1

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Geiger Hazardous Fuels Mitigation

DOI-BLM-NV-C020-2019-0022-EA

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Carson City District Sierra Front Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701

775-885-6000 September 2019

2

DOI-BLM-NV-C020-2019-0022-EA

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and

enjoyment of present and future generations.

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Land Management, Carson City District, Sierra Front Field Office (BLM) is proposing a strategic up to 18 acre hazardous fuels (vegetation) mitigation project in the area of Geiger Summit, Storey County, Nevada. The project is on BLM administered public lands in the Virginia Range within the Virginia Highlands, an extensive wildland-urban interface, where vegetative fuels and the built environment meet. The project is part of a nation-wide initiative to help protect communities considered at high risk from wildfire damage. The Virginia Highlands is on the list of at risk communities found in the Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 160 (August 17, 2001) and has been assigned an Extreme Hazard category in the Nevada Community Wildfire/Hazard Assessment Project – Storey County (2005). This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations, to determine potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed hazardous fuels treatment. All maps are located in appendix A. Background Information The urban-interface condition in the Virginia Highlands is intermixed. The community consists of 1,169 one-acre lots clustered in the interior of the subdivision, with 10-acre parcels concentrically located around the one-acre core and 40-acre parcels in the outermost extents of the community. Structures and wildland fuels are not separated by clear lines of demarcation. The BLM administers one 40-acre parcel within the community on which 29 acres of fuels treatment has been completed and over 25,000-acres of the watershed adjacent (downslope, upwind) to the community. Within and adjacent to the community topography is generally steep and vegetation dense and highly flammable. Under warm, dry, and windy weather conditions, the risk of an intense damaging wildfire is high. The BLM, Storey County and local residents are concerned that in the event of an intense wildfire residential areas would be difficult to defend, property damage could be substantial, and the lives of the public and firefighters could be at risk. The Nevada Community Wildfire/Hazard Assessment Project states for the Virginia Highlands, “In the absence of a well-executed and aggressive fuels management plan before fire occurs, virtually all of the vegetation, homes, and people in the path of a crown fire are at risk of destruction, injury and loss of life.” Purpose and Need The purpose and need of the proposed Project is to alter the structure and species composition of vegetation in order to reduce crown fire potential and associated ember production below Nevada State Route 341, a strategic location to keep fire from spreading into the Virginia Highlands from the watershed below, and adjacent to residences on Graves Road, resulting in enhanced public and firefighter safety and reduced risk of wildfire damage to area residences.

4

Land Use Plan Conformance Statement Carson City District Consolidated Resource Management Plan (CRMP), May 2001: The Proposed Action and Alternative described below are in conformance with the Carson City District Consolidated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) (BLM 2001); the proposed fuels treatment is in compliance with the following sections:

FIR-2.1 “Restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem, improve the diversity of vegetation and to reduce fire hazard fuels”

Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, Other Plans and Environmental Analysis Documents The Proposed Action and Alternative are consistent with federal laws and regulations, plans, programs and policies of affiliated tribes, other federal agencies, State and local governments, including, but not limited to, the following:

● The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321et seq.);

● Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1782, October 21,1976, as amended 1978, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990-1992, 1994 and 1996);

● Protecting People and Natural Resources, A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy (2006);● Secretary Order 3336, Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration (2015);

and● Executive Order 13855, Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests,

Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands To Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk(2018)

Decision to Be Made The Authorized Officer would decide whether to implement the fuels treatment as described in the Proposed Action, consisting of 18 acres of public land.

Scoping and Public Involvement The BLM focuses its analysis on issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail (40 CFR 1500.1(b)). Issues have a relationship with the proposed action; are within the scope of analysis; and are amenable to scientific analysis. Issues are identified by internal and public scoping.

This project was reviewed by the BLM Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) through the preliminary review process conducted during internal scoping.

A public scoping period was conducted from July 30 to September 6, 2019. Letters and maps were sent to 120 area property owners, the area homeowners association and the fire department. Two comments were received. One supportive of the project with no issues identified and one opposed to the project due to concern tree cutting would accelerate tree mortality in the area due to insects and disease.

5

2.0 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The previous chapter presented the purpose and need for the proposed hazardous fuels treatment (project). In order to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project in a way that resolves any resource conflicts and issues, the BLM has developed reasonable action alternatives. These alternatives (including a No Action Alternative) are presented below. Proposed Action The Proposed Action would implement a single or combination of treatment methods on up to 18 acres to alter the structure and species composition of vegetation in order to reduce crown fire potential and associated ember production below Nevada State Route 341 and adjacent to residences on Graves Road.

The treatment units have been evaluated to determine the most appropriate treatment methods and resource protection measures based on slope, aspect, terrain, vegetation composition and structure, site accessibility, visual disturbance, and proximity to roads. It is anticipated that the Project would be implemented over a 3-year period; however, the time to complete the Project would ultimately depend on funding and environmental conditions.

Unit A (16 Acres) - Treatment would involve cutting brush and pinyon and juniper trees within an approximately 250 foot wide strip below Nevada State Route 341. Within the 341 right-of-way, approximately 60 feet immediately below the highway, where trees have already been removed, up to 90% of the brush would be thinned. Within the next 100 feet up to 100% of the standing trees would be cut. Within the lowest 90 feet and upper 30 feet below the rocky knob that would not be treated up to 50-75% of the standing trees would be cut (thinned) to blend the treated area into the untreated. The seeding of native species may be conducted as a follow up treatment where residual herbaceous understory compromises treatment effectiveness. Small stream channels would be identified to those crews conducting the treatments so as to minimize stream bank and riparian vegetation impacts.

Unit B (2 Acres) - Treatment would involve cutting pinyon and juniper trees within an approximately 150 foot wide strip adjacent to residences on Graves Road. Approximately 30% of the standing trees would be cut (thinned), targeting the smaller trees, with a goal of 20 foot canopy spacing between individual and/or small groups of trees.

All Units - Removal, chipping or pile burning may be conducted as a follow up treatment to hand cutting in order to manage surface fuel loading. Treatment would only occur October 1 through March 1 to avoid impacts to migratory birds and minimize insect and disease impacts to residual standing trees.

6

Proposed treatment methods:

Hand Cutting: Hand cutting treatments would include cut and lop and/or cut and pile. The treatment would be conducted by personnel on foot using hand tools and chainsaws. Crew size would vary but typically ranges from two to 20 people. Cut trees may be removed by non-mechanical methods, chipped with a mechanical chipper working on an existing road, lopped and scattered and/or piled and burned, based on site evaluation and objectives. Stump height would be less than six inches and any residual biomass would not exceed three feet in depth.

Pile Burning: Pile burning would be considered in order to manage surface fuel loading. The treatment includes the burning of hand-constructed piles of residual biomass (e.g. branches, twigs) resulting from hand cutting. Piles are typically no larger than five feet tall and five feet in diameter. Piles would be scattered within the treatment area, and the number of piles per acre would vary depending on tree density and the treatment prescription. Hand held tools such as flares, drip torches and/or flammable gel packs may be used to ignite piles. Pile burns would be conducted under a burn plan, a site-specific implementation document which is a legal document that provides the agency administrator the information needed to approve the plan and the burn boss with all the information needed to safely and effectively implement the burn. Several factors are considered when determining whether to burn or not and designing a burn plan and implementing a prescribed burn. These factors include location, weather conditions, vegetation types, slope, fuel moisture content, risks to property and structures and potential impacts to air quality and land use. Pile burns would only be conducted in the late fall, winter and spring under low spread potