... 2/25/20 14 Grant Application Page 1 of 6

Dashboard My Profile Logout

L____ B_ ac_k__ ~ ] ~I ____P _ri_nt__ ~

GRANT INFORMATION

After entering Project Title, please immediately click save to create a record of your application in the system Project Title 0 2014-02-25 Churchill County Nevada Amount $60,000.00 Requested Implement a court appointed special advocate program for Churchill County, Nevada. The modeled volunteer Purpose of program will provide 10 volunteer advocates for up to 45 court dependent youth , along with mentoring and adult Grant/Goal 0 guidance.

PREVIOUS FUNDING

First Time .,., y Grantee v es

PROPOSAL NARRATIVE

Total character count should not exceed 18,000 (including spaces).

I) Executive Summary -Please summarize the key points of your proposal and describe the relevance of your request.

Ill) Statement of Need -Please identify the needs that the request addresses. Please substantiate your case with pertinent data, including detailed demographic information about the populations you seek to assist.

IV) Program Description• - Describe the program's activities.

- Document the size and characteristics of the population to be served by the program(s).

-Outline the strategy/methodology and timeline to be used in the development and implementation of the program(s).

- How does this program(s) enhance the existing services in the community?

*If the request is for general support, please use above questions in relation to broad organizational activities.

https:// hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordl... 2/25/2014 Grant Application Page 2 of6

Proposal I) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Narrative Churchill County implemented a Court Improvement Council, known as the CIC. The council has formed a membership to include, but is not limited to the following : • District Judge • Court Appointed Counsel • District Attorney's Office • Fallon Pa iute Shoshone Tribal Child and Social Services • NAS Fallon Fleet and Family Services Domestic Violence Department • State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services • County Commissioner • Churchill County Social Services • Churchill County Juvenile Probation and Detention (Letters of Support are on file)

During the CIC planning and program delivering discussions a factor was identified. Youth that have been removed from their homes and placed into the foster care system did not have a real voice in their court proceedings. There was gap of advocacy which has been not been provided to ensure youth are provided information and support to clearly express their wants and needs. Churchill County is located within the Tenth Judicial System and has 49 foster youth at the present time, survey in attachment 3. This is a growing number each year. Hearing proceedings for dependents takes approximately 24 months, but could be shortened if the system provided a voice and additional assistance to each youth. Currently our dependent youth have the opportunity to have legal representation appointed to them, but in most cases the attorneys assigned to these cases are overburdened and thus lack the time and in some case the expertise to fully represent the youth in a manner that truly expresses that youth's needs, wants and desires. Most youth within the court system are not sure of the process, their options, etc. which results in the youth being maintained in the foster care system far longer than necessary. The goal of the court appointed advocates it to ensure all foster children have equal access to representation and have their needs met. This advocacy can assist in a more seamless process and in many cases reduce the time in foster care , currently at an average stay of 24 months. In a handful of cases youth have been maintained in foster care pending adoption, so they end up aging out with no complete process. The State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services works to appoint case workers to the cases, but at times th is can be over 20 youth per worker, just for Churchill County, at a given point. With the increase of abuse and neglect cases the numbers continue to rise with no additional resources for the children . The program would allow for volunteers to be recruited and advocate for the youth as necessary to meet the needs of the dependents. Churchill County proposes to create a court advocacy program for the youth, such as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). The goal of the program is to obtain, train , appoint, and monitor a special advocate for each child in the care of the Division of Child and Family Services. The request for funding is to support the implementation of the program. The program will requ ire a full time Coordinator to conduct the following : • Outreach to obtain volunteers • Training of the volunteers ·Coordinating communication with the judicial system • Appointing volunteers based on case load • Maintaining all case files • Monitoring ongoing cases

II) ORGANIZATION HISTORY AND PURPOSE The CASA program shall be located and managed by the Tenth Judicial District Court of Churchill County. Currently the Board of County Commissioners have approved the structure to appoint an overseeing Advisory Committee and Charter. The goal is to obtain funding to hire one FTE Project Coordinator that shall be supervised by the District Judge. As outlined in section I, the Project Coordinator shall obtain, train , and appoint a minimum of 10 volunteers the first year. The overall goal of the program is to provide advocacy to all court dependents, with one volunteer per two youth. (Program Flow Chart Available)

To date the program accomplishments have been : 1. Obtain approval of structure and policies by Board of County Commissioners https:/ /hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordl... 2/25/2014 Grant Application Page 3 of6

2. Obtain local support from Child and family Services, District Judge, Juvenile Probation, Social Services, Public defenders, and State and National CASA Association 3. Approval for Provisional Membership with the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association and have a pending application on file for full membership.

Ill) STATEMENT OF NEED

IV) PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

EVALUATION I GOALS

Briefly describe your organization's Evaluation Process for the near-term and long-term, and how the results will be used by the organization. EVALUATION PROCESS The program during the first year shall be evaluated on the following : 1.Recruitment of necessary volunteers to meet the needs of the youth 2.Decrease of court dependency appointment (reduction of time to permanent hearing) Evaluation €) 3.0ngoing participation by supporting agencies: Process a.Division of Child and Family Services b.Social Services c.Juvenile Probation d.District Attorneys Office e. Public Defenders Please include findings from Previous Evaluations, if available. Previous """ . . Evaluation v NONE - Implementation projected as of July 1 , 2014

You will be asked to add three Benchmarks/Goals for the proposal at the bottom of the page.

DESCRIPTORS OF YOUR GRANT

Relating to your request for funding , please select the one or two most appropriate descriptions from the following fields. Population Served Disadvantaged/Underserved;Multiply Challenged Age Group Children (1-12);Adolescents (13-18)

https:/ /hearstfoundationconnectorg/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordl... 2/25/2014 Grant Application Page 4 of6

Program Area ~ SOCIAL SERVICE;Foster Care Ethnicity ~ General/Non-specific Other Ethnicity ~

FINANCIAL$

Please use exact figures, do not round . These figures should match the figures in the attached budgets and audits. If they do not, please explain in Notes on Financials. If you are a fundraising arm, please use the financials of the organization you support.

Date of Most ~ 02/11/2014 Current Fiscal Year f) Recent Audit Audited Total Current Revenues $ f) $ 10,000 Assets$ ~ Audited Total Current Expenses $ Liabilities $

Audited Total Projected Fiscal Year Revenues$ ~

Audited Operating Projected Revenues $ f) $ 10,000 Revenues$ Audited Non Operating Projected Expenses $ f) $ 70 ,066 Revenues$ Audited Total Program Budget$ f) $ 77 ,518 Expenses$ Audited Operating Expenses$ Audited Non- Operating Expenses$

Operating ~ Reserves$ Notes on Financials ~ Implementation projected as FY14-15 (July 1, 2014)

~ State- Community Development Block Grant (PENDING) Funders State - Nevada Court improvement Program Please enter the most recent market value of organization's Institutional Endowment and prior two years on same date. Please specify date, e.g . 06/30/2011 , 06/30/2010 and 06/30/2009. If no endowment, please enter 0. Most Recent Date 06/03/2013 Most Recent$ Prior Year Date 02/11/2014 Prior Year$ 2 Years Ago Date 02/11/2014 2 Years Ago$

REVENUE SOURCES

Earned Income % ~ Investments % f) Tuition Fees % Please list below any other sources of revenue not indicated above. Other Revenue 1 f) Grants Other Revenue % 100 % Other Revenue 2 f) N/A Other Revenue %

EXPENSE ALLOCATION

https :/ /hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordl _.. 2/25/20 14 Grant Application Page 5 of6

Fundraising Expenses %

Administrative Expenses %

FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS

FINANCIAL AID IN FORMA liON

Tuition$ Endowment for Financial Aid $ 0 Room and Board Endowment per Student$ $ 0 Average Financial Endowment Disbursements % Aid Package $ 0

ENROLLMEN T

Enrollment Total # 45

Enrollment Ma!;, O 50 %

Enrollment Female% 50 %

ETHNICITY ENROLLMENT

Total of all Ethnicity Enrollment fields should equal1 00% African American 5 % % Asian/Pacific Islander % 2 % Caucasian % 40 % Hispanic/Latina % 25 % Native American 25 % % Other % 3 %

POPULATION

Low Income % 0 100 % First Generation % Non-Traditional % 0

FACULTY

Fa culty Total# Faculty Male % Full-time Faculty # Faculty Female% 100 % Part-time Faculty #

https ://hearstfoundati onconnect.org/GrantsManager/ pages/GrantApplication. aspx?Recordl __ _ 2/25/20 14 Grant Application Page 6 of6

FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS (COMPLETE THE SECTIONS BELOW) Undergraduate# Full-time% Graduate# Part-time % Retention% Minority Retention Rate %

GRADUATION RATE

Graduation Rate Minority Graduation Rate 4yrs% 4yrs% Graduation Rate Minority Graduation Rate Syrs% Syrs% Graduation Ra te Minority Graduation Rate 6yrs% 6yrs% Average Years to Graduate#

SYSTEM INFORMATION

Request ID 14-87407 Organization Churchill County, Nevada Name ~--~B~ac~k--~j ~~--~P~rin~t~~ CONTACT ROLE

ATTACHMENTS

Organizational Budget.pdf

Corporate and Foundation Funding. pdf

Board Member Information. pdf

IRS Documentation.pdf

Institutional Endowment Report. pdf

https:// hearst.foundationconnect.org/GrantsManager/pages/GrantApplication.aspx?Recordi... 2/25/2014 ATTACHMENTS SUBMITTED PROPOSAL BUDGET SUMMARY

Applicant Name: Churhcill County, Nevada

Project Name: Court Appointed Speical Advocates (CASA) of Churchill County

Funding Amount Amount of Cash I Revenue Received Category Total Project Costs Requested from In-Kind Match for from Other Funding Endowment Each Category * Sources Volunteer Training and program participation $3,200 $0 $3,200 $0

Membership Fees $250 $0 $250 $0

Personnel Costs $58,911 $58,911 $0 $0

Cell Phone $1 ,500 $1,089 $411 $0 Technology I Equipment $1 ,700 $0 $0 $1 ,700

Copy I Printing $0 $0 $0 Postage $100 $0 $100 $100

Supplies $500 $0 $500 $500 Security- Background checks and finger prints $1 '100 $0 $0 $1 '100 MEDIA- Public Awerness and $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000

Travel $3,218 $0 $0 $3,218 Program Administration $9,000 $9,000 $0 Total Budget $81,479 $60,000 $13,461 $8,618

*Currently applying for additional funding for year one implementation CASA~ (OU<'I Appaitm!d ~ial AdwocaTel FOI CMilOIUt CASA of Churchill County

February 25, 2014

Churchill County and the CASA Program have not obtain Foundation grants to date. ~ CASA Cour1~Soeek11Acto«om ,0. C"llOUM CASA of Churchill County Organizational Chart

Churchill County Board of County Commission

CASA Advisory Committee 10th Judical Judge

Court Administrator Program Coordinator

Volunteers CASA of Churchill County

Steering Committee- Development

Churchill County District Court

• Honorable Judge Stockard • Sue Sevon, Court Administrator Churchill County Public Defenders

• Jacob Sommer

Appointed Counsel

• Robert Erquiaga

District Attorney's Office

• Wade Carner

Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribal Child and Social Services

• Rochanne Downs or a another designated Representative

NAS Fallon Fleet and Family Services Domestic Violence Department

• Andrea Inman • State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services

• Kelli Weishaupt

County Commissioner

• Commissioner Bus Scharmann

Churchill County Social Services

• Shannon Ernst

Churchill County Juvenile Probation and Detention

• Tami Richardson

Ad Hoc Member

• DeVere Karlson CASA of Chu rchill County

Board of County Commissioners

Carl Erquiaga Chair Pete Olsen Commissioner Bud Scharmann Commissioner

Advisory Committee

Chu rchill County elected official I designated representative- Bus Scharmann, Commissioner

A Member of the District Attorney Office- Wade Carner, Civil DA

1 District Judge I designated representative- Honorable Thomas Stockard, 10 h Judicial District Judge

Youth Service Agency- Kelli Weishaupt, Director of Division of Child and Family Services

County Public Defender(s) I Appointed Counsel- VACANT {Pending appointment) TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT 1 CHURCHILL COUNTY 73 NORTH MAINE STREET, SUITE B THOMAS L. STOCKARD STATE OF NEVADA DISTRICT JUDGE FALLON, NEVADA 89406 (775) 423-6088 FAX (775) 423-8578 February 11, 2014

The Hearst Foundation 90 New Montgomery Street Suite 1212 San Francisco, California 94105

RE: Grant Application -Churchill County CASA Program

Dear Hearst Foundation:

This grant would allow us the opportunity to get this program off the ground. We appreciate your consideration of our application.

Sincerely, d5% Thomas L. Stockard Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: # ______Date Submitted: Agenda Date Requested: 03/07/14

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Marie Henson, Building Department Subject-Title: Consideration and possible action re: First reading- Bill2014-A, Ordinance #71. An ordinance making corrections, deletions, additions, and minor revisions to Title 13 Water and Sewer, Sections 13.02.010 through 13.04.1060 and Sections 13.05.110 through 13.05.1110

Type of Action Requested: (check one) L_) Resolution (__x__)Ordinance (__) Formal Action/Motion (_) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: Motion to set a public hearing April 6, 2014 to consider Bi112014-A

Discussion: Proposed changes as follows;

Title 13 Water and Sewer

Water Service

02.010 General Provisions & 04.090 Definitions Various changes in language to reflect that there is no longer an Engineering & Capital Projects Manager. Reference to that position and office have been deleted and replaced with appropriate County designees.

04.220 Notices From Customers Remove references to the Engineering and Capital Projects Department and replace it with Churchill County Managers office.

04.300 Rates And Charges For Domestic, Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation Service. Increase monthly base rates and water use charges to help meet increased costs of providing service and to align the rates and charges closer to other utility providers. Add language to provide for an automatic annual rate increase of 2.5% to meet rising costs of providing service.

04.320 Charges For Combined Service Add language to refer to section 13 .04.390-G, Connection Privilege Fee For New Connections, for clarification.

The submission of this agenda report by county officials is not intended, necessarily, to reflect agreement as to a particular course of action to be taken by the board; rather, the submission hereof is intended, merely, to signify completion of all appropriate review processes in readiness of the matter for consideration and action by the board. 04.330 Charges For Construction Water Add language to clarify application, billing, and valve security issues. Increase the monthly fee and water use charge to reflect increased costs of providing this service.

04.340 Monthly Standby Fee Charged Add language to clarify what parcels are assessed standby fees. Add a late fee of 1.5% interest for all outstanding balances.

04.350 Rate Adjustments Delete unnecessary language for clarification.

04.360 Security Deposit For Service Increased amount of deposit bringing it closer to actual costs. Delete language to match current practices regarding interest paid on deposits and letters of credit. Add language to allow exemptions of required deposits in special circumstances.

04.370 Charges For Disconnection, Reconnection, Account Transfer And Special Reading Increase fees to meet actual manpower costs when disconnection and reconnection is required. Inserted language to allow exemption of disconnect fee in a special circumstance.

04.390 Connection Privilege Fee For New Connections Increase fees to reflect the need for future funding for water system storage and well back-up.

04.400 Charges For Service Connection Installation Remove references to Engineering Department and replace it with Churchill County. Increase fees to reflect the actual installation costs of equipment and manpower.

04.410 Plan Checking And Inspection Fee Remove references to Engineering Department and replace it with Building Department.

04.420 Reactivation Of Inactive Service Connections Change language to be consistent with other areas of the code.

04.4 70 Discontinuance Charges Change language to be consistent with other areas of the code. Increase fees to meet actual manpower costs when disconnection is required.

04.480 Fee For Disconnection At Main Change language to be consistent with other areas of the code.

04.590 Delinquent Accounts; Processing Fee Increased late fee to reflect additional costs when billing and collecting late payments.

04.680 Uniform Payment Plan Deleted this section to be consistent with current practices and the inability to administer.

04.730 Generally (Service Application) Change language to match current practices.

04.740 Existing Service Connection Change language to match current practices.

04. 900 Installation Of County Facilities By A Developer & 04.950 Backflow Prevention Assembly & 04.1 040 Oversized Main Extensions & 04.1060 Requirements Various changes in language to reflect that there is no longer an Engineering & Capital Projects Manager. Reference to that position and office have been deleted and replaced with appropriate County designees.

SEWER SERVICE

05.110 Terms Defined & 05.180 Notices From Customers & 05.190 Adjustment of Complaints Various changes in language to reflect that there is no longer an Engineering & Capital Projects Manager. Reference to that position and office have been deleted and replaced with appropriate designees.

05.260 User Charge Rate Change language to be consistent with other areas of the code.

05 .310 All County Service Areas Increase monthly base rate to help meet increased costs of providing service and to align the rate closer to other utility providers. Remove references to Engineering Department and replace it with County.

05 .320 Senior Citizen Discount Program Deleted this section as it is not consistent with current practices and the inability to administer.

05 .350 Standby Fee Add language to clarify what parcels are assessed standby fees. Add a late fee of 1.5% interest for all outstanding balances.

05.360 Rate Adjustments Replaced this section with a new policy for automatic annual rate increases of2.5%.

05 .370 Connection Charges Change the fee structure to show two separate sewer service areas. The separation and differing fees are based upon the anticipated capital improvement expenditures and maintenance requirements in each area. Remove references to Engineering Department and replace it with County. Change language to be consistent with other areas of the code. Increase fee per fixture unit.

05 .390 Wastewater Inspection Certificate And Monitoring Fees Increase fees to reflect the actual installation costs of equipment and manpower.

05.400 Inspection And Plan Check Fee Remove references to Engineering and Capital Projects Department and replace it with County.

05.450 Delinquent Accounts Clarified language

05.470 Clarified language Add language to allow exemption of processing fee in special circumstances.

05.490 Bills Due When Presented Change language to be consistent with other areas of the code.

05.500 Delinquent Accounts; Processing Fee Increased late fee amount to reflect additional costs when billing and collecting late payments.

05.610 Deferred Payment Deleted this section as it is not consistent with current practices and the inability to administer.

05.780 Administration & 05.800 Discharges Prohibited From Sanitary Sewers & 05.810 Administration; Determination Of Prohibited Discharge & 05.820 Prohibition On Unpolluted Water & 05 .830 Exclusions From Storm Sewers And Drains & 05.840 Exclusions From Sanitary Sewers & 05.850 Septic Tank Waste & 05 .860 Limitations On Use Of Garbage Grinders, Wash Racks, Required Use Of Grease Traps And Interceptors & 05.870 Limitations On Wastewater Strength & 05.890 Revision Of Wastewater Regulations & 05.900 Accidental Spill/Discharge & 05 .950 Certificate For Industrial/Commercial Dischargers & 05 .960 Certificate Application & 05.970 Terms And conditions & 05.990 Monitoring Facilities, Reports And Access By Industrial Waste Inspector & 05.1000 Inspection & 05.1010 Pretreatment Of Sewage & 05.1020 Monitoring Equipment Construction And Report Requirements & 05.1030 Enforcement Authority & 05.1040 Violation Notice & 05 .1050 Cease And Desist Order & 05.1060 Enforcement Procedures & 05.1070 Appeals & 05.1080 Damage To Facilities & 05.1100 Termination Of Service Various changes in language to reflect that there is no longer an Engineering & Capital Projects Manager. Reference to that position and office have been deleted and replaced with appropriate designees.

Fiscal Impact: Increase of revenues received

Explanation of Impact: Fee increases

Funding Source:

Prepared By: Marie Henson Date: 1127/14

ReviewedBy: ~ Ld.c-~ Date: Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: ---=4t~IJ'-T----'L-{L-+--y

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

Agenda Item: # ______Date Submitted: 02/24/2014 Agenda Date Requested: 03 /07/2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Michael K Johnson, Planning-Director Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Request to appoint the Planning Director as the acting Code Enforcement Officer, authorizing him to impose fines, fees, and other assigned duties to the Code Enforcement Officer..

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance (XX) Formal Action/Motion (_) Other - Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: Motion to appoint the Planning Director, Michael K Johnson, as the acting Code Enforcement Officer when the current Code Enforcement Officer retires; authorizing him to impose fines, fees and other duties assigned to the Code Enforcement Officer.

Discussion: Currently our Code Enforcement Official has the authority to impose fines and fees for violations of the Churchill County Code which do not fall under the duties of the Sheriff's office, Fire Marshal, and Fire Chiefs responsibilities. Our current Code Enforcement Official will be retiring by April 1, 2014. The Board of County Commission should authorize a person to act as the Boards designee to have this authority to impose citations, fines, fees and to handle abatements. Without authorization we cannot assess penalties for violations or enforce abatement procedures. Churchill County Code Title 1.12.010.3 defines enforcement officials including the code enforcement officer. Title 1.12.020.1A lists the administrative enforcement authority and the powers granted to the code enforcement official. Title 1.12.020 .1 B States the Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for the enforcement of all provisions of this code except where any other entity of County government or law enforcement has been expressly deemed exclusively responsible for such enforcement activity. Title 1.12.030.7 discusses administrative citations and fines and the authority of the code enforcement official. Title 1.12.050 discusses fines including amounts and procedures. Title 1.12.030.1 gives the Code Enforcement Officer the authority to issue and recover administrative fees as set forth in the administrative fee schedule passed by resolution by the Board of County Commissioners. Title 8.06.010 discusses dangerous structures and conditions defined. Title 8.06.010 also states that, "any enforcement official appointed by the Churchill County Commission who enforces building codes, zoning ordinances or local health regulations, or is a member of the local law enforcement agency or the fire marshal, fire chief or his designee." Enforcement Officials need to be appointed as the designee of the Board of County Commissioners, therefore, I am asking for them to appoint Michael K Johnson to have the authority assigned to the code enforcement official.

Fiscal Impact: n/a

Explanation of Impact: n/a

Prepared By: Michael K. Johnson Date: 02/24/2014

Reviewed By: ~~ i_A_x_· ft~vo!J Date: Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date:

Date: Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

Board Action Taken: Motion: ______1) ______Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

Agenda Item: # ______Date Submitted: 02/24/2014 Agenda Date Requested: 03/07/2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Michael K Johnson, Planning-Director Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Request from Simmie Dee Travis to extend time lines on presentation of final maps for the El Rancho PUD per the Development Agreement approved in November 2008, Bill2008-I Ordinance 103. APNs: 008-263-14, 18, and 21 consisting of 100.71± acres with 39.62± acres ofwater rights. Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance (XX) Formal Action/Motion L_) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: Motion to approve the request for a three year extension for presentation of final maps for the El Rancho PUD, APNs: 008-263-14, 18, and 21, until February 28, 2017

Discussion: The Board approved the tentative map for El Rancho Planned Unit Development on November 3, 2005 and granted a one-year extension until November 3rd 2008. On November 6, 2008 the Board approved Bill 2008-I Ordinance 103 , a Development Agreement between Don and Simmie Travis, El Rancho PUD and Churchill County for the El Rancho Planned Unit Development. The Development Agreement required the developer to submit a First Final Map to the County by October 2009. The Development Agreement also allowed for further extensions upon request from the developer. Upon request from the developer, the Board granted a one-year extension in October 2009, and in October of2010 the Board granted a three-year extension. Attached is a letter from the Developers requesting a further extension of time (3-years) since the facts and circumstances that prevailed on August 2008 have not changed over the past five years. (The development is located east of Moody Lane and south of Wade Lane, T19N, R28E, Section 24.) Letter and Maps are attached.

Fiscal Impact: n/a

Explanation of Impact: n/a

Funding Source: n/a

Prepared By: Michael K. Johnson Date: 02/19/2014

Reviewed By? ~~ L dt v!:X7VcJ Date: {). / 'J.f!l / ';)JJ I y Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: ------Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

. :i 1- 2 : 8

(

Proposed Developments R ECElV E TRAVIS RANCH FEB 1 3 2014 P.O. Box 1622 CHURCl11LL C/J. FALLON , NV 89407-1622 PLANNING Ot!flT. (775) 423-4451 - FAX: (775) 423-1481

February 10, 20 14

Churchill County Board of Commissioners I 55 North Taylor Street, Suite II 0 Fall on, NV 89406

RE: El Rancho PUD Tentati ve Map Ex tension between Churchill CouEnty and l Rancho Per the Development Agreement (Bill 2008-1 , Ord I 03)

Honorabl e Commissioners:

On November I, 20 13, the El Rancho Estates PUD development agreement (Bill 2008-1) was due to expire. Three years ago, Churchill County had extended the El Rancho Estates development agreement for us in hope the economy woul d improve and the development would become viable. As you all understand, thi s has not been the case to date. There;lW"e are asking fo r a three-year extension, si nce the housing market and housing prices are below what is needed to warrant the increasing prices to construct the necessary infrastructure, and lenders fo r on-site improvements are not currently avail abl e.

As you know, home prices are on the rebound nati onall y, and hopefull y Churchill County will fo ll ow suit in the near future.

Please excuse the delay in thi s request. We are unaware of receivin g noti ce of the expirati on of the extension, however, I recentl y received a phone call from the Pl ann ing Department alerting me to thi s matter.

Sincerely,

Simmie Dee Travis Travis Ranch Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: #______Date Submitted: 02/24114 Agenda Date Requested: 03/07/2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Churchill County Planning Commission Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: A Division Into Large Parcels Map for APN: 004- 431-06 owned by New Nevada Lands (TCID 13-000) (Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 29 East, on the Lovelock Highway) Type of Action Requested: (check one) ~ Resolution ~ Ordinance ~Formal Action/Motion L__) Other- Informational Only Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No.

Recommended Board Action: Motion to approve the New Nevada Lands Division Into Large Parcels Map for APN: 004-431-06 (TCID 13-000) (Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 29 East, on the Lovelock Highway) subject to Acquisition of an encroachment permit from Nevada Department of Transportation if required; and Compliance with Churchill County Code.

Discussion: Applicant would like to divide a 658.67 acre, non-water righted parcel on the Lovelock Highway into two parcels. The parcel west of Highway 95 will be 142.87 acres and the parcel east of Highway 95 will be 515.80 acres. The Union Pacific Railroad goes through both parcels. Water right dedication is not required because the parcel is not in Hydrographic Basin 101. Nevada Department of Transportation and the Union Pacific Railroad were asked to review and comment on the map and no correspondence was received.

The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the map.

Fiscal Impact:

Explanation of Impact:

Funding Source:

Prepared By: Michael K. Johnson Date: 02/21 /2014

Reviewed By: U~ Wu.xro} Date: tlQ / ?..S-{;2LJI 4 Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

~ ~ (]f.~{ Date: !(L f/!Y Ch~ 1 County Deputy District Attorney

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

004-431-023 004-431 -024

004-411 -023 004-431 -031 004-431 -030 004-431-029

) . Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: # ______Date Submitted: 02/24114 Agenda Date Requested: 03/07/2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Churchill County Planning Commission Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: A Division Into Large Parcels Map for APN: 004- 431-21 owned by New Nevada Lands (TCID 13-000) (Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 29 East, on the Lovelock Highway) Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance UL) Formal Action/Motion (_) Other- Informational Only Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No.

Recommended Board Action: Motion to approve the New Nevada Lands Division Into Large Parcels Map for APN: 004-431-21 (TCID 13-000) (Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 29 East, on the Lovelock Highway) subject to Acquisition of an encroachment permit from Nevada Department of Transportation if required; Maintenance of the 60' existing public roadway on the south boundary of Parcel 1; and Compliance with Churchill County Code.

Discussion: Applicant would like to divide a 602.28 acre, non-water righted parcel on the Lovelock Highway into two parcels. Both parcels are primarily east of the highway; the north parcel will be 383.71 acres and the south parcel will be 218.57 acres. Water right dedication is not required because the parcel is not in Hydrographic Basin 101. Nevada Department ofTransportation and the Union Pacific Railroad were asked to review and comment on the map and no correspondence was received. The existing public roadway on the south boundary of Parcel 1 is not county maintained.

The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the map.

Fiscal Impact:

Explanation of Impact:

Funding Source:

Prepared By: Michael K. Johnson Date: 02/24/2014

Reviewed By: 1£~ biu..:::JJC:C.fJ Date: ~ - :2S-;;4z;l f.; Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: ..!-~ t;/tf

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

Agenda Item: # ______Date Submitted: 2/27114 Agenda Date Requested: 03 /06114

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Benjamin D. Shawcroft, Civil Deputy District Attorney Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Southwest Gas Franchise Extension Agreement

Type of Action Requested: (check one) L__) Resolution L__) Ordinance ( X ) Formal Action/Motion L___) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No.

Recommended Board Action: I move to approve the Franchise Extension Agreement between the County and Southwest Gas to provide time to negotiate a long term franchise agreement.

Discussion: Staff is currently working on a new franchise agreement with Southwest Gas for the delivery of natural gas to the County. The existing agreement was entered into on March 15, 1989 and is set to expire on March 15, 2014. Different alternatives are being considered for the new franchise agreement which is requiring additional time and effort to finalize. Therefore, it is recommended that the County enter into this agreement extending the current franchise agreement for six months to provide time to finalize the new long term agreement. It is expected that the new agreement will be in place before the expiration of the 6 months. The new agreement will take the place of this 6 month agreement once it is finalized.

Fiscal Impact: None

Explanation of Impact: N/A

Funding Source: N/ A

Prepared By: Benjamin D. Shawcroft Date: 2/27114

ReviewedBy tL~ fu,cL~ Date: :z/on/t~ Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

This Franchise Extension Agreement is entered into this_ day of March, 2014, by and between Churchill County, Nevada Board of County Commissioners (the "County") and Southwest Gas Corporation, a California corporation ("SWG").

RECITALS

A. SWG is duly qualified and authorized to transact a public utility business within the State of Nevada and is engaged in the business of distributing natural gas to users within the County.

B. On March 15, 1989, the County awarded a franchise to SWG to construct, operate, maintain, repair and replace its gas system of mains, pipelines and conduits, together with all appurtenances and facilities, within all public rights-of-way of the County, as evidenced by that certain Franchise and Agreement of same date ("Franchise Agreement").

C. The term ofthe Franchise Agreement expires on March 15 , 2014.

D. The County and SWG desire to extend the Franchise Agreement for a period not to exceed six (6) months, under the same terms and conditions as the existing Franchise Agreement, to allow sufficient time to negotiate and finalize a new franchise agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. The term of the existing Franchise Agreement shall be extended beginning March 15, 2014 until September 15,2014, or until a new franchise is granted SWG by the County, whichever first occurs ("Extension Period"), during which time the parties agree to work together to negotiate a new franchise agreement.

2. During the Extension Period, all terms and conditions set forth in the existing Franchise Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

EXECUTED to be effective on the date specified above.

CHURCHILL COUNTY SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION A California Corporation

By: ______By: ______Pete Olsen Julie Williams Vice-Chair ofthe Board of County VP, Northern Nevada Division Commissioners Dated: ------Dated: ------ATTEST:

Name, Title

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Name, Title Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: #Consent Agenda Date Submitted: Agenda Date Requested: March 1'1, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Alan F. Kalt, County Comptroller Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Settlement Agreement and General Release with Saint Mary' s Healthfirst for insurance premium refund.

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance (__)Formal Action/Motion LX_) Other - Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? NO

Recommended Board Action: Note in the minutes approval of Settlement Agreement and General Release with Saint Mary' s Healthfirst for insurance premium refund. Discussion: When Churchill County moved to Cigna for our health and accident insurance in July 2012, a 13th payment was paid to Saint Mary' s in error during the month of June 2012 for insurance premiums. Shortly thereafter, the Comptroller' s Office notified Saint Mary' s personnel and requested an account reconciliation and a subsequent refund of the overpayment in the amount of$129,978.06. Due to St Mary's computer system conversion and employee turnover, there was a significant delay in getting this issue resolved. In January 2014, the Comptroller' s Office pressed this issue with St. Mary' s personnel and worked with them to resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial manner. Attached are the signed Settlement Agreement and General Release signed by the District Attorney' s Office and St. Mary's Chief Financial Officer and the supporting documentation for the refund amount. Saint Mary's is processing the payment to the County. The transaction was discussed and reviewed by the County Manager, Civil Deputy District Attorney and the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.

Fiscal Impact: The County will be receiving a refund of overpayment in the amount of$129,978.06 from Saint Mary's Healthfirst for insurance premiums paid in error. The amount has been carried as a receivable in our financial statements.

Prepared By: Alan F. Kalt Date:

Reviewed By: ~ Lsk=J Date: 2 - JS- ;/.4JI'f Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: Alan ~Comptroller

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

11 This Settlement Agreement and 'General Release (hereinafter •c Agreement ) is entered lnto as or Fehruary 18, 2014, by and between Churchill County, Nevada ("County.') an_d 1 Saint Mary's .Healthflrst, a Nevada C()rporation (''Bealthfirsf ).

WHEREAS, Healthfirst and. County have had a longstanding ~greement for Healthfirst to prov14e health insurattce coverage to County enrollees (the "Coverage Atrangement''); and WHEREAS. a dispute has arisen between the parties relating to premiums paid by County to Healthfirst under the C¢:v~ra$e Arrangement (the "Dispute); and

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to settle the Dispute and all disputes relating to prem.{um payments dt~e Healthtirst under the Coverage Artangement as sel: forth herein.

WHEREAS County and HealthftrSt now desire; to resolve all ~laims, disputes and cause$ of a9tion ~lated to the Dispute as sp.ecifically set forth below:

NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe promises contained herein and other good and .valuable consjdetation, the receipt and adequaey ofwhieh are hereby acknowledged; the parties agree as follows:

1. In considet'lltioo of the payment by flealthfitst to County in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Eight Dollars and Six Cents ($129,978.06) and the execution ofthis releasei·County, with the intention ofbindi~g itself, its, repre~~tati:ves, succ~ssors and assigns. ot anyone else acting on their respective behalf,. hereby promises not to .sue and releases. and prqmises tcr forever refrain from instituting, mainrainingy oe in any way aidin_g arid proceeding upon; and fully and forever releases aod dischargt;s iic:uilthtlJ,"St and its successors' and assigns. any predecessor corporations, any present;. former and future subsidiaries; affiliates or·related corp¢rations~ inoh.adi!'lg Pigni.ty Health, and their·current and former officers, trustees,,agents~ attpmeys, representatives, ad.m.inistratots and employees, in both theldndividuaJ and representative capacities. (collectively referred to as the ''Healthfirst Rel~~¢$' 1), frotn: any and

aU ciaims,.demands, debts~. damages~ charges, experises1 losses, remedies, contracts (expressed or implied), inj\Jries.. actions; or rights of action ofwhatever kind or nature whatsoever~ whether known or unknown, which County now has or in the future may .or ~ould hav..e. against Hea.lthfi'rst..telating in any way to any act, omission, event; relationship, conduct, policy <>r practice .in connection witt) the Disput~.

2_, Theprovi$ions ofthi$ Agreement are binding upon and shall inurewthe benefit of the Parties and to each of~heir repre~entatives, sqcce.ssors Qr assigns. It i~ also made for the bene(rt of each party'S: subsidiaries, affiliates.and ·. related corporations and all other related e.xisting, succ~ding pr predecessor corporations or entities.

HND-J37924.51lS71l! 3. If any proviSion ot partof a provision of this Agreement is foupd to be in violation of'iaw or otherwise un~nfor<;eable in any respect, the remaining provisions or part of a.p1'9vision.shall remain unaffected and the Agreement shall be retortned and construed to the maximum eKtent possible as if such provision or part of a provisiopheld to be in .violation of law or otherwise unenforceable had never been contained herein.

4. The interpretation and application ·of the tenns of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State ofNe.vada.

5. It is understood this Agreement contains the entire understanding between i-l~althfil'St:~nd . County and supersede!uny all previous.agreements between the Parties regarding the Oi$pute, Any priot agreements, written or oral, are hereby revoked and deemed null and void. In executing this Agreement. the parties acknowledge that they are not relying upon any representations or statements made by or on behalf of the other party not set forth hetein. The Agreement may not be changed except by an instrument in writing signed by both parties.. ·

This Settlement Agreement and General Release. is hereby signed by the Partie.s.

SAINT MARY'S HEAL THFIRST By: 724HC~ Dave Challi~ Chief Firtancial Officer Date: zj2Yf'r

CHURCHILL COUNTY~ N~VADA By: .$. !Jc// Name: _..Jll.lifl:.llo~.o.:';,.'.-.:-'=.::""~j)II.J·._<),l'~'~•--=Lk-.,o..a....;~H::::L..- Oate: ./1./.z., u/tY-,

HND-137924'.585718 2 Saint Mary's Health Plan Account lD: ARID0004156 Churchill County

Date Transaction Amount Reference #

6!15120 12 CHECK $ 13,416.74 95408 6115/20 12 CHECK $ 100,647.21 28574 6!15/2012 CHECK $ 1,295.05 28577 6/15/2012 CHECK $ 8,965.45 28578 7f6/2012 CHECK $ 11,438.01 95792

TOTAL CHECKS CASHED $ 135,762.46

INVOICE #ARINV0000020038 $ (132,870.26) Reverse payment due 0710112012

$ 2,892.20 Applied to account balance

$ 129,978,06 Refund of Overpayment --- ' Account ID: ARI 00004156 Invoice#: ARINV0000020038 ·:'·Saint Mary's Health Plans Oatc Billed: 07/01/2012 Payment Due: s 132,¢70.26 A memhcr· of CHW Date Due: 07/01/2012 Amount Enclosed: S Phone: 775-770-6474 Email: [email protected]

Attn: STARK,GEOF

Saint Marys Health Plan PB Dept 3339.6 lot. ·1M · S3ti CHURCHlLL COUNTY POBOX 39000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94139-3396 !55 N TAYLOR ST STE 182 FALLON NV 89406-2784 IIJI 11 1J rrl111ll 11111111111 rI I ltrllrlrlnii!J rllmllrll 11 Ilr I llu J. lrl111 Irrlllltrtll rrrrllll~r~llrrlrrllrl rrllmlllllull PB

PLEASE REMIT COUPOI'I WITH PAYMENT

INVOICE +Saint Mary's Health Plans Account ID: ARID0004156 Invoice#: ARINY0000020038 Date Billed: 07/01/2012 Payment Due: $!32,870.26 A member of CHW' CHURCHILL COUNTY Date Due: 07/01/2012 Amount Enclosed: s 155 N TAYlOR ST f182 Billing Phone: 775-770-6474 Email: [email protected] Pngc I of 4

INVOICE tiUMBER lNYOlCE OAH BilliNG P£RJOO OR I GI HAl A.~OUNT IIIVOICE /\MOUNT PAY11EN I AMOUNT MANUAL hOJUSli\ENT IIIYOI CE BALAIICE

ARINVOOOOOI8S3Z 06/01/12 05-01-12 To 06-J0-12 Sl45608. 06 s145608.06 s145608. 0& 10.00 so .00 ARINV000002003B 07/01/12 07-01 - 12 To 07-31-12 $144394.19 Sl~4394.19 so .00 10 .00 S14439U9

REC£JPTS AND M/\HUAL ADJUSTMFHTS FOR THIS PERIOD

OATE TRI\NSACTION AHOUIIT REf(RENCE I REC/AOJ CODE

05/22/2012 CHECK S3~. 7~ 2~450 05/22/ZOIZ CttECK 11596.67 2844& 05/22/2012 C!lECK HO~Z7 .55 26447 / K,l~CEIVE 'D 05/ZZ/2012 CftECK SI08897.78 28443 06/06/2012 CHECK Sl~ . 74 28505 06/06/2012 C!lECk £1598 . 67 ZBSOJ / JUN 2 2 2012 06/06/20!2 CHECX $9~89 . 77 2S502 - 06/ 11/2012 CHECK $495.51 crqulaga SUIY'ARY COUNTY COMPTROLLER

TOTAL fOR ALL INVOICES SI44J94 .19 TOTAl UNAPPLl EO CAS II $11523.93

ACCOUNT BALAIICl

PLEASE PAY UJ2870.26

IMPORTANT REMINDERS: Your full payment {see ·Please Pay" area) is due by the first of the month. Due to liming, any enrollment changes made or 1 payments received after lhe 10 h of the month will not appear on the next invoice. If payment has not been received by the 201h of the billing month, Saint Mary's Health Plans sends a delinquent letter as a reminder to make the full payment before the last day of the month. Timely payments are greatly appreciated. Any dollar fig ures showing as unapplied cash on your Invoice will be applied to your most recent invoice. Payment Options: 1. Mall your payment in the enclosed self address. postage paid envelope. 2. Send a wire payment lo Wells Fargo Bank or pay wllh a credit card. For assistance with either of these payment options. please call Premium Billing at 775.770.6474.

1JH . >M . HR Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: Consent #__ _ Date Submitted: February 7, 2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 7, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) provides notice that staff has reviewed the Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report for the former Lightning Lube at 1 South Maine Street, Fallon, Nevada.

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_J Resolution (_J Ordinance (___) Formal Action/Motion LXJ Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: None.

Discussion: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) provides notice that staffhas reviewed the Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report for the former Lightning Lube at 1 South Maine Street, Fallon, Nevada. The report indicates that no recovery or remediation activity occurred this quarter. Groundwater sampling was conducted on November 8, 2013 . Groundwater elevation was between 3,954.07 feet to 3,955.80 feet in all monitor wells and the depth to groundwater in the monitor wells ranged from 8.70 to 11.21 feet below the top of the casing at the site. Groundwater flow direction is believed to be in a west-northwesterly direction, with a gradient of 0.005 feet/foot. Quarterly constituent sampling was conducted on November 8, 2013. Monitor Wells LLMW-8, LLMW-9, LLMW-11 , and LLMW -14 did not contain benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, total xylenes (BTEX), or methyl tertiary butyl either (MTBE) in excess ofNDEP action levels. Monitor well LLMW-3 was not sampled due to the presence of light, nonaqueous phase liquid.

Broadbent and Associates, Inc. made the recommendation to continue quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling, which NDEP concurred ith. The First Quarter 2014 Status Report is due by April 30, 2014.

February 26, 2014

Reviewed By: k~ /w,_t, v=v/ Date: _____..2""------'- ,1..~&_-....:::~'--=----='Lf'f--- Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: ~/L- 6(/y I Churc~un~ Attorney The submission of this agenda report by county officials is not intended, necessarily, to reflect agreement as to a particular course of action to be taken by the board; rather, the submission hereof is intended, merely, to signify completion of all appropriate review processes in readiness of the matter for consideration and action by the board. Date: Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

Board Action Taken: Motion: ______1) ______Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

The submission of this agenda report by county officials is not intended, necessarily, to reflect agreement as to a particular course of action to be taken by the board; rather, the submission hereof is intended, merely, to signify completion of all appropriate review processes in readiness of the matter for consideration and action by the board. STATE OF NEVADA Brion Sandoval, Governor De nt of Conservation & Natural Resources Leo Nl. Drozdo ff. P.£., Direccor DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Colleen Cripps, Ph .D., Adm inistrator protecting the futu re for generations

February 7, 2014 ~~C}I \Ll Coa REC'F I\IFO Sandra Ruatti ~ ~..-). ~ 179 S. Laverne Street fEB l 1 l014 r- Fallon, Nevada 89406

Re : Review of Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report Former Lightning Lube 1 South Maine Street in Fallon, Nevada Facility Identification Number 5-000014 Petroleum Fund Identification Number 199900048

Ms. Ruatti,

The Nevada Dlvision of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has reviewed the above referenced report, dated January 27, 2014, prepared on your behalf by Broadbent and Associates (Broadbent). The report indicat es the folicwing activities occurred at the site during the fourth quarter of 2013:

1. No recovery or remediation activity occurred this quarter.

2. Groundwater sampling was conducted on November 8, 2013. Groundwater elevation was between 3,954.07 fe et to 3,954 .80 feet in all monitor w ells, and the depth to groundwater in the monitor wel!s ranged from 8.70 feet to 11.21 feet below the top of the casing of the site . Groundwater flow direction is believed to be in a west-northwest direction, with a gradient of .005 feet/foot.

3. Quarterly constituent sampling was conducted on November 8, 2013. Monitor wells LLMW-8, LLMW-9, LLMW-10, LLMW-11 and LLMW-14 did not con t"l in benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX) or methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in excess of NDEP action levels. Monitor welll.LMW-3 was not sampled due to the presence of light, nonaqueous phase liquid .

Broadbent recommended in the report to continue qu~rterly grcundwater monitoring and sampling at ' • I ' the site, and to begin implementing the sit e closure ev aluation.

NDEP ~oncurs wlth these recommendation.s. Please have the first quarter 2014 Status Report to NDEP by no later than April 30, 2014.

Please contact the undersigned at (775) 687-9379 or [email protected] with any questions of concerns regarding this matter.

90 I S. Stewart Street, Sui te 400 I • Carson Ci ty, Nevada 8970 I • p: 775. 687.4 670 • f: 775.687.5856 • ndep.nv.gov '"' ,.,,, ~~"'b RespecunC ..

Bureau of Corrective Actions Nevada .Division of Environmental Protection ec: Todd Croft, LUST Supervisor, Bureau of Corrective Actions Va lerie King, Petroleum Fund Supervisor, Bureau of Corrective Actions Cliff Lawson, Permits Supervisor, Bureau of Water Pollution Control Bryan Vetrano, CEM , Broadbent and Associates cc : Ryan Swirczek, Manager, Public Works, 55 W. Williams Ave., Fallon, NV 89406 James Souba, Fallon City Engineer. 55 W. Williams Ave ., Fallon, NV 89406 Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager, 155 N. Taylor Street, Ste . 153, Fallon, NV 89406 Michael K. Johnson, Churchill County Planning Director, 155 N Taylor, Suite 194, Fallon, NV 89406 Carl Erquiaga, Chair, Churchill County Board of Commissioners, 155 N. Taylor Street, Ste . 110, Fallon, NV 89406 Dwight Hunter, 42 East Williams Avenue, Fallon, NV 89406 Robert and Muriel Kent, 55 east Center Street, Fallon, NV 89406 1 Robert and Mary Beth Erickson, 961 West 5 h Street, Fallon, NV 89406 Fallon Fraternal Hall Association, P.O. Box 903, Fallon, NV 89407 Brian and Judi ltskin, 45 South Maine Street, Fallon, NV 89406 Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: Consent#__ _ Date Submitted: February 7, 2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 7, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) provides notice that staff has reviewed the Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report for the former Bootlegger Texaco Station at 16 North Maine Street, Fallon, Nevada.

Type of Action Requested: (check one) L__) Resolution L_) Ordinance (_)Formal Action/Motion (_X_) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: None.

Discussion: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) provides notice that staff has reviewed the Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report for the former Bootlegger Texaco Station at 16 North Maine Street, Fallon, Nevada. The report indicates that:

1. Light, non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) was recovered from LLMW-1. A total of 1.5 gallons ofLNAPL was recovered. 2. Groundwater sampling was conducted on November 10, 2013. Groundwater elevation was approximately 3,955 feet in all monitor wells and the depth to groundwater in the monitor wells ranged from 8.05 to 9.24 feet below the top of the casing at the site. Groundwater flow direction is believed to be in a southeasterly direction, with a gradient of .003 feet/foot. 3. Quarterly constituent sampling was conducted on November 10, 2013. Monitor Wells MW-2, MW-04, MW-07, and MW-10 did not contain benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), or methyl tertiary butyl either (MTBE) in excess ofNDEP action levels. Monitor Well LLMW-1 contained LNAPL; MW-5 and MW-6 contained benzene in excess of the NDEP action level. 4. Monitor well MW -1 was not sampled this quarter due to an unidentified obstruction.

Broadbent and Associates, Inc. made the recommendation to continue removal of free product at the site, to continue quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling, and to begin implementing the site closure evaluation, whic concurred 1th. The First Quarter 2014 Status Report is due by April30, 2014.

Date: Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

Board Action Taken: 1) ______Motion: ------Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

The submission of this agenda report by county officials is not intended, necessarily, to reflect agreement as to a particular course of action to be taken by the board; rather, the submission hereof is intended, merely, to signify completion of all appropriate review processes in readiness of the matter for consideration and action by the board. STATE OF NEVADA Brion Sandoval, Governor D rcmenc of Conservation & Natural Resources Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E., Director DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Colleen Cripps, Ph.D., Administrator protecting the (uwre (or generations

February 7, 2014

James Souba City of Fallon 55 West Williams Avenue Fallon, Nevada 89406

Re : Review of Fourth Quarter 2013 Monitoring Report Former Bootlegger Texaco 16 North Maine Street in Fallon, Nevada Facility Identification Number 5-0000174 Petroleum Fund Identification Number 1993000115

Mr. Souba,

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) ht2s reviewed the above referenced report, dated January 27, 2014, prepared on your behalf by Broadbent r.~nd Associates (Broadbent). The report indicates t he following activities occurred at the site during the fourth quarter of 2013:

1. Light, non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) was recovered from monitor well LLMW-1. A total of 1.5 gallons of LNAPL was recovered .

2. Groundwater sampling was conducted on November 10, 2013. Groundwater elevation was approximately 3,955 feet in all monitor wells, and the depth to groundwater in the monitor wells ranged from 8.05 to 9.24 feet below the top of the casing at the site. Groundwater flow direction is believed to be in a southeasterly direction, with a gr:~dient of .003 feet/foot.

3. Quarterly constituent sampling was conducted on November 10, 2013. Monitor wells MW-2, I\IIW-4, MW-7 ~nd MW-iO did not contain benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX) or methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in excess of NDEP action levels. Monitor well LLMW-1 contained LNAPL and MW-5 and MW-6 contained benzene in excess of the NDEP action level.

Monitor well MW-1 W

Broadbent recomrnended i~ th2 re por~ to continue removal of free product at the site, to continue quarterly groundwater ·monitoring and sampling, and to begin implementing tloe site closure evaluation.

NDEP c:oncurs with these recommendation:;. Plea~e h;.we the fir:;t quarter 2014 Monitoring Report to . . . ' ' NDEP by no later than April 30, 2014.

90 I S. Stewart ,Street, Su ite 400,1 • Carson City, Nevada 8970 I • p: 775.687.4670 • f:775.687.5856 • ndep.nv.gov '"J , . ~,~ Please contact the undersigned at (775) 687-9379 or [email protected] with any questions or concerns regardlngtliis matter. t7:1yc ~Zin ,,,, Bureau of Corrective Actions Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

ec: Todd Croft, LUST Supervisor, Bureau of Corrective Actions, Las Vegas Valerie King, Petroleum Fund Supervisor, Bureau of Corrective Actions Bryan Vetrano, CEM, Broadbent and Associates Robert Plekarz, Supervisor, Hazardous Materials Section, NDOT

cc: Ryan Swirczek, Manager, Public Works, 55 W. Williams Ave ., Fallon, NV 89406 Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager, 155 N. Taylor Street, Ste . 153, Fallon, NV 89406 Michael Johnson, Churchill County Planning Director, 155 N Taylor, Suite 194, Fallon, NV 89406 Carl Erquiaga, Chair, Churchill County Board of Commissioners, 155 N. Taylor Street, Ste . 110, Fallon, NV 89406 Dwight Hunter, 42 East Williams Avenue, Fallon, NV 89406 Robert and Muriel Kent, 55 East Center Street, Fallon, NV 89406 Estate of Robert Cowan, Care of Mackedon, McCormick and King, P.O. Box 1203, Fallon, NV 89406 Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: Consent#____ _ Date Submitted: February 12, 2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 7, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Pamela D. Moore, Deputy Clerk of the Board Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection provides notification of its review of the R-Spill Report filed on behalf of Smedley's Chevron at 1755 W. Williams A venue, in Fallon, Nevada.

Type of Action Requested: (check one) L__) Resolution L__) Ordinance (_)Formal Action/Motion (____X_) Other - Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: None.

Discussion: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection provides notification of its review ofthe R Spill Report filed on behalf of Smedley's Chevron at 1755 W. Williams Avenue, in Fallon, Nevada, which was prepared by McGinley and Associates (MGA). MGA conducted a Phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) in October 2013 . Six boring were advanced and one soil and groundwater grab sample was collected from each boring. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected above state reportable quantity of 100 milligram per kilogram in two of the soil samples. Detectable concentrations of volatile organic compounds related to fuel were reported in all of the groundwater samples. The report recommends additional ESA activities to further assess the magnitude and extent of impacted soil and groundwater using permanent monitoring wells. NDEP concurs with the recommendation. A Work Plan is due to NDEP n r than Apr 121 , 2014.

Reviewed By: ~-v ~(.J ~r"?JL Date: ~·;;:L.~/=:2=6+-/.Jt:.'()..RJ=...!...t +Y -- Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: ------Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

(Vote Recorded By)

The submission of this agenda report by county officials is not intended, necessarily, to reflect agreement as to a particular course of action to be taken by the board; rather, the submission hereof is intended, merely, to signify completion of all appropriate review processes in readiness of the matter for consideration and action by the board. STATE OF NEVADA Brion Sandoval, Governor Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E. . Director DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Colleen Cripps, Ph .D., Administrator protecting the {l1ture for generations ~~\,\~ 1LL c011 February 12, 2014 ~ Rf (T f !' ·· -1/-i ,n_/ fEB 1 4 2U!4 0C Smedley s Chevron I Ms. Fran Smitten ~ P.O. Box 1235 Fallon, NV 89407

Subject: NDEP Review ofR-Spill R.report for Smedley's Chevron, 1755 W. Williams Street, Fallon, NV

Facility ID #: 5-000528 (linked with 5-000095) Spill No. 131 024-02

Dear Ms. Smitten:

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has reviewed the February 3, 2014 R-Spill report titled Smedley 's Chevron. 1755 W Williams Street, Fallon, NV (Repmi). The Report was prepared by McGinley and Associates (MGA) Certified Environmental Manager (CEM) Tracy Johnston on your behalf and received by the NDEP on February 4, 2014.

MGA conducted a Phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) in October 2013. Six boring were advanced and one soil and groundwater grab sample was collected from each boring. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected above the State ofNevada reportable quantity of 100 milligram per kilogram in two of the soil samples. Detectable concentrations ofvolatile organic compounds related to fuel were reported in all ofthe groundwater samples.

The Report recommends additional ESA activities to further assess the magnitude and extent of impacted soil and groundwater using permanent monitoring wells.

The 1 TDEP concurs with the recommendation provided in the Report to further assess the extent of contamination in soil and groundwater. A work plan should be provided to the NDEP within 60 days of the date of this letter and no later than April21, 2014.

If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact me at 775-687-9396 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

\(.,. { ~--.. n a~I .. ,'-...... -- _,.U C~~~ __:.. 0. --.. . .-....:)' \ ~ Alison Oakley (J Case Officer Bureau of Corrective Actions

90 I S. Stewan Street. Suite 400 I • Carson City. Nevada 8970 I • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5 856 • ndep.nv.gov 10 1 1W1 ~ Ms. Fran Smitten- Smedley' s Chevron February 12, 2014 Page 2 of2

ec: Scott Smale, Supervisor Remediation, NDEP Bureau of Corrective Actions Todd Croft, Supervisor LUST Program, NDEP Bureau of Corrective Actions Val King, Supervisor Petroleum Fund, NDEP Bureau of Corrective Actions Andrea Seife11, NDEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, (ASeifert(wnde p.nv.gov) Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager, !55 N. Taylor Street, Ste. 153 , Fallon, NY 89406 (countvman ager@church illcounty.org) Tracy Johnston, McGinley and Associates, ([email protected]) cc: Michael K. Johnson, Churchill County Planning Director, I 55 N Taylor, Suite I 94 , Fallon, NV 89406 Carl Erquiaga, Chair, Churchill County Board of Commissioners, I 55 N. Taylor Street, Ste. I I 0, Fallon, NV 89406 Steve Endacott, Emergency Management Coordinator, 55 W. Williams Ave. , Fallon, NV 89406 Jerry Mayfield, Manager, Public Works, 55 W. Williams Ave., Fallon NV 89406 James Souba Fallon City Engineer, 55 W. Williams Ave. , Fallon, NY 89406 Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: Consent#__ _ Date Submitted: February 11 , 2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 7, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Pamela D. Moore, Deputy Clerk of the Board Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Bureau of Land Management's notification of the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of a proposed Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale.

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance (_)Formal Action/Motion (_____X_) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: None.

Discussion: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provides notification of the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of a proposed Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale. The EA identifies, describes and evaluates resource protection measures that would mitigate the possible impacts from the proposal.

The BL received nominations for 166 parcels of public land to offer for leasing, totaling more than 285 ,000 acres. The BLM deferred several of the nominated parcels to protect sage grouse habitat. Other parcels were removed because of conflicts with mining operations. A detailed listing of deferred parcels is available in the EA. The remaining 139 parcels (230,989 acres) have been analyzed for potential impacts in the EA, in accordance with the Oil & Gas Leasing Reform Act mandated in 2010. Written comments on this EA will be accepted t-il March 13, 2014.

ReviewedBy: ~ ~d~c/ Date: :2 /:Z{, ~ II( Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Board Action Taken: Motion: ______1) ______Aye/Nay 2) ______

(Vote Recorded By)

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Battle Mountain District Office 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain. Nevada 89820 ~'0\\CHILL C0, Phone: 775-635-4000 Fax: 775-635-4034 \J Rrcnvrc ~~ http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/battle_mountain_field.html FEB 1 4 20!4 In Reply Refer To: v 3100 (NYBOOOO) f 001-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA FEB 11 2014

Dear Interested Public:

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Battle Mountain District Office (BMDO) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) which analyzes the impacts of a proposed Competitive Oil & Gas Lease Sale. The EA identifies, describes and evaluates resource protection measures that would mitigate the possible impacts from the proposal.

The BLM received nominations for 166 parcels of public land to offer for leasing, totaling more than 285,000 acres. The BLM deferred several of the nominated parcels to protect sage grouse habitat. Other parcels were removed because of conflicts with mining operations. A detailed listing of deferred parcels is available in the EA. The remaining 139 parcels (230,989 acres) have been analyzed for potential impacts in the EA, in accordance with the Oil & Gas Leasing Reform Act mandated in 2010.

Written comments on this EA will be accepted at the above address or can be mailed to the Tonopah Field Office at P.O Box 911, Tonopah, Nevada 89049 until March 13, 2014. The EA can be viewed on the BLM NEPA Register Page at: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front office/eplanning/nepalnepa register.do. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment- including your personal identifying information- may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

If you have any questions or to obtain a hard copy of this document, please contact Mark Ennes, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, at (775) 482-7835. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA DATE: February 2014

July 2014 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Battle Mountain District, Nevada EN\1IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Battle Mountain District Office 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, NV 89820 Phone: 775-635-4000 Fax: 775-635 -4034 2

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Background ...... 4 1.2 Pmpose and Need for Action ...... 6 1.3 Land Use Plan Confonnance ...... 6 1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Policy, Plans and Other Environmental Analysis .... 7 1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement ...... 8

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 2.1 Proposed Action ...... 9 2.2 No Action Altetnative ...... 9 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Fmther Analysis ...... 9 2.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario ...... 9 2.4.1 Trends and Projections for Oil and Gas Exploration in the BMD ...... 9 2.4.2 Typical Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities ...... ll

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 14 3.1 Supplemental Authorities to be considered ...... 14 3.2 Other Resources ...... 15 3.3 Environmental Impacts of No Action Altemative ...... 16 3.4 Impacts Requiring Further Analysis ...... 16 3.4.1 Air Quality ...... 17 3.4 .2 Cultural Resources ...... 17 3.4.3 Native American Religious Concerns ...... 18 3.4.4 Wildlife Resources ...... 19 3.4.5 Water Quality (Surface and Ground) and Quantity ...... 23 3.4.6 Waste, Hazardous and Solid ...... 26 3.4.7 Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Non-native Species ...... 27 3.4.8 Geology and Minerals ...... 28 3.4.9Soils ...... 31 3.4.10 Vegetation ...... 32 3.4.11 Range Resources ...... 35 3.4.12 Lands and Realty ...... 38 3.4.13 Visual Resources ...... 40 3.4.14 Recreation ...... 41 3.4.15 Socioeconomics ...... 41 3.4.16 Wild Horse and Burro ...... 42 3.4.17 Forestry and Woodland Products ...... 47

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 3

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ...... 51 4.1. Past and Present Actions ...... 51 4.2 Ret:s:mct>le Foreseect>le Future Actions (RFFA 's) ...... 51 4.3 Cumulative Impacts from Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 52 4.3.1. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality ..... , ...... 54 4.3.2. Cumulative Impacts on Cult ural Resources ...... , ...... 54 4.3.3. Cumulative Impacts on Native Ameri can Rel igious Concerns ...... 54 4.3.4. Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Resources ...... 55 4.3.5. Cumulative Impacts on Water Qual ity (Surface and Ground) and Qua nt ity ...... 55 4.3.6. Cumulative Impacts on Wastes, Hazardous and Solid ...... S5 4.3.7. Cumulative Impacts on Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Non-native Species ...... S S 4.3.8. Cumu lative Im pacts on Geology and Minerals ...... , ...... 55 4.3.9. Cumulative Impacts on Soils ...... 55 4.3.10. Cum ulative Impacts on Vegetat ion ...... 56 4.3.11. Cumulative Impacts on Range Resources ...... , ...... 56 4.3.12. Cumulative Impacts on l and and Realty ...... 56 4.3 .13. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources ...... 55 4.3.14. Cumulative Impacts on Rec reation ...... 57 4.3.15. Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics ...... 57 4.3.16. Cumulative Impacts on Wild Horses and Burros ...... 57 4.3.17. Cumulative Impacts on Forestry and Woodland Products ...... ,...... 58

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 59 5.1 List ofPreparers ...... 59 5.2 Agencies/Tribes Contacted ...... 59

6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 60

APPENDIX A ...... 62

AP:PENDIX B ••.•.•.•.•.•...•...•.•.•...... •...•.• n••··································································································75

APPENDIX C ...... 86

APPENDIX D ...... 92

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background It is the policy of the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) as mandated by various laws, including the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, to make mineral resources available and to encourage development of mineral resources to meet national, regional, and local needs.

The ELM-Nevada State Office (NSO) conducts competitive sales for oil and gas lease parcels in the Battle Mountain District. The NSO publishes a Notice of Competitive Lease Sale (NCLS) that lists lease parcels offered at the auction at least 45 days before it is held. The BLM bases its decision as to which parcels to offer for a competitive lease sale on cunent resource and land use infonuation and the management fran1ework developed in the appropriate district or field office Resource Management Plans (RMPs).

In the process of preparing a lease sale, the NSO sends a list of nominated parcels to each field office where the parcels are located. Through an environmental assessment, the Field Office staffthen reviews the parcels to determine:

D If they are in areas open to leasing; U If new infonuation has become available which might change any analysis conducted during the planning process; D If appropriate consultations have been conducted; D What appropriate stipulations should be included; and 0 If there are special resource conditions of which potential bidders should be made aware.

Based on the environmental assessment, the Nevada BLM State Director will decide which parcels to make available for leasing and which stipulations to attach to the parcels. Those parcels and stipulations that are included in the State Director' s decision will then be made available to the public tlu·ough a NCLS. Lease stipulations applicable to each parcel are specified in the Sale Notice. On rare occasions, additional infom1ation obtained after the publication of the NCLS, may result in withdrawal of ce1tain parcels prior to the day of the lease sale.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the review of 166 Battle Mountain District Office (BMDO) administered parcels nominated in the July 2014 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (Figure 1). The EA verifies conformance with the approved land use plan, provides the rationale for any lease stipulations applied to specific parcels, and identifies parcels for defenal.

An assessment of potential environmental impacts, based on a Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario, was conducted by resomce specialists who relied on historical data and personal knowledge of the areas involved, conducted field inspections and/or reviewed existing databases and file information to dete1mine the appropriate stipulations to attach to specific parcels.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 5

N y E

Battle Mountain District Bureau of Land t.t.anagemen1 Oil and Gas Lease Sale Battle Mountain Oistrtct 50 Bsstian Road July 2014 Bartle Moun aio, NV 89a20 L...... t.1ap Date.: Jan~Jary 13. 2013 .hoiy~tCHI .. Q'f\tl'.lroo:lil l,t,ltd&Uitu!l fll$4, ...... -::\i:4'U.I.~ ~ .... lll ~n;U<;U,o.,. as to thll areuracy, tetiabiJity. or completeness ot thM:& f!Oi~ .. "-• Ill H...,._, Origi-nal ~t$ w(ue compiled ffom 'V¥!110US ~rc::t,l$ . This ~~~~~o-, ... information may tlOl me&l National M&p A¢curacf ~-~-~""1""'111 Stand.atds. Thts product was developed tnrough digitt~l means 3Jld may be up4a~ed without notifica:tlOfl,

Figure 1. Oil and gas lease pru:cels nominated for July 2014lease sale.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 6

At the time of this review, it is not known whether the nominated parcels will receive bids, if leases will be issued, or what types of lease operations might be proposed in the future. Detailed site-specific NEPA analysis would occur when an Application for Pe1mit to Drill (APD) is submitted.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action Oil and gas leasing is necessary to provide oil and gas companies with new areas to explore and potentially develop. Leasing is proposed to meet requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Refonn Act of 1987 (Reform Act). Oil and gas are marketable resources that meet the public' s n€00 for energy.

Offering parcels for competitive oil and gas leasing provides for the orderly development of fluid minera resources under BLM ' s jurigjiction in a manner consistent with multiple use management and consideration for the natural and cultural resources that may be present. This requires that adequate provisions are included with the leases to protect public health and safety and assure full compliance with the spirit and objectives of the National Enviromnental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal environmental laws and regulations.

The BLM is required by law to consider leasing of areas that have been nominated for lease if leasing is in conformance with the BLM land use plan. The oil and gas parcels addressed in this EA cannot be considered for leasing without supplemental analysis of changes in environmental conditions that have occuned since the completion of the cunent Land Use Plan (LUP) (e.g., increased growth, locations of special status species, identification of traditional cultural properties).

1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance The Proposed Action is in conformance with the Tonopall RMP, approved on October 6, 1997, for the Tonopal1 Planning Area and the Shoshone Eureka RMP and associated Record of Decision (1986). The Proposed Action is in conformance with the Tonopall RMP because it is specifically provided for in the following LUP objective:

Page22 of the RMP, under theheOOing "Fluid Mineras" subtitled "Objroive': "To provide opportunity for exploration and development of fluid minerals such as oil, gas, and geothennal resources, using appropriate stipulations to allow for the prese1vation and enhancement of fragile and unique resources" .

The Proposed Action also in confmmance with the Tonopall RMP because it has been determined that the lease parcels are a subset of:

"[The] total of 5,360,477 a:res (88% of the Tonopctl PI enning Area)[that] is open to fluid minerals leasing subject to stcndCTd terms md conditions (p.22)."

The Proposed Action is also in confmmance with the Shoshone-Eureka RMP Part II, Section E, Management Actions Not Expressly Addressed by the Resource Management Plan., which includes Minerals Objectives and Management Decisions brought fmward unaltered from the

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 7

Management Framework Plan (Record of Decision p. 29). Minerals Objectives 1, 2, and 3 led to Management Decisions 1 through 5 for leasable minerals (oil and gas). TI1e objectives are as follows:

Objective 1: Make available and encourage development of mineral resources to meet national, regional, and local needs consistent with national objectives for an adequate supply of minerals.

Objective 2: Assure that mineral exploration, development, and extraction are canied out in such a way as to minimize environmental and other resource damage and to provide, where legally possible, for the rehabilitation of lands.

Objective 3: Develop detailed mineral resource data in areas where different resources conflict so that infonned decisions may be made that result in optimum use of the lands.

Management Decision #4, specifically addresses oil and gas leasing and stctes, "All a-ecs designated by the BLM as prospectively valuable for oil and gas will be open to leasing except as modifioo by other re:ources."

1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Policy, Plans and Other Environmental Analysis Purchasers of oil and gas leases are required to abide by all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. This includes obtaining all required permits should lease development occur. Federal regulations and policies require the BLM to make public land and resources available based on the principle of multiple use. At the same time, it is BLM policy to conserve special status species and their habitats, and ensure that actions authorized by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

The BLM must adhere to Section 106 of National Historic Presetvation Act (NHP A). The BLM also must comply with Nevada State Historical Presetvation Office (SHPO) protocol agreement, which is authorized by the National Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, the Advis01Ji Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference ofState Historic Preservation Officers.

As the BLM reviews draft parcel locations, the cultural resource staff reviews the locations to detennine if any are within known areas of cultural or archeological concem. If potential Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) or heritage-related issues are identified, such parcels may be withheld from the sale while coordination or consultation with Native American groups is conducted.

The Proposed Action and altematives will be in confoxmance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, (P.L. 91 -190 as amended (42 USC §4321 et seq.); Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920 as amended and supplemented (30 USC 181 et seq.); the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Refonn Act of 1987, which includes the regulatory authority under 43 Code of

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 8

Federal Regulation (CFR) 3100, Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing; General, and Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) Right-of-Way (ROW) under regulatory authority under 43 CFR 2800 for ROWs.

1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement The BMDO interdisciplina1y team participated in internal scoping meetings on December 18, 2013 and January 7, 2014. During the scoping meetings, specific parcels were recommended for defenal based on resource concerns and land use conflicts. The list of parcels recommended for deferral can be found in Appendix C.

Native American consultation letters for the July 2014 Lease Sale were sent on December 16, 2013. They were sent to Battle Mountain Band, South Fork Band, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe, Tin1bisha Shoshone Tribe, and Fallon Pointe Shoshone Tribe. On January 22, 2014, resource specialists met with a representative ofthe Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, and descendants of the Big Smokey Valley Tribe. Lease parcels of interest to the tribes were visited on that day. On January 8, 2014 BLM also received a letter fi:om the Yomba Shoshone Tribe. A meeting has been scheduled for Febma1y 14, 2014.

Nevada Department ofWildlife (NDOW) was informed ofthe lease sale on December 13, 2013. A response letter was received from NDOW on January 27, 2014.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 9

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to offer for competitive sale 139 of the 166 nominated parcels that were sent to the BMDO for review. The acreage nominated for leasing was 285,179 acres and the acreage to be offered is 230,989 acres. Seventeen parcels have been identified for deferral due to specific resource concems and land use conflicts. The seventeen parcels comprise 54,190 acres or 19 percent of the original total. The specific parcels and reasons for defenal may be found in Appendix C.

Oil and gas leases are issued for a 10-year period and continue for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities. If a lessee fails to produce oil and gas, does not make annual rental payments, does not comply with the tenus and conditions of the lease, or relinquishes the lease; ownership of the minerals revert back to the federal govemment and the lease can be resold. The stipulations that would be attached to the offered leases may be found in Appendix B.

2.2 No Action Alternative The BLM NEPA Handbook (H -1790-1) states that for EAs on extemally initiated proposed actions, the No Action Alternative generally means that the Proposed Action would not take place. In the case of a lease sale, tilis would mean ti1at all expressions of interest to lease (parcel nominations) would be denied or rejected.

Under the No Action Altemative, the BLM would withdraw all166lease parcels from the July 2014lease sale. Surface management would remain the same and ongoing oil and gas development would continue on sUITounding leased federal, private, and state lands.

If the BLM does not lease these Federal mineral resources, demand would likely be addressed through imports or production elsewhere.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis The BMDO staff considered leasing all 166 parcels that were nominated for leasing. However, dming scoping, it was detemrined that there were specific resource conflicts and land use conflicts that would require defening specific parcels. This Altemative has been eliminated from further analysis.

2.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

2.4.1 Trends and Projections for Oil and Gas Exploration in the BMD Oil production data from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Minerals (Figme 2) show that oil and gas production in ti1e state has fallen off since ti1e early 1990s and has flattened out at less than 500,000 barrels per year over the last several years.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 10

Barrels of Oil

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Figure 2. Oil production trends in Nevada from1990 through 2012.

As part ofthe 1997 Tonopah RMP, the BLM conducted a RFD scenario for oil and gas exploration and development. The RFD projected that 30 wildcat wells would be drilled through the year 2014 for a total disturbance of 296 acres. It also projected a number of additional production wells in established old fields and estimated a total future smface distmbance of 131 acres. The 1997 RFD also projected the development of two additional oil fields with a total futm·e distmbance of 944 acres.

Tllis assessment provides a clear basis for estimating a vety low development potential for oil and gas disturbance that nlight indirectly result from the July oil and gas lease sale. Conservatively, over the next ten years, 710 acres of disturbance could be expected to occm in the TFO, where the majority of the sale parcels would be located. Considering that the total number of acres in this lease sale for the TFO is approximately 165,169, the total amount of disturbance could be expected to be less than one percent of the lease sale area (0.43%).

A relatively small number of the sale parcels, totaling 65 ,820 acres would be located in the Mount Lewis Field Office (MLFO) area. According to the 2006 Environmental Assessment for Oil and Gas Leasing within Portions ofthe Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area, the overall potential for oil and gas exploration and development in this area is also low. The western pm1ion of the planning area was considered to have a lower potential when compared to that of the eastern portion. The eastern p011ion of the Shoshone-Eureka planning area was considered to have moderate to high potential because it is located on a strike between Pine Valley and Railroad Valley, the two major production areas in the State. In addition, the geologic setting is similar.

Wllile oil and gas interest has increased over the last 25 years in the :MLFO area, very few exploratmy wells have been drilled; an average of one exploration well was drilled per year between the years of 1980 and 2004. Exploration interest since during this time has focused on the eastern pm1ion of the MLFO area, specifically in Emeka County, which is consistent with the geologic potential of the area. However, there have not been any wells drilled in the MLFO area in the last five years. Like the TFO area, the potential for oil and gas exploration and production in the MLFO can also be considered ve1y low.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 11

2.4.2 Typical Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities Despite the low predicted potential of the proposed lease parcels, at any point during the 10-year term of the lease, the lessee, or operator may submit specific plans for some level of proposed development. Typical oil and gas development operations occur in phases, each of which occurs in a more or less predictable sequence that is contingent on the success or failure of the previous phase.

GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION

Geophysical exploration is used to obtain detailed geologic information. A variety of exploration methods are employed, ranging fiom placing electrodes in the ground, to detonating explosives to create shockwaves, to employing specially constmcted off-road vehicles to produce vibrations. The most commonly used method in eastern Nevada is the vibroseis technique, which uses large off-roa:l vehideswith "thumpers'' to ga1ercieshockwavesfor two or three dimensional surveys.

EXPLORATORY DRILLING

Exploratory drilling (a wildcat well) begins development of a lease. An Application for Pem1it to Drill (APD) is filed with the BLM. A field examination is conducted and NEPA review is completed before a drilling petmit is issued. An access road and a well pad are constructed for each well, if needed. Total disturbance attributed to drilling and exploration well is usually limited less than ten acres for the pad and access road. Statistically, over 95% of exploration wells are dty.

WELL STIMULATION AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Well Stimulation may be used to enhance oil recovety. Several methods of well stimulation could be used. Hydraulic Fracturing is one of these methods that is reasonably foreseeable for leases proposed for sale. Hydraulic fracturing is the process of applying high pressure to a subsmface fonnation via a wellbore, to the extent that the pressure induces fractures in the rock. Typically, the induced frachrres would be propped Opal with a grcr~ul ar " proppcr~t" to a1ha1ce fluid connection betvveen the well and formation. The process was developed experimentally in 1947 and has been used routinely since 1950. The Society ofPetrolemn Engineers (SPE) estimates that over one million hydraulic :fi:acturing procedures have been conducted in the United States and tens of thousands of horizontal wells have been drilled and hydraulically fi:actured. The process can greatly increase the yield of a well, and development of hydraulic fi:acturing methods and the drilling technology in which it is applied (in pmiicular, long wells drilled horizontally within zones of interest) have enabled production of oil and gas from tight fmmations fmmerly not economically feasible.

Hydraulic Fractming Methods

In order to mitigate potential environmental impacts:

n Wells are cased multiple times and sealed with cement between the wellbore and the formation. Well integrity is tested throughout the process.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 12

D Drilling and hydraulic fracturing fluids will either be contained in a pitless system (above grotmd tanks) or a lined pit. Cuttings could be contained in roll-offboxes for hauling to disposal or surface casing interval cuttings could be spread over the site during reclamation.

n Hydra.JI i c fred: uri ng fluids ere recovered to a Ia-ge d~ree in "fl owba::k" or produced water when the well is tested or produced.

LJ All recovered fluids are generally handled by one of four methods.

o Underground injection o Captured in steel tanks and disposed of in an approved disposal facility. o Treatment and reuse o Surface disposal pits

D Drilling cuttings could be land farmed and buried on site 3 feet below root zones. Any cuttings that do not fit this waste profile will be disposed of at an approved disposal facility.

IN-FIELD DRILLING

In-field drilling of additional exploration wells typically occurs in order to define the limits of the oil or gas reservoir when initial drilling has located oil or gas. The process of in-field drilling is the same as that employed for initial explorat01y drilling, although new roads and pads may not be required in evety instance.

PRODUCTION

Production only occms if oil or gas can be transported to a market and sold at a profit. In the Battle Mountain DistJ:ict, pumped oil is generally piped a short distance for temporary storage, then trucked to a refinery for processing. This basic method of transport is not likely to change because of the small quantity of resomce estimated to be present in the Battle Mom1tain Distr-ict. Production facilities may include one or more of the following: a well bead· pumping equipment; a separation system; pipelines; a metering system; storage facilities; water treatment and injection facilities; cathodic protection systems; electr·ical distribution lines; compressor stations; communication sites; roads; salt water disposal systems; dehydration sites; and, fresh and salt water plant sites.

WELL ABANDONMENT

Well abandonment may be temporary or pennanent. Wells are sometimes shut-in because pipelines or roads needed for production and ma-keting don't exist and the cost for construction is not justified by the quantity of oil discovered. These wells may later be reentered when their production can be marketed. The permanent abandonment of a well occms when the well is

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 13 determined to no longer have a potential for economic production, or when the well cannot be used for other purposes.

RECLAMATION

Reclamation includes removal of facilities and reclamation of surface distmbance. In the case of exploration wells which do not find economically recoverable amounts of oil, initial reclamation (recontouring), is usually completed the following year which provides for sufficient time for the reserve pit to dry out. After revegetation of the site is completed, usually within two to three years, reclamation is complete.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 14

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONl\1ENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section describes the existing condition of natural and cultmal resomces in the lease sale area and presents an impact analysis which predicts how these resomces might be affected by the implementation of the Proposed Action.

3.1 Supplemental Authorities to be considered To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Bmeau ofLand Management is required to address specific elements of the environment that are subject to requirements specified in statute, regulation or by executive order (BLM 1988, BLM 1997, BLM 2008). The following table (Table 1) outlines the elements that must be addressed in all environmental analyses, as well as other resources deemed appropriate for evaluation.

Not PreseotJM8yll ~ '* ~ RaUooale"•' " llw ~ Preseot be A.flected m1 • ~0 ·a;;(gJ•' • ~~,, wr<~: \I lP. i'l'Jfi See discussions in Sections 3.4 .1 and Air Quality ..J 4.3.1. Area of Critical The nominated lease parcels are not Environmental '1/ located in or near any ACECs. Concern (ACEC) See discussions in Sections 3.4 .2 and Cultural/Historical ..J 4.3.2. Drilling activities often provide a few short-te1m employment opportunities that may be afforded to low income or Environmental disadvantaged individuals. Tills would be Justice a small but positive socioeconomic benefit " at the APD stage which will require further analysis F ann lands Prime There are no Prime or Unique Farmlands or Unique in the Battle Mountain District. Noxious " Weeds/Invasive See discussion in Sections 3 .4. 7 and 4.3 .7 . Non-native Species " Native American Religious ..J See discussion in Sections 3.4.3 and 4.3.3. Concerns Floodplains ..J See discussion in Section 3.4.5 and 4.3 .5. Riparian/W etlandsl See discussion in Sections 3.4.5 and 4.3.5. Threatened, "..J See discussion in Sections 3.4.4 and 4.3.4. Endangered Species

Migratmy Birds ..J See discussion in Sections 3.4.4 and 4.3.4.

Waste- See discussion in Sections 3.4.6 and 4.3.6. Hazardous/Solid ..J

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 15

Wild & Scenic The nominated parcels are not located in Rivers or near any wild and scenic rivers. Some ofthe nominated lease parcels are located near the Antelope Range Wilderness Wildemess Study Area (WSA) but the WSA is not affected by the nominated lease arcels. Forests and This is not a Healthy Forest Restoration Rangelands Act (HFRA) related proposal, thus the (HFRAonly) HFRA does not apply. Table 1. Supplemental Authorities Considered in the EA.

3.2 Other Resources Other resources that have been considered for this environmental assessment (EA) are listed in Table 2 below. Elements that may be affected are further described in the EA. For those resources that would not be affected, rationale is provided.

Presentf.May b4! Aftect~ The Proposed Action is limited to leasing and there is no authorized ground disturbing activity associated with the lease, there is no need for detailed analysis Fire Management of Fuels or Fire Management. Impacts from exploration and development activities would be analyzed under a se arate, site s ecific anal sis. See discussion in Sections 3 .4.17 and Forest.Jy 4.3.17 Grazing See discussion in Sections 4.4.11 and Management 4.3 .11. Land Use See discussion in Sections 3.4.12 and Authorization 4.3. 12.

Minerals See discussion in Sections 3.4.8 and 4.3 .8. Paleontological Resources See discussion in Sections 3 .4.14 and Recreation 4. 3.14. Socio-Economic See discussion in Sections 3.4.15 and Values 4.3.15. Soils See discussion in Sections 3.4.9 and 4.3.9 Special Status See discussion in Sections 3.4.4 and 4.3.4 Species

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 16

See discussion in Sections 3 .4.10 and Vegetation 4.3. 10. See discussion in Sections 3.4.13 and Visual Resources 4.3.13 Wild Horses and See discussion in Section 3 .4.1 6 and Burros 4.3.16.

Wildlife See discussion in Sections 3.4.4 and 4.3.4. Table 2. Other Resources Considered in the EA.

3.3 Environmental Impacts of No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, the lease parcels would not be sold. Tllis means that no on-the ground actions would occur (geophysical exploration, exploration drilling, etc.) that would have the potential to impact resources. Since there would not be potential impacts to resources, it is not considered ftuther in the EA.

3.4 Impacts Requiring Further Analysis Through intemal scoping, the following resources have been detenuined to be present and potentially affected by the Proposed Action: air quality, cultural resources, noxious weeds, wetlands/riparian zones, forestry, minerals, soils, migratory birds, water quality/hydrology, vegetation, wild horses and burros, visual resource management, wastes (hazardous and solid), threatened and endangered species, special status species, Native American concems, wildlife, range resources, lands and realty, recreation, and socioeconomics. The effects of the Proposed Action on these resources will be brought forth for ftniher analysis.

There would be no direct impacts (i.e., impacts that would occur during the implementation of the Proposed Action) fi-om issuing new oil and gas leases because leasing does not directly authorize oil exploration and development activities. However, if a lease is sold, the lessee retains in·evocable rights. For example, according to 43 CFR § 3101 .1-2, once a lease is issued to its owner, that owner has the "right to use as much of the lease lands as is necessary to explore jOT~ drill for, mine, extract, renwve and dispose ofthe leased resource in the leasehold" subject to specific nondiscretionary statutes and lease stipulations.

If an Application of a Pe1mit to Drill (APD) is received for a purchased parcel, a separate, site specific NEP A analysis would be required to disclose environmental impacts to resources on public lands. Potential impacts may be caused by any or all of the oil and gas exploration and development activities described in Section 3.4. The reader should note that in the following sections only indirect impacts (i.e. , impacts that occur at some point after the implementation of the Proposed Action) are considered.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 17

3.4.1 Air Quality

Affected Environment

Weather in central Nevada is characterized by low humidity with large diurnal variations in temperature. Prevailing wind patterns are generally from the west but locally follow the north south orientations of the mountain ranges. Occasional intense winds can cause localized dust storms and decreased visibility.

Air quality in Battle Mountain District has bee1 desigmtoo as "attcinrnaltlundcssifioo" (which means it either meets, or is assumed to meet, the applicable federal ambient air quality standards) for al sta1da'd ("criteria") ar polluta1ts (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). The Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution Control has been delegated responsibility by both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Nevada to regulate emissions of air pollutants in Nevada.

The lease parcels are not located in or adjacent to any mandatory Class I (most restrictive) federal air quality areas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Class I air quality units, or American Indian Class I air quality lands.

Environmental Consequences

Potential indirect impacts likely to result from exploration and development activities would be an increase in fugitive dust related to ground disturbance and exhaust fumes from motorized equipment during site construction and drilling activities. Increased traffic on the existing roads would also contribute some level of fugitive dust; however, for most drilling activities, the impacts would be minor and would occur over a two to tlU'ee week period. Impacts to air quality would cease when these activities cease. Since the potential for oil and gas exploration activity is expected to be very low within tl1e lease sale area, in1pacts to air quality are not expected to be significant. The Proposed Action would not result in an indirect exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards.

However, if parcels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be attached as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under a site-specific NEP A analysis. All operations would comply with applicable air quality standards.

3.4.2 Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

Parcels proposed to be sold at the July 2014 lease sale are located in nine different regions: In tl1e Shoshone Range, in and arotmd Iron Mountain; the Reese River valley along the westem flank ofthe Toiyabe Range and just south of Austin, Nevada; Simpson Park, just east of Water Canyon; along the eastern and western slopes of the Antelope Range just soutl1 of the Eureka/

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 18

Nye county boundaty; in the Big Sand Springs valley, west of the Pancake Range and south and west of the Red Hills; the south end ofthe Big Smokey Valley, west of Tonopah; along the northern edge and north of the Royston Hills; the southern end of the Toquima Range between the Ralston and Big Smokey valley; and in the Big Smokey Valley between the Toiyabe and Toquima Ranges from Kingston to Round Mountain.

Although limited culttu·al resource surveys have been completed, all of these regions are likely to contain areas ofhigh cultural resource sensitivity. Within the nine regional areas identified here, the Big Smokey Valley has perhaps the greatest potential for significant cultural resources.

Environmental Consequences

The Proposed Action is unlikely to result in indirect adverse effects to culhlral resources because any activities proposed on a given lease would be subject to compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Compliance with the NHPA would require that a site specific cultural resource smvey, including National Register of Historic Preservation (NRHP) eligibility evaluations and Nevada SHPO concurrence, would be required. If it is determined that an NRHP-eligible site would be affected, the proponent would be required to alter the design specifications of the proposal to avoid the effect or would be compelled to mitigate the adverse effect though a data collection program or other measures developed in coordination with the Nevada SHPO. Such site-specific mitigation measures would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity.

3.4.3 Native American Religious Concerns

Affected Environment

The area described in the Proposed Action lies within the traditional teni.tmy of the Western Shoshone and possibly the Paiute Tribes. Sites and resomces considered sacred or necessruy to the continuation of tribal traditions include, but ru·e not limited to: prehistoric and historic village sites, pine nut gathering locations, sites of ceremony and prayer, archaeological sites, bmial locations," rock crt" site:;, medidnai/Erlible pla1t gathering locations, creas associated with creation stories, or any other tribally designated Traditional Cultmal Property. Specific locations in the area were not identified or shared. Futm:e Native American Consultations in the area may reveal such sites, activities, or resomces.

The majority of lands within the proposed action area have not been analyzed for cultural resomces or Native American Religious Concerns. Therefore, the BLM contacted the Battle Mountain band, the South Fork band, the Ely, Timbisha, Duckwater, Yomba Shoshone Tribes and the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe to identify areas of concem, mitigation measmes, operating procedmes or altematives that may eliminate or reduce impacts to any existing tribal resources.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 19

Environmental Consequences

Although the act of selling oil and gas leases does not directly authorize exploration, development, or production, or any other related ground disturbing activities, there does exist tl1e potential to impact Native American sites of a spiritual, cultural, or traditional nature. Impacts to cultural sites can be minimized and/or mitigated when affected Tribes provide input and actively and fully pruticipate in the decision making process.

Impacts to cultural resources ru-e expected to be minimal because exploration activity is expected to be minor and temporruy. However, if pro-eels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation measures and B1v!Ps would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under their own site-specific NEPA analysis.

3.4.4 \Vildlife Resources

Regulatory Framework BLM Special Status Species The lease area may contain BLM Br..IDO special status species (SSS) plants, animals or their habitat (see Appendix D for the Br..IDO SSS list). BLM SSS ru-e defmed as those plant and animal species for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: 1) significant current or predicted downward trend in population nmnbers or density, or 2) a significant current or predicted downwru·d trend in hci:>i tat ~I ity that waul d re:::luce the spe:i e5 exi &i ng distribution. SSS also include federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; i.e., threatened, endangered or candidate; see section below). These SSS animals ru-e protected under provisions of the ESA or under BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management. BLM has species-specific recommendations to avoid or modify activities that are likely to disturb SSS or severely degrade critical habitat. In many cases, tl1e BLM requires tl1at surveys ru·e conducted for SSS species. BLM will not approve any grmmd-distmbing activity that may negatively affect federally listed species or critical habitat, until it completes its obligations tmder applicable requirements oftl1e ESA as runended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedme for conference or consultation. Endangered Species Act (ESA) In ax:ordCilcewith SErlion 7 of the ESA., federal ~enciesmu& "insurethci CllY a:tion authorized, funded, or cauied out by such agency is not likely to jeopru·dize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the dest:mction or adverse modification of critical hcbital: of such spoci es." The purpose of the Act is to provide a meCils for conserving the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, and to provide a progrrun for protecting these species. The ESA defines an endru1gered species as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a major portion of its rru1ge. A threatened species is defined as any species that is likely to become an endru1gered species within the foreseeable futm-e throughout all or a major portion of its range. This Act also address species that have been proposed for listing as either threatened or endangered, but for which a fmal detennination has not been made. These so-calle:::l "CCildidcie" spociescrethose for which the US Fish a1d Wildlife Sa-vice (USFWS) has sufficient information on their biological status and tlu·eats to propose them as endru1gered or threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a proposed listing

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 20 regulation is precluded by other, higher priority listing activities. Critical habitat is a specific area or type of area that is considered to be essential for the survival of a species, as designated by the USFWS under the ESA.

Within the BJ\1D, there are eight listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species by the USFWS (see Appendix D). Ofthese, greater sage-grouse (candidate species) are the only species likely to occur in the lease sale parcels. However, parcel sales will not occur in Preliminaty Priority Habitat (PPH) or within certain areas ofPreliminaty General Habitat (PGH) that was detemlln.ed by site visits to be of high-value.

BL.M and Nevada Department of Wildlife Memorandum of Understa1tdi11g Wildlife and fish resources and their habitat on public lands are managed cooperatively by the BLM and NDOW under a MOU as established in 1971 . The MOU describes the BLM's commitment to manage wildlife and fisheries resource habitat, and the NDOWs role in managing populations. The BLM meets its obligations by managing public lands to protect and enhance food, shelter, atld breeding areas for wild animals. The NDOW assures healthy wildlife nun1bers through a variety of management tools including wildlife and fisheries stocking programs, hunting and fishing regulations, land purchases for wildlife management, cooperative enhancement projects, and other activities.

Nevada Department of Wildlife Programs The NDOW is the state agency responsible for the restoration and management of fish and wildlife resources within the state. The NDOW administers state wildlife mat1agement and protection programs as set fmth in NRS Chapter 501 , Wildlife Administration and Enforcement, and NAC Chapter 503, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping; Miscellaneous Protective Measures. NRS 501.110 defines the vru·ious categories of wildlife in Nevada, including protected categories. NAC 503.010-503.080, 503 .110, and 503.140 lists the wildlife species currently placed in the state's various legal categories, including protected species, game species, and pest species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Consen,ation Act Migratory birds, with the exception of native resident game birds, are protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBT A) of 1918. Under tins act, nests witi1 eggs or the young of migratory birds may not be harmed, nor may any migratmy birds be killed. Measm·es to prevent bird mottality must be incorporated into ti1e design of project design. To comply with the MBTA, it is recollllllended that any land clearing or other smface distmbance associated witi1 proposed actions within the project area be timed to avoid potential disturbance of breeding birds or their nests and young. Disturbance of breeding birds or destruction of nests with eggs or young is a violation of the MBTA. The BLM recOilllllends that land cleru·ing be conducted outside the avian breeding season. For most birds, the breeding season is considered to be from April 1 - July 31 (but see guidelines for Raptors and Eagles below). If land clearing is not feasible outside of the breeding season, the BLM recommends ti1at a qualified biologist survey the area prior to land clearing. These surveys are only good for 14 days. If activity is not completed before that window is fmished then another survey may be needed. If nests are located, or if other evidence of nesting (i.e., mated pairs, territorial defense, cat'lying nesting material, transporting of food) is observed, a protective buffer (ti1e size

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 21 depending on the habitat requirements of the species should be delineated and the entire area avoided lmtil ymmg fledge or the nest is no longer occupied.

Guidance for raptors differs from migratory songbirds in that 1) the nesting season is extended (March 1- July 31 ), and 2) the survey area is larger (surveys will be conducted in the project area in addition to a l mile buffer surrounding the proposed surface disturbance). This survey buffer may be reduced or altered based on topography and the presence of other physical barriers.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) applies primarily to taking, hunting, and trading activities that involve any bald or golden eagle. The act prohibits the direct or indirect take of an eagle, eagle part or product, nest, or egg. The term "ta

The USFWS has guidance for proposed projects that have the potential to impact eagles or their habitat. Generally, the steps in these guidelines include 1) srnveying for nests within an appropriate radius of the project, 2) developing an eagle conse1vation plan (ECP) in cases where eagles and/or their nests are likely to be impacted, 3) detennining if the project has the potential to disturb breeding behavior, and 4) detemlining if the proponents need to apply for a pe1mit to authorize unintentional take.

Surveys for golden eagle nests \vi.ll be designed in coordination with BMD biologists to target the most probable locations near the parcels.

Other Regulations The Sikes Act is federal legislation that authorizes the USDI to plan, develop, maintain, and coordinate programs with state agencies for the conse1vation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish, and game on public lands. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 encourages federal agencies to conserve and promote the conse1vation of non-game fish and wildlife species and their habitats.

Affected Environment

The Bl\ID provides habitat for approximately 73 mammals, 231 birds, 24 reptiles, 7 amphibians, 19 fish species, and numerous inve1tebrate species (many of which have yet to be inventoried or identified to species). Several of these wildlife species are likely to occupy the oil and gas lease sale parcels, including migratory birds, golden eagles and other raptors, greater sage-grouse, bats, pronghorn antelope, and mule deer. In particular, parcels that contain or are adjacent to riparian areas (e.g., streams, springs, seeps, and wet meadows) are likely to supp01t a high density of wildlife species. Other impmtant wildlife habitat types within the sale parcels include big sagebrush (mountain and Wyoming big sagebrush), low sagebrush, pinyon-jtmiper woodlands, aspen woodlands, and salt desert scrub vegetation.

The following sections briefly discuss a few select wildlife species that are likely to occur on the oil and gas lease sale parcels, and for which federal law or BLM policy and guidance directs management actions.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 22

Migratory Birds A wide variety ofbird species protected by the :MBTA are found throughout all habitat types within the lease parcels. These include raptors (i.e., hawks, eagles, and owls) and many songbirds. Major avian communities within the HMD occur in sagebrush, salt shrub, pinyon juniper, montane, riparian, and aspen habitats. Species commonly occurring in pinyon-juniper habitats and that are known to occur or have the potential to occur include the pinyon jay, western bluebird, Virginia's wa-bler, block-throcte:l gray wa-bler a1d Scott's oriole. Sage thrasher, B re.Ner' s spa-row a1d sage spa-row use sagebrush hi tats, whi Ie I oggerhea:i shrike and green-tailed towhee also have potential to occur in the sagebrush habitats. Many songbird species are heavily dependent on healthy riparian systems. Seventy-seven bird species have been identified as either riparian obligate or riparian dependent in the westem United States (Rich 2002), and these communities are requisite for a diverse migratory bird community.

Eagles Golden eagles are widespread year-round residents across the B:rviD. Golden eagles typically nest on large cliffs and they forage on small mammals such as jachabbits, cottontails, and ground squirrels in open shmb, grassland and forested habitats. Alternatively, bald eagles do not nest in the B:rviD, but they do occur during the winter near relatively large open bodies of water.

Greater sage-grouse Greater sage-grouse occur within sagebmsh habitat in Eureka, Lander and northem portions of Nye Cmmty on the B:rviD. Sage-grouse are largely dependent on sagebrush for nesting, brood rearing, and foraging. Greater sage-grouse are known to occur in foothills, plains, and mountain slopes where sagebrush meadows and aspen are in close proximity. Currently, sage-grouse are a candidate species for listing under the ESA.

Mule deer Mule deer use a variety of vegetation types and habitats seasonally within the project area in their pursuit of forage, t11em1al cover, and escape cover for seasonal needs. Vegetation important for mule deer includes serviceberry, snowbeny, mountain mahogany, sagebmsh, aspen, cottonwood, willows, chokecherry, wild roses, Pinyon pine, juniper, eriogonum, arrowleaf balsamroot, penstemon, phlox sp., sorrel, hawksbeard, lupine, and numerous forbs. Riparian vegetation along streams, meadow areas, and aspen stands are impotiant fawn-rearing areas.

Pygmy rabbits Pygmy rcbbitsa-e North America's smallest rcbbits, and the only onesthct construct their own bunows. These burrows usually occur in stands of tall, dense sagebmsh in areas with deep, loose soils. Big sagebrush is the prirnruy food and may comprise up to 99 percent of food taken in \vinter and 51 percent in the summer. Wheatgrass and bluegrass were highly prefened foods in t11e smm11er. Cheatgrass invasion is detrimental to pygmy rabbits. Sluub cover is necessruy for protection dming dispersal and cheatgrass monocultures may provide a batTier to dispersal.

Bats Bats inhabit or utilize many niches across the Nevada and t11e B:rviD. These include caves, abandoned mines, cliffs, springs ripru·iru1, aspen, Pinyon-juniper, subalpine coniferous forest,

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 23 and desert shrub habitats. Bats frequently forage in riparian areas, and some oftl1e most important bat habitat exists along perennial stream conidors.

Environmental Consequences Indirect effects on wildlife species could include direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, displacement, and mortality. These effects oflease operations are not likely to be intensive because the potential for oil and gas exploration and development within the lease area is very low and would probably be of short duration.

In addition, site-specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA docmnent. No oil and gas parcel sales would occur in any areas dete1mined to be located in Prelimina1y Priority Habitat (PPH) or within certain areas of high-value Preliminmy General Habitat (PGH) for the Greater Sage Grouse.

3.4.5 \Vater Quality (Surface and Ground) and Quantity Affected Environment

Water in the lease area is owned by the public ofNevada, however, the right to use surface and grmmdwater and management of water appropriations are administered by the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR). The wate-r quality standards ofNevada suppolt other Federal laws such as the Clean Water Act of 1977, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1962, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 and are administered by tl1e Nevada Division of Water Quality (NDWQ). The lease area is palt of the Basin a11d Range Physiographic Province, a semiarid and arid desert environment with most precipitation originating as snow. Almual precipitation is highly va1·iable. The average ailllual precipitation in Tonopah is 4.95 inches, and March and April a1·e the wettest months (WRCC 2013a). The average ailllual precipitation in Battle Mountain is 8.2 inches, md April and May a1·e the wettest months (WRCC 2013b).

Hydrographic Basins The hydrographic basin is the basic management unit used by the NDWR. Table 3 identifies the hydrographic basin numbers, basin names, md regions in which they a1·e located. Tl1ere are basins in the lease area that are designated as closed to pa1ticular beneficial uses, typically due to perennial yields md the mtmber of appropriations as ofMarch 13, 2012, from the NDWR web site (NDWR 2012a).

Basin# Basin Name Region Designated Perennial Appropriatio.ns Closed Yield (Acre (Yes/No) Feet/Year) 137B Big Smoky Valley Central Region Yes 65,000 54,829 -Northern 056 Upper Reese River Humboldt River No 37,000 36,037 Valley Basin 137A Big Smoky Valley Central Region Yes 6,000 23 ,930 -Tonopah

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 24

Basin# Basin Name Region Design.ated Perennial Appropriations Closed Yield (Acre (Yes/No) Feet/Year) 139 Kobeh Valley Central Region Yes 16,000 12,478 138 Grass Valley Central Region No 13,000 12,644 155A Little Smoky Central Region No 5,000 5,055 Valley - Northern 150 Little Fish Lake Central Region No 10,000 7,895 Valley 141 Ralston Valley Central Region Yes 6,000 4,305 151 Antelope Valley Central Region No 4,000 3,063 134 Smith Creek Central Region No 10,000 1,915 135 lone Valley Central Region No 2,500 191 155C Little Smoky Central Region No 1,000 17 Valley - Southern

1 - Smoky Central Region No 100 2 -Central Table 3. Hydrographic Basm Swnmary

The proposed lease parcels are located in hydrographic region l 0, Central Region and 4, Humboldt River Region. The majority of leases are within hydrographic basin 13 7, Big Smokey Basin. Table 4 provides a summary ofthe proposed lease area:

# ofParcels Basin Number Basin Name Hydrographic Region 4 151 Antelope Valley Central-! 0 123 137 Big Smokey Central-10 1 138 Grass Valley Cen.tral-10 9 135 lone Valley Central-! 0 1 139 Kobeh Valley Central-10 2 150 Little Fish Lake Valley Cen.tral-10 11 144 Little Smokey Valley Central-10 11 141 Ralston Valley Central-1 0 6 134 Smith Creek Central-10 21 056 U_pper Reese River Hwnboldt-4 Table 4 Hydrographic sub-areas in which the proposed leases are located.

Surface Water Most of the lease area consists of closed drainage basins, with a few watersheds to the north flowing toward the Humboldt River. According to the National Hydrography Dataset, the lease area contains 11 springs, 86 km of perellilial streams, 1,642 km of ephemeral and intennittent streams, 168 acres of lakes and ponds, 361 acres of playa, 11 acres of swamp and marsh, and 266 acres of reservoir bodies. Unsurveyed features may exist.

The magnitude of smface water discharge vaxies in space and time. With the exception of moist winters in 2006 and 2010-2011, the Great Basin has been abnonnally dry or within drought conditions since 2000. Since early 2012, the BMD and much of the Central Great Basin have

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 25 consistently been in states of moderate to exceptional drought. Streamflow forecasts show most of the major river systems in the planning area will be at 25 to 50 percent of average for 2013 .

The Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 445A identifies class waters, which generally include smaller perennial streams that are tJ.ibutmies to the large rivers in the state. The classification process is ongoing and not all water bodies have been classified. Water bodies are classified according to their quality and potential beneficial uses. The water quality standards conespond to these classes.

Groundwater Runoff from upland m·eas of the lease m·ea often infiltJ.·ates into the groundwater as it flows across the broad alluvial fans that transition into wide basins. Groundwater is eitl1er directed towm·d the playa and is lost to the atmosphere as evapotJ.·anspiration or seeps into deeper aquifers that compose larger regional flow systems. Two regional flow systems have been extensively studied by the USGS, the Death Valley Regional Flow System (Belcher 2004), and the Basin and Range Carbonate Aquifer System (Welch et al. 2007). However, a lm·ge proportion in the middle of the Planning Area has not been studied. Perennial base flow from springs is largely driven by snowmelt runoff recharge. Depth to grmmdwater is highly variable throughout the Lease Area ranging from a few feet to hundreds of feet.

Nevooa' s groundvvcter quality standcrds ere based on the assumption that groundvvcter should be maintained suitable for use as a drinking water source, unless the natural water quality prevents this. The State adopts the Federal primmy and secondmy drinking water standards (maximum contaminant limits) for groundwater resources. The chemical character and quality of groundwater varies in the Lease Area and depends largely on tl1e mineral content of the rock, residence time, evapotranspiration, temperature.

The perennial yield is defined as the maximum ammmt of groundwater that can be hmvested each year over the long tenn witl10ut depleting the groundwater rese1voir or it being in disequilibrium. Perennial yields were quantified by USGS reconnaissance reports from the late 1940s to the 1970s. A hydrographic basin that has more appropriations than perennial yield is identified as a designated basin; the B:MD has 29 basins that are fully or partially designated.

Riparian/Wetland Zones Water quality and supply is intimately related to tl1e health of riparian and wetland ecosystems. Riparian and wetland m·eas are the most productive and important ecosystems on the B:MD. They represent less than one percent of the area, but contain the majority of biodiversity and are vital ecologic functions. Research has shown that riparian and wetland habitat chm·acteristically has a greater diversity of plant and animal species tl1an adjoining areas. Approximately 86 kilometers of perennial strem11 and 1, 642 kilometers of ephemeral or intenuittent strean1 are within the parcels. These streams may have associated ripmian habitat.

Floodplains Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated Zone A flood hazard m·eas, which would be flooded during a 100-year , 24-hour mnoff event, have been delineated in low-lying regions of the lease m·ea. There are a total of 6,133 acres oflease parcels identified within Zone A flood hazard areas and tl1ey would be subject to Federal Regulation and mitigation; however

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 26

FEMA flood mapping data are not yet available for Esmeralda County, NV. Site-specific analysis, to identifY potential flood plain impacts, would be required prior to drilling in parcels that meet this designation.

Municipal Watersheds Areas within the lease area have been identified as having Municipal Water Supplies within the HUC-12 boundaries. Site-specific analysis, to identify potential impacts, would be required prior to drilling in parcels that meet this designation.

Environmental Consequences

Groundwater There would be no direct impacts to groundwater due to oil and gas leasing because no authorization for surface disturbance would be granted. Impacts from development activities would be analyzed under a separate site-specific enviromnental analysis. All activities would be subject to BMPs, State and Federal Regulations, and COAs. Potential impacts to groundwater by the development of a lease may include degradation of water quality and drawdown of existing water levels. Water quality issues may arise from either Ul1derground or surface contamination. The primary cause of underground degradation would be from improperly functioning well casings. Surface activities can degrade groundwater by infiltration of contaminants, particularly from sun1ps and spills. Areas ·with shallow groundwater levels would be at greater risk and may be subject to additional constraints. All required state and federal regulations would apply and site-specific stipulations and mitigation may be applied on the APD.

Surface Waters There would be no direct impacts to smface waters due to oil and gas leasing because no authorization for surface disturbance would be granted. Impacts from development activities would be analyzed under a separate site-specific environmental analysis. All activities would be subject to BMPs, State and Federal Regulations, and CO As. Potential impacts oflease development on surface waters may include increases in sediments and changes in flow. If surface-distm·bing activities were proposed near surface waters or wetlands/riparian zones, additional mitigation may be required. All operations would be required to comply with all state and federal regulations.

Riparian Areas and Wetlands There would be no direct in1pacts to riparian and wetlands due to oil and gas leasing because no authorization for surface disturbance would be granted. Impacts from development activities would be analyzed under a separate site-specific environmental analysis. AU activities would be subject to BMPs, state and federal regulations, and COAs. Surface disturbance adjacent to wetlands/riparian zones and adjacent to flood plains has the potential to adversely affect the functioning condition of a riparian area's soil and watershed afu·ibutes. Based on tl1e RFD, it is expected that the impact of lease development on riparian habitats would be relatively small, when site-specific mitigation, COAs, and BMPs are in1plemented.

3.4.6 Waste, Hazardous and Solid Affected Environment

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 27

Oil and gas development could affect the enviro1m1ent through production of waste fluids, emissions, and site impacts resulting from field development and related infrastructure. Hazards that may be encountered include oil spills, releases of produced water, exposures of drill cuttings and fluids, and the production ofhazardous materials.

Environmental Consequences

Indirect impacts could include drilling fluid or hydrocarbon spills, leakage from sump ponds or waste water collection systems, spillage of brine water from drilling and accumulations of solid waste. Hydrocarbon spills could include hydraulic fluid, gasoline, oil, or grease from vehicles, generators and exploration drill rigs. Brine water from exploration drilling, if improperly disposed, could raise the pH and/or salinity of existing surface waters to unacceptable levels. Generations of nonhazardous solid waste could include small amounts of trash, drill cuttings, wastewater, bentonite and cement generated during drilling operations.

Despite this anay of potential impacts, the probability oftheir occurrence is remote, because the potential for oil and gas exploration and development in the lease area is very low. In addition, site-specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under their own site-specific NEPA analysis.

3.4.7 Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Non-native Species Affected Environment

A noxious weed is a plant species that has been defmed as a pest by law or regulation. The list of the species that are designated as noxious weeds within Nevada is found in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), Chapter 555, Section 010 (NAC 555.010). Currently the list contains 4 7 noxious weed species. When considering whether to add a species to the list, the Nevada Deprutment of Agriculture (NDOA) makes a recommendation after consulting with outside expet1s and a panel comprising Nevada Weed Action Committee members. Per NAC 555.005, if a species is found probable to be "detrimental or destmctive and difficult to control or eradicate", the NDOA, with approval of the Board of Agriculture, designates the species as a noxious weed. The species is then added to the noxious weed list in NAC 555.010. Upon listing, the NDOA will also assign a rating of "A", "B", or "C" to the species. The rating reflects the N DOA' s view of the statewide importance of the noxious weed, the likelihood that eradication or control efforts would be successful, and the present distribution of noxious weeds within the state.

An invasive species is defined as a species that is non-native to the ecosystem tmder consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic concem or environmental harm or harm to human health (EO 13112, signed Febmary 3, 1999).

Noxious weeds and invasive species occur on surface acres within the affected areas. Dovmy brome (cheatgrass), halogeton ru1d other annual weeds are common along roadsides and on other disturbed areas. Russian knapweed, hoary cress, perennial peppetweed, tarnru·isk, and vru·ious thistles (Canada, musk and scotch) ru·e also kno\\'Il to occur in these areas.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 28

Other species have the potential to be introduced into newly disturbed areas. The inventory process is on-going to detect small, invasive populations as they begin to move into the district. Once a population is found, the BLM coordinates with various agencies, lease operators, and land users to in1plement treatment to remove or control the population. For all actions on public lands that involve surface disturbance or rehabilitation, reasonable measures are required to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive non-native species. These measures may include power washing or air blasting of construction equipment to remove soil, oil, and vegetative patts and requirements for using certified weed-free seed and weed-free hay, mulch, and straw. In addition, any actions that result in the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and/or invasive non-native species would be mitigated by standard weed management guidelines tmder the direction of the BLM.

Environmental Consequences

Under the Proposed Action, there would be no direct impacts to noxious weeds and invasive, non-native species, because no new ground-disturbing activities or increase in development related vehicular or equipment traffic would occur.

Oil and gas exploration and development activities would provide a mode of transport for noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species to become established. Fmther, grotmd distmbance associated with exploration and development would provide areas where new atld expanded infestation could occur. If parcels were developed in the futme, site-specific mitigation measmes and BMPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under their own site-specific NEPA analysis.

3.4.8 Geology and Minerals Affected Environment

The lease area in the MLFO region is botmded by the Desatoya Mountains and the Tobin Range on the west and Diatnond Mountains and Sulphm Spring Range on the east. The parcels in the TFO are located within three valleys: the Big Smokey Valley, the lone Valley, and the Big Sand Springs Valley. The lease at·ea is located in the Basin and Rat1ge province. The Basin and Range province is comprised of north-south oriented mountain ranges separated by broad valleys, which covers most ofNevada. These mountains were formed by cmstal blocks that moved upward along parallel normal faults. Basins, or valleys, were fom1ed by fault-bounded cmstal blocks that moved relatively downward. Many of these faults are still active and eruthquakes can occm.

A vat·iety of rock types cat1 be found within the lease area. These rock types include: Lower Paleozoic sedimentruy and volcanic rocks, Tertia1y volcatlic rocks, Upper Tertiary volcanic rocks, at1d Quaternary alluvial and playa deposits.

Paleozoic Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks Paleozoic sedimentary and volcatlic rocks represent the oldest sedimentary and volcatlic rock outcrops in the district. These rocks consist primarily of carbonates (lin1estone and dolomite) and

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 29 metamorphosed basalts. In the remainder of the district, the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentaty rocks are composed of carbonate rocks interbedded with silica-rich rocks, chet1s, shales and volcanic rocks.

Mesozoic and Tertiary Intrusive Rocks The majority of intrusive rocks are Mesozoic in age with a lesser amount of intrusive rocks emplaced during the Tertiaty time. These rocks are predominm1tly grm1itic in composition.

Tertiary Volcanic Rocks These volcanic rocks m·e composed primarily of rhyolitic ash flows, lava flows and welded tuffs.

Quaternary Rocks Quaternruy rocks consist of unconsolidated valley fiii material (i.e., material eroded off of mountains) sand, gravel, a11d alluvium. Also included m·e Quatematy basalt flows and Pleistocene lake beds with intercalated volcanic tuffs.

Although there is a combination of rock types and complex geologic events in the lease parcels there m·e no locatable, saleable, or leasable minerals that are cunently being mined.

Neogene Rocks The Neogene Period is a unit of geologic time starting 23 .03 ± 0.05 million years ago. The Neogene Period follows the Paleogene Period of the Cenozoic Era. Under the cUITent proposal of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), the Neogene would consist of the Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene epochs and continue until the present.

Locatable Minerals Locatable minerals m·e mostly metallic, nonmetallic, semi-precious and precious gemstones, and rare earth elements. Metallic minerals include precious metals such as gold and silver, and base minerals such as zinc, molybdenum, bentonite, nickel, cinnabar, lead, tin, and copper. Some of the nonmetallic minerals are borax, feldspar, fluorspar, and gypsun1. One of the rare earth elements mined as a locatable mineral is uranium.

The potential that oil and gas interests may overlap with those of mineral exploration exists. However, based on past experience in Nevada most of the lands that are used for oil and gas exploration and production would be reclaimed ·within ten years. The majority of oil and gas exploration and development would be short term and hence would not appreciably affect mineral exploration and development. Agreements between oil and gas and mineral operators could mitigate potential conflicts between the 2 land uses.

Saleable Minerals Saleable minerals can only be acquired by purchase. They include, but are not limited to, the following: petrified wood, common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinder, clay, and rock The most common are sand and gravel deposits. Gravel deposits are associated with colluvium, which was eroded off the mmmtain rm1ges. Other types of deposits include topsoil and sand. These types of saleable minerals are distributed throughout the lease area,

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 30 although, there is no ongoing major exploration for saleable minerals or active mining on the lease parcels.

Prior history in Nevada shows that oil and gas exploration and development activities would require up to 2.5 acres in gravel pit expansion. This small acreage would not greatly increase the amotmt of gravel pits, nor would it burden the colllillunities that utilize gravel.

Leasable Minerals Leasable minerals are those that may be extracted from leases on public lands and are subdivided into solid and fluid leasable mineral groups. Solid minerals include the following: coal sodium, potassium, and phosphate (and under certain conditions, sand, gravel, and locatable minerals). Fluid minerals include oil and gas, and geothennal resources.

In Nevada, oil and gas wells are typically associated with elevated water temperatures (approximately 160°F or higher), and conflicts may arise between geothe1mal and oil and gas exploration development. These potential impacts could be mitigated through negotiations between operators.

Oil and Gas The only oil and gas production that has occuned in the B:MD is located within Railroad Valley; approximately twenty (20) miles east/southeast from the parcels located within Big Sand Springs Valley. Railroad Valley is the predominate area of oil and gas production in Nevada. However, interest in oil and gas leasing and exploration continues.

Geothermal Lately interest in geothermal exploration has increased. Nevada leads the nation in geothermal energy production. Cunently operating plants include: Washoe County (Galena 2, Galena 3, Richard Burdette, San Emidio, Steamboat Hills, Steamboat lA, Steamboat 2, Steamboat 3); Churchill County (Brady, Desert Peak, Dixie Meadows, Salt Wells, Soda Lake 1 & 2, Stillwater 2); Lander and Pershing Counties (Jersey Valley, McGinnis Hills); Elko Cotmty (Tuscarora fonnerly Hot Sulphur Springs 2); Eureka County (Beowawe); Humboldt County (Faulkner); Lyon County (HomestTetch).

There are no oil and gas lease parcels that overlap culTent geothermal operations, although two of them are contiguous. Any issues that may arise could be mitigated by negotiation between the operators.

Environmental Consequences

The potential that oil and gas interests may overlap with those of mineral exploration exists. However, the majority of acres that may be used for oil and gas exploration and production are usually reclaimed within ten years. Inmost instances, oil and gas exploration and development are short term endeavors and hence would not appreciably affect mineral exploration and

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 31 development. Agreements between oil and gas and mineral operators could help to mitigate those acres that would be used for oil and gas production on a more long-tenn basis.

Oil and gas exploration and development activities could require up to 2.5 acres in gravel pit expansion. This small acreage would not greatly increase the amount of gravel pits, nor would it burden the communities that utilize gravel.

In Nevada, oil and gas wells are typically associated with elevated water temperatures (approximately 160°F or above), and conflicts may arise between geothermal and oil and gas exploration development. These potential impacts could be mitigated through negotiations between operators.

If parcels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation measures and B:MPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under their own site specific NEPA analysis.

3.4.9 Soils Affected Environment

Differences in climate, relief, aspect, slope, landfmm, elevation and parent material among other factors contribute to the formation of different soil types. High variability of these factors within the project area creates a wide variety of soil types. Soils within the project area range from those typical in the valley floors that tend to be deep, poorly drained due to high clay content and highly alkali to those common in the higher mountain elevations which tend to be shallow yotmg gravely soils with near neutral pH.

Existing soils surveys of the project area will be used to for evaluating land-use potential, potential plant commtmities and developing reclamation and rehabilitation plans. Three major soil orders dominate the soil types in the project area these are: Aridisols, Entisols, and Mollisols. A brief description of each soil order is provided below.

Aridisols Aridisols a mineral soil are found on light-colored surface horizons and have propetties typical of soils in arid regions. Within the project area they are found mainly in the valley bottoms but may be found at higher elevation. These soils do not have water continuously available to them during the normal growing season. The period of water stress typically about 3 months. These soils are low in organic matter and may have accumulations of soluble salts and lime and tend to be alkali. Aridisols tend to be finer in texture than the other two orders.

Entisols Entisols are found on recent landscapes, such as alluvium and distmbed sites. Soil texture tends to be more gravely and well drained. These are mineral soils that are vety young and have not yet developed appreciable accumulations of soluble salts and lime. Soil horizon development is typically minimal. They occur in both the valley bottoms as well as the motmtains. In the mountains these tend to make up the steeper more erodible soils whereas lower elevation they

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 32 tend to be found in areas of deposition such as alluvial fans and floodplains. Thought these sites are typically xeric however, they are not as dry as the Aridisols.

Mollisols Mollisols are fmmd on dark -colored fe1tile surface horizons that have been formed under semiarid to sub-humid climate. Moisture availability is typically the highest in this type than the other t\vo. These soils are rich in organic matter and are ve1y fe1iile. In the project area, these soils mainly fonn in the motmtains with grass communities. These soils are older and generally occur on more stable alluvial fans and tenaces.

Environmental Consequences

There would be no direct impacts from issuing new oil and gas leases because leasing does not directly authorize oil and gas exploration and development activities. However, it is reasonably foreseeable that oil and gas exploration and development would occur within the next 10 years. Direct impacts from these activities would be analyzed under separate site-specific EAs.

If exploration and development activities were permitted, soil could be impacted by wind and water erosion, disturbance to microbiotic crusts, and soil compaction. If parcels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation measures and B:MPs would be attached as CO As for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed tmder a site-specific NEPA analysis

3.4.10 Vegetation Affected Environment:

Vegetation within the lease area provides forage and cover for wildlife, livestock, wild horses and burros within the project area. It also provides ground cover and root mass for soil stability and development. Vegetative cover also aids in infiltration of water into the ground. The type of vegetation that grows in a particular area depends largely on soil types and average precipitation. Ecological site descriptions including soil surveys are available. The infonnation obtained from these surveys is used for evaluating land-use potential, potential plant communities, and developing reclamation and rehabilitation plans. These ecological site descriptions provide detailed information regarding vegetative communities for each soil type and precipitation zone. The following vegetative communities have been identified as those affected by the proposed action and are discussed in detail below.

Greasewood This community occurs on floodplains and closed-basin bottomlands adjacent to playas. Greasewood is located on slopes that range from 0-2% with an elevation between 4,500-5,000 feet and occur in precipitation zones of3-5 and 5-8 inches. Vegetation in this type is nmmally restricted to mounded areas that are surrounded by playa-like depressions or nearly level, usually banen, interspaces. Tllis plant community is characterized by black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), Basin wild1ye (Leymus cinereus), inland saltgrass (Distich/is spicata), and alkali sacaton (Spordoolus airoides) are the most prevalent herbaceous species associated with this community. Saltgrass may extend into the interspace in some areas. Potential vegetative composition is typically 25% grasses, 5% forbs and 70% shrubs.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 33

Salt Desert Shrub Tllis vegetative commnnity occms on alluvial terraces, fans, and foothills on all aspects. Salt desel1 shrubs are located on slopes that range :fi:om 0-30%, with 0-8% slopes the most typical. Salt Desert Shrub occms at elevations bet\veen 4,500-6,000 feet and within precipitation zones of 3-5 and 5-8 inches. The plant commtmity is characterized by shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), bud sagebrush (Artemisia spinescens), and some winterfat (Kraschenimzikovia lanata). Bud sagebrush and winterfat are palatable salt desert shrub species. Bottlebmsh squineltail (Elyntus elymoides) and Indian ricegrass (Achnathernm hymenoides) are key grass species associated with this vegetative commnnity. Alkali meadows are included in this plant community and consist of inland saltgrass and basin wild!ye. Potential vegetative composition is typically 10% grasses, 5% forbs and 85% shrubs.

Big Sagebrush This is the most extensive community within the project area, which occms on terraces, alluvial fans, and low rolling illlls on all exposmes. Wyoming and Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. '~>vyomingensis ; Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) occurs on slopes that range from2-50% with elevations ranging from 4,500-6,000 feet and within the 8-12 inch precipitation zone. Tills plant commnnity is characterized by Wyoming and Basin big sagebrush, Thmber's needlegrass (Aclmatherum thurberianum), Indian ricegrass, Basin wild!ye, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Sandberg's bluegrass (Poa secunda). Arrowleafbalsamroot (Balsamorhi':.a sagittata) and Tape1tip hawksbeard (Crepis acuminata) are imp01tant forb species associated with this vegetation type. Potential vegetative composition is typically 50% grasses, 15% forbs and 35% shrubs.

Black Sagebrush Tills vegetative community occurs on low arid foothills, mmmtain side slopes and plateaus. Black sagebmsh (Artemisia nova) occurs on slopes that range from 4-50% with elevations ranging from 5,000-7,000 feet and are associated with the 4-8 inch precipitation zone. Soils are often shallow over a calcareous pan, which limits effective water holding capacity and seeding success. Vegetation that characterizes this comnnmity consists of black sagebrush, bottlebrush squineltail, and Sandberg's bluegrass. Bluebnnch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) is characteristic for communities that occur in the higher elevations. Potential vegetative composition is typically 50% grasses, 15% forbs and 35% shrubs.

Low sagebrush This vegetative commlmity occurs on mountain side slopes and plateaus. Low sagebrush occurs on slopes that range from 4-75% with elevations ranging from 5,000-9,000 feet and are associated with the 8-12 inch precipitation zone. Soils are often shallow over a calcareous pan, which limits effective water holding capacity and seeding success. This vegetative community is characterized by low sagebmsh (Artemisia arbuscula), bottlebrush squineltail, Sandberg's bluegrass, and bluebunch wheatgrass. Potential vegetative composition is typically 50% grasses, 15% forbs and 35% shrubs.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 34

Mountain Brush This community occurs on upland terraces and inset mountain valleys on all slope aspects. Mountain brush occurs on slopes that range from 4-50% v.rith elevations ranging from 6,000- 9,000 feet. These communities generally occur v.rithin the 12+ inch precipitation zone. The vegetative community is characterized by Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), bluebunch wheatgrass, snowbeny (Symphoricarpos albus), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and servicebeny (Amelanchier utahensis). Mountain brome (Bromus carinatus), mountain spray (Holodiscus discolor), curl-leaf mountain mahogany ( Cercocarpus ledifolius ), and mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) are other species associated with this community. Potential vegetative composition is typically 55% grasses, 15% forbs and 30% shmbs.

Pi1ion-Juniper Woodlands This community occurs on upper alluvial fans and in the higher mountainous regions v.rith slopes ranging from 30-50%. Elevations range from 5,500-9,000 feet. This community occurs v.rithin the l 0-22 inch precipitation zone. Lower elevations (5 ,000-6,500 feet) commtmities are dominated by juniper, mid elevations (6,500-7 ,500 feet) by both pifion and juniper and high elevations (above 7,500 feet) are predominately pifion pine. These plant communities are characterized by single-leaf pinon pine (Pinus monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). There are localized ecosystems which support other juniper species such as common juniper (Juniperus communis) and Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum). The understmy although sparse, consists ofbluebunch wheatgTass, Sandberg's bluegrass, Thurber's needlegrass, basin v.rildrye, and needleandthread grass (Hesperostipa comata). Juniper and pinon trees dominate these areas; however, mountain big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, and curl-leaf mountain mahogany can be found within the community. Heavily wooded areas provide little forage and have a large amount of bare ground. Potential vegetative composition is typically 40% grasses, 15% forbs and 45% shrubs and trees.

Riparian Small riparian communities occur within the project area and m·e associated with streams, springs, and seeps where water is at or near the surface for the majority of the year. Species associated with this commtmity include willow (Salix spp.), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), cottonwoods (Populusfrernontii, P. Balsamifera ssp. TrichocGTpa trichocarpa, augustifolia), water birch (Betula occidentalis), red-osier dogwood (Comus sericea), rushes (juncas ssp.) and sedges (carex ssp.), and cattail (Typha latifolia). Potential vegetative composition is typically 70% grasses m1d grass like species, 25% forbs and 5% slnubs.

Winterfat Bottoms Winterfat communities occur generally in flats of drainage and flood plains. They typically occur in areas where slopes range from 0-2%. The elevation of this community ranges from 4000-6000 feet m1d within precipitation zones of 5-8 inches. Soils are typically sandy loam. The plant connmmity is characterized and dominated by v.rinterfat. It also includes vegetation such as bud sagebrush, Indian ricegrass and squineltail. Potential vegetative composition is typically 10% grasses, 5% forbs and 85% sluubs.

Anuuals

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 35

Although this vegetation type is not considered an ecological type, it is a plant community that accounts for portions of the project area. Areas that have been disturbed may be invaded by invasive annual species, sometimes to the exclusion of native species. Dominant plants are cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and/or halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus). Other plants often present in these areas are Russian thistle (Sa/sola kali), clasping peppenveed (Lepidium perfoliatum), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) and Russian knapweed (Centeurea repens).

Environmental Consequences

Exploration and development activities would likely result in the complete removal of vegetation in the developed areas. These impacts would promote the erosion of soils and the establishment of noxious weeds and invasive, non-native species. The impact would persist w1til the developed areas were revegetated during reclamation. If parcels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document.

3.4.11 Range Resources Affected Environment

Livestock production is a major industry within the lease area. There are 19 grazing allotments within or overlapping the lease area (Table 5, Figure 3). The grazing allotments are comprised of both public and private lands. G-razing pennits are issued to qualified individuals or entities. These grazing pennits specify numbers, season of use, kind of livestock and an10unt of AUMs allowed for use, other tenns and conditions may be added to grazing permits. Individual pe1111ittees or multiple permittees may operate on a single allotment. Various range improvement projects are also within these allotment boundaries. These projects may include: fences, cattleguards, troughs, wells, pipelines, seeding or vegetation manipulation projects etc.

Allotment Name Total Acres of Kind TotalAUMs BLM Dry Cr·eek 149,225 Horse, Cattle 5,702 Fish Cr(>ek Ranch 287,984 She(>p, Cattle 4,815 Fr·ancisco 16,896 Cattle 1,369 Grass Valley 282,854 Horse, Cattle 17,701 Hunts Canvon 93,558 Cattle 2,237 Mill(>tt Ranch 797 Cattle 72 MountAirv 80,093 Cattle, She(>p 3,651 Monte Christo 496,018 Cattle 9,352 Port N· Canyon 125,150 Cattle 7,256 Ralston 368,682 not curTently permitted not cm·r·entlv pe1·mitted San Antone 442,555 Cattle 13,505 San Juan 64,988 Cattle, Sheep 9,169

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 36

Allotment Name Total Acres of Kind TotaiAUMs BLM Sand Springs 203,868 Cattle, Shet>p 5,727 St-ven Mile 88,420 Cattle, Sheep 5,573 Smoky 125,247 Cattle 5,523 Snowball Ranch 27,261 Cattle 991 South Smith Crt-ek 149,857 Horse, Cattlt>, Shet>p 5,331 Tt·ail Canyon 24,298 Cattle 581 Wildcat Canyon 65,658 Cattle 2,677 Table 5. Grazmg allotments W1tlun the Lease Area.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 37

Battle Mountain District United States Department Of The Interior SureatJ Of La.tld Management Oil and Gas Lease Sale Battle Moontain Distrie1 50 Balitian Road July 2014 B

Map. Dato. February 3, 201 4

_toii OO!I~ O II as to lt\e accuracy, r!iablltty, or compleUJooss Of thes8 * CM.o.&. 'l'.._ kl< ...u41U~IM!>leln'W'f tlata ror iodi'M:Iu& ~ or a~Jg~te use wlth otr'!er e.ai.• llti1Nu41~~'1 ~n.a! data were compiled trom v;atiOus -soorct~s. This tlwoll~ .,f ~, .. tntormatloo may not mee-t National Map Accllrocy

o.-- •tf !.ncf; ~ Statldartis This prottud W'$ deveJQped tf\rOf.:Qh <1~l1a1 means and may be Updatec v.·tthot;rt no-':ihca11on.

Figure 3. Grazing allotments in the Lease Area.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 38

Environmental Consequences

Exploration and development activities would impact rangeland resources through the removal of vegetation. The removal of vegetation would temporarily decrease the amount of available forage for wildlife, livestock, wild horses, and bunos in specific areas. Given the fact that the potential for exploration and development activities to occur in low, it is unlikely that Animal Unit Months(AUM's) would be lost. If parcels were developed in tl1e future, site-specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document.

3.4.12 Lands and Realty All of the proposed lease parcels are located on public lands with federally controlled surface and subsurface mineral estate. Many of the parcels would require a right-of-way (RO\V) in order to access the lease parcels. Some parcels include pre-existing land use authorizations such as grants, leases, permits, and withdrawals. Table 4 provides a sUilllllary of the land use authorizations in tl1e lease area

ROW Case File ROW Holder ROW Description Affected Lease Parcel N-088866 SietTa Pacific Power Co. 25-foot wide powerline 001 , 002, 004, & 005 N-089652 Nye County 100-foot wide road in Sections 001 , 002, 004, & 005 N-090166 Nye County Varied width road 005, 006, 007, & 008, NVCC-018394 NDOT 400-foot wide ROW 010, 011 , 015, 017, & 019 N-073706 NV Bell 20-foot fiber optic line 010, 011 , 015, 017, & 019 N-004225 NDOT Mineral Material Site 010 NVCC-020911 NDOT Mineral Material Site 010 N-033242 SietTa Pacific Power Co. 75-foot wide powerline 010, 015, 019, & 020 Nev-043264 SieiTa Pacific Power Co. 100-foot wide powerline 011 , 012, 015, 01 7, 019, 020, 047, 055, 056, & 059 NVCC 018376 NDOT Mineral Material Site 011 NVCC 020909 NDOT Mineral Material Site 011 NVCC 020910 NDOT Mineral Material Site 011 N-056304 FHWA 60-ft access road 012 N-089652 Nye Cow1ty 100-foot wide road 013, 016, & 01 7 N-040053 USGS Monitor Well 013 Nev-060306 NDOT Mineral Material Site 017 NVCC-020912 NDOT Mineral Material Site 017, & 019 N-40054 USGS Monitoring Well 021 N-ll44 1 SietTa Pacific Power Co. 25-foot distribution line 023, 025, 103 , & 107 NVCC-02l379A NDOT 400-ftROW 023 , 024, 025, & 104 N-59009 Lander County Access road for comm Site 024, 025, & 028 NVCC-018101A NDOT 400-foot road ROW 024, & 025 N-023 392 NDOT Mineral Material Site 025 N-079989 UNAVCOinc. Plate Observatory Site 025 N-000292 Teleford 50-foot irri2ation ditch 27 Nev 055173 Truckee River Ranch, 100-foot ROW for ditches 031 , 032, 034, & 035

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 39

ROW CaseFUe ROWHoldet ROW Descdption Affected Lease Parcel LLC N-055853 Tntckee River Ranch, 100-foot ROW for ditches 033 LLC N-077508 NV Bell 20-foot fiber optic line 040, 103 , & 104 N-007189 NV Bell 10-foot wide ROW 040, & 104 NVCC-020778 NDOT 400-foot wide road ROW 050, 052, 054, 057, 058, & 073 N-025 341 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 140-foot wide powerline ROW 050, 055 , 056, 059, 060, 122, 123, 128, 131 , 132, 134, 146, 147, 148, 149, & 150 N-075838 Robert Beck 30-foot access road 051 Nev 063690 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 30-foot wide powerline 051 N-083122 Nye County Public Works Water facility 051 NVCC-024751 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 40-foot wide powerline 055, 056, & 059 N-052585 Round Mountain Gold 16-foot wide access road 055, 056, & 059 N-040047 USGS Monitoring Well 057 N-039891 Carver Irrigation Ditch 060 N-009123 Rotmd Mountain Gold 100-foot wide water pipeline 063 N-045089 Round Mountain Gold 100-foot well field pipeline 063 N-045228 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 25-foot distribution line 063 N-092242 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 25-foot distribution line 063 Nev 005149 Berg 100-foot water pipeline & 069 irrigation facility N-039908 NV Bell 10- foot telephone line 069, 083 , 088, 093 , 097, & 098 N-063200 NV Bell 20-foot fiber optic line 069, 098 NVCC-022622 NDOT 400-foot road ROW 069, 083 , 088, 091 , 093, & 098 Nev 064717 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 30-foot Distribution line 073 N-041911 Stonier 60-foot access road 073 N-037345 NV Bell 10-foot telephone line 073 N-047382 NyeCounty access road 073 N-056922 Tntckee River Ranch, varied width ditches and canals 079, & 080 LLC N-046509 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 25-foot distribution line 079, 080, 093 , & 095 N-063200 NV Bell 20-foot fiber optic line 079, 080, 083, 093,095, & 097 N-053344 T1uckee River Ranch, varied width ditches and canals 079, & 083 LLC N-088358 Tntckee River Ranch, 10-ft wide distribution line 079 LLC Nev 065085 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 30-foot distribution line 082, 086, & 087 NVCC022617 NDOT Mineral material site and access 083 road N-040044 USGS Monitoring Well 083 N-046508 Nye County 25-foot road 091 NVCC-022618 NDOT Mineral Material Site 091 Nev 045227 Potiker Irrigation ditch 091 N-006971 USFS N ortluunber!and road #20023 097, 099, 139, 141,150 N-007260 T~rist Ranch Comm. Site, canal and ditch 097 N-048679 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 25-foot distribution line 097, 098 N-054886 NV Bell Smoky Joe's oomm. Si te 097 N-056103 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 10-foot distribution line Parcel 097

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 40

ROW Case Flle ROWBoldel' ROW Desct'iption Affected Lease Parcel N-041922 Lander County 3 0-foot overhead powerline Parcell03 N-043918 Sierra Pacific Power Co. 10-foot distribution line Parcel107, 108 N-078094 NyeCounty 200-footaccessroad Parcel 113, 114 N-089651 Nye County 100-foot access road Parcel 113, 114 N-084077 Town of Round Mountain Access 30-foot road Parcel120, 131 N-088024 Pickens 21-foot access road Parcel124 N-084473 Nye County Public Works 80-foot access road Parcel130 N-040045 USGS Monitor Well Parcel130 N-042425 USFS 14-foot access road Parcell32 N-086797 Fattarsi 30-foot access road Parcell35 N-058903 Wichman 24-foot access road Parcel135 N-039525 USGS Monitorine; Well Parcell47 N-077437 Gardner 30-foot water pipeline Parcell 52 N-017788 McKay ditch, canal and water pipeline Parcel160 Table 5. A summary ofthe Rights-of-Way (ROWs) m the Lease Area.

Additionally, grants, leases, and petmits may be authorized prior to any proposals for exploration by an oil and gas lessee. In these instances, the holder of land use authorization would have a valid existing right to the authorized use of public lands within the lease.

Environmental Consequences

Leasing creates a valid existing right, which could conflict with other existing or future land use authorizations. These conflicts would be mitigated through agreements between relevant operators.

Applications for ROW's may be required for roa::Js for oil a1d gas exploration and production activities. These off-I ease ROW' s would be non-exclusive where possible, that is, they can be used by the general public for other purposes such as access to public lands. lmpa:ts to existing ROW's may occur as a result of di sturbance activities such as road construction. These impacts may cause temporruy disruptions to ROW holders, but the Federal Land Policy atld Management Act (FLPMA) requires that prior existing rights must be recognized. If parcels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed tmder their own site-specific NEPA analysis.

3.4.13 Visual Resources Affected Environment

BLM Manual Series 8400 outlines the visual resource management (VRM) progran1. The BLM assigns VRM classes to public lands through the land use planning process. Lands are assigned a class ranging from one to four, with one containing the highest visual values and four containing the lowest values. Attempts are made to mitigate visual contrasts from surface-disturbing activities regardless of the VRM class assigned. The nominated parcels are within lands rated as Class III and IV.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 41

Environmental Consequences

No impacts to visual resources on public lands would occm as a result of the oil and gas lease sale. The pmchase of a parcel does not guarantee that a parcel will be developed for oil and gas resources in the future.

Potential impacts associated with exploration and development activities may include the creation of contrasts with the characteristic landscape in line, shape, color, or texttrre. Potential methods to reduce impacts to visual resomces on public lands include, moving drill site locations up to 200 meters, use oflow profile tanks, coloring facilities and equipment, road alignment, reducing the size or changing the configuration of drill pads, and utilizing topographic feahtres to visually screen facilities. If parcels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation measures and Brvt:Ps would be attached as COA for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under in a site-specific NEPA document.

3.4.14 Recreation Affected Environment

The proposed lease parcels are all within dispersed recreation areas subject to public use. Dispersed recreation areas are areas that are used by recreationists as they desire. Activities including sightseeing, pleasme driving, rock collecting, photography, hunting fom-wheeling, hiking, and bird watching occur in dispersed recreation areas. The lease area is used by the public for camping, hunting, hiking, and other outdoor recreation activities.

Environmental Consequences

The Proposed Action would have no direct impact on recreational activities because no exploration and development activities would be authorized. Indirect impacts could include the disruption of recreational activities due to elevated noise increased truck traffic, increased dust associated with construction and temponuy delays or complete closure of access roads. It is probable under these circumstances that recreationist would avoid these area The impact is likely to be minor because the potential for exploration and development activity in the lease area is very low, and if it does occur, would probably be of shmt dmation. However, if parcels were developed in the futtrre, site-specific mitigation measures and Brvt:Ps would be attached as CO As for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under their own site-specific NEP A analysis.

3.4.15 Socioeconomics Affected Environment

The lease parcels are located within three counties in Central Nevada: Nye County, Esmeralda County and Lander County. The primmy economic activities that cont:J.ibute to the economic base for lands within the lease area are mining, agriculhlre, and recreation. All three counties offer rural lifestyles with less than 3 persons per square mile. The populations base is approximately 90 percent white.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 42

Nye County The majority of the proposed lease parcels are located within Nye County. Nye County's total population, according to the 20 10 Census, is approximately 43 ,946 with a population density of2.4 persons per square mile. The median household income is $39,150 with 20.1 percent of the population living below the poverty level.

Esmeralda Cormty Esmeralda County' s total population, according to the 2010 Census, is approximately 783 with a population density of 0.2 persons per square mile. The median household income is $27,500 with 24.2 percent of the population living below the poverty level.

Lander County Lander County' s total population, according to the 2010 Census, is approximately 5, 77 5 with a population density of 1.1 persons per square mile. The median household income is $70,341 with only 11.8 percent of the population living below the poverty level.

Environmental Consequences

The only direct effect of issuing new oil and gas leases on socioeconomics within the lease area would be the generation ofrevenue from the sale of the leases as the State ofNevada retains 50 percent of the proceeds :fi:om lease sales.

Subsequent oil and gas exploration, development, and production could create impacts to the county economy in tenus of additional jobs, income, and tax revenues. The impact is not likely to be substantial because the potential for exploration and development in the lease area is very low. On this basis, it is not probable that there would be a substantial increase in county revenues or a measurable improvement in employment rates.

If parcels were developed in the future, the socioeconomic impacts of these activities would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document.

3.4.16 Wild Horse and Burro Affected Environment

The Battle Mountain District administers 28 Herd Management Areas (HMAs) encompassing approxin1ately 3.6 million acres of public land. Two other HMAs within the district botmdary are administered by adjoining Districts. The BMD also cooperatively manage several USFS Wild Horse TelTitories (WHTs). The estimated B:MD population as of January 1, 2014 is approximately 4,600 wild horses and 360 wild buuos.

HJ\1As are areas identified in Land Use Planning for long tenn management of wild horses or burros, a1d ere designatEd "Speci a M alaJement Areas" . M a1y H MAs encompass mountain ranges and include mountain browse, meadow, mahogany and pinyon and jwriper vegetation types interspersed with perennial streams and springs. Wild horses and bunos also use sparsely vegetated, rocky terrain and habitat with limited water. Winter habitat typically consists of

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 43 valley bottoms and lower elevations that may suppmi winterfat or other salt desert shrub vegetation. The primary vegetation types used by wild horses consist of Wyoming or Mountain big sagebrush with au understory of perennial grass. Wild burros are able to thrive in more deseri type conditions than wild horses. Wild horse and burro populations generally move throughout or between HMAs in response to a number of factors.

Wild horse and bUITO distribution throughout HMAs varies greatly throughout the year and is influenced by forage and water availability, precipitation, temperature, snowfall and other climatic factors, population size and resulting animal density (competition), and human distUI·bance caused from OHV use, roads, mining, exploration, recreation and other uses that occur on the public lauds.

Water availability is a key influence to wild horse use and movement patterns, especially during summer months. Wild horses will generally travel much fariher to water than will livestock. In many HMAs water sources ar·e plentiful and supplied by perennial strearns, springs, and humar1 constmcted water developments such as livestock water tanks and ponds. In other cases, water sources ar·e limiting, and in drought years, wild horses may have difficulty accessing sufficient water, especially if the population exceeds the Appropriate Management Level (AML). In these cases, wild horse distribution is closely tied to the location of the available waters, which become very impmiaut to the health ofthe herd.

The average HMA population managed by the BMD is approximately 200 wild horses, with the average HMA size 114,300 acres. In some cases, wild horses do not fully utilize the entire HMA due to forage availability, water shmtages, or human disturbance. Movement of wild horses between Hl\1As occurs where HMA boundaries ar·e contiguous or near each other, and when fences do not impede the interchange.

Management of wild horses and burros involves periodic inventmy activities, typically completed with helicopter, as well as on the ground monitoring of habitat, animal health ar1d distribution. The majority of wild horse foals are born betv.reen March 1 and July 1 annually. Burro populations may foal year· round, and may not increase at the sarne levels as wild horses. Throughout the B.MD, populations increase by 10-22% allllually. Appropriate Management Levels have been established for all HMAs administered by the BMD. When inventmy and other data indicate that the AMLs have been exceeded, gathers are planned to reduce the populations within HMAs to the AML in order to prevent deterioration ofthe range associated with an overpopulation of wild horses or bmros.

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the protection, management and control of wild horses and burros on public lands in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 as amended (Public Law 92-195 Act) which staesthat BLM "shal ma1~e wild fi·ee-roaming horses and bunos in a marmer that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving net ural a:ol ogi cal bal a1ce on the public I a1ds."

Fish Creek HMA The Fish Creek HMA is located just a few miles south ofEmeka, Nevada in Eureka County. The HMA is approximately 250,000 acres in size and is 25 miles wide and 28 miles long. The

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 44 majority of the HMA is comprised of north-south trending mountain ranges that include all or portions of the Fish Creek Range, the Mahogany Hills, and the Antelope Range. Elevations range from 6,030 feet in the wide valley bottoms, reaching 10,100 feet at Ninemile Peak.

The HMA is bordered on the east by U.S. Highway 50 in part, and natural barriers and fences to the south. U.S. Highway 50 borders the majority of the HMA on the north; however, a small portion of the HMA exists north of U.S. Highway 50, which is separated by highway right-of way fences. Tllis portion ofthe HMA is only 19,300 acres and is managed with the Whistler Motmtain and Roberts Motmtain HMAs. The Fish Creek HMA shares its southem boundary with the Sevemnile HMA to the south west and the Pancake Complex (administered by the Ely district) to the south east.

The AML for the HMA is 107-180 wild horses, with a cunent estimated population of 305 wild horses. Wild horses :fi:equent the foothills and valley of Antelope Valley and Fenstermaker Wash year-round, and use the Ninemile Peak area predominantly in summer months.

Blood samples to analyze genetic diversity were collected during a wild horse gather in 2005. Tllis analysis found that the genetic variability of the herd was high, reflecting a herd of mixed ancestry. The analysis also concluded that the herd was most similar to Old World Iberian breeds, but similar to most other groupings such as New World Iberian, Oriental, North American Gaited and Light Racing and Riding breeds. The most recent gather to remove excess wild horses and achieve the M1L was completed in 2006.

There are three proposed oil and gas lease parcels located within the boundaries of the Fish CreekHMA.

Pu:ceJ Number !@}\[!jjj, i'A«es H% .&. J! NV 14-07-156 2001 NV14-07-157 2158 NV 14-07-158 1919

Parcels 156-158 are located in the southern portion of the Fish Creek HMA. All ofparcel156 is witllin the boundaries of the Fish Creek HMA. Approximately 90% of 157 and 50% of 158 are witllin the HMA. Parcels 156, 157 and 158 include several sections of Willow Creek and no less than 10 springs.

This area consists of the very southern end of the Fish Creek Hl\1A. The area provides higher elevation summer range and is used dming summer months by wild horses that winter in lower elevations of the Fish Creek HMA, with some immigration of wild horses from the adjacent Pancake Complex administered by the Ely District.

Sevenmile HMA The Seven Mile HMA is approximately 30 nliles southwest of Eureka, Nevada in Eureka County. The HMA is comprised of a long nanow valley located between the Toiyabe National Forest Monitor Range to tl1e west, and the .Antelope Range to the east. The lowest points of the

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 45 valley are 6,300 feet in elevation, reaching 10,105 feet at Ninemile Peak in the Antelope Mountain Range. This nanow HMA serves as the transition between the Antelope Valley to the nor1h, and the Little Fish Lake Valley to the south. The HMA consists of Approximately 98,000 acres stretching 31 miles long and 8 miles ·wide.

Wild horses within the Seven Mile HMA are often located within in the southem portion of the HMA in Fish Lake Valley during the winter, and many move into the Butler Basin WHT administered by the USFS in the summer months. A pmtion of the population moves through the central portion of the HMA year round, as there are several water sources in that area.

The Sevenn1ile HMA is managed with the USFS Butler Basin WHT located on its westem border. The combined Al\.1L for the two areas is 60-100 wild horses. The current estimated population is 367 wild horses. Due to high overpopulation and drought conditions, wild horses have been moving outside ofHMA boundaries to access forage and water.

Blood san1ples to analyze genetic diversity were collected during a wild horse gather in 2005. This analysis found that the genetic variability of the herd was low, and should be monitored closely. The analysis also concluded that the herd is of mixed origins and was most similar with Oriental breeds (Arabian, Barb), but also similar to otl1er groupings such as Nm1h American Gaited and Light Racing and Riding breeds. The most recent gather to remove excess wild horses and achieve the Al\.1L was completed in 2006.

Within tl1e central por1ion of the Severunile HMA, four oil and gas lease parcels exist as shown in the following table:

Partel Nutntier Acres ... we. NV 14-07-152 1718 NV14-07-153 1597 NV 14-07-154 2236 NV 14-07-155 639

All of the above parcels are wholly located within tl1e Severunile HMA

Parcels 152-155 fall witl1in the central portion of the Sevemnile HMA in an area tl1at wild horses move through in order to access water sources. The Butler Basin WHT exists west of the Sevenmile HMA boundary and serves as impmiant sU11lll1er range for wild horses. The southern portion of the Sevenmile HMA serves as the primary winter range, however wild horses may be present in the vicinity of the proposed lease parcels year round.

The ar·ea in the vicinity of the parcels supplies several water sources used by wild horses. Parcel 154 includes Cabin Spring, Dick Allison Spring and two other un-named sources. Parcel155 is located within 1 mile of Cabin Spring. Though par·cel 153 is within the vicinity of spring sources, this area sunounds the Segura Ranch, and wild horses do not frequent the area, but may move through the area occasionally. Parcels 152-155 are located on the border of the Severunile HN1A and the Butler Basin WHT, an area that wild horses move through between the sU11lll1er and winter grazing ar·eas as well as for wild horses that move through the ar·ea year rmmd. Much

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 46 of the vegetation in the area is thick pinyon juniper which does not provide abundant forage for wild horses.

Sand Springs West HMA The Sand Springs West HMA covers 152,927 acres 80 miles northeast ofTonopah, Nevada in Nye County. The HMA is located in the Big Sand Springs Valley and the Pancake Range on the North Side of U.S. Highway 6. Elevation ranges from a low of 5,156 feet to a high of8,153 feet.

The Sand Springs West HMA is bordered by the Pancake HMA in the Ely District. Wild horses a-e knO\Nn to move betwea1 these two HMA' son a regula- beSs. The AML for the HMA is 49 wild horses. The cmTent population estimate is 120 wild horses.

Within the central portion of the Sand Springs West HMA, six parcels exist as shown in the following table:

~i iJJarSel4r-t!J'I;\bir & ;Lm¥ .!/&'" Aca;ps' vr ww '14 : 'Wit NV14-07-161 2078 NV14-07-162 2081 NV 14-07-163 2082 NV 14-07-165 2084 NV 14-07-166 1278

All of the above parcels are wholly located within the Sand Springs West HMA.

Though there are no springs within any of these parcels, there are three waters in the area, Needles Catch Basin, Etcheverian Well and Sand Springs Well. Wild horses will be seen traveling to and from these water sources. The Sand Springs Wash nms tluough the middle of parcel NV 14-07-166 and alongside the other parcels. This wash may have water in the spring or after heavy rains which may draw horses to the area.

Most of the area in this HMA is dominated by Wyoming or mountain big sagebmsh with some perennial grass tmderstory.

Saulsbury HMA The Saulsbury HMA is approximately 20 east of Tonopah NV in Nye Com1ty and covers 135,977 acres. U.S. Highway 6, and the USFS Monitor Wild Horse Tenitmy separate the HMA into north and south portions. The north section is located in the northeast portion of Ralston Valley and covers 73 ,795 acres. It is bordered on the west by State Highways 376 and 82. The east side borders USFS land and the Monitor Wild Horse Territory. Elevations range from 5,620 feet in the Ralston Valley to 8,172 feet in the foothills of the Monitor Mountain Range.

Wild horses are kno\vn to move back and forth between the Monitor WHT and Saulsbmy HMA. The AML for the northern portion of the Saulsbury HMA is 30 horses. The estimated population for the entire HMA is 174 horses.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 47

Within the nmihwestem pmtion of the Saulsbury illv1A, one parcel exists as shown in the following table:

Pat-eel Number NV 14-07-114

358 Acres or 13 .8% of Parcel NV14-07-114 is within the HMA boundary.

Though there are no water sources in this area, there is a well nearby (Spanish Pipeline Well). This well is outside of the HMA bmmdruy and across a barbed wire fence making it nearly inaccessible to wild horses. Wild horses are not expected to use this water. There is a wash that mns through parcel NV 14-07-114. This wash may have water in the spring or after heavy rains which may draw wild horses to the area. The parcel consists of valley bottom that suppmts winterfat plant communities.

Environmental Consequences

Direct impacts to wild horses or burros would not occur due to oil and gas leasing because exploration and development activities would not be authorized.

Indirect impacts to wild horses could include disturbance due to increase hmnan activity. These impacts would likely be short term in nature, and would consist of wild horses moving out of the area or changing movement pattems. The degree of distm·bance to wild horses would be equivalent to the levels of exploration and development and increased activity in the area. Distm·bance would cease with the completion of exploration efforts. Localized and small-scale vegetation disturbance could occur due to seismic testing, road constmction, overland travel and drill pad constmction, which would have an overall minimal impact to the forage available within the HMA. As indicated in the RFD Scenario, it is highly unlikely that large amounts of disturbance would occm within the thirteen (13) parcels identified for lease within wild horse HMAs. However, if parcels were develope-d in the future, site-specific mitigation measmes and B:M.Ps would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed in a site site-specific NEPA analysis.

3.4.17 Forestry and Woodland Products Affected Environment

The lease area contains mountains, alluvial fans, foothills, and riparian zones which support unique varieties of woodland and forest tree species. These include quaking aspen, cmlleaf mountain mahogany, single-leaf pinon pine, Utah juniper, narrow-leaf cottonwood, black cottonwood, Fremont cottonwood, and willow (Salix spp.).

Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides, commonly known as Quaking aspen, is a rather short-lived (i.e. , 100 to 150 years) deciduous, hardwood belonging to the Salicaceae (willow) family. It is typically fmmd in monotypic stands with mature trees reaching heights of greater than 60 feet. Nationally, it has the widest distribution of any native tree species. Due to its unique

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 48 biological characteristics and rarity, the harvesting of both live and dead aspen is prohibited throughout all of the lease parcels. Quaking aspen communities are represented in approximately 1,331 acres in the Battle Motmtain District (Brieland and Tueller 2003). However, these vegetative communities are important since they comprise the highest ecological biodiversity of plants and animals found in the lease area. They are also major indicators of upper watershed health since they naturally grow and thrive only in, or adjacent to riparian zones that contain adequate stllface water and quality (streams and springs) or high water tables.

The largest concentration of aspen occurs in the Antelope Range where they are found in approximately 495 acres (Brieland and Tueller 2003), of which approximately 16 acres are within proposed parcels. In certain locations, aspen are in decline or populations are no longer viable. Aspen regenerates primarily from clonal (i.e., root) sprouting rather than seed.

New aspen sprouts (suckers) are especially attractive to foraging ungulates and cattle. Cattle and sheep have the potential to restrict aspen regeneration and recmit:ment by browsing the suckers. This can lead to interference with clone propagation, establishment and survival (Kay 2001).

Curlleaf Mountainl'tfalwgany Cercocarpus ledifolius, commonly known as the Curlleaf mountain mahogany is not extensive in the lease area. Curlleaf motmtain mahogany is a long-lived (i.e., greater than 500 years) evergreen hardwood associated with other higher-elevation tree species such as limber pine. It can exist in pure stands and reach heights of greater than 25 feet. It grows best in a zone between 7,000 and 10,000 feet and is an impo1tant browse species for mule deer, especially in the winter months. Due to the relative scarcity of mahogany throughout the district, only a limited number of deadwood only harvesting permits are allowed each year.

Pition Pine and Juniper Pinus monophylla or singleleafPifion pine is arelatively long-lived evergreen sofuvood (500 to 800 years), belonging to the Pinaceae family. The conifer grows best at elevations between 4,500 and 9,000 feet, on higher alluvial fans, foothills, and mountain slopes. It is a comparatively shmt tree, reaching maximum heights of 40 feet.

Prehistorically, the pine nuts of the pifion were used as a major source of food by ancient native cultures such as the Anasazi. Today, the nuts are harvested by the general public and are spiritually revered by Native Americans such as the Paiute and Shoshone. Commercial hruvests of pinon nuts have been conducted on the lease area when production levels have been adequate. Production is cyclical, depending on a number of complex factors such as moisture a11d temperature. Pine nuts are also a ve1y important food source for smaller mrunmals, rodents, and birds such as the scrub jay and Clark's nutcracker.

Some other current uses of pinon are for fuel wood and Cluistmas trees. The BMD sells hundreds of pemiits every year, including commercial hruvest contracts.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 49

Juniperous osteosperma or Utah Jtmiper is a long-lived (greater than 2,000 years) evergreen softwood belonging to the Cupressaceae family. The tree can be found in pure stands or mixed with pinon pine at elevations ranging :fi:om as low as 4,000 feet up to approximately 8,000 feet. Like pinon, juniper is a rather sho1i tree reaching heights of approximately 30 feet. The tree is well distributed throughout the lease area on alluvial fans, foothills, and mmmtain slopes. During the settlement of the west, juniper was used extensively for building structures, fence posts, fuel wood for cooking and heating, and the production of charcoal for mining operations. In the lease area, the wood is utilized for fuel wood and fence posts. As with pinon pine, there are currently no accurate inventories of actual juniper acreages in the lease area.

Field observations over the last few years have revealed widespread mortality in pinon/juniper stands. The majority of this mortality is associated with increases in bark beetle activity and is exacerbated by drought and resource competition.

Cottonwood Cottonwoods (Populus spp.) are deciduous hardwood poplars belonging to the willow family. They are found naturally in riparian areas along strean1 banks, on the periphery of springs and ponds, and planted in agricultural areas within the lease area These native cottonwoods rapidly grow to heights of greater than 80 feet, with girths up to five feet and are relatively shmi-lived (i.e., 150 years). Unlike their aspen cousins, they can regenerate both from sprouting and seed. These species can also be propagated by transplanting suckers or small limbs. Currently, the BMD protects the trees from any type ofhanresting, including deadwood.

Willow Willows (Salix spp.) are hardwood members of the Salicaceae family with deciduous foliage and affinities for riparian habitats with high water tables. Ranging in height from ten to 40 feet, there are more individual species of willow than any other hardwood found in the lease area. Like their poplar relatives, they require relatively large, consistent amotmts of water to thrive and regenerate. They are not legally harvested in the BMD. In the lease area, willows can be found in monotypic communities or associated with other riparian vegetation such as sedge, rush, and poplars.

Environmental Consequences

Under the Proposed Action, there would be no direct impacts on forestry and woodland products because exploration and development activities would not be authorized.

Indirect impacts associated with exploration and development could include damage resulting fiom the contact with equipment.

However, based on the histmy of oil and gas exploration in the BMD, it is likely that the majority of exploration and development efforts, ifthey occur, would be focused on the lower elevation alluvial fans and playas. If parcels were developed in the future, site-specific mitigation

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 50 measures and BMPs would be attached as COAs for each proposed activity, which would be analyzed under their own site-specific NEPA analysis.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 51

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

The Proposed Action has been examined for cmuulative effects to the project area and the surroundings. Cmnulative in1pacts are those effects on resources within an area or region caused by acombinction of past, presa1t, a1d reas:mc:Dieforeseeet>lefuturecdions(RFFA's). These impacts may be individually minor but added together over time may become significant ( 40 CFR 1508.7).

The cmnulative effect study area (CESA) for tilis environmental assessment encompasses the entire Battle Mountain District (Figure 5). Oil and gas leases are leased for a 10-year time period; therefore, the same timeframe was selected for the cmnulative effect study analysis.

4.1. Past and Present Actions Most of ti1e oil and gas exploration and development conducted in the BMD has occurred in ti1e Tonopah Field Office (TFO) area. Nye Com1ty was ti1e location ofti1e first producing oil well in Nevada. Shell ' s E~l e Springs # 1-35 well was discovered in 1954. The Eagle Springs discovery wei cttrcded rncjor oil compa1iesto explore9::Nera of eastern Neva:la'svaleys which produced encouraging shows, but no discoveries. The Trap Springs field was discovered in 1976 by Northwest Exploration. The most prolific oil field in Nevada was discovered in 1983, when N011hwest Exploration Grant Canyon No. 1 was drilled and completed. Grant Canyon No. 1 was the most prolific onshore oil well in the continental United States, flowing up to 4,300 barrels of oil per day. The most recent oil field discovered was Sans Spring, in 1993.

Land-use authorization; I ike nevv roa:l, powerl i ne a1d pipeline ROW' s a1d renevva of existing ROW's associ cted wi ti1 oil and gas production and grazing can be expected in ti1e future.

Historical Oil & Gas lease sales have included hundreds of parcels in the CESA where expressions of interest were submitted by prospective lessees. Between 20 and 50 percent of the parcels have typically been sold during and the day after the lease sales. There are cuuently 32 are oil producing leases within the BMD. Since 2001 , there have been 14 oil and gas well pe1mits issued in the CESA. BMDO typically auti10rizes fewer than 4 APD' s per yea a1d 1-2 geophysical exploration pennits every decade, most of which are in Nye County.

The oil and gas program consist mainly of speculative leasing and the drilling of wildcat wells in and around existing oil fields in the Railroad Valley. Three wildcat wells have been drilled since 2009. All have been plugged and abandoned.

Livestock grazing has been authorized in the past and is cmTently authorized. h1 the CESA there are approximately 10.5 million acres of land under 94 grazing allotments.

4.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (RFFA' s) The Proposed Action does not include exploration, development, production, or fmal reclamation of oil and gas resources; however, authorization of oil and gas leasing does convey a right to subsequent exploration and production activities. These later activities are associated with oil and gas leasing; ti1erefore, they would be analyzed as part of the Proposed Action.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 52

As noted in the Draft Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (June, 1993), the extremely complex geologic structure of the area has limited the success rate of wells to approximately 28 percent. Within the defmed oil fields the success rate is approximately 60 percent. The 2006 Environmental Assessment for Oil and Gas Leasing Within Portions ofthe Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area outlined minimal Oil and Gas activity within the respective planning area. Other than mineral exploration and development oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production fi.·om any future drilling programs and the continuation of highly dispersed recreation and grazing, there are no future actions anticipated in this area.

Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions resulting from the proposed and similar future actions include; yearly competitive oil and gas lease sales; exploration activities that might lead to development and production; grazing, dispersed recreation, and associated land-use authorizations.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts from Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The RMP projections for oil and gas exploration and development in the planning area (seep. 6 of this EA) appear to have been somewhat overestimated; however, modest an10unts of oil and gas exploration are expected to continue in the BMD over the next ten years. Geophysical surveys may be conducted prior to any exploratory drilling. Surface disturbance associated with geophysical surveys are usually minimaL An APD may then be submitted for a wildcat well in the CESA, or a production well within an existing field. A site specific NEPA doctm1ent would be prepared prior to approval of any application to conduct surface disturbing activities.

There is a small chance that a new oil field will be discovered within the next 10 years. The most recently discovered new oil field, Sans Spring, was discovered in 1993. If another oil field were discovered, there would, in all likelihood, be additional disturbanc-e of previously undisturbed lands. An additional 5 to 10 wells may be drilled in the vicinity of any new discovery and up to 30 acres of disturbance might be expected within the CESA boundary. The surface disturbance associated with a producing well would probably remain for the entire production life of the well. Surface distmbance associated with drilling a dry well would be reclaimed wifuin a year after the well was plugged and abandoned.

Development wells include step-out or field extension wells, enhanced oil recovery wells, or other infield wells. Even though the drilling of development wells would be adjacent to or actually within areas of ClUTent production, it may require disturbance on previously lmdisturbed lands.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA ...... ______

0\rovada *

Elko Ce<1io * ,...... &we __, Mountain *

Reno * McGil Ely* *

Pioche '* Pa C*aliente Hoko Battle Mountain District * * Oil and Gas Lease Sale July 2014 (CESA)

~"" CJ¢E.:;;a,~ -L.and·Statvt t .-~ .IY!rJtWfH;C.fkot ...... ~ f:ii!SlWMllil!lot~ -

United States Department Of The Interior

BUI••• o!lW M._t Blllllo~~ SO!lat.U...- 8-M-NV89820

MftP Date: J"nwlfl113, 2013

""''"'""'"~"'"'"""by~ ~ ~~to tOO ~*Y. rd:abd(y-·ol, ot co~totmou """" ot trt.ne -for--·"'Or9tlatcSM"*~~!e~tromv•~'tOOtu~.• "'~"''Iat• ··~- olilm nn intormaticn fM1 nat meot National l.itap Atcuraey st.,.;,,.,._ Tho$ Pft)dvct ""' -~lol>o>d !!>""""' oot - .....

Figure 3 Ctunulative Effects Study Area

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 54

Based on past actions there will be approximately 15 oil and gas wells permitted by the TFO within the next 10 years and much less than that in the MLFO. Approximately 60% of the wells projected to be drilled would be development wells (as opposed to wildcat exploratory wells). An estimated 10-20% of the development wells would produce economic quantities of oil, while the remainder would be unsuccessful and would be plugged and abandoned upon completion of drilling. The remaining 40% of wells expected to be drilled would be wildcat wells - all are expected to be dry and would be plugged and abandoned, with reclamation being completed within one year of being abandoned.

4.3.1. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality Past, continued, proposed and foreseeable road, power line, and pipeline constmction, minerals exploration and recreation all create air quality impacts. Increased volumes of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and pruticulates have been and would be caused by vehicle exhaust, disturbing the soil cover from additional travel on existing dirt roads and the construction of new access roads and well pads, atld additional drilling.

Past and foreseeable geophysical exploration have in the past and would in the foreseeable future cause ve1y little impact to air quality because the exploration equipment would be in the area for a very short time (typically less than a week) and little or no additional surface disturbance would be created to disturb the soil.

Activities associated with drilling wells typically last less than a month and the potential to increase particulate matter from multiple trips is mitigated by placing gravel on the access roads atld protecting the soiL These localized, temporruy impacts are not expected to significantly affect air quality in the area or exceed air quality standards.

4.3.2. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources A mUllber of ongoing and potential actions in the ru·ea, such as mining, mineral atld geothennal exploration, off-highway vehicle use, and livestock grazing could cumulatively impact cultural resources. However, concunent exploration and production actions would contribute to the cumulative impacts. With implementation of B:MPs and the COAs , impacts could be minimized. It is expected that the proposed action may contribute to cmnulative impacts, through the reasonably foreseeable role of oil and gas exploration and development Overall impacts within the project area could be negligible, especially when effectively mitigated.

4.3.3. Cumulative Impacts on Native American Religious Concerns Fluid mineral leasing atld exploration may contribute to the general decline in sites and associated activities of a cultural, traditional, and spiritual nature. Presently, impacts to many cultm·al, traditional, spiritual sites, a11d associated activities have been avoided through Native Americatl consultation efforts. Only the potential impacts to tribal resomces were analyzed in this EA because it evaluates the leasing of oil and gas parcels and does not analyze ru·eas of proposed surface disturbance where impacts might be expected. Without a specific surface distm·biug activity, location, and description, identifying all impacts to specific tribal resources is not possible. As noted previously, for any futm·e development, the BLM would produce a site specific EA, which would discuss alternatives or measures that may reduce or eliminate impacts to Native American Religious Concems.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 55

4.3.4. Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Resources Disturbance and fragmentation of wildlife habitat, including oil and gas development, may impact wildlife species by 1) displacement, or 2) temporarily or permanently altering habitat. In turn, habitat loss and displacement can have negative impacts on wildlife populations. For example reduced habitat availability can increase competition particularly if preferred habitats are limited or near carrying capacity. In these cases, an overall reduction in population size is expected, which is of particular concem for small or isolated populations.

A munber of other ongoing projects and future activities in the Lease Area, such as locatable mineral exploration, off-highway vehicle use, and livestock grazing could cumulatively impact \vildlife. These activities could result in loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and disruption of movement pattems. It is expected that the proposed action may contribute to cumulative in1pacts if exploration and development of the lease parcels is authorized in the future. However, the reasonably foreseeable impacts of oil and gas exploration and development within the assessment area is negligible if potential impacts are effectively minimized through site-specific COAs, BMPs, and mitigation measures.

4.3.5. Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality (Surface and Ground) and Quantity The in1pacts from the proposed, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions do not appear to have an incremental effect on any area of the CESA because the total water use in the area is minin1al and is exceeded by the recharge vohm1es on an annual basis.

4.3.6. Cumulative Impacts on 'Vastes, Hazardous and Solid The cumulative impact of hazardous and solid waste generated during the development of authorized, proposed, or reasonably foreseeable actions would be negligible because of mitigation which would be developed during site specific analysis. Additionally, federal and state governments specifically regulate each project to ensure, to the extent possible, that there are no releases of hazardous materials into the environment.

4.3.7. Cumulative Impacts on Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Non-native Species Continued use by off-highway vehicles and cattle grazing may have contributed to the infestation and spread of noxious weeds and invasive non-native species within the CESA Overall, the proposed action and possible subsequent exploration and development of oil and gas leases could increase the potential for impacts to existing native plant cmmnunities. However, measures taken in accordance with the prevention schedule and BMPs included in the plans of operations for future oil and gas projects would reduce the spread of invasive species. By implementing site specific mitigation measures, the incremental effect from past, present and future activities, would ensure that cumulative impacts to noxious weeds and invasive non-native species would be miniulal.

4.3.8. Cumulative Impacts on Geology and Minerals A mllllbet· of other ongoing activities such as mining, mineral exploration, geothetmal exploration and production, sand and gravel pit development, could cumulatively impact mineral resources within the B:MD. These impacts include conflicts between exploration and development of minerals resources and loss of access to mineral resources. However, based on

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 56 the small scale of expected disturbance from oil and gas-related activities the cumulative impact to minerals and geology is expected to be negligible. Impacts that may exist could be mitigated by negotiations behveen operators.

4.3.9. Cumulative Impacts on Soils A number of ongoing and potential actions in the area, such as mining, mineral and geothermal exploration, off-highway vehicle use, and livestock grazing could cwnulatively impact soils. These in1pacts include erosion of soils, distmbance of microbiotic cmsts, and soil compaction. The proposed action would not likely contribute to cumulative in1pacts. However, concmrent exploration and production actions would contribute to the cumulative impacts. With implementation of BMPs and the conditions of approval, impacts could be minimized. It is expected that the proposed action may contribute to cumulative impacts, through the reasonably foreseeable role of oil and gas exploration and development. Overall impacts within the project area could be negligible, especially when effectively mitigated.

4.3.10. Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation A number of ongoing and potential actions in the area, such as mining, mineral and geothermal exploration, off-highway vehicle use, and livestock grazing could cumulatively impact vegetation. These in1pacts include erosion of soils, distmbance of microbiotic cmsts, distmbance or removal of vegetation and soil compaction. The proposed action would not likely contribute to cumulative impacts. However, concmrent exploration and production actions would contribute to the cumulative impacts. With implementation ofBMPs and the conditions of approval, impacts could be minimized. For example revegetation and rehabilitation in the interim and following projects would mitigate impacts to vegetation. It is expected that the proposed action may contribute to cumulative impacts, through the reasonably foreseeable role of oil and gas exploration and development. Overall impacts within the project area could be negligible, especially when effectively mitigated.

4.3.11. Cumulative Impacts on Range Resources The disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration and production would add to the disturbances from mining exploration, mining, and off-highway vehic.Ie use. The creation of new roads, construction of drill pads, and the development of wells and mines removes available forage for wildlife, livestock, wild horses, and bmros. Reducti.ons of available forage could have an impact on ranching operations. However, the cumulative impacts of the proposed action on range resources are expected to be minimal due to the relatively small area of distmbance, concurrent reclamation, and developed site-specific mitigation.

4.3.12. Cumulative Impacts on Land and Realty Cmnulative impacts from past, present and futw·e activities to realty actions ·within the assessment area are negligible. Site-specific mitigation measmes for exploration and development would ensw·e that the potential cwnulative impacts from the proposed action would remain negligible.

4.3.13. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources The cumulative impacts from past present, and futme activities as previously outlined, remain low to moderate for visual resources due to the likelihood of large distances between actions and

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA ...... ______

limited surface disturbance. Most of the future activities would be on valley floors. Visual resources are mitigated on a case-by-case basis and many of the activities would be temporary in nature.

Principal existing human-made visual features within the assessment area include several county roads and US high\vay 6. There are also several gravel and native surface secondru.y roads, ranches, fanns, ru.1d electrical trru.1smissionlines. None of the future activities would create any visual impact inconsistent with the applicable VR.M Class ratings for the assessment ru.·ea, thus the overall cumulative impact would continue to be low to moderate.

4.3.14. Cumulative Impacts on Recreation Increased commercial developments would increase the population of the ru.·ea, which would in turn create an increase in all recreational activities such as visits to WSAs, hunting, and off highway vehicle use in the assessment area. Given that many recreational activities are dependent upon a high quality visual/aesthetic environment commercial developments, including fluid mineral development, has the potential to lower the quality of recreational experiences in the assessment ru.·ea. However, the mitigation measures developed during site specific analysis in the CESA would ensure the quality of recreational experiences would not be significantly reduced.

4.3.15. Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics The Proposed Action does not: Induce substantial growth or concentration of population, displace a large munber of people, cause a substantial reduction in employment, reduce wage and salru.y eamings, cause a substantial net increase in county expenditures, or create a substru.1tial demand for public setvices. In the volatile economy of the foreseeable future, it is expected that the cumulative and incremental socioeconomic effects of the proposed action, would be beneficial and not significant.

4.3.16. Cumulative Impacts on Wild Horses and Burros Cumulative impacts to wild horses from oil a.t.1d gas leasing would consist of the impacts occuning as a result of exploration and production which could occur in lease areas. The CESA for wild horse and burro management would include the HMAs in which the leases are located as well as those HMAs adjoining the affected HMAs.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects that have and could continue to have impacts to wild horses include mining exploration, geothetmal exploration, oil and gas exploration, power line construction, wildland mbru.1 interface activities, wild horse gathers, communication site construction, and noxious weed treatment. These activities have the result of isolated and usually limited soil and vegetation disturbance or loss.

Two ptimary impacts to wild horses were considered that could occur from oil and gas exploration and development - increased fi:agmentation of wild horse habitat, ru.1d cumulative increases in vegetation and soil disturbances, which result in incremental losses in availability of quality habitat used for wild horses.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 58

Oil and gas exploration could involve overland travel, road construction, seismic testing, and drilling which could cause additional surface disturbance. Over time, the areas of disturbance would cumulatively increase, and impact the quality and quantity of habitat available to wild horses, as well as increase risks for erosion and noxious weed invasion. However, the proposed lease areas within the Fish Creek and Sevenmile HMAs support moderately thick to thick stand of pinyon juniper. Powerline and road construction and overall clearing of tr-ees for exploration or development activities could open up the vegetation and result in improved travel ways for wild horses over the cunent situation.

Mining activity, oil and gas production, geothermal development, gravel pit expansion, road building, fencing, and wild horse gathers, are all activities, which can in1pact wild horse disti·ibution and seasonal movement throughout and between HMAs. Each activity could result in incremental restrictions to free roan1ing behavior of wild horses and over time may influence utilization patterns, genetic interchange and use of water sources.

According to the Trends and Projections Scenario described in Section 2.4.2, it is unlikely that large areas of disturbance would occur within the thnteen (13) parcels identified for lease within wild horse HMAs and therefore the effects would be minimal.

Exploration and production activities would be analyzed on a site specific basis. Effects of potential proposed actions to wild horse populations in the HMAs would be analyzed and mitigation measures developed to avoid or reduce nnpacts, or COAs would be implemented to protect the long tenn health of wild horses.

4.3.17. Cumulative Impacts on Forestry and Woodland Products A mm1ber of past, present and RFF As in the area such as mining, mineral and geothermal exploration, off-highway vehicles use, and livestock grazing could contribute to cumulative impacts. Based on the RFD, foreseeable impacts could result in the constmction of a number of drilling sites, production facilities, and transp01tation conidors. The long-te1m change in vegetation and associated potential loss of woodland productivity (piiion-juniper) would not result in substantial impacts since the Assessment Area contains abundant piiion-juniper woodlands. In addition, it is likely that the majority of exploration and development efforts would be focused on the lower elevation alluvial fans and playas. Based on the RFD and when considering site-specific mitigation measures that would be developed for potential exploration and development, crunulative impacts to forest and woodland resomces would be minimal.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 59

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 List ofPreparers Andrea Dolbear, Battle Mountain District Office, Planning and Environmental Coordinator Juan Martinez, Battle Mountain District Office, Native American Consultation Coordinator Karen Endres, Mount Lewis Field Office, Groundwater Hydrologist Alden Shallcross, Mount Lewis Field Office, Surface Water Hydrologist Wendy Seley, Tonopah Field Office, Realty Specialist Adam Coclmm, Mount Lewis Field Office, Rangeland Management Specialist Aaron Romesser, Tonopah Field Office, Rangeland Management Specialist Kent Bloomer, Motmt Lewis Field Office, Noxious Weed Specialist David Price, Tonopah Field Office, Wildlife Biologist Ethan Ellsworth, Mount Lewis Field Office, Wildlife Biologist John Kinsner, Mount Lewis Field Office, ATchaeologist Madan Singh, Mount Lewis Field Office, Mining Engineer Leighandra Keeven, Tonopal1 Field Office, Mining Engineer Ethan Arky, Mount Lewis Field Office, Outdoor Recreation Planner Shawna Richardson, Mount Lewis Field Office, Wild Horse and Burro Specialist Austin Brewer, Tonopah Field Office, Wild Horse and Burro Specialist Chad Lewis Mount Lewis Field Office, Fuels Program Manager/District Forester Joshua Tibbetts, Mount Lewis Field Office, Prescribed Fire/Fuels Specialist David Jones, Nevada State Office, Air Quality Specialist

5.2 Agenciesffribes Contacted Battle Motmtain Band South Fork Band Duckwater Shoshone Tribe Y omba Shoshone Tribe Ely Shoshone Tribe Timbisha Shoshone Tribe Fallon Pointe Shoshone Tribe Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW)

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 60

6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

Buqo, Thomas S. , 2009, Nye County Water Resources Plan, prepared for Nye County Department ofNatural Resources and Federal Facilities, August 2004, 120 pp. LR-2000, BLM Internal Web Site: http://ilmninn Oap 19103 .bhn.doi.net:9270/rptapp/menu.cfin?appCd=3.

CFBD & SC v. BLM & Salazar 2013 . United States District Court Northem District of Califomia San Jose Division: Center for Biological Diversity and Sien·a Club v. The Bureau of Land Management and Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Case No.: C 11- 06174 PSG, March 31 , 2013.

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2011. United States House ofRepresentatives Committee on Energy and Commerce: Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing, April2011, http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/docunlents/Hydraulic Fracturing-Chemicals-2011-4-18 .pdf.

EPA 2002, Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations, October 2002, (website August 6, 2013), http :1l wv>'w.e pa. gov I osw/nonhaz/industrial/s pecial/ oil/ oil-gas.pdf.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Internet Web Site: http://soildatanuut.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=NV783&UseState=NV

Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, Division of Minerals, Oil, Gas, and Geothermal. Intemet web site: htpp://minerals.state.nv.us/prog_ ogg.htm. Accessed May 26, 2009.

Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2010. Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and/or at Risk Taxa recorded on or near the Railroad Valley Area. Nevada Department of Consetvation and Natural Resources. Carson City, Nevada.

Nevada Water Law 2013. State ofNevada Division of Water Resources webpage, Last updated 03/21 /2013, http:// water.nv .gov/wateiTights/waterlaw/.

Paschke, Dr. Suzanne. USGS, Denver, Colorado. September 2011.

Oil and Gas Leasing within Portions of the Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area, Battle Mountain District Bureau of Land Management, Envirolllllental Assessment NV063-EA06-092, October 2006.

Oil and Gas Website http://,vww.nv.blm.gov/minerals/oil and gas

Railroad Valley, From Wikipedia~ Internet web site: http://en.wilipedia.org/wiki/Railroad Valley.

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 61

Rush, F. E., Water-Resources Appraisal of Little Fish Lake, Hot Creek, and Little Smoky Valleys, Nevada- RecoiUlaissance Series, Report 38, State ofNevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Water Resource, 1966

Schalla, R. A., Johnson, E. H., 1994, editors, Oil Fields of The Great Basin, Nevada petroleum Society, Reno, Nevada.

The Nevada Mineral Industry AIUlual Report, Nevada Bureau o0v1ines and Geology Web Site: http://www.nbmg.tmr.edu/

Urbina, Ian, 2011. Records Show Risks to Water in New Gas Drilling Method, New York Times News Service, February 27, 2011 , http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20 11 0227/NEWSO 107/1022703 82/.

U.S. Bureau ofLand Management, 1986, Bureau of Land Management Manual Handbook H -841 0-1 Visual Resource Inventory.

U.S. Bureau ofLand Management, 1988, Bureau of Land Management National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1).

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1997, Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision, Battle Mountain District, Tonopah Field Office.

U.S . Bureau of Land Management, 1993, Draft Tonopah Resources Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Battle Mmmtain District, Tonopal1 Field Office.

U.S. Bureau ofLand Management, 1994, Proposed Tonopal1 Resource Management Plan and Final EnviroiU11ental Impact Statement, Battle Mountain District, Tonopal1 Field Office.

U.S. Bureau ofLand Management and USDA, Forest Service, 2006, Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, The Gold Book: Fotuih Edition, 76 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006, Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. BLM!WO/ST- 06/021 +3071. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. 84 pp.

VanDenburgh, A. S., Rush, F. E.,, Water Resources Appraisal of Railroad and Penoyer Valleys, East-Central Nevada- RecoiUlaissance Series, Report 60, State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Water Resource, 197 4 Wikipedia, the fi"ee encyclopedia. http://\:vww.wikipedia.org

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA ...... ______

APPENDIX A

LIST OF PARCELS OFFERED FOR SALE IN THE JULY 2014 OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 63

NV-14-07-001 1918.840 Acres NV-14-07-006 1878.330 Acres T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 001 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 019 LOTS 1-3 ; 001 S2N2,S2; 019 E2,E2W2; 002 LOTS 1-4; 020 ALL; 002 S2N2,S2; 029 ALL; 003 LOTS 1-4; 003 S2N2,S2; NV-14-07-007 2560.000 Acres T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV NV -14-07-002 1922.190 Acres Sec. 021 ALL; T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV 022 ALL; Sec. 004 LOTS 1-4; 023 ALL; 004 S2N2,S2; 024 ALL; 005 LOTS 1-4; 005 S2N2,S2; NV-14-07-008 2560.000 Acres 006 LOTS 1-7; T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV 006 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; Sec. 025 ALL; 026 ALL; NV-14-07-003 2554.360 Acres 027 ALL; T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV 028 ALL; Sec. 007 LOTS 1-4; 007 E2,E2W2; NV-14-07-009 2560.000 Acres 008 ALL; T.0080N, R.0380E, 2111DM, NV 017 ALL; Sec. 033 ALL; 018 LOTS 1-4; 034 ALL; 018 E2,E2W2; 035 ALL; 036 ALL; NV-14-07-004 2560.000 Acres T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-010 1919.160 Acres Sec. 009 ALL; T.0030N, R.0400E, 21 MDM, NV 010 ALL; Sec. 001 LOTS l-4; 011 ALL; 001 S2N2,S2; 012 ALL; 012 ALL; 013 ALL; NV-14-07-005 2520.000 Acres T.0080N, R.0380E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-011 1427.720 Acres Sec. 013 E2,N2NW,S\VNW,SW; T.0030N, R.0400E, 21 MDM, NV 014 ALL; Sec. 005 S2S2; 015 ALL; 007 LOTS 1-4; 016 ALL; 007 E2,E2W2; 008 ALL; 64

NV-14-07-012 2560.000 Acres NV-14-07-017 2560.000 Acres T.0030N, R.0400E, 21 MDM, NV T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 015 ALL; Sec. 013 ALL; 016 ALL; 014 ALL; 020 ALL; 015 ALL; 021 ALL; 016 ALL;

NV-1 4-07-013 1924.040 Acres NV-14-07-018 2537.800 Acres T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 001 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 019 LOTS 1-4; 001 S2N2,S2; 019 E2,E2W2; 002 LOTS 1-4; 020 ALL; 002 S2N2,S2; 029 ALL; 003 LOTS 1-4; 030 LOTS 1-4; 003 S2N2,S2; 030 E2,E2W2;

NV-14-07-014 1904.740 Acres NV-14-07-019 2560.000 Acres T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 004 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 021 ALL; 004 S2N2,S2; 022 ALL; 005 LOTS 1-4; 023 ALL; 005 S2N2,S2; 024 ALL; 006 LOTS 1-7; 006 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; NV-14-07-020 2560.000 Acres T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-015 2537.160 Acres Sec. 025 ALL; T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 026 ALL; Sec. 007 LOTS 1-4; 027 ALL; 007 E2 ,E2W2; 028 ALL; 008 ALL; 017 ALL; NV-14-07-021 1909.520 Acres 018 LOTS 1-4; T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 018 E2,E2W2; Sec. 031 LOTS 1-4; 031 E2,E2W2; NV-1 4-07-016 2560.000 Acres 032 ALL; T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 033 ALL; Sec. 009 ALL; 010 ALL; NV-14-07-022 1920.000 Acres 011 ALL; T.0030N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 012 ALL; Sec. 034 ALL; 035 ALL; 036 ALL;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 65

NV-14-07-023 1941.000 Acres NV-14-07-030 2003.000 Acres T.0170N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV T.Ol70N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 002 PROT ALL; Sec. 030 PROT ALL; 003 PROT ALL; 031 PROT ALL; 004 PROT ALL; 032 PROT ALL;

NV-14-07-024 1376.000 Acres NV-14-07-031 1449.320 Acres T.0170N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV T.0080N, R.0420E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 005 PROT ALL; Sec. 001 LOTS 1-4; 006 PROT ALL; 001 S2N2,S2; 002 SE; NV-1 4-07-025 1348.000 Acres 011 LOTS 1-8; T.0170N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 012 E2; Sec. 007 PROT ALL; 008 PROT ALL; NV-14-07-032 1400.000 Acres MAT SITE CC023392 - -STIP-OG44 T.0080N, R.0420E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 009 E2NE,N2NW,SWNW,SW, NV-1 4-07-026 1920.000 Acres NESE; T.0170N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 016 SWNE,W2,W2SE; Sec. 009 PROT ALL; 021 W2NE,W2,SE; 010 PROT ALL; 011 PROT ALL; NV-14-07-033 1440.000 Acres T.0080N, R.0420E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-027 1920.000 Acres Sec. 010 SW; T.0170N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 015 ALL; Sec. 012 W2 ; 022 ALL; 013 W2; 021 PROT ALL; NV-14-07-034 1720.000 Acres 029 PROT ALL; T.0080N, R.0420E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 013 E2; NV-14-07-028 2033.000 Acres 014 W2; T.Ol70N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 023 W2,SE· Sec. 017 PROT ALL; 024 E2,E2NW,SWNW,SW; 018 PROT ALL; 019 PROT ALL; NV-1 4-07-035 1057.630 Acres T.0090N, R.0420E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-029 1920.000 Acres Sec. 001 LOTS 1,2,5-7; T.0170N, R.0410E, 21 MDM, NV 001 SWNE,E2SE; Sec. 020 PROT ALL; 012 LOTS 1-4; 028 PROT ALL; 012 W2E2; 033 PROT ALL; 013 LOTS 1-4; 013 W2E2;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 66

NV-14-07-036 1305.360 Acres NV-14-07-050 1920.180 Acres T.0090N, R.0420E, 21 MDM, NV T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 024 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 003 LOTS 1-4; 024 W2E2; 003 S2N2,S2; 025 LOTS 1-4; 010 ALL; 025 W2E2; 015 ALL; 036 LOTS 1-4; 036 W2E2,W2; NV-14-07-051 1284.500 Acres T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV NV-1 4-07-040 1195.000 Acres Sec. 004 LOTS 1-4; T.0170N, R.0420E, 21 MDM, NV 004 S2N2,S2; Sec. 002 LOTS 1-3; 005 LOTS 1-4; 002 S2NE,SENW,S2; 005 S2N2,S2; 011 ALL; NV-14-07-052 1885.600 Acres NV-14-07-043 643.760 Acres T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.0070N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 006 LOTS 1-7; Sec. 023 S2; 006 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; 024 LOTS 3,4; 007 LOTS 1-4; 024 SW,W2SE; 007 E2,E2W2; 008 ALL; NV-14-07-044 1291.060 Acres T.0070N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-053 1903.120 Acres Sec. 025 LOTS 1-4; T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 025 W2E2, W2; Sec. 016 ALL; 026 ALL· 017 ALL; 018 LOTS 1-4; NV-14-07-045 2543.430 Acres 018 E2,E2W2; T.0070N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 027 ALL; NV-14-07-054 1903.380 Acres 028 ALL; T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 033 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 019 LOTS 1-4· 033 N2,N2S2; 019 E2,E2W2; 034 LOTS 1-4; 020 ALL; 034 N2,N2S2; 021 ALL;

NV-14-07-046 1289.710 Acres NV-14-07-055 1956.160 Acres T.0070N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 035 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 022 ALL; 035 N2,N2S2; 023 LOTS 1-7; 036 LOTS 1-7; 023 S2NE,SEN\V,E2SW,SE; 036 W2NE,NW,N2SW,NWSE; 024 LOTS 1-4; 024 S2N2,S2;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 67

NV-14-07-056 1459.240 Acres NV-14-07-067 1769.480 Acres T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.OllON, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 025 NW; Sec. 001 LOTS 1-4; 026 LOTS 1-4; 001 S2N2,E2SW,SE; 026 E2,E2W2; 002 LOTS 1-4; 027 ALL; 002 S2N2,SW,W2SE; 003 LOTS 1-4; NV-14-07-057 1903.420 Acres 003 S2N2,S2; T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 028 ALL; NV-14-07-068 1509.190 Acres 029 ALL; T.0110N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 030 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 004 LOTS 5-20; 030 E2 ,E2W2; 005 LOTS 5-14; 009 N2,N2S2,SESE; NV-14-07-058 1904.740 Acres T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-069 422.000 Acres Sec. 031 LOTS 1-4; T.OllON, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 031 E2 ,E2W2; Sec. 006 LOTS 8-9, 14-15; 032 ALL; 018 W2NE,W2W2SE; 033 ALL; 019 LOTS 5,6; 019 W2NE; NV-14-07-059 970.010 Acres T.0090N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-070 1680.000 Acres Sec. 034 ALL; T.OllON, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 035 LOTS 1-5; Sec. 010 ALL; 035 E2NW,NESW; 011 W2NE,W2,W2SE,SESE; 012 E2,NENW,SW; NV-14-07-060 1207.360 Acres T.0100N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-071 1840.000 Acres Sec. 001 LOTS 1-4; T.0110N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 001 S2N2,S2; Sec. 013 ALL; 009 E2,S2NW,SW; 014 ALL; 015 N2,N2S2,SWSW,SESE; NV-14-07-063 2520.000 Acres T.0100N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-072 2360.000 Acres Sec. 020 ALL; T.OllON, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 021 N2,SW,N2SE,SWSE; Sec. 016 ALL; 029 ALL; 021 ALL; 032 ALL; 022 NENE,W2SW; 026 ALL; 027 E2E2,W2W2; 035 ALL; 028 ALL;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 68

NV-14-07-073 1004.610 Acres NV-14-07-082 1800.000 Acres T.0110N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 020 SESE; Sec. 016 E2NE,SWNE,S2NW,S2; 032 SENE,W2,N2SE,SWSE; 020 ALL; 033 LOTS 1,2; 021 ALL; 033 E2,E2SW; NV-14-07-083 1690.850 Acres NV-14-07-074 1846.050 Acres T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.OllON, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 017 S2N2,S2 ; Sec. 023 ALL; 018 LOTS 1,2; 024 LOTS 1,2,4; 018 E2,E2W2; 024 N2,SW; 019 LOTS 1-4; 026 E2,E2NW,SWNW,SW; 019 E2,E2 W2;

NV-14-07-078 1921.440 Acres NV-14-07-084 1840.000 Acres T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 001 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 023 ALL; 001 S2N2,S2; 024 W2NE,W2,SE; 012 ALL; 026 ALL; 014 ALL; NV-14-07-085 1350.260 Acres NV-14-07-079 1164.880 Acres T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 025 ALL; Sec. 002 LOTS 1-3; 036 LOTS 1-16; 002 S2NE,SENW,SE; 004 LOTS 3,4; NV-14-07-086 1280.000 Acres 004 S2NW,E2SE,SWSE; T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 008 N2,N2SW,SWSW,NWSE; Sec. 027 ALL; 028 ALL; NV-14-07-080 1616.020 Acres T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-087 1736.000 Acres Sec. 005 S2; T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV 006 LOTSl-7; Sec. 029 ALL; 006 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; 031 LOTS 5-6, 11-14, 19-20; 007 LOTS 1-4; 032 LOTS 1-12; 007 E2,E2W2; 032 NE;

NV-14-07-081 1480.000 Acres NV-14-07-088 1382.220 Acres T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 011 E2E2,NWNE,SESW,W2SE; Sec. 030 LOTS 1-4; 013 N2NE,SWNE, W2,W2SE,SESE; 030 E2,E2W2; 022 N2,SW,W2SE,SESE; 033 LOTS 1-16;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 69

NV-14-07-089 1459.140 Acres NV-14-07-096 1269.920 Acres T.0120N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV T.Ol30N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV Sec. 034 LOTS 1-16; Sec. 035 ALL; 035 LOTS 1-16; 036 LOTS 1-4; 036 W2,SE; NV-14-07-090 1440.000 Acres T.0130N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV NV-14-07-097 1593.700 Acres Sec. 001 LOTS 1,2; T.Ol40N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV 001 S2NE; Sec. 001 LOTS 2-4; 010 PROT ALL; 001 SWNE,S2NW,SW,S2SE; 011 PROT ALL; 002 LOTS 4; 002 S2NW,SW,S2SE; NV-14-07-091 1028.580 Acres 003 LOTS 1-3; T.Ol30N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV 003 S2N2,S2; Sec. 007 LOTS 1-4; 004 SE; 007 NE,E2NW,NESW,NWSE; 008 E2,S2NW,SW; NV -14-07-098 1040.000 Acres T.0140N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV NV-14-07-092 1920.000 Acres Sec. 009 E2; T.Ol30N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV 010 N2NW,SWN\V,W2SW; Sec. 014 PROT ALL; 016 W2E2E2,W2E2,NW,SWSW, 015 PROT ALL; E2SW; 023 PROT ALL; NV-14-07-099 1160.000 Acres NV-14-07-093 1026.880 Acres T.0140N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV T.0130N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV Sec. 011 E2,N2NW; Sec. 017 E2W2,NWNW; 012 S2NE,NWNW,S2NW,S2; 018 LOTS 1-4; 013 S2NE; 018 W2NE,E2W2,NWSE; 014 NW; 019 LOTS 1-4; 0 19 E2W2,W2SE ; NV-14-07-102 195.000 Acres T.Ol 70N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV NV-14-07-094 720.000 Acres Sec. 009 LOTS 8,9; T.Ol30N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV 009 E2SW,SWSE; Sec. 025 SW; 026 S2; NV-14-07-103 1738.000 Acres 027 N2S2,S2SE; T.0180N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, N\T Sec. 003 LOTS 1-4; NV-14-07-095 1038.460 Acres 003 S2N2,S2; T.0130N, R.0430E, 21 :tviDM, NV 004 LOTS 2-4; Sec. 028 N2N2; 004 S2N2,S2; 030 LOTS l-4; 005 LOTS 1-4; 030 E2SW; 005 S2N2,N2S2; 031 LOTS 1-4; 031 E2,E2W2;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 70

NV-14-07-104 838.030 Acres NV-14-07-112 2398.490 Acres T.01 80N, R.0430E, 21 :MDM, NV T.0070N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 006 LOTS 5-7; Sec. 016 ALL; 006 SENW,E2SW; 017 SE; 007 LOTS 1-4; 019 LOTS 3,4; 007 NWNE,S2NE,E2W2,SE; 019 E2SW,SE; 020 ALL; NV-1 4-07-106 1283.000 Acres 02 1 ALL; T.0180N, R.0430E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 016 ALL; NV-1 4-07-113 2560.000 Acres 018 LOTS 1-4; T.0070N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV 018 E2,E2W2; Sec. 022 ALL; 023 ALL; NV-14-07-107 1204.000 Acres 024 ALL; T.0180N, R.0430E, 2 llMDM, NV 027 ALL; Sec. 019 LOTS 1-4; 019 E2,E2W2; NV-14-07-114 2560.000 Acres 020 N2NE,SWNE,W2,\V2SE,SESE; T.0070N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 025 ALL; NV-1 4-07-108 640.000 Acres 026 ALL; T.0180N, R.0430E, 21 :MDM, NV 035 ALL; Sec. 030 LOTS 1-4; 036 ALL; 030 E2,E2W2· NV-14-07-115 1920.000 Acres NV-1 4-07-110 2520.000 Acres T.0070N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV T.0070N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 028 ALL; Sec. 010 ALL; 033 ALL; 013 ALL; 034 ALL; 014 ALL; 015 N2,N2SW,SESW,SE; NV-14-07-116 2553.500 Acres T.0070N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV NV -1 4-07-111 2401.2 80 Acres Sec. 029 ALL; T.0070N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV 030 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 001 LOTS 1-4; 030 E2,E2W2; 001 S2N2,S2; 031 LOTS 1-4; 002 LOTS 1,2; 031 E2,E2W2; 002 S2NE,S2; 032 ALL; 011 ALL; 012 ALL; NV-1 4-07-120 1911.670Acres T.OllON, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 006 LOTS 1-7; 006 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; 007 LOTS 1-4; 007 E2,E2W2; 018 LOTS 1-4; 018 E2,E2W2;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 71

NV-14-07-122 1376.200 Acres NV-14-07-131 1113.150 Acres T.0110N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV T.0120N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 004 LOTS 1,2,5-21 ; Sec. 010 LOTS 1-4; 009 LOTS 1-8; 010 E2,E2W2; 009 \V2 ; 015 LOTS 1-4; 015 E2,E2W2; NV-14-07-123 1922.980 Acres T.0110N, R.0440E, 21 ~IDM , NV NV-14-07-132 1058.000 Acres Sec. 005 LOTS 1-4; T.0120N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV 005 S2N2,S2; Sec. 011 W2; 008 ALL; 022 LOTS 1-4; 017 ALL; 022 E2,E2W2; 023 N2,SW; NV-1 4-07-124 1278.000 Acres T.0110N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV NV-14-07-133 1659.710 Acres Sec. 015 LOTS 1-7; T.0120N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV 016 LOTS 1,2; Sec. 016 ALL; 016 E2NE,W2,SE; 017 ALL; 021 LOTS 1-8; 019 LOTS 5-12; 021 N2 ; 019 E2NE;

NV-14-07-128 1711.000Acres NV-14-07-134 2560.000 Acres T.Ol 20N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV T.Ol20N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 002 LOTS 5-8; Sec. 020 ALL; 002 S2N2,E2S2,E2SE; 021 ALL; 003 LOTSS-11 ; 028 ALL; 003 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; 029 ALL; 004 LOTS 1-4; 004 S2N2,S2; NV-14-07-135 459.000 Acres T.0120N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV NV-14-07-129 1923.780 Acres Sec. 026 NW; T.01 20N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV 027 LOTS 1,2; Sec. 005 LOTS 1-4; 027 NE,E2NW; 005 S2N2,S2; 008 ALL; NV-14-07-136 908.540 Acres 009 ALL; T.0120N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 030 LOTS 5-13 ,16,17,20; NV-14-07-130 1658.120 Acres 031 LOTS 5,8,9,12-16; T.Ol20N, R.0440E, 21 :MDM, NV 031 SE; Sec. 006 LOTS 1-7; 006 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; NV-14-07-137 968.140 Acres 007 LOTS 1-4; T.Ol20N, R.0440E, 21 ~IDM , NV 007 E2,E2W2; Sec. 032 LOTS 1-4; 018 LOTS 1,4; 032 E2,NW; 018 E2E2,NWNE,NENW,SESW, 033 W2 ; SWSE;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 72

NV-14-07-138 2560.000 Acres NV-14-07-145 1760.000Acres T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 012 ALL; Sec. 034 ALL; 013 ALL; 035 ALL; 014 ALL; 036 N2,SW; 015 ALL; NV-14-07-146 1588.710 Acres NV-14-07-139 1109.200 Acres T.0140N, R.0450E, 21 MDM, NV T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 004 LOTS 3,4; Sec. 016 ALL; 004 S2NW,SW; 017 E2 ; 005 LOTS 1-4; 018 LOTS 1,2; 005 S2N2,S2; 018 E2NW; 006 LOTS 1-7; 006 S2NE,SENW,E2SW,SE; NV-14-07-140 800.000 Acres T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-147 1580.180 Acres Sec. 020 NE; T.0140N, R.0450E, 21 MDM, NV 021 ALL; Sec. 007 LOTS 1-4; 007 E2,E2W2; NV-14-07-141 1920.000 Acres 008 ALL; T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV 009 W2; Sec. 022 ALL; 023 ALL; NV-14-07-148 1581.280 Acres 024 ALL; T.0140N, R.0450E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 016 W2 ; NV-14-07-142 1920.000 Acres 017 ALL; T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV 018 LOTS 1-4; Sec. 025 ALL; 018 E2,E2W2; 026 ALL; 027 ALL; NV-14-07-149 1583.360 Acres T.0140N, R .0450E, 21 MDM, NV NV-14-07-143 640.000 Acres Sec. 019 LOTS 1-4; T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV 019 E2,E2W2; Sec. 028 ALL; 020 ALL; 021 NW; NV-14-07-144 953.000 Acres 021 PROT SW; T.0140N, R.0440E, 21 MDM, NV Sec. 031 LOTS 3,4; NV-14-07-150 1258.800 Acres 031 E2SW; T.0140N, R.0450E, 21 MDM, NV 032 SE; Sec. 029 W2 ; 033 ALL; 030 LOTS 1-4; 030 E2,E2W2; 031 LOTS 1,2; 031 NE,E2NW;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 73

NV-14-07-151 1118.080 Acres NV-14-07-157 2160.000 Acres T.0200N, R.0470E, 21 :MDM, NV T.0140N, R.0510E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 004 LOTS 2-4; Sec. 009 E2,S2SW; 004 SWNE,S2NW SW,W2SE; 014 W2E2,W2 ; 005 LOTS 1-4; 015 ALL; 005 S2N2,S2; 016 ALL;

NV-14-07-152 1517.000 Acres NV-14-07-158 1920.000 Acres T.0140N, R.0500E, 21 MDM, NV T.0140N, R.0510E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 001 LOT 3; Sec. 020 NE; 001 S2NW,S2; 021 ALL; 002 LOT 4; 022 ALL; 002 S2NE,SENW,S2; 023 W2E2,W2 ; 003 LOTS 1,2; 003 S2; NV-14-07-159 1600.000 Acres 004 LOTS 2; T.Ol40N, R.0510E, 21 :MDM, NV 004 SWNE,SE; Sec. 026 W2 ; 027 ALL; NV-1 4-07-153 1600.000 Acres 028 ALL; T.Ol 40N, R.0500E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 009 E2; NV-14-07-160 1160.000 Acres 010 ALL; T.0140N, R.0510E, 21 :MDM, NV 011 ALL; Sec. 033 E2NE; 034 N2,SW,NWSE,S2SE; NV-14-07-154 2240.000 Acres 035 N2, S2S2; T.0140N, R.0500E, 21 :MDM, NV Sec. 014 ALL; NV-14-07-161 2080.000 Acres 015 ALL; T.0090N, R.0530E, 21 :MDM, NV 021 E2; Sec. 00 1 PROT ALL; 022 ALL; 002 PROT ALL; 003 PROT ALL; NV-14-07-155 640.000 Acres T.01 40N, R.0500E, 21 :MDM, NV NV-14-07-162 2084.000 Acres Sec. 028 E2; T.0090N, R.0530E, 21 :MDM, NV 033 E2; Sec. 010 PROT ALL; 011 PROT ALL; NV-14-07-156 2001.650 Acres 012 PROT ALL; T.0140N, R.0510E, 21 :MDM NV Sec. 002 LOTS 1-4; NV-14-07-163 2084.000 Acres 002 S2N2,SW; T.0090N, R.0530E, 21 :MDM, NV 003 LOTS 1, 2; Sec. 013 PROT ALL; 003 S2NE,S2; 014 PROT ALL; 004 SE; 015 PROT ALL; 010 S2NE,W2,SE; 011 S2NW,SW,W2SE;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 74

NV-14-07-164 2085 .000 Acres T.0090N, R.0530E, 21 !viDM, NV Sec. 022 PROT ALL; 023 PROT ALL; 024 PROT ALL;

NV-14-07-165 2086.000 Acres T.0090N, R.0530E, 21 !viDM, NV Sec. 025 PROT ALL; 026 PROT ALL; 027 PROT ALL;

NV-14-07-166 1280.000 Acres T.0090N, R.0530E, 21 !viDM, NV Sec. 032 PROT ALL; 033 PROT ALL;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 75

APPENDIXB

OIL AND GAS LEASE PARCELS STIPULATIONS

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 76

General Occupancy

SUrf ere occupa1cy may be re:tricted for spe:ific periods by the BLM 's a.Jthorized officer for reasons that include, but are not limited to (a) extended periods of high soil moisture or nmoff when unusual road damage or land smface rutting can occm, and (b) disturbance activity that could have a significant effect on sage-grouse breeding or brood-rearing, raptor nesting, or cmcial deer or pronghom antelope wintering areas.

Wamling and cooling trends dming winter, spring nmoff events and other large precipitation events can contribute to extended periods of lligh soil moisture or runoff that can cause road damage or land smface mtting. These issues can be compounded in areas where slopes are greater than 30%.

All Parcels

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 77

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

No SU1face occupancy is allowed fi:om December 1 -May 1 in the following parcels within the Mt Lewis Field Office. This stipulation does not apply to operations and maintenance of production facilities.

Parcels Description of Lands NV-14-07-027 Sec 21 , 29, 28

NV-14-07-028 Sec 17, 19

NV-14-07-029 Sec 20, 33

NV-14-07-030 Sec 30, 31 , 32

NV-14-07-151 All

NV-14-07-152 T.14N, R.50E., Sec. 1,2,3,4 (Lot l)

NV-14-07-153 All

NV-14-07-154 All

NV-14-07-155 All

NV-14-07-156 All

NV-14-07-157 All

NV-14-07-158 All

NV-14-07-159 All

NV-14-07-160 All

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 78

No smface occupancy is allowed from January 15-May 15 in the following parcels within the Tonopah Field Office. This stipulation does not apply to operations and maintenance of production facilities.

NV-14-07-037 All

NV-14-07-038 All

NV-14-07-039 All

NV-14-07-069 T. liN., R. 43E., Sec. 6 W 'l2; 1 1 Sec. 7 W 'l2 , W h W 'l2 E /2 ; Sec. 18 W Y:z W Y2 E Y2 ; Sec. 19 W 'l2 W 'l2 E 1h

NV-14-07-076 T. liN., R. 43E., Sec. 30 NE, E 'l2 SE Sec. 31 W Y:z NE

NV-14-07-080 T. 12N., R. 43E., Sec. 6 \V 'l2 W 'l2 ; Sec. 7 W 1h W Y:z

NV-14-07-083 T. 12N., R. 43E., Sec. 18 W Y:z W Y2 ; Sec. 19 W Y:z W Y:z

NV-14-07-087 T. 12N., R. 43E., Sec. 31 W 'l2

NV-14-07-088 T. 12N., R. 43E., Sec. 30 W Y:z W Y2

NV-14-07-095 T. 13N., R. 43E., Sec. 31 W Y:z W Y:z W Y:z

DOJ.-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 79

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats detennined to be threatened, endangered, or other special status species. BLM may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such a species or their habitat. BLM may require modifications to or disapprove proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destmction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. BLM will not approve any grotmd-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it complete its obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. &1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedme for conference or consultation.

Authority: BLM Washington Office Instruction MemorandUlll 2002-17 4; Endangered Species Act

Plants A list ofBLM spec.ial status plant species can be fotmd in Appendix E, and seasonally appropriate smveys for the respective species by a qualified biologist will be required before surface disturbance will be authorized.

All Parcels

DOI--BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 80

Special Status Fish Species The following parcels are in watersheds with known populations ofBLM sensitive status fish species and, according to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), contain a perennial stream segment. As not all populations of these species have been surveyed, it must be assumed that these species could exist in the perennial streams of these parcels. Therefore, no activities that adversely impact the sediment or water budgets in the perennial stream systems will be pennitted.

Populations ofthe Big Smokey Valley Speckled Dace may exist in the following parcels:

Parcels Description ofLands NV- 14-07-068 Perennial Streams NV-14-07-069 Perennial Streams NV-14-07-083 Pere1mial Strean1s NV-14-07-119 Perennial Streams NV-14-07-124 Perennial Streams NV-14-07-133 Perellllial Streams NV-14-07-134 Perennial StreanlS NV-14-07-135 Perellllial Streams

Populations of the Big Smokey Valley Tui Chub (Gila Bicolor sp 8) may exist in the following parcels:

Parcels Description ofLands NV-14-07-079 Perellllial Strean1s NV-14-07-091 Perennial StreanlS NV-14-07-093 Perellllial Streams NV-14-07-095 Perellllial Streams NV-14-07-097 Perellllial Streams NV -14-07-130 Perennial Streams

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 81

Fire The following precautionruy measures should be taken to prevent wildland fires. In the event yom operations should strut a fire, you could be held liable for all suppression costs.

n All vehicles should cany fire extinguishers, and a minimum of 10 gallons of water.

D Adequate firefighting equipment i.e. shovel, pulaski, extinguisher(s), and a minimumlO gallons of water should be kept at the drill site(s).

D Vehicle catalytic converters should be inspected often and cleaned of all btush and grass debris.

n When conducting welding operations, they should be conducted in an area fi:ee from or mostly fre.e from vegetation. A minimum of 10 gallons water and a shovel should be on hand to extinguish any fires created from the sparks. Extra perso1111el should be at the welding site to watch for fires created by welding sparks.

D Report wildland fires immediately to the BLM Central Nevada Interagency Dispatch Center (CNIDC) at (775) 623-3444. Helpful infonnation to repmted is location (latitude a1d longitude if possible), whet' s burning, time stated, who/what is near the fire, and direction of fire spread.

0 When conducting operations during the months ofMay through September, the operator must contact tl1e BLM Battle Molllltain District Office, Division ofFire and Aviation at (775)635-4000 to fmd out about any fire restrictions in place for the area of operation and to advise this office of approximate begi1111ing and ending dates for your activities.

All Parcels

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 82

Cultural Resources Operators are advised that the proposed activity area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. Furthe1more, a records check of the cultural resource data files at the Mount Lewis Field Office indicates a strong likelihood of encountering cultural resources in these locations. The BLM therefore strongly recommends that the operator retain the services of an archaeological contractor to avoid damage to cultural resources. TI1e Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA: 43 CFR 10), protects items of cultural patrimony, Native American funerary items, Native American remains and sacred objects. In addition, The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA: 43 CFR 7.4, 7.14, 7.15, 7.16) provides for civil and/or criminal penalties for the disturbance of archaeological resources on federal lands and if such disturbance is the result of activities conducted by the operator, they could be liable for such damages. If cultural resources, Native American1·emains, funerary items, scared items, or objects of cultural patrin1ony are discovered, the operator must cease operations in the vicinity of the discovery and ensure adequate protection to the discovery, then notify the BLM inunediately, by telephone, with v.rritten confrnnation to follow (43 CFR 10.4 (c), (d), (g); Nevada State Protocol Agreement VIII (b)). Notification should be made to the BLM Battle Mountain District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, NV, 89820, (775-635- 4000). No activity in the vicinity of the discove1y should resume tmtil the operator has been issued a Notice to Proceed by the Authorized Officer.

All Parcels

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 83

Paleontological resources Paleontological resources constitute a fragile and non-renewable scientific record of the histoty of life on earth. Although no paleontological resources are known or identified in the immediate area, this project may have an unintended adverse effect on such resources. The operator should note that fossils are not part of the mineral estate. Paleontological resources are protected by the Paleontological Resources Protection Act (OPLA-PRP: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of2009 Paleontological Resources Preservation Subtitle 123 Stat. 1172, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa et seq.) which establishes criminal and civil penalties. The operator should also be aware that if paleontological resources are fotmd in direct association with cultural resources, then such occmTences are subject to Archaeological Resomce Protection Act (ARPA: 43 CFR 7.4, 7.14, 7.15, 7.16) provisions. OPLA-PRP requires that the natme and location of paleontological resources on public lands be kept confidential. If paleontological resources are discovered, the operator must cease operations in the vicinity of the discovery and ensure adequate protection to the discovery, tl1en notify the BLM immediately, by telephone, with written confirmation to follow. Notification should be made to the BLM, Battle Mountain District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, NV, 89820, (775-635- 4000). No activity in the vicinity of the discove1y should resume m1til the operator has been issued a Notice to Proceed by the Authorized Officer.

All Parcels

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 84

Native American Consultation

In accordance with the National Historic Prese1vation Act (P.L. 89-665), the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (P.L. 94- 579), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (P.L. 95-341), the Native American Graves Protection and Repab"iation Act (p.L. 101-601) and Executive Order 13007, the BLM must also provide affected tribes an opportunity to comment and consult on the proposed project. BLM must attempt to limit, reduce, or possibly eliminate any negative impacts to Native American traditional/cultural/spiritual sites, activities, and resources.

BLM rese1ves the right to deny or alter proposed activities associated with any surface occupancy that results from Oil, Gas, and Geothennalleasing. Maintaining physical and spiritual integrity of certain locations within the Bl\ID administrative boundruy is detrimental to present and future cultural/spiritual/traditional activities. In accordance with Federal legislation and executive orders, Federal agencies must consider the impacts their actions may have to Native American traditions and religious practices. Consequently, the BLM must take steps to identifY locations having traditional/cultural or religious values to Native Americans and insure that its actions do not unduly or unnecessarily burden the pursuit of traditional religion or traditional lifeways.

(All pru·cels included in Attachment A are recommended to include this stipulation. Due to the sensitivity of the unique resources of the Big Smoky Valley, Native American related stipulations should be applied. Compru1ies or individuals moving forward with lease purchases \vithin or in close proximity to sensitive areas noted above can expect ru1 extensive, complex, and lengthy Native American consultation process.)

DOI··BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 85

Wild Horse and Burro

The use of helicopter below 500' AGL would be prohibited between Ma-ch 1 CJ'ld June 30 to prevent dismption during foaling period and orphan or abandoned foals.

The BLM has long standing policy about the use of aircraft during the foaling period, and is essentially restricted from using aircraft to inventory or gather wild horses during the peak foaling season. Wild horses willmn when in the presence of aircraft. Mares may not wait for foals, and may abandon them, especially when foals are young.

If operations cause a water source to become unavailable to wild horses, the Authorized Officer may require a new well to be drilled or another water development to be constructed in the general area to provide adequate water for the wild horses. If the lease area is within an HMA, the Field Manager may require additional measures for the protection of wild horses such as seasonal restrictions during the peak foaling period. Additional measures could include placement of equipment away from impoliant water sources, or placement of equipment outside of areas suitable for use or movement by wild horses.

All Parcels Within HJ\1As

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 86

APPENDIXC

DEFERRED PARCELS

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 87

TFO Greater Sage-grouse Parcel Deferral List

Pending the US Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) decision to list the Greater Sage-grouse (GSG) under the Endangered Species Act, the BLM Tonopah Field Office has elected the following parcels for deferral :fi-om the oil and gas lease sale of2014. Fmther degradation of Preliminay Priority Hc:i:Jitct (PPI-i) prior to FWS' s de:::ision would/could contribute to the la:k. of habitat protections that the FWS has deemed a contributing factor to the decline in GSG populations. Initially the parcels or portion of parcels listed below were considered Preliminmy General Habitat (PGH). During site visit the following parcels were found to have habitat qualities consistent with PPH.

Description ofLands

NV-14-07-037 All Lands

NV-14-07-038 All Lands

NV-1 4-07-039 All Lm1ds

NV-14-07-069 T. 11N., R. 42E Sec. 6 Lots 10-13, 16-19 Sec. 7 Lots 1-4, El/2 W 1/2

NV-14-07-076 All Lands

NV-14-07-087 T. 12N., R. 43E. Sec. 31 Lots 7-10, 15-18

NV-14-07-121 All Lands

NV-14-07-124 T. liN., R. 44E. Sec. 15

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 88

The aforementioned parcels and/or portions of parcels are located within areas where Wyoming/Mountain Big sage Brush habitat, near pererurial water, exists on the eastern and western benches of the Big Smokey Valley within the Tonopah Field Office. The deferred areas are prin1arily used as winter range for GSG, but some lekkinglbrood rearing and stunmer use is likely. Forbs and grasses are prevalent in these areas, compared to areas oflower elevation within Big Smokey Valley.

Habitat is evaluated based on distance from perennial water, sagebrush cover 01eight and species is considered), amount of grass and forb understmy, and contiguity of seasonal habitat (i.e. Slmllller, winter, lekking/brood rearing habitat).

Deferrals identified based on proximity of leks (<4 Miles)

Description ofLands

NV-14-07-127 All Lands

NV-14-07-128 T. 12N., R. 44E. Sec. 02 E Y2 SE 1!4

NV-14-07-132 T. l2N., R. 44E. Sec. 11 E Y2 Sec. 23 SE 1!4

NV-14-07-135 T. 12N., R. 44E. Sec. 25 Sec. 26 NE 114

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA ...... ______

MLFO Sage Grouse Deferral List

Pending the US Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) decision to list the Great Sage Grouse (GSG) asa"Threaenoo" spa:ies unda- the Enda1geroo Species Act, the BLM Mount Levvis Field Office has elected the following parcels for deferral from the oil and gas lease sale of2014. Furtha- degra:Jation of PPH (Preliminay Priority Hcbita) prior to FWS' s de:ision would/could contribute to the lack of habitat protections that the FWS has deemed a contributing factor to the decline in GSG populations. Initially the parcels or portion of parcels listed below were considered PGH (Prelirninru.y General Habitat). During site visits the pru.·cels were fotmd to have habitat qualities consistent with PPH. Parcel suitability for sage-grouse was evaluated based on 1) habitat conditions (i.e., dominated by Wyoming, Mountain, or low sagebmsh habitat, 2) habitat continuity with designated PPH, 3) perennial water sources and/or other riparian areas (seeps, springs, meadows) within 1 mile ofthe parcel, 4) active or tmknown leks within 4 miles of the parcel. Site visits indicate that most of the parcels recommended for defenal ru.·e primarily used as winter rru.1ge for GSG, but some brood reru.·ing and summer use is likely.

Land Description

NV-14-07-027 T. 17N., R. 41E. Sec. 22

NV-14-07-029 T. 17N., R. 41E. Sec.27

NV-14-07-040 T. 17N., R 42E. Sec. 1 Lots 1-4; Sec. 1 S2N2, S2; Sec. 12 All

NV-14-07-041 All Lands

NV-14-07-042 All Lands

NV-14-07-100 All Lands

NV-14-0 7-1 01 All Lands

NV-14-07-102 T. 17N., R. 43E. Sec. 8 All Sec. 9 Lots 4, 5

NV-14-07-103 T. 18N., R. 43E. Sec. 2 All

NV-14-07-105 All Lru.1ds

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 90

NV-14-07-106 T. 18N., R. 43E. Sec. 15

NV-14-07-107 T. 18N., R. 43E. Sec. 21 All Sec. 22 NW

NV-14-07-108 T. 18N., R 43E. Sec. 28 Sec. 29

NV-14-07-109 All Lands

NV-14-07-152 Sec. 1 Lot 4 SWNW Sec. 2 Lots 1-3;

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 91

Minerals Deferrals The following parcels lie within a locatable minerals approved Plan of Operations boundary

Parcel Land Description

NV-14-07-047 All Lands

NV-14-07-048 All Lands

NV-14-07-049 All Lands

NV-14-07-050 All Lands

NV-14-07-061 All Lands

NV-14-07-062 All Lands

NV-14-07-064 All Lands

NV-14-07-065 All Lands

NV-1 4-07-066 All Lands

NV-14-07-075 All Lands

NV-14-07-077 All Lands

NV-14-07-117 All Lands

NV-14-07-118 All Lands

NV-14-07-119 All Lands

NV-14-07-125 All Lands

NV-14-07-12 6 All Lands

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 92

APPENDIXD

BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 93

BMDO Special Status Plant Species List

Common Name Scientific Name Status* PLA1\"TS Eastwood milkweed Asclepias eastwoodiana NS

Cima milkvetch Astragalusdmaevar. d mae NS

Tonopah milkvetch Astragalus pseudiodanthus NS

Toquima milkvetch Astragalus toquimanus NS

Currant milkvetch Astragalus undalis NS

Elko rockcress Boechera falc::ifruda NS

Monte Neva paintbrush <:astilleja salsuginosa NS

Tecopa birdbeak

Goodrich biscu itroot (#mopterus goodrid"lii NS

Nevada willowherb !:pilobium nevadense NS

Windloving buckwheat & iogonum anemophilum NS

Beatley buckwheat & iogonum beatleyae NS

Tiehm buckwheat & iogonum t iehmii NS

Sand cholla G-usonia puld"lella NS

-bhanneshowellia NS Lunar Crater buckwheat aateriorum

Holmgren lupine wpinus holmgrenianus NS

Low feverfew Parthenium ligulatum NS

Pah ute Mesa beardtongue Fenstemon pahutensis NS

Fensternon palmeri var. NS Lahontan beardtongue maaanthus

Bashful beardtongue Penstemon pudirus NS

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 94

Tiehm beardtongue Penstemon tiehmii NS

Clarke phacelia A1acelia filiae NS

Williams combleaf Fblyctenium williamsiae NS

Bl aine pincushion S:lerocactus blainei NS

Tonopah pincushion S:lerocactus nyensis NS

Sj:)haeralcea caespitosa var. NS Railroad Valley globemallow williamsi ae

Lone Mountain goldenhead Tonestus granitiws NS

Lone Mountain golden head Tonestusgranit iws NS

*Status FE =Federal Endangered FE = Federal Proposed Endangered FT =Federal Threatened FC =Federal Candidate NS = Nevada BLM Sensitive Species

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 95

BMDO Special Status Wildlife Species List

Common Name Scientific Name Status* BIRDS Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis NS Golden eagle Aquila ch1ysaetos NS Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia NS F enuginous hawk Buteo regalis NS Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni NS Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus FC,NS Sno-w')' plover Charadrius alexandrinus FT, NS Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FC Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis NS Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus NS Pinyon jay Gynmorhinus cyanocephalus NS Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus NS Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus NS Black rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata NS Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus NS Brewer's sparrow Spi:ella breweri NS FISH Railroad Valley Springfish Crenichthys nevadae FT Hot Creek valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp. 5 NS Railroad Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp. 5 NS Fish Lake Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp. 5 NS Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki hensha11:i FT Monitor Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus spp 5 NS Big Smoky Valley tui chub Gila bicolor sp . 8 NS Big Smoky Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus lariversi NS MAMMALS allid bat Antrozous pal/idus NS Pika Ochotona princeps NS Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis NS Townsend's big-eared bat Cor)'norhinus townsendii NS Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus NS DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001 -EA 96

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum NS Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans NS Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii NS Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus NS California myotis Myotis californicus NS Western small-footed myotis !11yotis ciliolabrum NS Long-eared myotis Afyotis evotis NS Little bro'v\11 myotis Myotis lucifugus NS Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes NS Long-legged myotis Afyotis volans NS Big free-tailed bat Nyctiniomops macrotis NS Western pipistrelle Pipistrellus Hesperus NS Bighorn sheep Ovis Canadensis NS Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadcrrida bmsillensis NS Fish Spring pocket gopher Thomomys bottae abstrusus NS San Antonio pocket gopher Thomomys bottae curatus NS Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus NS Pale kangaroo mouse Microdipodops pallidus NS AMPHIBIA."'S Amargosa toad Bufo nelson NS Cohunbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris FC, NS REPTJLES Dese1t tortoise Gopher/IS agassizii FT, NS MOLLUSCS Southern duckwater pyrg Pyrgulopsis anatine NS Large-gland Carico pyrg Pyrgulopsis basiglans NS Carinate Duckwater pyrg Pyrgulopsis cm·inata NS Dixie Valley pyrg Pyrgulopsis dixensis NS Oasis Valley pyrg Pyrgulopsis micrococcus NS Vinyards and Humboldt pyrg Pyrgulopsis vinyardi NS Wong'spyrg Pyrgulopsis wongi N

*Status FE = Federal Endangered FE= Federal Proposed Endangered FT =Federal Threatened FC =Federal Candidate NS = Nevada BLM Sensitive Species

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 97

APPENDIXE

BATTLE l\10UNTAIN DISTRICT WILDLIFE SURVEY PROTOCOL

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA ...... ______

BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Stu-veys

DRAFT

WILDLIFE SURVEY PROTOCOLS

BLM NEVADA

2013

1 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Stuveys

DRAFT

Table of Contents General Guidelines for Wildlife Surveys ...... 4 Following the Guidelines ...... 4 Surveyor Experience ...... 4 S trrvey Effort ...... 4 Survey Area ...... 4 Habitat Assess1nent ...... 5 Determine Which Target Species to Survey ...... 5 Survey Report ...... 5 Birds ...... 6 Migratory Birds ...... 6 Bald and Golden Eagles ...... 9 BuiTOwing Owl ...... 10 Raptors ...... 11 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 13 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ...... 14 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo ...... 14 S1nall Manunals ...... 15 Bats ...... 15 Pygtny Rabbit...... 16 Rodents, Insectivores ...... 16 Ungulates ...... 17 Bighorn Sheep ...... 17 Elk ...... 17 Mule Deer ...... 18 Pronghoru Antelope ...... 18 Endernie Fish ...... 18 Reptiles ...... 18

2 BLM NEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

Banded Gila Monster ...... 18 Desert Tottoise ...... 19 A.tnphibians ...... 19 Cohnnbia Spotted Frog ...... 19 Mountain Yellow-legged Frog ...... 19 Relict Leopard Frog ...... 19 Molluscs ...... 19 Lotic Habitats (greater than 500 feet in length) ...... 20 Lentic Habitats (and Lotic Habitats mtder 500 feet in length) ...... 20 References ...... 19

Appendix A: Habitat Assessment Fonn ...... 21

Appendix B: Wildlife Survey Report Template ...... 23

Photos on Cover (clockwise from top left): California floater, desert spiny lizard, long-eared owl, Weidermeyer's a dmira I, black-crowned night heron, pallid bat, relict leopard fiog, desert bighorn sheep, burrowing owl, greater sage-grouse, scrub jay, desert tor toise.

3 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Smveys

DRAFT

General Guidelines for Wildlife Surveys

Following the Guidelines Tbis document desc1ibes a set of swvey standards to detennine the occwreuce of target wildlife species in areas of proposed activities. A goal of wildlife surveys is to gather relevant data to enable the BLM to make an informed NEPA decision regarding the relative magnitude or significance of effects to target species. See Target Species Sun'eJ' Protocols and coordinate with wildlife biologists from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Deviation from the survey protocols described in tbis document requires scientifically valid justification with reference to scientific literature. Surveys must be rigorous (see Survey Effort) and meet current scientific standards for the species. BLM must approve any deviation fi:om the survey protocols described in this document before surveys are conducted. 1\TDOW does not require penuits for surveys of wildlife. Pennits are required for handling. Permit applications are available at: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Fonns and Resow·ces/Application Scientific-Collection-Possession-Banding-Pennit.pdf. The protocols in this document may change or be added to as new inf01mation on appropriate species-specific surveys is developed. Alterations of this document may be made at the discretion of the BLM based on new infom1ation or site-specific conditions. Target species may be added. This docwnent will be updated mmually.

Surveyor Experience Swveys must be conducted by qualified wildlife biologists or be supervised by someone with expe1ience conducting field surveys. Surveyors need to be able to identify tm·get species and their habitats, as well as any similar species they may be confused with. SUiveyors may be required to have or attend protocol training for ce1tain species (i.e. , Southwestern willow flycatcher).

Survey Effort All potential habitats for a given spe-cies must be surveyed. See Habitat Assessment to identify potential habitats. See Target Species Sun,ey Protocols. Any deviation from the SUivey protocols provided in tltis docmnertt rnust be accepted by BLM before conducting surveys. Smveys must be temporally comprehensive. Conduct su1veys at the appropriate tin1e of day and season, for appropriate lengths of time, and at the appropriate fi:equency. Smveys for some species (e.g., migratory birds) must be conducted annually becaus<:; results from one yt;ar do not necessarily cany over to the next. See Target Species Stm'ey Protocols to dete1mine acceptable survey tin1es. Surveys must be spatially comprehensive. All potential habitats must be surveyed. See Target Species Sun'ey Protocols to detemline acceptable survey areas. Note: While the presence of a target species can bt; confirmed at a location, it is often difficult to confmn a species' absence without extensive survey effort. Regardless of the outcome of species surveys, tl1e occunence of potential habitats must still be addressed in a NEPA document and any potential effects to habitat analyzed artd disclosed. Appwpriate mitigation to avoid or 1ninimize effects to habitat will be applied.

Survey Area

4 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Stu-veys

DRAFT

The survey area should be accurately identified before beginning field surveys. The survey area will generally be larger than the proposed project area because it includes any adjacent potential habitat where target specks could be directly or iudirectly affe<.:ted by proposed activities. See Target Species Survey Protocols and consult BLM, NDOW, and USFWS wildlite biologists to determine acceptable survey areas.

Habitat Assessment A habitat assessment will occur prior to surveys to identify areas of potential habitat. Surveys will focus on areas of potential habitat identified in the habitat assessment. Focused surveys are more efficient because they save time and money, and are more likely to document the occtmence of target species. A completed Habitat Assessment Form (HAF; Appendix A) with sbapefiles must be reviewed and accepted by BLM plior to beginning surnys.

Determine Which Target Species to Survey Before surveys begiu, proponents should detennine which target species have potential to occur in the proposed project area by completing the HAF (Appendix A). The HAF is a tool to evaluate the potential of target species to occtu· in a project area.

To complete the HAF, proponents need to review the 2012 Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (WAP; WAPT 2012). The W AP desctibes 22 key habitats and identifies wildlife species assemblages for each Olttp://www.ndow.org/Nevada Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada Wildlife Action Plan/). The project area should be compared to the W AP key habitats GIS to detenni.ne which key habitats occur in the project area.

Proponents also need to review current NDOW, USF\VS, and Nevada Natural Heritage Program (Nl'TJIP) wildlife data, and any other current spatial data such as: 1) state- and regional-level data and maps identifyir1g wildlife corridors and crucial habitat (Westem Wildlife Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool [CHAT] per BLM IM 2012-039), 2) cave data, 3) mine data, and 4) springs/stream data. Coordinate with l\TDOW for known historical raptor nests. Proponents can obtain electronic information on federally listed (threatened and endangered) species by refen-ing to the USFWS Information, Plam.ting, and Conservation System (IPaC; http://ecos.fws.gov/i.pac). The intonnation provided by IPaC is generated by the USFWS. The USFWS will continue to process hard copy requests for species lists if a proponent chooses not to use IPAC. A completed HAF, along with all spatial data and other information used to complete it, must be reviewed and accepted by BLM prior to beginning surveys. Any deviation from the survey protocols provided in this document must be accepted by BLM before conducting suneys. If any deviation is to occur, include with the HAF a thorough description of the protocols to be used. As stated above, surveys must be rigorous (see Survey Effort) and meet ctm·ent st:ientitic standards for target species. Justify protocols by referencing scientific literature.

Target species smveys will be done for the species docllllleuted on the HAF as having potential to occm in the project area. If a proponent chooses not to do target species surveys o1· surveys aren't feasible, then species are assumed present in potential habitat and approp1iate mitigation will be applied. Sun,ey Report

5 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Sw-veys

DRAFT

A Survey Report must be reviewed and accepted by BLM prior to beginning project activities. See the Wildlife Survey Repmt Template (Appendix B) to ensure that repmting standards are met. All hard copy data sheets and GIS data must bt: indudt:d. Tht: Smvt:y Report will not be reviewt:d without this data.

If there was deviation from the survey protocols described in this document, thoroughly describe the protocols ust:d. Thest: protocols must have been previously acct:pted by BLM befort: conducting smveys.

Include the completed HAF. Provide a detailed map showing UTM coordinates for the project area, survey area, and specific sUIVey route and locations. Surveyors will use GPS units with tracking capabilities to record all surveys. Provide information regarding the survey area covered as well as failed to cover. Discuss significant problems and obstacles that may have intelfered with surveys (e.g., weather). Repmt and map the locations where target species or their sign were observed.

Target Species Survey Protocols Birds The need to conduct sUIVeys to detennine the presence/absence of target bird species is primarily driven by federal legislation including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Disturbance ofbreeding birds at nests, nests, or nestlings during the nesting season risks violation of the :MBT A. Actions resulting in the mortality of birds or take of known nest sites are violations of the :MBT A. The BGEPA includes "disturb" in its defmition of"take! Disturb means to agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that causes, or is likdy to caust:, injury, a decrease in productivity, or nest abandonment by substantially iutt:Ift:ring with nonnal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior .

.Migratory Birds Regulatory Seuing- In 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13186 placing emphasis on the conservation and management of migratory birds. The BLM management for migratol)' birds is based on Information Bulletin (IB) 2010-110 which transmits the Memorandmn of Understanding (MOU) between the BLM and USFWS conceming conservation of migratory bird populations. For MOU implementation, BLM Piiority Migrato1y Birds are those that are listt:d in the periodic USFWS report Birds of Conservation Concem and game birds below desired condition (GBBDC) as identified by the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management.

Clearance Sun,eys - Clearance surveys will be conducted when a proposed activity would occm during the nesting season and potential impacts to nesting birds are not mitigated by applying seasonal restrictions (Table 1). Clearance surveys are approp1iate for those proposed activities where activity distmbance ends with activity completion and effects to migratory birds are not ongoing. If effects to birds from the proposed activity are expected to continue to occur after activity completion, then additional surveys may be required (see Pre- and Post-Activity Surveys).

Table I provides the dates when clearance sUIVeys are to occur. Clearance smveys are to occm in the project area including a 300-ft buffer around the project area unless the BLM or FWS recommends a different distance. Surveys must be conducted a maximum of 2 weeks prior to distm·bartce. These 6 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

surveys are then adequate for a maximum of2 weeks. Additional surveys will need to be repeated after 2 weeks have elapsed if proposed activities have not been initiated. If breeding behavior or nests are observed, proposed activities should not occur lllltil after young have fledged or nests are abandoned unless a 300-ft buffer can be provided around nests. Buffered nests need to be tied to contiguous habitat and not left as islands within project areas.

Table 1. Avian seasonal pcriods by BLM Dist.Iict Office:. Disturbance periods equate to the nesting seasons; this is the time when disturbance should be avoided to prevent risking violation of the MBT A. Sm-vey petiods occm dming the portion of the nesting seasons when birds are most likely to be observed at nests.

Rap tors District Seasonal Pet·iods Migratory Birds (including Bald and Burrowing Owl Golden Eagles)

Disturbance period April 1 - July 31 March 1 - July 31 April 1 - July 31 Battle Mountain Survey period

Disturbance period May 15- July 15 March 1 - August 15 March 1 - August 15 Carson City Survey period

Disturbance period Aprill - July 30 Dec 1 -Sept 30 March 1 - August 3 1 Elko Survey period

Disturbance period April 1 - July 31 March 1 - July 31 April 1 - July 31 Ely Survey period

Disturbance period March 1 -August 1 January 1 - August 31 Mru:ch 1 - July 31 Southem Nevada Survey period

Disturbru1ce period March 1 - August 31 Mru·ch 1 - August 31 Mrud1 1 - August 31 Witmemucca Survey period

Pre- and Post-Activity Surveys - Pre- and post-activity surveys may be required for target species when data is m:eded to adequately c:valuate expected ongoing (long-tenn) negative dfects from proposed activities. If proposed activities are expected to have ongoing (long-term) negative effects, then multiple years of pre- and post-activity surveys may be required. A Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) may be required (see BLM and/or USFWS Direction). Coordinate with BLM and USFWS to determine whethn these surveys and a BBCS are needed for the proposed activity.

Sm-veys are to occur in the project area including a 300-ft buffer unless the FWS recommends a different buffer distance. For wind energy, smveys are to occur in a 1-rnile buffer (see BLM and/or USFWS Direction). A va~iety of smvey methods are available (Ernlen strip, belt traitsect, point counts, area

7 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Smveys

DRAFT

searches, spot mapping, etc.). Selection of transects or plots will often depend on the size of the area to be smveyed, local topography and biotic features. Some BLM Districts may choose to provide contractors with survey protocols and other Districts may have the contractors develop and submit protocols, therefore it is important to contact the local BLM District early in the process and remain in contact throughout the process.

No physical lllai"king of nests should occur (only UTM comdinates) because predatmy birds a11d mammals may associate flagging or other mai·kers with nests.

Detennine what time of year surveys should occur based on the seasonal presence of species in Nevada. Coordinate with BLM, NDOW, FWS, and Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO), and refer to the Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan (GBBO 2010) to detennine seasonal presence. Surveys dming the breeding/migration seasons should span the seasons to capture both early and late breeders/migrants as well as cover the height of the breeding/migration season. Nevada BLM District Offices have different nesting seasons for migratory birds (see Table 1). In sagebrush habitat, many important bird species initiate breeding in April and continue through July. However, some species that nest in riparian areas, deciduous trees, a11d forested areas do not begin breeding activity until mid-May. Surveys should be conducted a minimum of three times per season to adequately span the entire breeding/migration period. Stu·veys are to be conducted for at least two consecutive years immediately prior to and immediate-ly following project implementation.

Conduct surveys during periods of calm and dry weather. Birds may delay breeding during extended periods of precipitation; windy and wet weather can interfere with detection capabilities.

BLM and/or USYWS Direction USYWS - For ground-disturbing activities, the USFWS recollllilends that proponents develop a Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS; previously known as an A via11 Protection Plan lAPP J), which indicates a ''good faith" effort to conserve migratory birds and address the MBT A. A BBCS is not necessary for activities that do not involve any new ground distm·bance (i.e., activities resnicted to existing roads and trails). Livestock grazing is not considered a ground-distmbing activity. A BBCS is descxibed in the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012).

For wind energy, the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012) describe a process by which wind energy developers can collect and analyze information that could lead to a prograinmatic pennit to authorize incidental take of eagles at wind energy facilities. The Guidelines provide recommendations for the development ofECPs to support issuance of take pennits for wind facilities.

Fo1· utility and ene•·gy facilities, the USFWS has developed a special collection permit for migratory bird carcass collection. The USFWS requires this salvage permit to collect carcasses as part of monitoring pust-constmction mortality. The company or operating entity applies a11d holds the pennit, not the BLM.

BLM - Per BLM IM NV-2010-063 for renewable energy, the BLM is required to have concmTence ti"om the USFWS for an Avian Protection Pla11 (APP; now known as a Bird and Bat Conservation

8 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

Strategy [BBCS]) if there are listed species and the USFWS makes it a condition of the biological opnuon.

Per BLM IM NV-20 10-024 for wildlife monitoring protocols for wind energy development, pre- and post- const:mction surveys should occur within the project area including a 1-mile buffer. Spring (March May) and fall (September-November) migration surveys should be conducted. Breeding bird smveys should be conducted using the GBBO protocol.

Bald and Golden Eagles The USFWS has guidance for proposed activities that have the potential to impact bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or golden (Aquila chrysaeatos) eagh:s or their habitat (Pagel et al. 2010 USFWS 2011, USFWS 2012). Generally, the steps in these guidelines include: 1) detennining if an activity has the potential to disturb breeding behavior, 2) surveying for nests within a maximum 10-mile radius of the activity footprint (see Raptors for survey protocol), and 3) developing an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) in cases where eagles and/or their nests are likely to be impacted. Coordinate with the USFWS and BLM prior to beginning any surveys. Depending on the proposed project, this process may be modified. The 10-mi.l.e survey buffer may be reduced based on the specific proposed project and/or topography and the presence of other physical baniers. An ECP may not be developed. Coordinate with the BLM and USFWS on the appropriate survey buffer and the need to develop an ECP.

BLM and/or USFWS Direction USFTVS- For ground-disturbing activities, the USFWS recommends that proponents develop an ECP. An ECP is not necessary for activities that do not involve any new ground disturbance (i.e., activities restricted to existing roads and trails). Livestock grazing is not considered a ground-distmbing activity. An ECP is described in the USFWS Lar1d-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012) and the USFWS Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (USFWS 2013).

For wind energy, the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (WEG; USFWS 2012) provide a broad overview of wildlife considerations for siting and operating wind energy facilities, but does not address the in-depth guidance needed for the specific legal protections afforded to bald and golden eagles. The Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (ECPG; USFWS 2013) fills this gap and supplements the WEG. The ECPG provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities.

Like the WEG, the ECPG calls for wind project developers to take a staged approach to siting new projects. Both call for preliminary landscape-level assessments to assess potential wildlife interactions and proceed to site-specific surveys and risk assessments prior to construction. They also call for monitming project operations and repmting eagle fatalities to the Service and state and t:J.ibal wildlife agencies.

Compliance with the ECPG is voluntru.y, but t11e Service believes t11at following the guidance will help project operators in complying with regulatory requirements and avoiding the unintentional ' take" of eagles at wind energy facilities, and will also assist the wind energy indust:J.·y in providing the biological data needed to support pennit applications for facilities t11at may pose a risk to eagles.

9 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Smveys

DRAFT

For utility and energy facilities, the USFWS has developed a special collection permit for migratory bird carcass collection. The USFWS requires this salvage pennit to collect carcasses as part of monitoring post-constmction mortality. The company or operating entity applies and holds the penuit, not the BLM.

BLM- Per BLM IMs NV-2010-063 and NV-2010-156 for golden eagles and renewable energy, it is critical to determine if breeding tenitmies and nests, feeding areas, or roosts are present in the analysis area to detennine whether a proposed action has the potential to in1pact eagles or their habitat. The analysis area should be detennined on a project-specific basis with FWS. An Avian Protection Plan (APP; now known as an ECP) will be required by the BLM as a condition of the right-of-way grant if the proposed project has the potential to impact golden eagles or their habitat.

Bun·owing Owl Bunowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat can be found in annual and perennial grasslands and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation (Conway and Simon 2003). Suitable owl habitat may also include trees and shrubs if the canopy covers less than 30 percent of the ground surface. Bun·ows of fossorial mammals such as grOlmd squiiTels or badgers are typically used, but man-made structures such as cement culverts can be an essential component of bunowing owl habitat. Bunows provide protection, shelter, and nest sites.

Clearance Sun•eys - Clearance surveys will be conducted when the proposed activity would occm during the nesting season and potential impacts to nesting owls are not mitigated by applyii1g seasonal restrictions (Table 1). Clearance surveys are appropriate for those proposed activities where activity disturbance ends with activity completion and effects to bmrowing owls are not ongoing. If effects to owls fi'om the proposed activity are expected to continue to occur after activity completion, then additional surveys may be required (see Pre- and Post-Activity Sunwys).

Table 1 provides the dates when clearance smveys are to occur. Surveys must be conducted a maximum of 2 weeks prior to disturbance. These surveys are: then adequate for a maximUl11 of 2 weeks. Additional surveys will need to be repeated after 2 weeks have elapsed if proposed activities have not been initiated.

Pre- and Post-Activity Surveys - Pre- and post-activity surveys will be conducted when data is needed to adequately evaluate expected ongoing (long-term) negative effects from proposed activities. If proposed activities are expected to have ongoing (long-term) negative effects, then multiple years of pre- and post activity surveys may be required. Coordinate with BLM and USFWS to determine whether these surveys are needed for the proposed activity. Note: Surveys may need to be done year-round if migratory status is not known. Bmrowing owls in more northern areas will migrate and spend the fall and winter in southem Nevada. Burrows may be occupied by owls throughout the ye-ar in southem Nevada.

Survey Methodology- A survey for bunows and owls should be conducted by walking through suitable habitat over the entire project area including a 150-m buffer (USFWS 2003 ; California Repmt on Bunowing Owl Mitigation 2012). This buffer zone is included to account for adjacent blmows and foraging habitat outside of the project area and impacts from such factors as noise and vibration due to heavy equipment.

10 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

Survey transects should be spaced to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface while walking transects. Typically, the distance between transect lines should be no more than 30-m. To efficiently survey large project areas (over 100 acres), 2 or rnore surveyors should conduct concunent surveys.

Bunowing owls are active throughout the day, however peaks in activity in the morning and evening make these the best times tor conducting smveys (Conway and Simon 2003; Arizona Bunowing Owl Working Group 2007).

Call-broadcast methods should be incorporated into surveys to increase the likelihood of detecting bUITowing owls (see Conway and Simon 2003 or Arizona Burrowing Owl Working Group 2007 for appropriate methods).

Rap tors See separate sections tor Bald and Golden Eagles, and Bunowing Owl.

Raptor nest surveys will be conducted when a proposed activity would occm during the nesting season and potential impacts to nesting raptors are not mitigated by applying seasonal restrictions (Table 1) or tl1e proposed activity occurs outside the nesting season, but there may be negative effects that impact raptors when they retum to their nest(s) the following nesting season. If breeding behavior or nests are observed dmiug sruveys, proposed activities should not occru· trntil after young have fledged or nests are abandoned mtless a butler can be provided around nests.

Nest Survey Melllodology- Two surveys should be conducted: 1) First survey - conduct aerial or ground survey to detennine if nests are present and occupied, and 2) Second survey - conduct a follow~up grotmd search to confirm species identification and detennine nest occupancy and success. If the second survey is not conducted, any nests found dming the first survey are assumed active for the yeu and approptiate mitigation will be applied. Aerial searches are most useful for large raptors with prominent nests. Ground surveys are more useful for smaller, less prominent raptors. NDOW has a raptor nest site protocol and survey fom1 (primarily for at:Iial surveys) that is available upon request.

The following are impmtant charactetistics of adequate nest surveys: Smveys will be done whenever nesting habitat is present within or adjacent to the project area. Nesting habitat includes rock outcrops, cliffs, ridges, knolls, stream ban.ks conifers, aspen groves, riparian woodlands, and ma.n~made structures (e.g., power lines and buildings). Table 1 provides the dates when nest surveys are to occm. Generally, smveys will be conducted in the project area including within a 1-mile buffer of the proposed activity. This survey buffer may be reduced based on the specific proposed project and/or topography and the presence of other physical baniers. Coordinate with the BLM and USFWS on the appropriate sruvey bufft:I-. If active nests are found, disturbartce will not occm m1til after yorutg have fledged or nests are abandoned Ullless a 1-mile buffer (or other appropriate butler) can be provided around nests. For wind energy, surveys are to occur in a 1-mile buffer (see ELM and/or USFWS Direction).

11 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Sm-veys

DRAFT

At least two swveys per nesting season prior to initiation of the proposed activity. One month of elapsed time is required between surveys. If the second survey is not conducted, any nests found dwing the first survey are assumed active for the year and appropriate mitigation will be applied. Optitnmn weather conditions for surveys are clear, calm days. Nests will not be visited during adverse weather conditions (e.g. , extreme hot or cold, rainy or snowy days, or high winds). Playback of calls can be a useful survey tool. Ground surveys should it1clude broadcast calls of conspecific vocalizations. Aerial surveys of deciduous trees (e.g. , aspen and cottonwoods) should be conducted as early as possible in the sp1ing p1ior to leaf-out. Aerial surveys should be tlown at slow speeds (30-40 knots; USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, 2012). During ground surveys, extreme caution should be given to make sure that breeding/nesting/fledging raptors are not disturbed. Monitorit1g will be conducted from the fruthest distance possible that allows the smveyor to detem1ine the nest activity using a spotting scope. Nest visits should be as blief as possible. Photographs of the nests will be taken to illustrate nest shape, condition, and substrate. Status of nestittg birds will be recorded. Note whether there are eggs or young in the nest, whether fledged yow1g were observed, or if the adult is incubatmglbroodmg. Data will be summarized for project repmts in a table format. Tables should include species of raptor, nesting stage, nest type (stick, scrape, or cavity), nest substrate (species of tree, cliff, grow1d), location (UTM coordmates) and other characteristics (e.g., nest height, nestmg material). Pre- and Post-Activity Sun·e:ys - Pre- and post-activity swveys may be required when data is needed to adequately evaluate expected ongoing (long-term) negative effects from proposed activities. If proposed activities are expected to have ongomg (long-term) negative effects, then multiple years of pre- a11d post activity swveys may be required. A Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) may be required (see ELM and/or USFWS Direction). Coordinate witb BLM and USFWS to determine wbetber these surveys and a BBCS are needed for the proposed activity.

BLM and/or USFWS Direction USWFS - For ground-disturbing activities, the USFWS recommends that proponents develop a Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS ~ previously knov.'ll as an Avian Protection Plan LAPPj), which indicates a "good faith" etiort to conserve migratory birds and address the MBTA . A BBCS is not necessary for activities that do not mvolve any new ground distw-bance (i.e., activities restricted to existing roads and trails). Livestock grazing is not considered a ground-distw·bmg activity. A BBCS is described in the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012).

For wind energy, the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012) describe a process by which wind energy developers can collect and analyze infonnation that could lead to a progranunatic permit to authorize mcidental take of eagles at wind energy ta.cilities. The Guidelines provide recommendations for the development ofECPs to support issuance of take pennits for wind facilities.

For utility and enet·gy facilities, the USFWS has developed a special collection permit for migratory bird carcass collection. The USFWS requires this salvage pennit to collect carcasses as part of monitming post-construction mortality. The company or operatmg entity applies and holds the pennit, not the BLM. 12 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Sw-veys

DRAFT

BLM- Per BLM IM NV-2010-063 for renewable energy, the BLM is required to have conclmence 11-om th~ USFWS for au Avian Protection Plan (APP; now known as a Bird and Bat Cons~rvation Strategy [BBCS]) if there are listed species and the USFWS makes it a condition of the biological opuuon. Per BLM IM NV-2010-024 for wildlife monitoring protocols for wind energy development, raptor nest surveys should occur if their habitat ~xists within the project ar~a including a 1-rui..le butler. Sp1ing aud fall migration surveys for raptors should be conducted using Bildstein et al. (2007).

Greater Sage-Grouse Regulatory Setting - BLM IMs 2012-044 and 2012-043 provid~ dir~ction on managing great~r sage grouse (Cemrocerus urophasianus) preliminary priority habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat (PGH). Proponents should review these IMs. Per IM 2012-043, BLM Field Offices, in coordination with l\TDOW, must dett:nrline that propost:d projects, with mitigation measures, cmnulatively maintain or enhance priority habitat (PPH). For PGH, BLM must reduce and mitigate adverse eftects on sage-grouse and its habitat. If a project area is in PPH or PGH, coordinate with BLM and NDOW to determine if the following surveys are needed.

Lek Sun,eys - Coordinate with NDOW to detem1ine if lek surveys are necessary. Surveys may be required for ground-disturbing activities or activities that occur during the breeding season (March 1 - May 15) within 4 miles of active and unknown leks, as defmed by NDOW. Active leks - A lek that had two or mort: birds present during at least one of tluee or mon:: visitations in a given breeding season. Additionally, the lek must have had two or more birds present dwing at least two years in a five-year pe1iod. Unknown leks - A lek that may not have had birds present during the last visitation, but could be considered viable due to the presence of sign at tlle lek. Tltis designation could be especially useful when weather conditions or observer arrival at a lek could be considered unsuitable to observe strutting behavior. The presence of a single strutting male would invoke the classification of tl1e lek as unknown. A lek that was active in the previous year, but was inadequately sampled (as stated above) in the cuuent year with no birds obse1ved could also be classified as unknown.

Searche~-[or New Lek$ - Searches may be required for grmmd-distmbing activities. Lek st:arches should be conducted within 4 miles of the project area. Project areas should be searched from t11e ground or air (helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft can be used) from March 1 -May 15. If ae1ial searches are conducted, tl1e search area should be flown on north-soutl1 transects with lines a maxirmun of lkm aprut. Trru1sects should be tlown 100 to 150m above ground level. Special attention should be paid to old lakebeds, stock watering areas, ru1d other relatively open sites largely sunounded by sagebrush of 15 to 25% cover. Conduct ground searches by d!iving along roads and stopping every llan to listen for displaying grouse. On a calm morning, breeding sage-grouse may be heard at a distance of 1.5km.

Noise Monitoring- Recent studies suggest that chronic anthropogenic noise contributes to chronic stress and declines iu sage-grouse populations (Blickley et al. 2012a; Blickley et al. 2012b). The p1imary mechanisrn causing population reductions is not dear. However, it is hypothesized that exposure to anthropogenic noise at leks could have indirect or direct impacts on male fitness by reducing Iek attendance, masking impmtant vocalizations, or increasing their susceptibility to predators.

13 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Stuveys

DRAFT

The potential of project-related noise to impact sage-grouse should be evaluated if there is an active or unknown kk within 4 miles of the project boundary, and if noise levels from project activities are likely to exceed 1OdB (A weighted) above ambient noise levels during March 1 - May 15. This evaluation involves ambient noise collection at the lek and modeling potential noise at an active lek(s) from project activities to determine whether noise is likely to be above the minimum disturbance threshold (10dB). The minimum disturbar1ee threshold may change as new iuforrnation becomes available concerning the impacts of noise on sage-grouse.

Ambient acoustic data should be collected during the breeding season (March 1 to May 15) for a minimum of 7 consecutive days from 1 hour before sunrise Ullti1late morning when sage-grouse are most likely to be at leks. Noise data should be collected 1.5 ft. above grolllld level at the edge of each lek closest to the potential noise source. Acoustic equipment should be capable of collecting crical metrics including L5o, L90, L10, Leq and Lmax. Sound pressure levels should be recorded at inte1vals no greater than five (5) seconds and recorded at l/3 octave band intervals across the audible spectmm. Since atmospheric conditions are key noise modeling inputs, weather conditions should also be measlU·ed at data collection sites (i.e. , temperature, hmnidity artd wind in real time with the sound pressure level). Carnoutlage monitoring set-ups so that wildlife are not detened from or artificially attracted to the area

To deterrnine baseline arnbient levels, A-weight Lgo should be used. As a measure of mediart noise exposure, A-weighted L50 should be used.

PaSoftware is available that estimates noise levels from industrial and vehicle sources. Currently, the only BLM requirement is that non-proprietary noise modeling software be used for impact analysis. This provides an oppo1tunity for modeling replication by a third party. Noise modeling software should factor in the effects from weather (primatily wind), atmosphere (temperatme, hlUllidity), substrate type (rock, water, ar1d bar-e earth), vegetation, aiid topography. Noise modeling software must also be capable of robust outputs including a broad spectrum of frequencies represented, several weightings (A, C, flat) atld Leq.

Soutbweste1·u Willow Flycatcher The southwestern willow t1ycatcher (SWWF; Empidonax traillii extimus) was federally listed as Endangered in 1995 (USFWS 1995). The main cause of population decline is related to ripariatl habitat degradation. In Nevada, potential populations are relegated p1imarily to the extreme southern portions of the state along the Muddy at1d Virgin Rivers, Meadow Valley Wash, and Pahranagat Valley, as well as along the Colorado River (NDOW, pers. comm.).

Coordinate with the USFWS prior to conducting swveys. Perrnits from the USFWS are required before beginning surveys. Pen11its require attendance at USFWS-approved protocol training. Instructions for completing SWWF smvey reports can be fom1d at the USGS Colorado Plateau web site (http://sbsc. wr.usgs.gov/cprslresearch/projects/swwflcprsmain.asp).

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccy=us americanus; the Western U.S. Distinct population segment) is a Candidate for listing tmder the ESA. In western North America, yellow-billed cuckoo populations have

14 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

declined primarily as a result of riparian habitat loss and degradation. In Nevada, yellow-billed cuckoos are rare. Few recent documented records of this species were recorded in The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Nevada (Floyd et al. 2007), although it is possible that this secretive bird breeds in suitable riparian woodlands throughout the state.

Surveys for yellow-billed cuckoos should be conducted in potential habitat. Prefened nesting habitat is characte1ized by 1iparian woodlands with an understory of dense, scrubby vegetation (Wiggins 2005). Coordinate with NDOW and USFWS prior to conducting surveys. Instmctions for completing surveys are described by Haltetman et al. (2009). Small Mammals

Bats Bats roost and hibemate in cliffs, rock faces, talus slopes, caves, mine tunnels, adits, buildings, abandoned struct:tu·es, tree branches, and cavities.

Understand decontamination protocol for white-nose syndrome prior to site entry or handling of bats (see BLM Direction).

Habitat S11rveys- Any buildmgs/structures, mine workings, or caves identified from spatial data during completion of the HAF should be extemally surveyed to assess condition and detennine habitat potential for bats if a proposed project involves any disturbance to these feat:tu·es or bats using these features. All feahlres will be examined, photographed, and GPS locations will be obtained. Proposed activities should avoid any features with bats or the potential for bats. If proposed activities would occur within 114 mile of feat:tlres with bats or the potential for bats, then more extensive bat surveys may be required to identify species. population size, season of use, et cetera.

Bat Surveys- Survey methods include live capt:t1re with mist nets, acoustic surveys, and techniques using night vision equipment or infrared cameras. Before undertaking a specific survey approach, review standard bat survey protocols outlmed in The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan (Bradley et al. 2006) and coordinate with BLM and NDOW. Biological consultants should consider and be prepared to defend their study design concerning the following issues in particular: Expertise of survey personnel Location of surveys Timing, length (i.e., number ofhours spent), and fi"equency of surveys Pennits are required for handling. Pennit applications ar·e available at: http://www .ndow .onduploaded.Files/ndoworg/Content!F orms and Resources/Application-Scientific Collection-Possession-Barlding-Pennit.pdf.

BLM Direction- Per IM 2010-024 for wildlife monitoring protocols for ·wind energy deYelopment, bat surveys of cavemiculous roosting habitat (i.e., IIJ..ines and caves) is necessary to identify maternity use and/or hibemacula use. Bat capture surveys (i.e., mist nets) at water sources ar1d roosting habitats within/adjacent to the project area would be necessary to supplement long-te1m acoustic monitoring stations to detetmme species richness and diversity of the area, as well as insight into seasonal use activity patterns. Surveys should occur within the project area including a 1-mile buffer. 15 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Stu-veys

DRAFT

Per BLM IM NV-2010-063 for renewable energy facilities, development of an Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP; now known as a Bird and Bat Const:rvation Stratt:gy lBBCSJ) may bt: dt:vdoped for wind project at the discretion of the applicant, tmless a candidate, threalened, or endangered bat may be affected. In this situation, an ABPP should be prepared and may be required as a condition of the Right of-Way. A BBCS is described in the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012).

Per BLM IM 2010-181 for white-nose syndrome (WNS), BLM offices will implement BLM-WNS containment and decontamination procedures to all site entries. The BLM states and district offices apply contaimnt:nt and decontamination proct:dtrres for all cavt:s and abandoned mine ft:aturt: entries. Also refer to the USFWS White-Nose Syndrome Decontamination Protocol available at: http://whitenosesyndrome.org/topics/decontami.nation.

Pygmy Rabbit Pygmy rabbits (Bra.chylagus idahoensis) are sagebrush obligates that use sagebrush for food and shelter tluoughout the year. While the species occurs tluoughout most of the Great Basin, it exhibits extremely specialized habitat requirements, and thus occupies only a small subset of locations within this range. Pygmy rabbits occur in art:as within tht:ir broadt:r distribution whcrt: thert: art: tall, dt:nst: big sagt:brush stands and soils sufficiently deep and loose to allow bmrowing. Surveys should be focused within tl1ese habitat types. Suitable habitat can be recognized by distinctly taller patches of mature sagebrush, which art: indicative of deeper soils. BtuTows and pellets art: excellent indicators of the occunence of pygmy rabbits (Himes and Drohan 2007). Pygmy rabbits spend the majority of their time close to their bunows resulting in high concentrations of pellets around bunows. Pygmy rabbits are active all year above ground therefore surveys may be conducted at any time of year.

Existing data on locations of known occtUTence should be used to screen areas for the presence of suitable habitat. Coordinate with BLM and :t\TDOW to dete1mine whether surveys are needed.

BLM Direction - IM NV-2003-064 directs all field offices to survey for pygmy rabbits in relation to all proposed ground disturbing activities, including issuance of rights-of-ways in suitable habitat. Accepted methods for surveys are outlined in a BLM document (Uhnsdmt:ider 2008). Recommendations include: Surveys will include searches for pygmy rabbits, bwTows and pellets. ln patchy habitat, walk in loops, tr·iangles or a generally meandering line (avoid edges). In uniform or extensive patches, walk in straight lines or in a spiral. Spiral tr·ansects should strut at the center of a search area and spiral out while gradually increasing the diameter of the circle. BmTow systems can be widely spaced, and searches should be conducted carefully and methodically before the absence of pygmy rabbits can be confidently detennined. Rt:cord rabbit, bmrow ar1d pellet locations in UTMs.

Rodents~ losec,tivores Several rodents and insectivores are listed as Nevada BLM sensitive species and could warrant surveys for ground-distmbing activities. Coordinate with BLM and IDOW biologists to determine whether surveys ru:e needed.

16 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Smveys

DRAFT

To determine presence/absence of these small mammals within a project area, review Manley et al. (2006). The primary method recommended by Manley et al. entails the placing of Shennan live traps along eight transects, each 200m in kngth, anayed in a hexagonal pattem. It is recommended that traps are 20m apart artd within 2m of habitat features such as logs, bunows, the base of trees, artd nmways. Trapping should occur over three consecutive days, as a pilot study conducted by Manley et al. (2002) detennined that the largest gains for the detection of small mammals occmred within the flrst three days of trapping.

As stated in Manley et al. (2006), transects are the prefened method, since Pearson and Ruggiero (2003), Read et al. (1988), and Steele et al. (1984) docmnented more effective detection when using transects over a trapping grid with similar effort. Using a large hexagonal pattern increases the probability of intersecting a vmiety of habitats/microhabitats containing different species when compm·ed to a trapping grid (Pearson and Ruggiero 2003). Though setting Shennan live traps along transects in a hexagonal pattem is the preferred method, coordinate with BLM and NDOW biologists to detenuine the adequate trm1sect lengths, spacing bet\veen traps, and duration of trapping to determine presence/absence of rodents and insectivores within a project area_

Ungulates

Bighorn Sheep Tin-ee subspecies of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) occur in Nevada: Rocky Mountain (0. c. canadensis), desert (0. c. nelsoni), and California (0. c. californiana): Califomia bighorn sheep occupy areas north oflnterstate 80 in the central and western portions of the state. Rocky Mmmtaiu bighorn sheep occupy portions ofElko and White Pine cotmties. Desert bighom sheep occur throughout Nevada south ofinterstate 80.

Bighorn sheep habitat is charat:terized by rugged terrain that includes canyons, gulches, talus clitis, steep slopes, mountaintops, and river benches.

For projects in occupied bi.ghom sheep habitat (based on NDOW GIS data), coordinate with BLM and l\TDOW to determine if survey data on seasonal use m1d movement corridors within a proje(..1. area is needed. Field determinations of bighorn sheep presence within a project m·ea should be accomplished through photographs of animals or their sign (e.g. scat, tracks).

For projects that have the potential to physically disturb bighorn sheep (i.e., SRP events), coordinate with l\TDOW to implement appropriate seasonal restrictions or survey data may be required to show they are not present in the project area during project implementation.

Elk Elk (Cen·us elaphus) populations occur in the central, southem, eastem, and nottheastern portions of Nevada. More specifically, elk will geuerally occupy mountain forests and meadows dmiug the stunmer months and foothills and valley grasslands during the winter months. Also, riparian a!'eas are crucial during the calving period, which generally occurs from mid-May to mid-JlU1e.

17 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

Elk presence/absence, as well as the identification of seasonal use and movement corridors within a project area if present, should be determined through contact with NDOW and field observations. Field determinations of elk presence within a project area should be accomplished through the noting of sign (e.g. scat, tracks, or foraging) during surveys for other species.

Mule Deer Although mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) occur in a variety of ecosystems throughout Nevada, there are many similarities in diet and habitat composition an1ong subpopulations. Mule deer are secondary successional species that often prefer vegetation communities resulting fi·om some type of disturbance (except areas dominated by cheatgrass; Wasley 2004). High quality habitat is generally characterized by areas of thick brush or trees that provide thermal and protective cover interspersed with more open shrub or grasslands that provide forage.

For projects in mule deer habitat (based on NDOW GIS data), coordinate with BLM and NDOW to determine if survey data on seasonal use and movement conidors within a project area is needed. Field observations of mule deer presence within a project area should be verified via photographs of animals or their sign (e.g. scat, tracks).

Pronghorn Antelope Pronghom antelope (Antilocapra americana) occur throughout Nevada, with the exception being the southenunost part of the state. Habitat selection is influenced by the vegetative height, cover, and community type, as well as the elevation, topography, and distance to water. Vegetation height is important, as pronghom prefer areas with lower vegetation to provide long-range visibility of predators.

For projects in pronghom habitat (based on NDOW GIS data), coordinate with BLM and 1\TDOW to determine if survey data on seasonal use and movement corridors within a project area is needed. Field detenninations of pronghom presence within a project area should be accomplished through photographs of animals or their sign (e.g. scat, tracks).

Endemic Fish Ende:mic fish populations throughout Nevada are surveyed and monitored by NDOW. If the project area contains perem1ial water sources with potential fish habitat, consult with NDOW and the BLM to determ ine if fish populations are known to occur, and if surveys are required to determine presence/absence. NDOW will detennine the appropriate fish survey protocols. Reptiles

Banded Gila Monster The banded Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum) is the subspecies that occurs in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties of Nevada. The species is prin1arily fOlmd below 1,525 m (5 ,000 ft) in elevation in desert wash, spring and riparian areas that occur in rocky landscapes of upland desert scrub habitats. Occasionally, Gila monsters will use gentler tenain of alluvial fans (bajadas).

Contact NDOW for specific directions and survey protocols for detennining Gila monster presence/absence in a project area. NDOW has a gila mollSter handling protocol available 18 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Sw·veys

DRAFT

at : http://www.ndow.org/uploaded.Files/ndoworg/Contentlpublic documents/Nevada Wildlife/Gila%20M onster%20Status.%20Identification%20and%20Repmting%20Protocol%20for%200bservations.pdf. A State Special Plll]JOSe Permit is required fur individuals to handle Gila monsters.

Desert Tortoise The Mojave population ofthe desert tortoise (Gophems agassi=ii) was listed by the USFWS as threatened in 1990. Proposed actions within the range of the desett tortoise fall under plll·view of the ESA. For detailed information on the ecology of the tortoise or protocols that have been developed for presence/absence surveys for proposed projects within the range of the desert tortoise, see USFWS (20 10) . Consult the Dese11 Tort.oise Recovery Office for infonnation (http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert tortuise/dtro/).

Amphibians

Several amphibian species, including 6 Nevada sensitive species (Appendix A), have the potential to occlll· on BLM land throughout Nevada (see NNHP for a list ofNevada amphibian species). Two of these species are federal candidate species (Colurnbia spotted frog and relict leopard frog) and 1 is proposed as endangered (mountain yellow-legged frog; see Appendix A). Coordinate with BLM and NDOW biologists to detem1ine whether surveys for amphibians are needed.

Columbia Spotted Frog The Columbia spotted frog Great Basin distinct population segment (DPS) is listed as a Candidate species by the USFWS . In Nevada, Columbia spotted frogs are cunently fow1d in Nye, Elko and Emeka counties, typically at elevations between 5600 and 8700 feet. Based on geography, Columbia spotted frogs in Nevada can be fi.uther subdivided into three well-defined subpupulatiollS: 1) Jarbidge, Independence and Tuscarora Mountains in Elko and Emeka County; 2) an isolated subpopulation in the Ruby Mountains in Elko Cow1ty; and 3) an isolated subpopulation in the Toiyabe Range in Nye County.

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog The northem mow1tain yellow-legged fi·og distinct population segment (DPS) has been proposed for listing as federally endangered species by the USFWS. Although this species primarily occurs in Califomia within the Siena Nevada, there is potential tor occurrence within Carson City, Douglas and Washoe Counties in Nevada (see N:l\.'HP). Conservation plans for this species are pending and largely depend on the USFWS listing decision.

Relict Leopard Frog The northern mmmtain yellow-legged frog distinct population segment (DPS) has been proposed for listing as federally endangered species by the USFWS. Although this species primarily occurs in Califomia within the Siena Nevada, there is potential for occunence within Carson City, Douglas and Washoe Counties in Nevada (see Nl\THP). Conservation plans for this species are pending and largely depend on the USFWS listing decision.

Molluscs

19 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

Numerous molluscs are listed as Nevada BLM sensitive species and proposed activities with potential effects to aquatic habitat could warrant presence/absence surveys for these species. Existing data (e.g., Nevada Natural Heritage Prognun lNNHPJ) on locations of known occmTence should be used to screen areas for the presence of sensitive 1nolluscs. Coordinate with BLM and NDOW to determine whether surveys are needed.

Lotic Habitats (greater than 500 feet in length) IM OC-2011-044 standardized BLM field methods for collection and submission of aquatic macroinvertebrate samples inlotic habitats (wadeable, perennial streams). This IM requires that aquatic macroinvertebrate samples follow sampling outlined by the National Aquatic Monitoring Center (NM1C) at http://www.usu.edu/buglab/Monitoring/mouitoringPI·otocols.cfm. The NAMC protocol is only applicable to wadeable, perem1ial streams. The NAMC website provides a sampling protocol designed to generate data sufficient to: 1) characterize the status and trend of macroinvertebrate assemblages, and 2) quantify effects of anthropogenic disturbances and/or restoration actions.

Lentic Habitats (and Lotic Habitats under 500 feet in length) These habitats exhibit such a high spatial variation in water quality and quantity, landscape setting, and macroinvet1ebrate assemblages that conelation to other sites does not provide significant insight into the condition of any individual site. Because of tbis, the National Aquatic Monitoring Center (NAMC) analysis does not apply. The NAMC protocol is only applicable to wadeable, perennial streams. BLM, NDOW, and NAMC should be consulted to determine if general macroinver1ebrate collection and analysis is necessary and if a site-specific monitoring plan should be developed. In these cases, a modification of the protocol described in IM OC-2011-044 will be used, but has yet to be developed.

References

Arizona Burrowing Owl Working Group. 2007. Bunowing owl project clearance protocoL Arizona Game and Fish Depaitment, Phoenix, AZ. Azgfd.gov

Bildstei.n. K.L., J.P. Smith and R. Yosef. 2007. Migration counts and Inonitoring. Pages 101-116 in D.M. Bird and K.L. Bildstein (eds). Raptor Researcll and Management Teclmiques. Raptor Research Foundation. Hancock House Publishers, Suney British Columbia, Canada, and Blaine, W ashirlgton.

Blickley JL, Word KR Krakauer AH, Phillips JL, Sells SN, et al. (2012) Experimental Chronic Noise Is Related to Elevated Fecal Cm1icosteroid Metabolites inLekking Male Greater Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus). PLoS ONE 7( 11 ): e50462. doi: 10.13 71/joumal.pone. 0050462

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood and G.L. Patricelli. 2012. Experimental evidence fur the efit:cts of chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of greater sage-grouse at leks. Conservation Biology 26:461- 471.

Bradley, P.V., M.J. O'Farrell, J.A. Williams and J.E. Newmark. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, NV.

20 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Stu-veys

DRAFT

California Report on BmTowing Owl Mitigation. 2012. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department ofFish and Game.

Conway, C.J. and J.C. Simon. 2003. Compa1ison of detection probability associated with bunowing owl survey methods. JolUTtal of Wildlife Management 67:50 lw511.

Floyd,T., C.S. Elphick. G. Chisholm, K. Mack, R.G. Elston, E.M. Ammon, and J.D. Boone. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Nevada. University ofNevada Press, Reno.

Great Basin Bird Observato1y. 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, J\TV. Available online at www.gbbo.org/bird conservation plaii.html

Halterman, M., M.J. Johnson, and J.A. Holmes 2009. Western yellow-billed cuckoo natural history summary and smvey methodology. Unpublished Draft, Version 3.4. Southern Sierra Research Station, P.O. Box 1316, Weldon, CA 93283.

Hru.ju, S.M., M.R. Dz.ialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing, ru.1d J.B. Winstead. 2012. Thresholds ru.1d time lags in effects of energy development on greater sage-grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:437-448.

Hollora11, M.J. 2005. Greatcr· sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural gas tield development in western Wyoming. Depa1tment of Zoology and Physiology. University of Wyoming, Larainie.

Manley, P.N., M.D. Schlesinger and M.M. Manning. 2002. 2001 field pilot report, multiple species monitoring, Siena Nevada :frainework project. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Ma1tky, P.N.,B. Va11 Home, J.K. Roth, W.J. Zielinski, M.M. McKenzie, T.J. Weller, F.W. Weckcr·ly and C. Vojta. 2006. Multiple Species Invento1y and Monitoring Teclmical Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. W0-73. U.S. Department of Agricultme, USFS, Washington D.C.

NDOW. 2001. Nevada Division of Wildlife's Bighorn Sheep Management Plru.1.

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2011. Interim golden eagle technical guidance: Inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations in support of golden eagle management ru.1d permit issua11ce. U.S. Fish a11d Wildlife Se1vice.

Pearson, D.E. and L.F. Ruggier·o. 2003. Transect versus grid trapping arrangements for sampling small InailJmal comnmnities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31 :454-459.

Read, V.T., Malafant, K.W.J. and K. Myers. 1988. A compru.ison of grid a11d index-line trapping methods for small rnannnal surveys. Australian Wildlife Research 15:673-687.

21 BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Surveys

DRAFT

Steele, B.B., Ba)'I4 R.L. and Grant, C.V. 1984. Environmental monitoring using populations of birds and small mammals: analyses ofsampling effort. Biological Conservation 30: 157-172.

Stiver, S.J. E.T. Rinkes and D.E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished Report. BLM Idaho State Office, Boise.

Ulmschneider, H., D. Hays, H. Robet1s, J. Rachlow, T. Forbes, J. Himes, E. Sequin, M. Hawm1h, T. Katzner, A Kozlowski, R. Rauscher and P. Lauridson. 2008. Surveying for pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Interagency Pygmy Rabbit Working Group.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Bunowing Owl in the U.S. Biological Technical Publication R6001-2003 .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassi=ii). USFWS Region 8, Sacran1ento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Division of Migratory Bird Management.

Wasley, T. 2004. Mule Deer Population Dynamics: Issues and Influences. Nevada Depar1ment of Wildlife. Nevada's Mule Deer Biological Bulletin No. 14.

22 BLMNE

Wildlife:

DRA

Appendix A: Habitat Assessment Form

Potent BLM DistJict Key Habitat Type InPr Common Name Scientific Name Status* Office (from Ne,rada W AP) I BIRDS BM, Carson, Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis NS Elko, Ely, Winnemucca Golden eagle NS Statewide Bun·owing owl Athene cunicularia NS Statewide A Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis NS Statewide Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni NS Statev.>ide ..... BM, Carson, Greater sage-grouse Cenh·ocercus urophasianus FC,NS Elko, Ely, Winnemucca Snov.y plover Charadrius alexandrinus FT, NS Statewide .. Ywna clapper rail Railus longirostris yumanensis FE,NS Southern . BM, Carson, Lewis' woodpecker Melane1pes lewis NS Elko, Ely, Winnemucca Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FC,NS Carson, Ely Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidona.:c traillii extimus FE, NS Ely \! Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus NS Statewide Pinyon jay Gynmorhinus cyanocephalus NS Statewide ·.. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus NS Statewide I Loggerhead sluike Lanius ludoviciantiS NS Statewide BM, Elko Black rosy-finch Leucosticte ah·ata NS Ely, Winnemucca BM, Carson, Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus NS Elko, Ely, Winnemucca LeConte's thrasher Toxostoma lecontei NS Southern Bendire's thrasher Toxostma bendirei NS Southern Brewer's span·ow Spizella breweri NS Statewide MAMMALS Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus NS Statewide BM, Elko, Ely, Pika Ochotona princeps NS Winnemucca

2 ~ BLMNE

Wildlife:

DRA

BM, Elko, Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis NS Ely, Winnemucca Potl'nti BLM District Key Habitat Type Common Name Scientific Name Status In Proj Office (fa·om Nenda WAP) (YIN) Townsend's big-eared bat Co1ynorhinus townsendii NS Statewide Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus NS Statewide BM, Elko, Ely, Spotted bat Euderma maculatum NS \Vinnemucca Greater westem mastiff bat Eumops perotis califomicus NS Southern Allen's big-eared bat Odionycteris phyllotis NS Southern Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans NS Statewide BM, Ely, i West em red bat Lasiurus blossevillii NS Southern I Hocuybat Lasiurus cinereus NS Statewide '-..J California leaf-nosed bat Macrotos califomicus NS Southern

California myotis A1yotis californicus NS Statewide \. Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum NS Statewide ., ·-_ Long-eared myotis kf)•otis evotis NS Statewide BM, Elko, Ely, Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus NS Winnemucca \ ktj;ofis thysanodes Fringed my otis NS Statewide ~· ' Cavemyotis ktj:otis ve!ifer NS Southem ' Long-legged myotis Af)•otis volans NS Statewide ~ Yumamyotis ktjJotis y umanensis NS Elko, Ely ...... , Big free-tailed bat Nyctiniomops macrotis NS Southern ··~ Westem pipistrelle Pipistrellus Hesperus NS Statewide "' Bighom sheep Ovis Canadensis NS Statewide Preble's shrew Sorex preblei NS Elko ' Brazilian fi·ee-tailed bat Tadm·ida brasiliensis NS Statewide Fish Spring pocket gopher Thomomys bottae abstrusus NS BM San Antonio pocket gopher Thomomys bottae curatus NS BM, Dark kcu1garoo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus NS Statewide BM, Pale kangcu·oo mouse Microdipodops pa!lidus NS Winnemucca Pahranagat valley montane vole Microtus montanus focosus NS Ely AMPHIBIANS Dixie Valley toad Bufo boreas ssp. NS Ccu·son Amargosa toad Bufo nelson NS BM, Sout11em BLMNE

Wildlife:

DRA

BM,Elko, Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris FC, NS Winnemucca Mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa FC*, NS Carson Relict leopard :fi"og Ranaonca FC,NS Ely, Southern Carson, Elko, Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens NS Ely, Winnemucca

REPTILES Shasta alligator lizard Elgaria coerulea shastaensis NS Carson BM,Ely, Desert tortoise Gophems agassizii FT, NS Southern Banded Gila monster Heloderma suspectum cinctum NS Ely, Southern I Sonoran mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis pyromelana NS Ely Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater NS Southern Nevada shovel-nosed snake Chionactis occipitalis talpina NS Southern Chionactis occipitalis Mojave shovel-nosed snake NS Southern occipitalis Desett glossy snake Ari:ona e!egans ebumata NS Southern Mojave Desert. sidewinder Crotalus cerastes cerastes NS Southern .. MOLLUSCS Ash Meadows naucorid Amb1ysus amargosus NS Southern California Floater Anodonta calironiensis NS Elko ' Duckwater Pyrg Pygulopsis aloha NS Ely Southern duckwater pyrg Pyrgulopsis anatine NS BM, Ely .... Moapa pebblesnail P:yTgulopsis avernalis NS Southern Large-gland Carico pyrg Pyrgulopsis basiglans NS BM Moapa valley pyrg Pyrgulopsis carinifera NS Southern Carinate Duckwater pyrg Pyrgulopsis carinata NS BM Transverse gland pyrg Pyrgulopsis cruciglans NS Ely Crystal springsnail Pyrgulopsis CT)'Stahs NS Southern Spring Mountains pyrg Pyrgulopsis deaconi NS Southern BM, Dixie Valley pyrg Pyrgulopsis dtxensis NS Winnemucca Ash Meadows pebblesnail Pyrgulopsis e1ythropoma NS Southern Fairbanks springsnail Pyrgulopsis fairhanksensis NS Southern Landyes pyrg Pyrgulopsis landyei NS Ely Squat mud meadows pyrg Pyrgulopsis limaria NS Winnemucca Pahranagat pebblesnail Pyrgulopsis meJTiami NS Ely BLMNE

Wildlife~

DRA

Oasis Valley pyrg P)ngulopsis micrococcus NS BM Northem soldier meadow pyrg Pyrgulopsis militaris NS Winnemucca Elongate mud meadows Pyrugulopsis notidico!a FC, NS Winnemucca spriru~ snaii Sub-globose Steptoe ranch pyrg Pyrgulopsis orbiculata NS Ely Bifid duct pyrg Pyrgulopsis peculiaris NS Ely Ovate Cain Spring pyrg Pyrgu1opsis pictilis NS Carson Median gland Nevada pyrg Pyrgulopsis pis feri NS Sou them Flat-topped Steptoe pyrg Pyrgulopsis planu!ata NS Ely Nmthem Steptoe pyrg Pyrgulopsis sen·ata NS Ely Sou them soldier meadow pyrg Pyrgulopsis umbilicata NS Winnemucca Southeast Nevada pyrg Pyrgulopsis turbatrix NS Southem ./" Duckwater Wam1 Springs pyrg Pyrgulopsis villacampae NS Elko, Ely Vinyards and Humboldt pyrg Pyrgulopsis vinyardi NS BM, Elko BM, Wong'spyrg Pyrgulopsis wongi NS "Winnemucca Grated tryonia T7 J'Onia clathrata NS Elko Sportinggoods 1:!yonia Tlyonia angulata NS Southem ·-. Point of Rocks tryonia Tryonia elata NS Sou them Minute ttyonia T1 yonia ericae NS Southem Amargosa ttyonia Tl yonia 1'ariegata NS Southem

FE = Federal Endangered FE* = Federal Proposed Endangered FT = Federal Threatened FC = Federal Candidate NS = Nevada BLM Sensitive Species

2E BLMNEVADA

Wildlife Smveys

DRAFT

Appendix B: Wildlife Survey Repot1 Template

Project Name: Legal Location: Applicant: Consultant: Contact Information:

1. Introduction a. Description of the proposed activity and the project area b. Species smveyed (use HAF to include rationale for why the species were or were not smveyed) c. Objectives of smvey (e.g., presence/absence, abundance)

2. Methods a. Description of survey protocols b. Rationale for the routes selected and explanation why smveys did not cover certain areas c. Dates of smveys d. Smvey effort

3. Results a. Report survey results for each species b. Locations where species or their sign were observed

4. Discussion - Compare smvey results to other studies

5. Other Materials (electronic copies are prefened) a. HAF b. Completed data forms and/or copies of field notes c. Photos of smvey area and wildlife species and/or sign d. Maps e. Shapefiles and metadata

27 98

APPENDIXF

COMMENT LETTERS

DOI-BLM-NV-B000-0001-EA Yomba Shoshone Tri be HC 61 Box 6275 flustin, NV 89310-9301 Tel. (775) 964-2463

Doug Furtado District Manager BLM - Battle Mountain District SO Bastian Road Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820

January 7, 2014

RE: Gas and Oil Leasing

Dear Mr. Doug Furtado:

I am writing in response to the BLM, Battle M ountain District proposal to make 167 Oil and Gas lease parcels in the area covering approximately 285,179 acres of federal land in the Smokey Valley and surrounding areas. We do have concerns and would like further government t.o government consultation with the BLM . We would also like be a part of the identification of cultural and environmental resources that will be impacted during the drilling process, such as burial site, sage grouse leks, water sources, etc.

Our Tribal Council meets on the second Friday of t he month. Please schedule a consultation session w ith our Tribal Council, to discu ss any comments or concerns that we may have. A council agenda is available upon request, and must be submitted the Thursday before the Tribal Council meets.

Regards, I ( Kdvcr/!41/1: Wayn~: K. Oyer / Tribal Chairman YOMSA SH OSHONE TRIBE HC 61 Box 6275 Austin, NV. 89310 775-964·2463 EXT. 102

5 .. 1 $ STATE OF NEVADA TONY WASLEY DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Drreclor

1100 Valley Road RICHARD L. HASKINS, II Deputy Director Reno, Nevada 89512 PATRICK 0. CATES 688-1500 BRIAN SANDOVAL (775) Fax(775)688-1595 Deputy Dtrecror Oouemor January 27, 2014

NDOW-SR #: 14-086 LV0-14-020 Mr. Timothy J. Coward, Field Manager BLM Tonopah Field Office P.O. Box 911 RECEIVED Tonopah, NV 89049 JAN 2 9 20f~ Re: July 2014 Oil and Gas Lease Sales Bureau of Land Management Tonopah Field Office Dear Mr. Coward:

Thank you for providing the Nevada Department of Wildlife (Department) input opportunity as the Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for BLM ' s proposed July 2014 Oil & Gas Lease Sales for the Battle Mountain District Office. Unfortunately, a comprehensive review for the entire Battle Mountain District was not possible. Hence, the following preliminary observations and thoughts for your presented for your consideration are (with one exception) limited to the Tonopah Field Office area.

All proposed lease areas provide habitat for fish and wildlife at some level of biological importance i . space and/or time and should receive reasonable consideration to avoid unnecessary disruptions where practicable. The parcels proposed are or potentially used by numerous migratory species including raptors and breeding neo-tropical birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and for bald and golden eagles protections are also afforded under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Resident birds (e.g. Greater Sage-grouse) and several bat species also receiving heightened conservation awareness and attention may also make use of the proposed parcels. Wildlife considerations relative to geographic areas include but are not limited to: • The majority of proposed parcels would affect species of nesting raptors, notably the golden eagle, prairie falcon, and ferruginous hawk. All parcels may receive foraging use by raptors on a year-round or seasonal basis. For example, wintering rough-legged hawks and bald eagles have been observed on the northwest end of Reese River. And although the Antelope Range has not been recently surveyed for nesting raptors, northern goshawk and golden eagles have been observed in the proposed lease area there.

• All lease parcels within the Big Smoky Valley contain yearlong or seasonally used pronghorn habitats.

• There are three endemic fish species at four locations within the Big Smoky Valley in potential range of the lease parcels. Endemic fish include the Big Smoky Valley Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus lariversi), Big Smoky Valley Tui Chub (Gila bicolor ssp. 8) and the Charnock Ranch Tui Chub (Gila bicolor ssp. 10). The Big Smoky Valley Speckled Dace and Big Smoky Valley Tui Chub are State protected and BLM sensitive species. Drilling activities, especially fracking, near any spring system has the potential to disrupt source waters resulting in adverse impacts to spring system function and related consequences to native fish and wildlife. Coward, T. (NDOW-SR#: 14-086) 2 January 27, 2014

• The desert homed lizard (P/11ynosoma platyrhinos) is well distributed in the Tonopah region, and the Big Smoky Valley seems to support notably higher homed lizard densities compared to surrounding valleys. The Big Smoky Valley also supports the densest population of breeding turkey vultures in central Nevada. Further, the valley bottom supports some of the only buffaloberry bushes in the region. The shrub provides food, cover and nest sites for songbirds and is a browse source for big game animals and rodents.

• There is strong potential for the pale kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops pallidus) and dark kangaroo mouse (M. mcgacephalus) to occur in the lease parcels located east of Lone Mountain. Both species of kangaroo mouse are State protected (NAC 503.030) and BLM sensitive species.

Should lease sales go forward for the proposed parcels, the following measures and considerations are recommended to become part of general sales stipulations. • Birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) including eagles and hawks, are also State Protected (NAC 503.050). Ground disturbing activities should avoid the breeding and nesting season which roughly occurs from March I through July 31. If this seasonal avoidance is not practicable, then the Department recommends a qualified biologist survey the project site prior to any ground disturbing activities to detennine if nesting is underway. In the event an active nest (containing eggs or young) is discovered or frequently attended by adult birds, a buffer area around the nest appropriate for the species involved must be identified and avoided until young birds have fledged. This measure would be consistent with preventive actions advocated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concerning MBT A-protected birds.

• Field visits should be conducted to: o Identify best localities for exploration activities while avoiding sensitive habitats; and, o Ensure access routes create minimal disturbance by using existing roads where possible and avoid unnecessary inroads into wildlife habitats.

• Simple surveys for bats perfonned exterior to caves or historic mine workings are inadequate for determining presence or absence. Ensuring adequate surveys are perfonned is especially cogent where mine workings are slated for physical disturbance or closure. In the absence of more rigorous survey: o Mines or caves that may be used by roosting bats should remain undisturbed, especially during hibernation periods. o Avoid direct and indirect disturbance (e.g. exces ~ ive noise, vibration) to historic mine workings having potential to house bats. o A helpful reference to consult is the Revised Nevada Bat Consen,ation Plan (online at www.heritage.nv.gov

• Regarding any reserve pit fluids produced as by-products of oil and gas exploration drilling, o Human activities and noise associated with drilling operations underway would probably discourage use of reserve pits by birds like waterfowl. However, once the drilling rig and other equipment are removed from the well pads, reserve pits become attractive to birds and other wildlife (Ramirez 2009). Ramirez also reported that the longer the reserve pit is left on site, the greater the probability that aquatic birds wiJJ land on the pit; o Therefore, immediate removal of drilling fluids after well completion is the key to preventing wildlife mortality at reserve pits. o If immediate removal is not possible, then the Department recommends monitoring and closure of reserve pits within 30 days of releasing the drilling rig. Coward, T. (NDOW-SR#: 14-086) 3 January 27,2014

o The Department prefers that drilling fluids produced are stored in a closed Baker Tank or container of comparable desi1:,rn. o Pitless drilling or closed-loop drilling methods are encouraged thereby reducing the amount of drilling waste, facilitating recycling of drilling fluids, and reducing drilling costs (Rogers el a/ 2006a and b). Pitless drilling can reduce the volume of waste by 60 to 70 percent (Rogers et a/ 2006b). Pitless drilling also conserves water and prevents soil contamination. Though, attention is still needed with closed-loop systems to prevent water to pond in the solids disposal trenches.

Comments and recommended surface use designations for specific Parcel Number(s) are:

Parcel 029 No Surface Occupancy. Two sage-grouse leks are located within 1.5 miles and 3.5 miles of the eastern boundary of Parcel 029. Findings by Coates eta/ (2013) support the No Surface Occupancy request. In addition, all the lease parcels located in the Reese River Valley are within Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) for sage-grouse.

Parcels 031, 035 and 036 Timing Limitations. These parcels overlap with desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat, desert bighorn sheep yearlong important habitat, and mule deer winter/spring habitat located in the south end of the Toiyabe Range from Peavine Canyon northward to about Boyd Canyon. The Department strongly recommends a seasonal restriction for protecting the bighorn sheep lambing area during the period of February 1 through May 15 of any calendar year. We also believe protection of this area outside of the lambing season is warranted. Construction of drill pads and roads outside the seasonal restriction time period has potential to physically affect lambing habitat rendering the area less attractive or available to the local bighorn population. At minimum, potential habitat-altering activities should be avoided, especially those in or in close proximity to precipitous terrain where lambing would occur.

Parcels 037, 038, 039,069,076. and 087 No Surface Occupancy. Carver's Bench is crucial mule deer winter range. It is the most heavily used and most important winter range in all of northwestern Nye County. We have enclosed additional information concerning the importance and management of this habitat from a previous action.

Parcels 121 , 122 and 124 Timing Limitations. These parcels overlap with desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat in the Toquima Range beginning at approximately Barker Creek and extending northward 2 miles. The Department strongly recommends a seasonal restriction for protecting the bighorn sheep lambing area during the period of February 1 through May 15 of any calendar year. We also believe protection of this area outside of the lambing season is warranted. Construction of drill pads and roads outside the seasonal restriction lime period has potential to physically affect lambing habitat rendering the area less attractive or available to the local bighorn population. At minimum, potential habitat altering activities should be avoided, especially those in or in close proximity to precipitous type terrain where lambing would occur.

Parcell27 No Surface Occupancy. This parcel is intersected by sage-grouse Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and a sage-grouse lek is located approximately 3 miles from the parcel boundary.

Parcels 156. 157, 158, 159 and 160 Timing Limitations {at a minimum). The Little Smoky Valley is designated PPH for sage-grouse. As communicated to BLM's Egan Field Office in regard to the Term Permit Renewal for the Little Smoky Valley Use Area of the Duckwater Allotment, the extent of sage-grouse use/activity is not fully Coward, T. {NDOW-SR#: 14-086) 4 January 27,2014 understood at this time. However, monitoring efforts are underway and surveys conducted in 2013 yielded the following valuable information: • A previously unknown lek was identified and named the North Snowball Lek with 34 sage-grouse present on April 13. • A short distance north of the North Snowball Lek, 25 sage-grouse flushed including 12 strutting males on AprillO. • Approximately 4.5 miles south of the North Snowball Lek, 15 male sage-grouse (not strutting) were observed on May 1.

Parcel 161 Both the Pale Kangaroo Mouse (Microdipodops pallidus) and Dark Kangaroo Mouse (M. megacephalus) have been trapped in the proposed parcel located in Big Sand Springs Valley. Both species have restrictive habitat requirements causing a patchy distribution across the Nevada landscape and are State protected mammals (NAC 503.030) and Species of Conservation Priority (W APT 20 12). Relevant to the proposed lease parcels, determination of these species' presence and local habitat, then avoidance of occupied habitat is strongly recommended.

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide input on these proposals. Please contact Tracy Kipke at 702-486-5127 x3612 or tkipke(a{ndow.org at the Department's Las Vegas office for further assistance regarding this letter. sz#U- D. Bradford Hardenbrook Supervisory Habitat Biologist Nevada Department of Wildlife, Southern Region 4747 Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108 702.486.5127 x3600; 702.486.5133 FAX bhrdnbrk@ndow .org

TK:tk

Enclosure

cc: NDOW, Files

References Cited

Coates, P.S., M. L. Casazza, E.J. Blomberg, S.C. Gardner, S.P. Espinosa, J.L. Yee, L. Wiechman, and B.J. Halstead. 2013. Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Space Use Relative to Leks: Implications for Surface Use Designations in Sagebrush Ecosystems. J. Wildlife Mgt. 77(8): 1598- 1609.

Ramirez, P. Jr. 2009. Reserve Pit Management: Risks to Migratory Birds. Online: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-nrairie/contaminants/documents!ReservePits.pdf.

Rogers, D., G. Fout and W. A. Piper. 2006a. New innovative process allows drilling without pits in New Mexico. The 13th International Petroleum Environmental Conference, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 17 - 20, 2006. Coward, T. (NDOW-SR#: 14-086) 5 January 27, 2014

Rogers, D., D. Smith, G. Fout, and W. Marchbanks. 2006b. Closed-loop drilling system: A viable alternative to reserve waste pits. World Oil Magazine 227(12): Online: http://www .worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE DETAlL.asp? ART ID=3053&MONTH YEAR= Dec-2006.

W APT (Wildlife Action Plan Team). 2012. Revised Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, 1100 Valley Road, Reno, Nevada 89512. Online at: http://www.ndow.om/Nevada Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada Wildlife Action Plan/. From: Brad Hardenbrook sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:01 PM To: 'Douglas R Clart

Doug. The enclosed comments address pending lease application NVN 074289 located in Nye County, Nevada. The Departmeot welcomes this present opportuDity to share additional information for aidina decision makers in funberins determinations related to lease salo activities. We understand the decision to issue a lease is a separate and discretioDary decision &om the allocation decision made through the land use plan amendment process. Additionally, the authorized officer reraios the discretion to issue leases with stipulations imposing modmue to major constraints on surface use of any leased areas in order to mitig$te the impacts to other land uses or resoun::e objectives as ~ in the guiding resource management plan.

The Departmcut would like to empbasiz.e that it is not opposed to altemative eaergy development. Geo&bermal produced energy translates into furthering the Nation's lessened reliance on fossil fuels aDd reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, we must also evaluate the consequences posed by proposed land uses on importaDt wildlife resource values. It is the Department's soal to dearly articulate an informative picture of the existing enviromncnt and bring forth reasoDablc recommendations relative to wildlife and habitat protectioo. and coaservation.

As you know, the Department provided the Austin/Tonopah Ranger Districts last August and October with wildlife considerations related to an anticipated seodlermal seismic project on the Forest Service's portiou of the subject lease area (i.e. Smoky Valley Geothermal Seismic Exploration Project: Scopins Document and Nocic:e of Proposed Action. U.S. Forest Service-Tonopah Ranger District NOPA). At that time, the crucial mule deer winter and spring 13D8C on the Carver's (Toiyabe) Bench was the primary issue brousht forth.

~ anci Exisins Enyiromneot The western-most portion oftbe pending lease area lies within the Forest Service's Manasement Area 8. ~cited in the bcord of Decision for the Toiyabe Natiooal FORSt Land and Resoun:es Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended. wildlife values are high iD Management Area 8 aad the area supports significant populations of mule deer, c:hukar, blue grouse, and sage grouse. The Toiyabe Bcndl is identified iD the Forest Plan as a key deer wiiOr nmge. his relatively long and narrow at approximately 12 x l.S miles. The Department recognizes the Toiyabe Beoch as crucial mule deer winter and spring range. h is the most heavily used and most important wimer r81J8C in all of northwestern Nyc Coumy. The Forest Service identifies the mule deer as a management indicator species. The existing Forest Plan provides the following forest IJ111D88ement direetioa in relation to wildlife resources and habitats:

• Page IV-124, "Livestock srazin8 and development of minerals will be dooe in a mannet that pi:'Otccts key dispersed RICrC8tioD, wildl.ife, aDd fisheriea rcsourcc:s.

• Page IV-124, "Habitat improvement projectl will be initiated on key deer winter raJ:tgeS. such as the Toiyabe Bench."

• PagoiV-126, "Discourage activities on the Point-of-Rocks and Toiyabe Bench wintcrnmscs that wiD disturb muJe deer in the spring and winter."

• Page IV-126, "Coordinate with the BLM whea implementing management actions for deer winter raoge on Toiyabe Beach." • Page IV-126, "Develop wildlife habitat improvement projects to improve deer winter ranges."

• Page IV-SO, "M.iDimize distulbing activities (graz.iu& timber, mining, etc.) on key mule deer habitat (fawning areas, winter rauge, riparian areas, holding areas, migration corridors, etc.)." 1 The n:mainder of the proposed lease area is on public land administered by the BLM. In September 1983, prior to the above-mentioned 1985 Fon:st Plan, the BLM aod Forest Service CDtcrcd into MOU ##61 with the Department drawing priority management attention to the important deer use area in poor condition on "approximately 8,130 acres of BLM land within the Tonopah Resoorce Area, oortb of Carver's. west of State lfiahway 376 and south of Summit Canyon, along the east Toiyabe Front." Cattle-grazing was formally discootinued on the Toiyabe Bench in 1983 because: of the erucial oaturc ofthe wiDtel" mule deer habitat.

More recently the BLM's 1996 Tonopah Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Record of Decision (ROD) provide the following RMP DetcrmiDations for wildlife habitat naoagem.cnt relative to the Toiyabe Bench:

• Page 7, "The Toiyabe Bench will continue to be managed in cooperation with the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with the Toiyabe Bench Deer Winter RDnge Management Plan. Livestock graziDs would be excludod oo 9,127 acres of crucial deer winter nmgc until the objectives in the Toiyabe Bench Deer Winter Range Management Plan have been met (Tbe Toiyabe Bench has been mauagcd in cooperation with the Nevada Division ofWildlife and the U.S. Forest Service since 1985)." • On page A-56, Appendix. 14 identifies legal descriptions tOr land use plannin&'manageem actions with, "No Surface Occupancy (Seasonal R.estrictions) for deer habitat includes TllN R43E S 18, parts W11zWt12Etn." (This is the majority ofthe lease site located on BLM public lands).

Multiple habitat faaon in most of the Toiyabe Bench led to the area becoming classified as degraded mule deer habitat. The term degraded, confers a reduction In potential for the habitat to produce and support rmle deer. OeneraUy, habitat factors include range conditions such as plant senescence, pinyon-juniper encroacbm.eut, excessive livestock grazing, undesirable exotic invasive species, adverse fire, or cyclic phenomena like drought, aDd habitat type cooversioos including human population factors such as housing. roads, mining, and ether structwal barriers to deer migration. Degraded habitat condition is not singular to mule deer; it bas relevance to other species and proper AmctioniDg of ecological processes.

UnfortuDately, the ability ofthe habitat to recover natmally from past cli.stwbaDce bas been ~or cortc:nuated by unfavorable climatic conditions. Accordina to the U.S. Drought Monitor. the Smoley VaDey area bas been recorded as "Abnormally Dry" to "Drought-Severe" from June S, 2001 to August 19, 2008. Even with discootiouatioo of grazing, aDticipated vegetative responses like increased plam vigor by desiJable species has shown little improvement. And, long· term loss of valuable browse poteDti.al is coatinuing with pinyon pine and juniper eocroacbmc:Dt. Deer usia& the Toiyabe Bench varied ftom 1,000 to 1,500 animals during the 19so·s. whereas numbers now vary from 300-640. Not surprising is that objectives identified in 1he 1985 Totyabe Bench Deer Winter Range Management Pion have not been adlieved, i.e. inaease deer utilization Jevel (canying capacity) from the 1985level of 1,215 deer to a level of 1,520 deer.

Based on current habitat aDd environmental cooditions, the level of previous rest and restoration efforts undcn:akcn over the past 26 years have proved unsue<:essf\.11. Allowing additional land uses incompab"ble with mule deer winter range goals and objectives through ~on, degradation. ancllor loss of habitat should not be aa:eptable. Eveo a seemmgly insignificant habitat disturbance will contribute in a cumulative effects sense to the advme consequences of past. present aad reascmably foreseeable cnviromneatal conditions.

~ Another aspect of the proposed lease area is the pubtie•s use of ATV's in collectins shed antlers; this is a resource management problem in the western portion oftbc pending lease area. The Forest Plan suggests that access should be closed or obliterated unless idemified to becomo part of1he ·tnmsportation system after mineral activity is complete (see page IV -57). We understand the BLM will issue a noo-discretionary restriction on any leases within roadless areas inventoried by the National Forest Service. SpecificaDy, no new road consttuctioo or reconsttuction would be allowed in designated roadless areas. However, the potential for noticeable inroads from exploration, as subjective as they may be, oould bccomo well-used. user-defined tborough&res filrtbel' degradins deer wiDtcr range. Should the Forest Service provide a consent determination for the pending lease application, discouraging subsequeot unauthorized use of exploration survey paths by the motoriz.ed public is a significant consideration. For eumple, effectivmess of impact minimization measures taken for addressing any footprints left from geothermal seismic exploration last autumn will not be known uotii later this spring. Proadive monitorins and education should be undertaken by the Fmest Service to 2 preclude or minimize such incursions would seem reasonable. Similar actions may be desirable on the BLM'a portion of the area west of Stale Route 376. Water 'Resources As the PElS acknowledges, the iDctirect usc ofgeotbcnnal SOURleS requires larJc amouata ofwata'

I eaiog StipnlatjQDS The Department would prefer to see no gccthcnnal R:SC~Wa~ exploralioo (e.g. temperature padieot holes, aew roads or cross-country travel), drilliDs operations, or other surface utilization west of S. Route 376. For this western portion of the lease area on Forest Service laud, 1he Department believes lcuios impacts camot be mitipttd and 1heftlore lease boundaries should be adjusted in the decision to avoid UDaa:eptable impaas on sensitive resources. Section 14.2.4 on paae 14-9 of lhc PElS states, "The NFS lauds portioo of tbe lease site (western portion) arc wi1bin an lnveutoried Roadless Area, making it unlikely that any development would occur iD that area." The Dcpartmeat would like assuraoce 1bat no clevolopmeot would occur. 'lbad'ore, we request tbat the lcue boundary be adjustrd so that the Forest Service boundary is the western limit ofthe lease area. Ifthis is deemed excessively restrictive, our altcmative would be to seek a year-round No Sur&cc Oocupancy stipulation for Forest Service laDds west of State Route 376.

For the BLM portion ofthe proposed lease area west of State Route 376, similar Jeasins stipulations for year-round No Surfiu:e Occupancy would seem reasonable. Sboold this be coasidered too restrictive. timing limieatioas to avoid disturbaDce to wintering deer are recommeoded at minimum. The Tonopah RMP and ROD ideorifies this time period to be from "Jauuary 15-May IS No Sur&cc Occupancy (Seasonal Rescridions),. for deer habitat which includes 1hc proposed lease area as contained in TllN R.43B S 18, parts Wl/lWI/2Bl/2, the west«n portion of the proposed lease site.

Tbank you aaain for tbis opportunity to provide i.aput. The DepartmeDl welcomea additiooal opportunity to dilcusa tbis matter with the Forest Service aDd BLM to readl a reasoaable resolve. Please do net hesitate to contact Habitat Biologilt Tracy Kipke at the Department's Southern Region Oftioe in Las Vegas. She can be contaJCted at 702-486-S 127 ext. 3612 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely, Bmd

"Ap.t... .fWJ.iiJ"'--MI..t._, .....l{fw..l/r • CAn. •l.uc:K'f' .IACK.AI.JaNtY

D. Bradford Hardenbrook Superrisory Babkat BioloJbt Soathem Region Newell DepmmeDt W'ddliR .7.7VepsDrlve Las Veps, NV89108 702/486-5121lr3600 486-5133 FAX [email protected] Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: Consent#__ _ Date Submitted: February 14, 2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 7, 2013

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Pamela D. Moore, Deputy Clerk of the Board Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: The Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain District, provides a copy of its 2013 Annual Report.

Type of Action Requested.: (check one) L_j Resolution L_j Ordinance (__) Formal Action/Motion (____X_) Other - Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: None.

Discussion: The Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain District, provides a copy of its 2013 Annual Report.

February 26, 2014

Reviewed By: ~~ ~-iX}__u_A:..t'\!J J Date: Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date Churc~ 1ll County- ~ Civil eputy Dtstnct Attorney

Date: Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

(Vote Recorded By)

The Partners in Conservation Awards recognize outstanding examples of conservation legacies achieved when the Department of the Interior engages groups and individuals representing a wide range of backgrounds, ages and interests to work collaboratively to renew lands and resources.

Bootstraps is a partnership between the BLM, the University ofNevada Reno Cooperative Extension and other partners that gives at-risk and underprivileged youth the skills and decision making abilities to return to school or enter the workforce by involving them in natural resource project work.

Cover Photo: Big Smokey Valley, southeast of Austin, NV on the Battle Mountain District Battle Mountain Bootstraps Crew Completed Its 9th Season

The 2013 Bootstraps crew on Cowboy Rest Creek, northeastern Toiyabe Range, Lander County, Nevada.

After two weeks of classroom and field training, the Battle Mountain Bootstraps crew, comprised about equally of veterans and new recruits, recently began its 9th season. From June through October, the crew, using chainsaws, will remove encroaching pinyon and juniper trees from ca refully selected wildlife habitats in central Nevada.

Although the pinyon and juniper problem is little known to the general public, expansion and increas ing densities of these trees is having an adverse impact on wildlife habitats throughout much of the West. Since European settlement, changes in land use, fire frequency and atmospheric carbon diox ide have led to widespread increases in pinyon and juniper at the expense of wildlife. In the Great Ba sin, for example, the area covered by pinyon and juniper woodlands has increased10-fold since the late 1800's.

2 Battle Mountain Bootstraps Crew Completed Its 9th Season (cont.)

Dense stands of pinyon-juniper make poor wildlife habitat. Note dead and dying grasses and shrubs.

Pinyon and juniper woodlands have been present in the Great Basin for centuries and in moderation the trees are quite desirable; both species provide food and cover for many wildlife species. But as they become increasingly widespread and numerous, shrubs, grasses and forbs are lost through com petitive exclusion (are out-competed). In many places, pinyon and juniper domination is a major factor in the decline of greater sage grouse and other wildlife. As the Nevada Department of Wildlife's Mule Deer Management Plan warns:

" ... dense stands reduce understory plant productivity and diversity, increase site aridity, and accelerate soil erosion. Pinyon-juniper conditions throughout much of Nevada are having negative impacts on mule deer and other wildlife."

Once habitat has been degraded, conversion back to more diverse and valuable plant communities is extremely difficult and expensive. Dense pinyon-juniper woodlands are also highly susceptible to in tense wildfires, after which introduced weeds such as cheatgrass, frequently dominate the land scape, preventing or greatly impeding re-establishment of more desirable plant species.

Crews from the Bootstraps program have been removing encroaching pinyon and juniper trees from some of central Nevada's most valuable wildlife habitats since 2005. In that year, the Battle Moun tain District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in partnership with University of Nevada Coop erative Extension, launched the program, which was designed to put out-of-school young adults to work, teaching them useful life and employment skills, while at the same time accomplishing much needed wildlife habitat improvement projects.

3 Battle Mountain Bootstraps Crew Completed Its 9th Season (cont.)

Work on a riparian protective fence in the Battle Mountains. Steel jack fences are more expensive, but more durable and require far less maintenance than conventional barbed wire fencing, especially at high elevations where snow banks often flatten wire fences.

In addition to combating pinyon and juniper takeover of wildlife habitat, Bootstraps crews have re paired or constructed numerous fences to protect wetlands. In 2012, Bootstraps constructed almost two miles of steel jack fence for the protection of meadows in the Battle Mountains that are especial ly important for greater sage grouse.

Although the program began very modestly, Bootstraps crews have grown steadily over the years (crews are now comprised of 15-18 young adults) and have completed an impressive list of wildlife habitat improvement projects in the Fish Creek, Simpson Park, Roberts, Sulphur Springs, Toiyabe, Desatoya and Battle Mountain Ranges of central Nevada.

Bootstraps crews camp at the job site, greatly reducing expenses and travel time to remote project locations. Initially funded primarily by the BLM, the Bootstraps program has also been generously sup ported by grants from the Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, the Mule Deer Foundation, Lander and Eureka Counties as well as by Barrick and Newmont Mining Companies. Dur ing the past three seasons, considerable funding has been provided through the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Sage Grouse Initiative in cooperation with C-Ranches and Grass Valley Ranch.

Although the Bootstraps program won't solve all of our natural resource problems, it is a model for cooperation between local communities, private enterprise, government agencies an d sportsman's groups. The results are real, on-the-ground habitat improvements.

4 Mount Lewis Field Office Minerals Management

American Vanadium Gibellini Pro Newmont Copper Basin Explora there are anticipated proponent ject - The Draft Environmental tion Project- An Environmental driven plan changes that may Impact Statement (EIS) is being Assessment (EA) has been pre extend the EA completion. prepared and is expected to be pared and was issued to the pub Halliburton Ann Barite Project issued by the end of 2014. The lic in September 2013. The pub BLM is working as a cooperating Project includes an open pit, wa lic comment period ended on No agency with the Humboldt ter and power line right-of-way vember 16, 2013 and the Deci Toiyabe National Forest and Halli and will eventually involve on-site sion for approval is expected in burton. Baseline analyses are on power generation utilizing a pho January 2014. -going to support an EIS level tovoltaic array and vanadium bat Eureka Moly, LLC Mount Hope analysis. Project completion is tery demonstration as part of the Mine- Following the Record of not anticipated until 2015. Project. Decision issued for this Project in McEwen Mining Tonkin Springs Newmont Phoenix Mine - November 2012, Project con Mine Closure- BLM has accepted Newmont is in the baseline anal struction has commenced. How the closure plan and is currently ysis stage of the Greater Phoenix ever, the proponent has scaled in the environmental analysis re Project. It is expected that all back construction activities due view portion of this Project. baselines will be completed in to financing issues. Litigation ac early 2014 and an Amendment tivity is on-going. McEwen Mining Gold Bar- The to the Plan of Operations submit Plan of Operations was submit Barrick Horse Canyon/Cortez Uni ted in the third quarter of 2014. ted on December 27, 2013. fied Exploration Plan - BLM is An EIS level analysis is expected. BLM is currently in a review stage working on an Amendment to the to determine completeness. The Newmont Buffalo Valley Mine - Plan of Operations. It is expected environmental analysis is ex Preparation of the Draft EIS was that an EA level analysis will be pected to begin early in 2014. put on hold by Newmont due to completed by June 2014. lower gold prices and closure ac Klondex Gold and Silver Mining Barrick Cortez Hill North Waste tivities for existing project facili Fire Creek Project- The Plan of Rock Facility- BLM is working on ties. Operations for this underground an Amendment to the Plan of Op exploration Project is being modi erations for a reconfiguration to fied to expand operations for a the North Waste Rock Facility, mining project. This proposal is the addition of an ore stockpile currently in the baseline analysis and an increase of the ore stage and completion is expected transport to Carlin. An EA is out in late 2014. for public review with the com ment period ending January 27, Timberline Lookout Mountain Ex 2014. Approval is expected ploration Project -Ongoing explo thereafter. ration is anticipated to support the baseline analysis for a possi Barrick Ruby Hill - Project expan ble mining operation. Drill pad reclamation at Barrick's Horse sions have been put on hold due Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project. to the lower gold prices. Montezuma Mines Red Canyon Exploration Project -Ongoing ex Golden Oasis Toiyabe Exploration ploration is anticipated to sup Project- An administrative draft port the baseline analysis for a EA is being prepared. However,

5 Tonopah Field Office Minerals Management

Diatomite Mine: Global Silica, Metallic Goldfield - Metallic Gold Inc. Monte Cristo Mine - The EA field has completed the required has been finalized and the Find baseline studies for the proposed ing of No Significant Impact open pit mine north of Goldfield, (FONSI) completed. A decision NV. A Plan of Operation has was finalized after the comple- been submitted and accepted. ' tion of the final Reclamation Cost The Federal Register Notice has Estimate (RCE) agreed upon by been published and the seeping the Tonopah Field Office (TFO), meeting was conducted on Janu Nevada Division of Environmen ary 10, 2014. tal Protection (NDEP) and Global Round Mountain Gold Corp., Plan Silica Inc. of Operations Amendment Corvus Gold Nevada North Bull Round Mountain Gold Corp is in frog Exploration Project- Prelimi the early stages of planning for nary results from their explora an amendment to their current tion operations indicate favorable authorized operations. Baseline values and Corvus Gold Nevada studies started in the latter half has presented conceptual plans of 2013. It is anticipated the for a Mining Plan of Operations. studies will be completed during Baseline studies in support of the latter half of 2014. this proposed plan are on-going. White Caps Mining Company Mineral Ridge Gold LLC, Mineral Plan of Operations- White Caps Ridge Gold Mine -An amendment Mining Company has proposed to to the Plan of Operation has refurbish the existing White Caps Round Mountain Project been requested. The Plan of Op mill located on public lands in eration was submitted in the lat Manhattan for the purpose of ter half of 2013. The EA is avail reworking tailings located on pri able for comments and will close vate lands. Baselines are cur on January 21, 2014. It is antici rently under review and a Plan of pated that a decision will be com Operation is expected in 2014. pleted during the first half of True Oil, LLC Application for Per 2014. mit to Drill- True Oil has changed Solauro Industries Georgia Tail the location of the well that was ings Remediation Project -A re proposed to be drilled in 2012. vised Plan of Operation has been The EA has been finalized and on accepted and the EA is currently January 9, 2014 a decision ap under internal review. Communi proving the application to drill cation with Solauro Industries and Right of Way (ROW) was has been lacking and it is antici- made. pated that communications will commence again during the first half of 2014.

6 Mount Lewis Field Office Lands and Realty

Homestake Ruby Hill Land Sale - Relocation of Roberts Creek Backhaul Solution Project. The This Project proposes to offer, by Road - Roberts Creek Road pass award will allow ANTC to further direct sale, 150 acres of public es through the Roberts Creek develop infrastructure that will land to Homestake Mining Com Ranch, close to the main resi fuel long-term economic growth pany near their Ruby Hill Mine dence. To mitigate the ongoing and opportunity throughout rural near Eureka. Only the surface issues of dust, safety and open Nevada. ANTC has until Decem estate is proposed for sale. The gates and the anticipated traffic ber 2014 to complete those por land is identified as disposable in increases resulting from the tions of the Project receiving fed the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Mount Hope Project, Eureka eral financial assistance. The Management Plan (RMP). An EA County has submitted an applica FONSI was signed in August was prepared and no substantive tion to relocate Roberts Creek 2013. The Final EA is available or adverse comments were re Road away from the ranch build on the BLM website. The ROW ceived during the public scoping ings. The proposed relocation Grant has been finalized. ANTC process. A FONSI was signed in would cross both public and pri will be building the site through February 2011. vate land. An EA will be required. out 2014. Before the sale can occur, a No tice of Realty Action (NORA) must Arizona Nevada Tower Corpora be published in the Federal Reg tion (ANTC)- ANTC submitted five ister and local newspapers pro applications for communication vided another opportunity for facilities within the Battle Moun public comment. tain District. Two sites, Dyer and A NORA was submitted to the Palmetto, are in the Tonopah Washington Office for final review Field Office. The three sites in the and publication in May 2012 and Mount Lewis Field Office are lo was returned in August with a cated at Kingston, Hickison Sum request for more information. mit, and Prospect Peak. ANTC Homestake (Barrick) has stated decided to not pursue the Pro that they wish to continue pursu spect Peak site at this time. The ing the sale. Work on another Palmetto site ROW grant was is NORA package is underway. sued in May 2013. The remain ing three proposed sites were combined into one EA as con nected actions. ANTC was awarded a $7.6 million federal grant for the construction and operation of its Central Neva- Hickison Communication Site da Community Anchor Wireless

7 Tonopah Field Office Lands and Realty

~l ~oriahCe~~e~-NyeCoun - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ty submitted a request for a di ed within the ROW for operation rect land sale of approximately and maintenance of the pro 7.5 acres of public lands. This posed new well sites and power cemetery is located on the out lines. skirts of the historic town of Man hattan. The EA for the land sale An EA was completed and a Deci is currently available for public sion Record and FONSI was ap comment and is expected to be proved in the first half of 2012. finalized in 2014. Construction of the project began in October 2012 and is expected Tonopah Public Utilities Arsenic to be completed in 2014. Re~ediation Project - As set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Safe Drinking Wa Renewable Energy ter Act Amendments, the revised federal standard for arsenic in drinking water must be less than or equal to 10 parts per billion (ppb). The ~unicipal water sup Battle Mountain District ply in the town of Tonopah cur Or~at dba ORNI 39, LLC: ~cGin rently exceeds that standard. ness Hills- This geothermal pro State and federal law requires all ject is located 27 miles north of water systems to come into com Austin. Construction of one 40- pliance with the 10 ppb stand megawatt binary air cooled pow ard. The Nevada State Environ er plant was completed in 2012. Ormat is currently exploring for mental Co~mission has mandat geothermal resources so the ap ed that the water system be com proved second binary air cooled pliant by January 23, 2015. power plant can be developed. ROW Grant N-90168 was issued in Dece~ber, 2011 to Tonopah Public Utilities (TPU) giving au thorization to construct, operate, and ~aintain a water supply sys tem on public lands ad~inistered by the BLM and per~itt i ng TPU to construct two new well sites, a gravel access road, re- equipping I rehabilitating four existing well sites, and develop ing a new underground water transmission pipeline, a gravel access road, and an overhead McGinness Hills Geothermal Project three-phase power line and all the related appurtenances. An access road would be construct-

8 Mount Lewis Field Office Rangeland Management

Argenta Allotment Rangeland Battle Mountain District Mule Canyon Spring Mitigation - Health Evaluation -The Range Noxious Weed Control - The BLM is working with New land Health Evaluation and EA Community Weed Management mont's environmental firm to are scheduled to be completed Area involvement- In support of complete an EA in support of the and issued to the public for re potential development of a view in 2014. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat res toration within designated Pre spring site within the Argenta Al US Forest Service Enterprise liminary Priority Habitat (PPH), lotment. The EA is currently being Rangeland Health Assessment reviewed by the BLM Resource the Lander County Commission Crew- Crews have completed Team assigned to the project. ers have provided generous mon Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) etary support to the Lander Coun Wild Horse and Burro Water monitoring on approximately ty Conservation District, which is Sources- In an effort to combat 200,000+ acres within the partnered with the Mount Lewis drought conditions within Herd Argenta Allotment. Data has Field Office, to control a large in Management Areas (HMAs), BLM been received and is currently is maintaining the functionality being analyzed. festation of Hoary Cress within the Indian Creek drainage. Pri of, or supplementing, currently Battle Mountain Complex Permit vate property owners within the authorized range improvement Renewal Decision- Grazing per water sources. These projects drainage are currently being noti mits for the affected permittees are pictured below. fied and support for the Project is on the North Buffalo and Copper gaining momentum. BLM has al Canyon Allotments will be issued ready controlled over 150 acres in 2014. of Hoary Cress on public lands Tonopah Field Office within the drainage. Francisco Allotment- The EA and The Tonopah Conservation Dis monitoring report is being com trict, in cooperation with Tri pleted and is anticipated to be County Weed, has currently con available for public comment in trolled over 1,000 acres of nox 2014. ious weeds throughout the Dis Smoky Allotment- Monitoring for trict. the permit renewal has been The Southern Nye County Conser completed and the report is be vation District continues to com ing compiled. Coordination with plete Tamarisk control in support the permittee is being conducted. of the Amargosa Toad Habitat It is anticipated the EA will be Conservation Plan Agreement available for public comment in throughout Oasis Valley and with 2014. in Beatty town proper. In 2013 50 acres were treated and al ready in 2014 another 50 acres have been treated. BLM treated 15 acres in the Stone Cabin Allot- Davis Pipeline Water Source ment.

9 Battle Mountain District Drought Response

During 2012-2013 much of northern Nevada experienced BMD made drought monitoring a Drought monitoring has contin record drought conditions in priority during 2012- 2013. Prior ued in 2013 to ensure appropri which very little forage produc ity areas were HMAs, Priority ate management occurs. tion occurred and water ava ilabil Greater Sage Grouse Habitat and ity was limited resulting in water To date, BMD has issued four Riparian and Wetlands outside of sources drying up. drought decisions for the follow Greater Sage Grouse Priority ing allotments: In anticipation of these cond i Habitat. Monitoring documented tions, the Battle Mountain Dis little to no current year's forage • Battle Mountain Complex trict (BMD) sent a letter to all per production even at higher, more • Shannon Station Allotment mittees in February notifying productive elevations. Water them of the drought and asking • Diamond Springs Allotment hauling, where reasonable, oc them to work with us on develop curred. As a result of the drought, • Grass Valley, Simpson Park ing and taking appropriate and Dry Creek Allotments drought response actions before wetland and riparian areas re their scheduled livestock turnout. ceived concentrated use by live The Battle Mountain Complex We received little response. stock and WHB's which resulted Decision resulted in a temporary Most permittees applied and in excessive and unacceptable drought closure (204,497 acres). paid for most if not all of their impacts. To address such issues The remaining three decisions permitted AUMs for the 2013 the BMD engaged permittees grazing season. Additionally, temporarily modified the Terms and negotiated a variety of BMD notified county commission and Conditions of the grazing drought response actions to in ers, RACs and stakeholders of permits (e.g. season of use, rest). the drought situation and BMDs clude temporary water hauls, strategy for addressing drought. shifting season of use and re moval from the range where In response to the drought, the monitoring indicated that re BMD prepared a district drought source damage had occurred. management plan and analyzed it in an EA. The FONSI was Meetings with BMD affected per signed in June 2012. The plan mittees to discuss drought man consists of a broad suite of agement plans for 2013 on an drought response actions but allotment by allotment basis emphasizes livestock reductions, were completed. Management rest, water hauling, and Wild for the 2013 grazing season was Mount Lewis Field Office Allotment Horse and Burro (WHB) emergen focused on providing drought cy gathers. The main purpose of stressed native plant communi the drought plan/EA was to posi ties with at least growing season tion BLM to authorize appropri rest for the following year, and ate response actions in a timely possibly longer if drought condi manner to prevent resource dam tions persist as forecasted. BMD age. The alternative is to go staff developed voluntary agree through a lengthy time consum ments with all 35+ affected per ing site specific planning process mittees, resulting in 80,000 + for each individual documented AUMs of voluntary nonuse. situation while authorized uses are causing resource damage or Mount Lewis Field Office Allotment WHBs suffer on the range.

10 Mount Lewis Field Office Wild Horse and Burro Program

Diamond Complex Wild Horse Gather- Jan. 18-Feb. 11, 2013 - • 792 horses removed from Herd Management Areas (HMA's) located on Battle Mountain, Ely and Elko Dis tricts. • Emergency conditions neces sitated the removal of all animals gathered. Hickison Burros Outside of Herd Management Area

• A trap-site adoption following the gather resulted in 12 New Pass/Ravenswood HMA- Please Note: The 2014 National yearlings adopted. • Data collection to support a BLM WHB gather schedule has not been released. • 30 horses were sent to the Rangeland Health Evaluation Carson Correctional Facility within the New Pass/ for holding with the potential Ravenswood HMA was com for re-release. Due to post pleted by a US Forest Service gather inventory those horses Enterprise team. A summary were notre-released. An is expected in 2014. adoption event at the facility resulted in no horses being adopted. The adult horses have been moved to the gen eral population while the foals and yearlings may go through an internet adoption. Hickison HMA • Nuisance burros causing property damage to private property and agricultural fields in north Big Smoky Val ley. • Due to cooler temperatures and precipitation resulting in fall green up, the offending burros left the area. Area will be monitored in the spring and summer of 2014.

Healthy Wild Horses in Fish Creek Herd Management Area

11 Mount Lewis Field Office Greater Sage Grouse Three-Bars Restoration Project This project focuses on land • Flight deterrent markers tracking GSG through GPS scape level restoration in the placed on fence lines in PPH telemetry collars to more fine Three-Bars/Roberts Mountain by volunteers and BLM staff, ly focus pinyon-juniper thin area northwest of Eureka. This ning efforts. area contains high value re • BLM, NDOW and Great Basin sources for sage grouse, lahon Bird Observatory affixing and tan cutthroat trout, mu le deer and other wildlife species. This area also boasts largely intact native or perennial plant commu nities and is at high risk of cata strophic wildfire largely due to pinyon and juniper encroach ment. The BMD initiated an EIS analyzing numerous restoration and fuels treatments within a 750,000 acre footprint. Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and Eureka County are cooperat ing agencies with BLM on this project. The preliminary Draft EIS was out for public comment through No vember 29, 2013. A Decision will be issued sometime in 2014. Upon the signing of the Decision, the BLM will seek for malized partnerships to leverage funding and support for multi year implementation of this im portant project. Greater Sage Grouse (GSG) Habi tat Enhancement Projects Con ducted in 2013 on the BMD- 1,200 acres of pinyon-ju niper thinning within PPH habitat , Construction of two large ri parian exclosures totaling 48 acres in PPH as a condition of the McGinness Hills Geother mal Mitigation Plan, Greater Sage Grouse PPH habitat

12 Mount Lewis Field Office Recreation

Shoshone Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trail and Host Site Con create a park/new trail struction - Roughly 30 miles of head area. The BLM the trail have been completed to will be looking to the date. The BLM worked with Great Basin Institute (GBI), who admin community of Battle istered the grant, to finalize the Mountain for their con first phase of the trail construc tinued support and po tion and maintenance. A new tential concepts for this brochure will be printed and area. The BLM has available at the trailhead and the awarded the contract to BLM office. In order to welcome prepare the conceptual visitors and monitor trail usage, a design plan and is plan host site will be constructed at ning to present this con Petroglyph at Hickison Recreation Site the trailhead during 2014. The cept to the public in host site will consist of a con 2014. crete trailer pad with a structure, Hickison Petroglyph Recreation water, septic, and electricity. Student Conservation Associa Area: Architecture and Engineer tion- In September 2013, the ing- This outstanding display of BLM hosted a Student Conserva Native American petroglyphs is tion Association located on U.S. Highway 50, ap (SCA) crew. The proximately 20 miles east of Aus crew completed tin. The site consists of an inter maintenance for pretive trail, campground, and the Copper Ba hiking and equestrian trail. The sin Bike Trail campground was constructed in and the Hickison the early 1960's and has served Petroglyph Rec many visitors over the decades. reation Area hik The BLM issued a notice to pro ing trail, which ceed to the contractor to begin included redefin site plans in June 2013. The ing and signing contractor completed the archi tecture and engineering (i.e. de Views from the Shoshone OHV Trail the trails, and cleaning debris sign) documents for a subse from the trails. quent upgrade in December Copper Basin Bike Trail -The 2013 which include a host area, Copper Basin Bike Trail is a rec expanded campsites, and eques reation area developed with an trian pull throughs. This is an ex agreement with Newmont Corpo citing project that will update the ration. The BLM has been main BMD's only developed recreation taining and updating this trail site along U.S. Highway 50. with new signage and benches. The area is used by hikers and mountain bikers. The BLM is cur rently working on a proposal to

13 Tonopah Field Office Recreation

Rhyolite Historic Town Site- Rhy Tough Mudder, LLC, Endurance Crescent Sand Dunes Recreation olite is the second most visited Event - Tough Mudder, LLC com Area - The TFO made progress on area on BLM lands in Nevada, pleted another endurance event developing the Crescent Dunes second only to Red Rock Ca nyon. in mid-April near Beatty. The Recreation Area by placing picnic The BLM has been restoring the event was conducted along a tables and a portal sign at the buildings in the town to provide similar route, with a similar num site. This work is a continuation visitors with a better understand ber of participants as the 2012 of the effort begun during 2012 ing of the town site. event. NPLD. Wilderness Study Area Best in the Desert 2013 "Vegas Incursion EA - The TFO to Reno OHV Race" -The TFO is developing an EA for was the lead office for processing the Special Recreation Permit. As rehabil itating disturb in past years, the event was held ances and removing in August on the existing route unwanted incursions through portions of public land in Wilderness Study administered by the Carson City Areas within the BMD. District and BMD. In 2013, the TFO pro vided funding to sup port an agreement Kelly Bottle House before restoration with the Friends of Nevada Wilderness to Currently the BLM is working to accomplish needed restore the Porter Store. The work. This past fall, BLM is also in the process of de the first work project veloping an assistance agree between BLM and ment to enhance the efficiency Friends of Nevada and effectiveness of manage Wilderness occurred ment at the site. on Palisade Mesa and The Wall Wilder ness Study Areas. Signage Kelly Bottle House after restoration was in Best in the Desert 2on "Vegas to Reno OHV Race". stalled and inventory and monitoring oc curred.

14 Battle Mountain District Forestry, Fuels, and Fire Programs

Forestry Non-Wildland Urban Interface Rehabilitation 248 vegetative (fuelwood) per 200 acres of prescribed fire 8,000 acres of the 2012 Frazier mits sold, treatment on the Railroad Valley Fire was aerial seeded in Febru Project and 997 tons of biomass utilized, and ary 2013. Thirty acres of knap 2,000 acres of non-WUI projects weed was treated in 2012 and Seven commercial woodcutting 2013. areas were established. monitored in 2013. 100 acres of cheatgrass was Suppression treated with Plateau herbicide in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) the 2013 Spanish Gulch Fire. 80 acres of prescribed fire treat Last season, the BM D had 26 466 acres of the 2013 Goat ment on the Eureka Project, fires that burned 7,692 acres of Peak Fire were aerial seeded in public land. Of this total, there January 2014. 175 acres of mechanical treat were six human caused fires for ment on the Eureka Project, 4,032 acres and 20 lightning fires for 3,660 acres. We assist 40 acres of mechanical treat ed other BLM Districts and agen ment on the Lida Project in con cies within NV, ID, CA, NM, OR junction with the Timbisha Tribe, and UT with suppression help 57 acres of chemical treatment last year. Our aviation base's in on the lone Project, Battle Mountain and Eureka 82 acres of chemical treatment stayed busy flying over 350 mis on the Manhattan Project, sions to 45 fires in the BMD and surrounding areas. 924 acres of mechanical treat

ment on the Austin Project, and Frazier Fire rehabilitation success one year 5,000 acres of WUI projects mon after the fire itored.

Pile burning in the Eureka WUI Project J------Hand thinning on the lone Project

15 Battle Mountain District Resource Management Plan (RMP) Revision

Cooperating Agencies - The fol servation , and a balance of con lowing have signed a Memoran servation and use. dum of Understanding to become CAs will also have the opportunity cooperating agencies (CAs): Es to review drafts of Chapter 4 meralda, Eureka, Lander, and once it becomes ava ilable, some Nye Counties, United States For time in 2014. est Service (Humboldt-Toiyabe), National Park Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nellis Air Sustainable Force Base, Fallon Naval Air Sta tion, Duckwater-Shoshone Tribe , Development Timbisha-Shoshone Tribe, and Yomba Shoshone Tribe. Begun in 2008 as a regional co Sustainable Development Meeting Status - In April of 2013, the four operative effort, representatives counties affected by the RMP from the Battle Mountain District, Lander County, Lander Economic formed a four county coalition region, completed the Housing Development Authority, Universi with the intent of enhanced coor Study GAP Analysis to determine ty of Reno, Barrick, Newmont , dination and streamlining of local what type and how much addi and Gold Corp have worked tire government participation in the tional housing is needed, com lessly together to develop mean RMP development. In addition to pleted the Leakage Study to iden ingful data and potential solu the monthly CA conference calls , tify where people are spending tions to break the "boom and the BMD scheduled monthly RMP their money and on what, com bust" mining cycle and find ways conference calls with the coali piled a Community Vision, and to increase economic sustainabil tion. developed a short list of Target ity in the Gold Belt Region of Industries. Currently, the collabo The Preliminary Drafts of Chapter northeastern Nevada. Initially fo rative Marketing Effort is being 1, 2 and 3 of the RMP were cused on looking at uses of min completed to draw targeted in made available to the BMD RMP ing infrastructure for post mining cooperating agencies;county co dustry to the region and a Case land use, the Project has resulted History Summary Publication. alition for review and comments in several publications spear are due by February 2014. With approximately $300,000 headed by the Lander County from BLM comm itted to this ef The BLM has identified themes Sustainable Development Com fort, in addition to funds from for three action alternatives to mittee and "Project Barrick, Newmont and Gold Corp, address the issues identified by FIND " (Future Industrial Needs the BLM has played an active BLM staff, public comment, and Discovery). In a nutshell, this col role to ensure the agreed upon through Triba l consultation and laborative group developed a tar tasks are completed and com coordination with cooperating get area map of Developmental municate the purpose of this im agencies. The three themes Potential, including a GIS data portant project to the community. (outside of current management) base, identified the most promis are resource use, resource con- ing economic opportunities in the

16 *a.MOIIce 6attile ountain District • cayorblrl Office ,---, a.M Dl&lrlcl Olllce .1l'ld L-...J ftMP AannlngArea Bureau of Land D a.M FJeld omce Management L811110W111r BJreiau C1( lnllan A1l"aft Bureau CI(Land IM;.magemertl Burea1 C1( ReclamillltWI DqJal1mi!fll C1( Dell!rl&l! Depill&ment C1( IErBgy Rlnl6t Sl!nilce lti6lniiil Pall SeMI:@ Nevada SbE L1nd6 CJ Mr.E w.Er

() 10 L....J.....J :.111,, Miles

_,~___...

- na..n:t .. ,..,...... , _.., ... t:u~ ...... _ • i!D6odon ~~--a..-.r _...... ,...... , WJ ~ ...--... -- - ~v.. alwlfltlll,.

17 Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: Consent#__ _ Date Submitted: February 7, 2014 Agenda Date Requested: March 7, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Pamela D. Moore, Deputy Clerk of the Board Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Senator Harry Reid responds to Churchill County's letter regarding Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PIL T).

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance (_)Formal Action/Motion c____x__) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: None.

Discussion: Senator Harry Reid responds to Churchill County's letter regarding Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). Senator Reid worked hard to ensure that a one-year extension ofPILT, at full funding levels, was included in the 2014 Farm Bill agreement, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of2013 (H.R. 2642), which was passed in the Senate and signed into law by President Obama on February 7, 2014. Senator Reid cites his commitment to ensuring that Nevada counties will continue to receive the full levels of PILT funding in the years to come.

ReviewedBy: a A.A tJ W.&Pvl Date: ::L ,kh /~I Y Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: ChurclC ~-ounty~~ 'CiViiePUtiDistrict Attorney ¥?¥/9

Date: Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

(Vote Recorded By)

HARRY REID MAJORITY LEADER NEVADA

CJanitcd ~tatcs ~cnatc oc,Wll Co;, ~'\' U/fl. WASHINGTON, DC 2051D-7010 r::'f RECEIVED ~ rfvJ February 7, 2014 FEB 2 4 2014 f

The Honorable Carl Erquiaga Churchill County Commissioners 155 North Taylor Street, Suite 110 Fallon, NV 89406-2763

Dear Commissioner Erquiaga:

Thank you for contacting me about Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) for Nevada counties. It is good to hear from you.

I know how important PILT funding is for Churchill County, and I recognize the major impacts delayed or decreased PIL T funding could have on our entire state. As you well know, 85-percent ofNevada land is federally managed and cannot be taxed by the local or state governments. This situation creates great challenges for our cities and counties to raise enough funds to provide basic services including education, libraries, fire and police protection, and search and rescue.

I believe there is a federal obligation to compensate the 17 Nevada counties and local communities that have substantial portions of federal, non taxable lands. That is why I supported a provision in 2008 that ensured mandatory spending on PILT payments (P.L. 11 0-343), which was extended through 2013 (P .L. 112-141 ); and worked hard to ensure that a one-year extension ofPILT, at full funding levels, was included in the 2014 Farm Bill agreement, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of2013 (H.R. 2642). Fortunately, my colleagues in the Senate came together to pass this legislation, which was signed into law by President Obama on February 7, 2014, extending important funding for PILT and many other vital programs. Please know that I stand committed to ensuring Nevada counties will continue to receive the full levels of PIL T funding in the years to come.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. If you feel that I can be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

My best wishes to you. Churchill County Agenda Report

Agenda Item: Consent # ___ Date Submitted: February 12, 2014 Agenda Date Requested: February 19, 2014

To: Board of Churchill County Commissioners From: Pamela D. Moore, Deputy Clerk of the Board Subject Title: Consideration and possible action re: Western Counties Alliance provides an update on Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILT).

Type of Action Requested: (check one) (_) Resolution (_) Ordinance (_) Formal Action/Motion (_£C) Other- Informational Only

Does this action require a Business Impact Statement? No

Recommended Board Action: None.

Discussion: Western Counties Alliance-provides an update on Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILT).

Prepared By: Q February 26,2014 Pt ela D. Moore, D puty

Reviewed By: tft;l.D....-vJ-.../ ~ d ~~ Date: ;;l - a& .. ;;2.11) '4 Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County Manager

Date: ,!/L?/1¥ c I I

Date: Alan Kalt, Churchill County Comptroller

(Vote Recorded By)

From: Kenneth Brown [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:57AM To: Undisclosed Recipients Subject: PILT Funding for FY 2014 Attachments: House Farm Vote 2014.pdf; Farm Bill Senate Vote 2014.pdf

Great News!!!! As you are probably aware the Farm Bill of 2014 has passed both the House (251-166) and Senate (68-32) and was signed by President Obama on February 7, 2014 in Lansing, Michigan at Michigan State University. The farm bill will provide $425 million in PILT funding for FY2014, which is an increase over FY2013 funding (post-sequestration). Funding levels in FY2012 were $393 million and $401 million in FY 2013 (after sequestration.) I am attaching a copy of the voting record for both the House and the Senate to this e-mail for your review.

On January 15, 2014, Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ) introduced HR 3879 to the House to make the Paymenst in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program permanent. Bill S1913 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Mark Udall (CO) on January 13, 2014. We will keep you updated with both of these bills as information becomes available.

Western Counties Alliance (WCA) realizes the importance of the PIL T program as it provides for valuable services on public lands such as law enforcement, search and rescue, firefighting and emergency medical services. WCA will continue to work towards making PIL T a permanently funded program.

Best Regards,

Kenneth R. Brown, Executive Director Western Counties Alliance krbrownwca@allwest. net Phone(307)679-3658 Fax (435) 793-5555

1 On January 29, Camp Garamendi Kirkpatrick 2014, the Cantor Garcia Kline House of Capito Gardner Kuster Representatives Capps Gerlach Labrador passed HR 2642, Carney Gibbs LaMalfa the Federal Carson (IN) Gibson Larsen (WA) Agriculture Carter Goodlatte Latham Reform and Risk Cassidy Granger Latta Management Act Castor (FL) Graves (MO) Lipinski of2013 by a vote Chaffetz Griffin (AR) Loebsack of 251-166. Cleaver Griffith (VA) Long Complete House Clyburn Grimm Lucas roll call vote Coble Guthrie Luetkemeyer follows: Cole Hall Lujan Grisham Collins (NY) Hanabusa (NM) ----YEAS 251 Conaway Hanna Lujan, Ben Ray Costa Harper (NM) Aderholt Cramer Hartzler Lummis Bachus Crawford Hastings ( FL) Maffei Barber Crenshaw Hastings (WA) Maloney, Sean Barletta Cuellar Heck (NV) Marchant Barr Culberson Heck(WA) Marino Barrow (GA) Daines Herrera Beutler Massie Barton Davis (CA) Hinojosa Matsui Beatty Davis, Rodney Horsford McAllister Benishek Delaney Hoyer McCarthy (CA) Bera (CA) DelBene Hudson McCaul Bilirakis Denham Huffman McCollum Bishop (GA) Dent Huizenga (MI) McHenry Bishop (NY) Diaz-Balart Hultgren Mcintyre Bishop (UT) Ding ell Hurt McKeon Black Duckworth Iss a McKinley Bonamici Duffy Johnson (GA) McMorris Boustany Ellmers Johnson (OH) Rodgers Brady (TX) Enyart Johnson, E. B. McNerney Braley (fA) Farenthold Johnson, Sam Meadows Brooks (AL) Farr Joyce Meehan Brooks (IN) Fincher Kaptur Messer Brown (FL) Fitzpatrick Kelly (IL) Michaud Brownley (CA) Flores Kelly (PA) Miller (MI) Buchanan Forbes Kildee Mullin Bucshon Foster Kilmer Murphy (FL) Bustos Frankel ( FL) King (IA) Murphy (PA) Butterfield Fudge King (NY) Negrete McLeod Byrne Gabbard Kingston Neugebauer Calvert Gallego Kinzinger (IL) Noem Nolan Sherman Andrews Fleischmann Nugent Shimkus Bachmann Fleming Nunes Shuster Bass Fortenberry Nunnelee Simpson Becerra Foxx Olson Sinema Bentivolio Franks (AZ) Owens Sires Blackburn Frelinghuysen Palazzo Smith (MO) Blumenauer Garrett Paulsen Smith (NE) Brady (PA) Gingrey (GA) Pearce Smith (NJ) Bridenstine Gohmert Pelosi Smith (TX) Broun (GA) Gosar Perlmutter Southerland Burgess Gowdy Peters (MI) Stewart Capuano Graves (GA) Peterson Stivers Cardenas Grayson Petri Terry Cartwright Green, AI Poe (TX) Thompson (CA) Castro (TX) Green, Gene Price (NC) Thompson (MS) Chabot Grijalva Rahal! Thompson (PA) Chu Gutierrez Reed Thornberry Cicilline Hahn Reichert Tiberi Clark (MA) Harris Renacci Tonka Clarke (NY) Hensarling Ribble Turner Coffman Higgins Rice (SC) Upton Cohen Himes Richmond Valadao Collins (GA) Holding Rigell Vela Connolly Holt Roby Wagner Conyers Honda Roe (TN) Walberg Cook Huelskamp Rogers (AL) Walden Cooper Hunter Rogers (KY) Walorski Cotton Israel Rogers (MI) Walz Courtney Jackson Lee Rokita Wasserman Crowley Jeffries Rooney Schultz Cummings Jenkins Ros-Lehtinen Webster (FL) Davis, Danny Jordan Roskam Welch DeFazio Keating Ross Whitfield DeGette Kennedy Runyan Wilson (SC) DeLaura Kind Ryan (WI) Wittman DeSantis Lamborn Schneider Wolf DesJarlais Lance Schock Womack Deutch Langevin Schrader Woodall Doggett Lankford Schwartz Yoho Duncan (SC) Larson (CT) Scott (VA) Young (AK) Duncan (TN) Lee (CA) Scott, Austin Young (IN) Ellison Levin Scott, David Engel Lewis Sessions ----NAYS 166 Eshoo LoBiondo Sewell (AL) Esty Lofgren Shea-Porter A mash Fattah Lowenthal Lowey Schiff Maloney, Carolyn Schweikert Matheson Sensenbrenner McClintock Serrano McDermott Slaughter McGovern Smith (WA) Meeks Speier Meng Stockman Mica Stutzman Miller, Gary Swalwell (CA) Miller, George Takano Moore Tierney Mulvaney Titus Nadler Tsang as Napolitano Van Hollen Neal Vargas O'Rourke Veasey Pallone Velazquez Pascrell Visclosky Pastor (AZ) Waters Payne Waxman Perry Weber (TX) Peters (CA) Wenstrup Pingree (ME) Williams Pittenger Wilson (FL) Pitts Yarmuth Poean Yoder Polis Pompeo ----NOT Posey VOTING 14 --- Price (GA) Quigley Amodei Rangel Campbell Rohrabacher Clay Rothfus Doyle Roybal-Allard Edwards Royce Jones Ruiz Lynch Ryan (OH) McCarthy (NY) Salmon Miller (FL) Sanchez, Linda T. Moran Sanchez, Loretta Ruppersberger Sanford Rush Sarbanes Tipton Scalise Westmoreland Schakowsky On February 4, 2014, the Senate voted 68-32 in favor of the conference report to accompany HR 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. Complete Senate roll call vote follows:

YEAs ---68 Alexander (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Mikulski (D-MD) Baldwin (D-WI) Hagan (D-NC) Moran (R-KS) Baucus (D-MT) Harkin (D-IA) Murray (D-WA) Begich (O-AK) Hatch (R-UT) Nelson (D-FL) Bennet (D-CO) Heinrich (D-NM) Portman (R-OH) Blunt (R-MO) Heitkamp (D-ND) Pryor (D-AR) Boozman (R-AR) Hirano (D-HI) Reid (D-NV) Boxer (D-CA) Hoeven (R-ND) Risch (R-ID) Brown (D-OH) Isakson (R-GA) Rockefeller (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Johanns (R-NE) Sanders (1-VT) Cardin (D-MD) Johnson (D-SD) Schatz (D-HI) Carper (D-OE) Kaine (O-VA) Schumer (D-NY) Chambliss (R-GA) King (I-ME) Shaheen (D-NH) Coats (R-IN) Kirk (R-IL) Stabenow (D-MI) Cochran (R-MS) Klobuchar (D-MN) Tester (D-MT) Coons (D-DE) Landrieu (D-LA) Thune (R-SD) Crapo (R-ID) Leahy (D-VT) Udall (D-CO) Donnelly (D-IN) Levin (D-MI) Udall (D-NM) Durbin (O-IL) Manchin (D-WV) Vitter (R-LA) Enzi (R-WY) McCaskill (D-MO) Warner (D-VA) Feinstein (D-CA) McConnell (R-KY) Wicker (R-MS) Fischer (R-NE) Menendez (D-NJ) Wyden (D-OR) Franken (D-MN) Merkley (D-OR)

NAYs ---32 Ayotte (R-N H) Flake (R-AZ) Paul (R-KY) Barrasso (R-WY) Gillibrand (D-NY) Reed (D-RI) Blumenthal (O-CT) Grassley (R-IA) Roberts (R-KS) Booker (D-NJ) Heller (R-NV) Rubio (R-FL) Burr (R-NC) lnhofe (R-OK) Scott (R-SC) Casey (D-PA) Johnson (R-WI) Sessions (R-AL) Coburn (R-OK) Lee (R-UT) Shelby (R-AL) Collins (R-ME) Markey (D-MA) Toomey (R-PA) Corker (R-TN) McCain (R-AZ) Warren (D-MA) Cornyn (R-TX) Murkowski (R-AK) Whitehouse (D-RI) Cruz (R-TX) Murphy (O-CT} ...... ______

Kelly G. Helton Churchill County Clerk/Treasurer

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT JANUARY 2014

Fund Balance 43,234,170.36 Unapportioned Items: Property Taxes 0.00 Personal Property Taxes 0.00

Total $43,234,170.36

Cash in Bank: Property Sales Proceeds 79,277.29 Wells Fargo Checking -Genco 13,090,091.20 Wells Fargo -Water & Sewer 14,999.77 Wells Fargo - CC Communications 6,368,834.80 Cash on Hand 3,255.00 Investments 23,677,712.30

Total $43,234,170.36

January 2014 Bank Reconciliation was completed February 12, 2014.

I, Kelly G. Helton, Churchill County Treasurer, State of Nevada, do hereby certify that the above are t ~~e and correct st tements.

(:_ elly G. Helton Churchill County

Subscribed and sworn to me this ___ day of ______2014.

Alan F. Kalt Churchill County Comptroller

www.churchillcounty.org - [email protected] 155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110, Fallon, NV 89406-2763 - Phone: (775) 423-6028 - Fax: (775) 423-7069 Churchill County, Nevada, is an eql11li opportunity provider and employer. Report NO: TR2085 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Page 1 Run : 02/11/14 16:41:40 TREASURER"S ACCOUNTING FUND BALANCE SUMMARY FOR 01/2014

ACT TP DESCRIPTION BEGINNING BAL RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS OTHER BALANCE PBA FUND BAL DIFFERENCE

001 B GENERAL COUNTY CASH 34,537,921 . 48 7,738,010 . 03 4,430,602 . 65- .00 37,845,328.86 . 00

119 B DEFERRED COMP/CASH A 2,082,537 . 27 . 00 .00 .oo<(_2,082,537 . 27) .00

120 B CHILD SUPPORT BANK A .00 . 00 . 00 .oo .oJ' .00 130 B TELEPHONE BANK ACCT 2,407,804.11 .00 . 00 . 00 2 , 407,804 . 11 . 00

140 B CC CELLULAR BANK ACC 2,532,794 . 87 . 00 . 00 . 00 2,532,794 . 87 . 00

150 B CC COMMUNICTNS BANK 448,242 . 52 .00 . 00 .00 448,242 . 52 .00 **SUBTOTAL** 42,009,300 . 25 7,738,010.03 4,430,602.65- . 00 45,316,707 . 63 4~,z.?yt/( o, '3(p 100 F GENERAL FUND 6,068,870.67- 2,604,345 . 97- 1,571,362 . 16 . 00 7,101,854 . 48- 7,101,854.48 ----- 101 F STABILIZATION/OPER . F 1,582,431 . 20- 461.01- . 00 . 00 1,582,892.21- 1,582,892.21

201 F FORFEITURE-SEIZED AS 118,959 . 63- 573.48- 2,091 . 35 . 00 117,441 . 76- 117,441 . 76

210 F ROAD FUND 495,268.08- 269,010 . 93 - 209,695.18 .00 554,583.83- 554,583.83

211 F ROAD IMPACT FUND 308,487 . 13- 104 . 44- .00 . 00 308,591 . 57- 308,591.57

220 F INDIGENT FUND 2,016,514.35- 241,556.54- 198,729 . 56 . 00 2,059,341.33- 2,059,341 . 33

230 F AG EXTENSION 261,655.17 - 40,991.19- 17,180.6 3 . 00 285,465 . 73 - 285,465 . 73

240 F PUBLIC LIBRARY 1,097,573 . 26- 134,017 . 11 - 35,667.3 2 . 00 1,195,923.05- 1,195,923 . 05

245 F PARKS AND RECREATION 998,455 . 26 - 57,321 . 28- 82,416.95 . 00 973,359.59- 973,359.59

246 F RESIDENT CONST TAX-P 252,476 . 98 - 73.55- . 00 . 00 252,550 . 53- 252,550 . 53

250 F CEMETERY BEAUTIFICAT 28,933 . 36 - 8.43- .00 . 00 28,941.79- 28,941.79

260 F INDIGENT GIFT/DONATI 50,076 . 49- 74.59- 30 . 00 .00 50,121 . 08 - 50,121.08

270 F LAW LIBRARY 80,201.88- 788 . 58- 3,158.35 .00 77,832.11- 77,832 . 11

280 F REGIONAL TRANSPORTAT 702 , 184 . 12- 59,055 . 79 - 8,000.00 . 00 753,239 . 91- 753,239.91

310 F TECHNOLOGY FEE 423,957 . 12 - 95,463.08 - 19,100 . 38 . 00 500,319 . 82- 500,319.82

311 F E-911 SYSTEM FUND 27,801.66- 6,252 . 16- 3,627 .9 7 .00 30,425.85 - 30,425.85

320 F LIBRARY GIFT FUND 674,648 . 44- 219 . 91- . 00 . 00 674,868 . 35 - 674,868 . 35

330 F RISK MANAGEMENT 1,068,438 . 44- 2 9,270 . 08- 31,148.10 . 00 1,066,560 . 42 - 1,066,560.42

340 F COMPENSATED ABSENCES 566,252.75 - 17 2 .81- 72 ,393 . 77 . 00 494,031.79- 494 , 031.79

350 F UNEMPLOYMNT COMPENSA 340 , 590 . 77 - 101 . 11- .00 . 00 340,691.88 - 340 , 691 . 88 Report No: TR2085 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Page 2 Run: 02/11/14 16:41 : 40 TREASURER"S ACCOUNTING FUND BALANCE SUMMARY FOR 01/2014

ACT TP DESCRIPTION BEGINNING BAL RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS OTHER BALANCE PBA FUND BAL DIFFERENCE

365 F RESTITUTION/GRAFFITI 52,145.82 - 2,697.03- 3, 991.09 . 00 50,851.76- 50,851.76

367 F DISTRICT COURT SECUR 23,818.01- 1,026.78- 4,999 . 00 .00 19,845.79- 19,845 . 79

370 F ADMIN ASSESSMENT FUN 30,402.76 - 2,940.00- .00 .00 33,342 . 76- 33,342.76

380 F WATER RESOURCE FUND 623,497.16- 14,733.95- 36,693 . 21 . 00 601,537 . 90- 601,537 . 90

385 F INFRASTRUCTURE TAX F 1,108,473.73- 307.15- .00 . 00 1,108,780.88- 1,108,780.88

390 F RECREATION DONATIONS 90,913.40- 610.52- 112.60 .00 91,411 . 32- 91,411.32

391 F DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 770 . 00- 385.00- 435 .00 .00 720.00- 720.00

393 F INDIG HOSPITAL CARE- 20,311.86- 30,016.84- 20,311.86 .00 30,016 . 84- 30,016.84

394 F INDIGENT MEDICAL CAR 1,800,153 .63 - 121,021.59- 29,145.48 .00 1,892 ,029. 74- 1,892,029.74

395 F PUBLIC TRANSIT 837,336 . 08- 248.67- 220,332.47 . 00 617,252.28- 617,252.28

396 F SR CIT AD VALOREM LE .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 .00

397 F ONE CENT FUEL EXCISE 125,320 . 51- 4,339.54- 3,728.80 .00 125,931.25- 125,931.25

398 F FAIRGROUNDS SALE PRO 423,456 . 34- 122.19- .00 .00 423,578 . 53- 423,578 . 53

399 F HOSPITAL SUPPORT FUN . 00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 .00

400 F COUNTY DEBT SERVICE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00

510 F BUILDING RESERVE 1,724,675.15- 11,935 . 21- .00 .00 1,736,610.36- 1,736,610.36

515 F CAPITOL PROJECTS TX 1,307,134.88- 100,699.96- 15 ,400 .20 . 00 1,392,434 .6 4- 1,392,434 . 64

520 F EXTRA ORDINARY REPAI 610,181 . 78- 6,976.93- 3,769.00 .00 613,389.71- 613,389.71

525 F FIRE EQUIPMENT APPAR 570,140 . 42- 61,302.03- .00 . 00 631,442 . 45- 631,442.45

530 F ROAD EQUIP REPLACEME 504,720 . 09- 2,653.88- 3 , 923.90 .00 5 03,450 .0 7- 503,450.07

710 F CHC TELEPHONE OPS - 5,355,563 . 46- 227.74- .00 .00 5,355,791 . 20- 5,355,791.20

720 F TELCO/C . C. CELLULAR 3,465,251.79- . 00 . 00 .00 3,465,251 . 79- 3,465,251.79

730 F CHC TEL CTRL OFF-T & 467,739.52- .00 . 00 . 00 467,739 . 52- 467,739.52

760 F WATER UTILITY ENTERP 792,436 . 02- 25 ,213 . 23- 15,774.61 . 00 801,874 .6 4- 801,874 . 64

770 F WASTE WATER FUND 697,433.60- 28,870.83- 26,879.05 . 00 699,425.38- 699,425.38

780 F CHURCHILL CO GOLF CO 150,303.51 .00 . 00 .00 150,303 . 51 150,303 . 51-

811 F CCSD OPERATING - T&A 524,211 .3 8- 1,506,674.20- 524 '211. 38 .00 1,506,674 .2 0- 1,506,674.20 Report No: TR2085 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Page 3 Run: 02/11/14 16:41 : 40 TREASURER"S ACCOUNTING FUND BALANCE SUMMARY FOR 01/2014

ACT TP DESCRIPTION BEGINNING BAL RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS OTHER BALANCE PBA FUND BAL DIFFERENCE

812 F CCSD DEBT SERVICE- 384,400 . 95- 1,104,848.51 - 384,400 . 95 . 00 1,104,848.51- 1,104,848.51

813 F CCSD BUILDING - T&A .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00

814 F CCSD RESIDENTAL CONS 1,782.00- .00 1,782.00 .00 .00 .00

815 F PROPERTY SALES PROCE 79,265.17- 12.12- .00 .00 79,277.29- 79,277.29

820 F DEFERRED COMP PLAN 2,082,537.27- .00 .00 .00 2,082,537.27- 2,082,537.27

822 F LAH.ENVIRONMENTAL AL .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00

823 F SCHOLARSHIP TRUST FU 14,815.30- 4.32- .00 .00 14,819 . 62- 14,819 . 62

825 F MOSQUITO ABATEMENT D 102,109.76- 165,003 . 93- 102,109.76 .00 165,003.93- 165,003 . 93

831 F STATE OF NEVADA- T& 251,568.06- 425,927.92- 309,089.09 .00 368,406.89- 368,406.89

832 F CITY OF FALLON- T&A 230,794.65- 278,373 . 43- 230,794.65 .00 278,373.43- 278,373 . 43

833 F STATE FISH & GAME - 3,454.60- .00 111.94 .00 3,342.66- 3,342.66

834 F TCID - T&A 234,280.02- 353,676 . 88- 234,280.02 .00 353,676.88- 353,676.88

835 F CTWD - T&A . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00

836 F RANGE IMPROV # 2 - T 382.00- . 00 .00 .00 382.00- 382.00

837 F RANGE IMPROV # 3 - T .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 . 00

838 F CHILD SUPPORT TRUST .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00

839 F JUSTICE COURT TRUST- 51,470 . 95- 18,312 . 22- 2,795.00 . 00 66,988 . 17- 66,988 . 17

840 F RANGE IMPR . #6 T&A .00 . 00 . 00 .00 .00 .00

841 F MISCELLANEOUS TRUST- 2,016 . 82 - .00 .00 . 00 2,016.82- 2,016 . 82

842 F RECORDER TRUST 117,890 . 54- 68,284 . 89 .00 .00 49,605 . 65- 49, 6 05.65

846 F COURT CLERK'S TRUST- 282. 971.52- 2,729 . 72 92 9. 8 7 . 00 279.311.93- 279,311.93

**SUBTOTAL** 42,009,300.25 - 7,738,010.03- 4,430,602.65 . 00 45,316,707.63-

TOTAL . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Report No : TR2084 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Page 1 Run : 02/11/14 16 : 41:49 TREASURER"S ACCOUNTING FUND BALANCE SUMMARY THROUGH 01/2014

ACT TP DESCRIPTION FYR BEGIN BAL RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS OTHER BALANCE PBA FUND BAL DIFFERENCE

001 B GENERAL COUNTY CASH 32,580,078 . 34 32,402,525.61 19 , 304 , 068.93- 7,833,206 . 16- 37,845,328.86 .00

119 B DEFERRED COMP/CASH A 2,082,537.27 . 00 .00 .00 ~082,537.27~ .00

120 B CHILD SUPPORT BANK A .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00

130 B TELEPHONE BANK ACCT 2,407,804.11 . 00 .00 .00 2,407,804.11 .00

140 B CC CELLULAR BANK ACC 2,532,794 . 87 .00 .00 . 00 2,532,794 . 87 .00 150 B CC COMMUNICTNS BANK 448,242.52 .00 .00 . 00 448,242.52 . 00 **SUBTOTAL** 40,051,457.11 32,402,525.61 19,304,068 .93- 7,833,206.16- 45,316,707.63 ~2-34;l{O,3(o ---;../ 100 F GENERAL FUND 5,948,888.36- 12,241,761.45- 4,782,071.49 6,306,723.84 7,101,854.48- 7,101,854.48

101 F STABILIZATION/OPER . F 1,579,917.02- 2,975 . 19 - . 00 . 00 1,582,892.21- 1,582,892 . 21

201 F FORFEITURE-SEIZED AS 73,131.78- 53,785.47- 9,475.49 .00 117,441.76- 117,441 .76

210 F ROAD FUND 343,432.3 7- 1,747,295.72- 874,150 . 61 661,993.65 554,583.83- 554,583.83

211 F ROAD IMPACT FUND 470,895.49- 162,303.92 .00 . 00 308,591.57- 308,591 . 57

220 F INDIGENT FUND 2,019,802 . 37- 978,642.00- 788,616 . 54 150,486.50 2,059,341.33- 2,059,341.33

230 F AG EXTENSION 264,989.87- 121,835.33- 61,122.43 40,237.04 285,465.73- 285,465.73

240 F PUBLIC LIBRARY 1,072,719 . 68 - 417,348 . 47- 118,156.01 175,989.09 1,195,923.05- 1,195,923 . 05

245 F PARKS AND RECREATION 1,088,782 . 59- 579,088 . 65- 264,575.26 429,936.39 973,359.59- 973,359.59

246 F RESIDENT CONST TAX-P 249,621.47- 3,471.12- 542.06 .00 252,550.53- 252,550.53

250 F CEMETERY BEAUTIFICAT 30,633.13- 56 . 61- 1,747.95 .00 28,941.79- 28,941.79

260 F INDIGENT GIFT/DONATI 49,894 . 72- 1,439.10- 1,212 . 74 . 00 50,121.08- 50,121.08

270 F LAW LIBRARY 90,577.16- 5,352 . 61- 18,097 .66 .00 77,832.11- 77,832.11

28 0 F REGIONAL TRANSPORTAT 1,303,228 . 07- 8,011.84- 558,000.00 . 00 753,239.91- 753,239.91

310 F TECHNOLOGY FEE 469,420 . 35- 135,015 . 16- 104,115 . 69 .00 500,319.82- 500,319.82

311 F E-911 SYSTEM FUND 25,451.67- 45,371 . 56- 40,397.38 . 00 30,425.85- 30,425.85

320 F LIBRARY GIFT FUND 651,706.75- 27,976 . 89- 4,815.29 .00 674,868.35- 674,868.35

330 F RISK MANAGEMENT 1,091,705.44- 45,030 . 28- 70,175.30 . 00 1,066,560.42- 1,066,560.42

340 F COMPENSATED ABSENCES 686,476.44- 25,206.76- 149,811.76 67,839 .6 5 494,031.79- 494,031.79

350 F UNEMPLOYMNT COMPENSA 365,752. 70- 672.23- 25,733.05 .00 340,691.88- 340,691.88 Report No: TR2084 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Page 2 Run: 02/11/14 16:41:49 TREASURER"S ACCOUNTING FUND BALANCE SUMMARY THROUGH 01/2014

ACT TP DESCRIPTION FYR BEGIN BAL RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS OTHER BALANCE PBA FUND BAL DIFFERENCE

365 F RESTITUTION/GRAFFITI 52,000 . 88- 19,925 . 85- 21,074 . 97 . 00 50 , 851 . 76- 50,851.76

367 F DISTRICT COURT SECUR 17,953.81- 6,956.98- 5,065 . 00 . 00 19,845 . 79- 19,845.79

370 F ADMIN ASSESSMENT FUN 6,800 . 76- 26,54 2. 00- .00 . 00 33,342 . 76- 33,342.76

380 F WATER RESOURCE FUND 609,665.14- 216,950.07- 225,077.31 .00 601,537 . 90- 601,537.90

385 F INFRASTRUCTURE TAX F 938,565.48- 557,489.90- 387,274.50 .00 1,108,780.88- 1,108,780.88

390 F RECREATION DONATIONS 88,932.87- 9,439 . 80- 6,961 . 35 . 00 91,411 . 32- 91,411 . 32

391 F DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 970 . 00- 3,155.00- 3,405.00 . 00 720 . 00- 720 . 00

393 F INDIG HOSPITAL CARE- 5,123.19- 90,359.28- 65,465.63 . 00 30,016 . 84- 30,016 . 84

394 F INDIGENT MEDICAL CAR 1,597,399 . 33- 366,630.71- 72,000.30 . 00 1,892,029 . 74- 1,892,029.74

395 F PUBLIC TRANSIT 1,146 , 773.36- 235,114.48 294,406 . 60 .00 617,252 . 28- 617,252 .2 8

396 F SR CIT AD VALOREM LE . 00 8 . 99- 8 . 99 . 00 . 00 . 00

397 F ONE CENT FUEL EXCISE 120,356.97- 32,730 . 83- 27,156.55 .00 125,931 . 25- 125,931.25

398 F FAIRGROUNDS SALE PRO 411,976 . 16- 11,602 . 37- . 00 . 00 423,578 . 53- 423,578.53

399 F HOSPITAL SUPPORT FUN . 00 .00 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00

400 F COUNTY DEBT SERVICE . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00

510 F BUILDING RESERVE 1,432,841.34- 303,769 . 02- . 00 . 00 1,736 , 610 . 36 - 1,736,610 . 36

515 F CAPITOL PROJECTS TX 1,198 , 283.32 - 303,111 . 04- 108,959.72 .00 1,392,434 . 64- 1,392,434 . 64

520 F EXTRA ORDINARY REPAI 593,972 . 41- 63,586. 3 0 - 44,169.00 . 00 613,389.71- 613,389 . 71

525 F FIRE EQUIPMENT APPAR 449,585.18- 183,352.50- 1,495 . 23 . 00 631,442 . 45- 631,442.45

530 F ROAD EQUIP REPLACEME .00 509,173 . 97- 5,723.90 . 00 503,450.07- 503,450 . 07

710 F CHC TELEPHONE OPS - 5,353 , 819 . 05- 1,972.15- . 00 . 00 5,355,791.20- 5,355,791 . 20

720 F TELCO/C.C. CELLULAR 3,465,251.79- .00 . 00 . 00 3 , 465,251 . 79- 3,465,251 . 79

730 F CHC TEL CTRL OFF- T & 467,739 . 52 - . 00 . 00 .00 467,739 . 52- 467,739 . 52

760 F WATER UTILITY ENTERP 755 , 277 . 53- 161,304.65- 114,707 . 54 . 00 801,874 . 64- 801,874 . 64

770 F WASTE WATER FUND 655,165 . 84- 203,800 . 09 - 159 , 540.55 .00 699,425 . 38- 699,425.38

780 F CHURCHILL CO GOLF CO 202,957 . 51 52,654 . 00- . 00 . 00 150,303.51 150,303 . 51-

811 F CCSD OPERATING - T&A 129,498 . 30- 4,560,4 32.10- 3,183, 2 56 . 20 .00 1 , 506,674.20 - 1,506,674.20 Report No: TR2084 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Page 3 Run: 02/11/14 16 : 41 :4 9 TREASURER"S ACCOUNTING FUND BALANCE SUMMARY THROUGH 01/2014

ACT TP DESCRIPTION FYR BEGIN BAL RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS OTHER BALANCE PBA FUND BAL DIFFERENCE

812 F CCSD DEBT SERVICE - 90,758 .9 4- 3,306,177.61 - 2,292,088.04 .00 1,104,848.51- 1,104,848.51

813 F CCSD BUILDING - T&A .00 . 00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00

814 F CCSD RESIDENTAL CONS . 00 2,673.00 - 2,673 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00

815 F PROPERTY SALES PROCE 79,193.67- 83.62- . 00 . 00 79,277.29- 79,277.29

820 F DEFERRED COMP PLAN 2,082,537 . 27- . 00 . 00 . 00 2,082,537.27- 2,082,537.27

822 F LAH.ENVIRONMENTAL AL . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00

823 F SCHOLARSHIP TRUST FU 10,699 . 96- 6,824 .6 5- 2 , 704.99 . 00 14,819 .62- 14,819.62

825 F MOSQUITO ABATEMENT D 63 , 976.09- 647,400.62- 546,372 . 78 .00 165,003.93- 165,003 .93

831 F STATE OF NEVADA - T& 32,293.06- 1,385,069 . 12- 1 , 048,955 .29 .00 368,406.89- 368,406.89

832 F CITY OF FALLON - T&A 28,140.79- 1,241 , 810.70- 991,578 . 06 .00 278,373.43- 278,373.43

833 F STATE FISH & GAME - 4,547 . 17- . 00 1,204 .5 1 . 00 3,342.66- 3,342.66

834 F TCID - T&A 5,751 . 53 - 2,131,000.72- 1,783,075.37 . 00 353,676.88- 353,676.88

835 F CTWD - T&A .0 0 .00 .0 0 . 00 .00 .0 0

836 F RANGE IMPROV # 2 - T 2,382.00- .00 2,000.00 . 00 382.00- 382.00

837 F RANGE IMPROV # 3 - T . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00

838 F CHILD SUPPORT TRUST . 00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 . 00

839 F JUSTICE COURT TRUST- 53,276.76- 42,495.11 - 28,783.70 .00 66,988.17- 66 , 988.17

840 F RANGE IMPR . #6 T&A 143. 2 7- .00 143.27 . 00 .00 .00

841 F MISCELLANEOUS TRUST- 2 ,01 6.82- . 00 . 00 .00 2,016.82- 2,016.82

842 F RECORDER TRUST 138,199.25- 88,593.60 .00 . 00 49,605 . 65- 49,605 .6 5

846 F COURT CLERK ' S TRUST- 285,518.38- 281.58 5,924.87 .00 279,311.93- 279,311.93 ------**SUBTOTAL** 40,051,457.11- 32,402,525.61- 19 ,3 04,068 .93 7,833,206 . 16 45,316,707.63-

TOTAL . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 Report NO: TR2100 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TRBASURBR Page 1 Run , 02/11/14 16,42,41 TREASURBR~S ACCOUNTING MONTHLY BALANCING SHBBT FOR 01/2014

ACT DESCRIPTION BAL. FORWARD RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS ~ JOURN VOUCHBRS TRANSFERS IN TRANSFERS OUT BNDING BALANCB 001 GENERAL COUNTY CASH 34,537,921.48 7. 738.010.03 3,399,796 . 54- 1,030,806.11- .00 .00 .00 37,845,328.86 2 , 082,537 . 27 119 DEFBRRBD COMP/CASH ACCT. 2,082,537.27 .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 120 CHILD SUPPORT BANK ACCT .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00. 00 2,407,804 . 11 130 TELEPHONB BANK ACCT 2,407,804.11 .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 140 CC CELLULAR BANK ACCT 2,532,794.87 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 2,532,794.87 150 CC COMMUNICTNS BANK ACCT 448,242.52 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 448,242.52 100 GBNERAL FUND 6. 068,870.67- 2,604,345.97- 740,585.43 830,776.73 .00 .00 . 00 7,101,85 4 .48- 101 STABILIZATION/OPBR . FUND 1,582,431.20- 461.01- .00 . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 1,582,892.21- 201 FORFBITURE-SEIZBD ASSBT 118,959 . 63 - 573 . 48- 2,091.35 .00 .00 . 00 .00 117.441.76- 210 ROAD FUND 495,268.08- 269,010.93- 121,054 . 23 88,640.95 . 00 .00 .00 554,583.83- 211 ROAD IMPACT FUND 308,487 . 13- 104.44- .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 308,591.57- 220 INDIGBNT FUND 2,016,514.35- 241,556.54- 178,449.06 20,280.50 .00 .00 . 00 2,059,341.33- 3 0 AG 40,991.19- 11,893.90 5,286.73 .00 .00 285,465.73- 2 EXTENSION 261, 655. 17- .00 240 PUBLIC LIBRARY 1,097.573.26- 134,017.11- 12,734 . 74 22,932.58 .00 .00 .00 1,195,923.05- 973,359.59- 245 PARKS AND RECREATION 998.455. 26 - 57,321 . 28- 33.428.36 48,988.59 .00 .00 .00 252,476.98- 73.55- .00 .00 .00 252,550.53- 246 RBSIDENT CONST TAX-PARKS .00 .00 250 CEMETERY BEAUTIFICATION 28,933.36 - 8.43- .00 .00 .00 28,941.79 - .00 .00 50,121.08- 260 INDIGENT GIFT/DONATIONS 50,076.49- 74.59- 30.00 .00 .00 .00 77,832 . 11- 270 LAW' LIBRARY 80,201 . 88 - 788.58- 3,158.35 .00 .00 .00 280 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION 702. 184 . 12- 59,055.79- 8, 000.00 .00 .00 .00 753,239.91- .00 500,319.82 - 310 TECHNOLOGY FEB 423,957.12- 95 , 463.08- 19,100.38 .00 .00 .00 311 B-911 SYSTEM FUND 27.801.66- 6,252.16- 3 , 627.97 .00 .00 30,425.85- .00 .00 320 LIBRARY GIFT FUND 674,648.44- 219.91- .00 .00 .00 .00 674,868 . 35- 330 RISK MANAGBMBNT 1,068,438.44- 29,270.08- 31,148 . 10 .00 .00 .00 . 00 1,066,560.42 - 340 COMPENSATED ABSENCES 566,252.75- 172.81- 58,493.74 13,900.03 .00 .00 .00 494,031.79- 350 UNBMPLOYMNT COMPENSATION 340,590.77- 101.11- .00 .00 .00 .00 340,691 . 88- .00 50,851.76- 365 RESTITUTION/GRAFFITI FND 52,145.82- 2,697.03- 3,991.09 . 00 .00. 00 .00 1,026.78- 4,999.00 .00 .00 .00 19,845.79- 367 DISTRICT COURT SECURITY 23,818.01- .00 .00 370 ADMIN ASSESSMENT FUND 30,402.76- 2. 940.00- .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 33,342 . 76- 3 8 0 WATBR RBSOURCB FUND 623,497.16- 14,733.95- 36,693.21 . 00 . 00 .00 .00 601,537.90- 385 INFRASTRUCTURE TAX FUND 1,108,473.73- 307.15- .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 1,108,780.88- . 00 . 00 91, 41.1. 32 - 390 RECREATION DONATIONS 901 913 o 40- 610.52- 112.60 .00 .00 . 00 720.00- 391 DOMBSTIC VIOLENCE 770.00- 385.00- 435.00 .00 .00 .00 393 INDIG HOSPITAL CARB-MVA 20,311.86- 30,016.84- 20.311.86 .00 . 00 30,016.84 - .00 .00 394 INDIGBNT MEDICAL CARE 1,800,153.63- 121,021.59- 29,145.48 .oo .00 .00 1,892,029.74- 395 PUBLIC TRANSIT 837,336.08- 248.67- 220,332.47 .00 . 00 .00 .00 617,252 . 28 - 396 SR CIT AD VALOREM LEVY .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ONE FUEL TAX - 4,339.54 - 3 , 728.80 .00 .00 .00 125,931.25- 397 CENT BXCISB 125,320.51 .00 .00 398 FAIRGROUNDS SALB PROCBBD 423,456 . 34 - 122.19- .00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00 423,578.53- 399 HOSPITAL SUPPORT FUNDS . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 400 COUNTY DEBT SERVICE .00 .00 . 00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 510 BUILDING RBSBRVB 1,724,675.15- 11 , 935.21- .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,736,610.36- 100,699.96 - 15,400.20 .00 . 00 1,392,434.64- 515 CAPITOL PROJBCTS TX LBVY 1,307,134.88- .00 .00 520 EXTRA ORDINARY REPAIR 610,181.78- 6,976.93 - 3,769.00 .00 .00 .00 613.389.71- FIRB BQUIPMBNT APPARATUS 570,140.42 - 61,302.03- .00 .00 .00 525 .00 .00 631,442.45- 530 ROAD EQUIP REPLACEMENT 504,720.09- 2,653.88- 3,923.90 .00 . 00 .00 503,450.07- 710 CHC TBLBPHONB OPS - T&A 5,355,563.46 - 227.74- .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 5,355,791.20- 720 TBLCO/C.C. CBLLULAR 3,465,251.79- .00 .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 3,465,251.79- CHC 467,739.52- .00 .00 467,739.52- 730 TBL CTRL OFF-T & A .00 .00 .00 .00 760 WATBR UTILITY BNTERPRISB 792,436.02- 25,213 . 23- 15,774.61 .00 .00 .00 . 00 801,874.64- 770 WASTB WATBR FUND 697,433.60- 28,870 . 83- 26,879.05 .00 699,425.38- .00 .00 .00 780 CHURCHILL CO GOLF CO 150,303.51 .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 150,303.51 811 CCSD OPERATING - T&A 524,211.. 38 - 1,506,674.20 - 524 , 211.38 .00 .00 . 00 1,506,674.20- .00 812 CCSD DBBT SBRVICB - T&A 384.400.95- 1,104,848.51- 384,400.95 .00 . 00 .00 1 , 104,848.51- .00 Report No: TR2100 CHURCHILL COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Page Run : 02/11/14 16 : 42 : 41 TREASURER'S ACCOUNTING MONTHLY BALANCING SHEET FOR 01/2014

ACT DESCRIPTION BAL . FORWARD RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS PAYROLLS JOURN VOUCHERS TRANS FBRS IN TRANSFERS OUT ENDING BALANCE

813 CCSD BUILDING - T&A . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 . 00 814 CCSD RESIDBNTAL CONST TAX 1,782 . 00- . 00 1 , 782 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 815 PROPERTY SALES PROCEEDS 79,265.17 - 12 . 12 - . 00 .00 . 00 .00 .0 0 79,277 . 29- 820 DEFBRRBD COMP PLAN 2,082,537 . 27- . 00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 . 00 2,082,537 . 27- 822 LAH.BNVIRONMBNTAL ALLIAN . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 .00 823 SCHOLARSHIP TRUST FUND 14. 815.30- 4 . 32- .00 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 14,819 . 62 - 825 MOSQUITO ABATBMBNT DIST . 102,109.76- 165,003 . 93- 102,109 . 76 .00 . 00 .00 .00 165,003 . 93- 831 STATB OF NEVADA - T&A 251,568.06- 42 5 ,927 . 92 - 3 09. 089 . 09 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 368.406 . 89- 832 CITY OF FALLON - T&A 23 0,794.65 - 278,373.43- 2 30,794.65 . 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 278,373.43- 833 STATE FISH & GAME - T&A 3,454.60- .00 111 . 94 . 00 .00 .00 .00 3,342.66- 834 TCID - T&A 234,280 . 02 - 353,676 . 88- 23 4.280.02 . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 353. 676 . 88- 835 CTWD - T&A .00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 836 RANGE IMPROV # 2 - T&A 382.00 - . 00 .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 382 . 00 - 837 RANGE IMPROV # 3 - T&A .00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 838 CHILD SUPPORT TRUST T&A . 00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 839 JUSTICE COURT TRUST- T&A 51,470.95- 18,312.22- 2,795.00 .00 . 00 . 00 . 00 66,988.17 - 840 RANGE IMPR . #6 T&A .00 . 00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 .00 .00 841 MISCBLLANBOUS TRUST-T&A 2, 016.8 2- .00 . 00 .00 . 00 .0 0 . 00 2,016.82- 842 RECORDER TRUST 117,890.54- 68,284 . 89 .00 . 00 . 00 .00 . 00 49,605 .6 5 - 846 COURT CLBRK1 S TRUST-T&A 282,971.52- 2,729.72 929.87 . 00 .00 .00 . 00 279,311.93 -

TOTAL ALL FUNDS 42,009,300.25- 7,738,010.03- 3,399,796.54 1,030,806.11 . 00 .00 .00 45,316,70 7 .63 - WELLS FARGO CHECKING- GENERAL COUNTY ACCOUNT

BANK RECONCILIATION RECAP January-14

BANK STATEMENT TRIAL BALANCE

01/31/2014 Ending Balance $13,725,093.12 01/31/2014 Ending Balance $13,090,091 .20

Outstanding Checks/Debits (177,061.86) Outstanding Credits 468,553.41

Outstanding Deposits/Credits 10,613.35 Outstanding Debits 0.00

Adjusted Ending Balance $13,558,644.61 Adjusted Ending Balance $13,558,644.61

Prepared by: Linda Rothery February 12, 2014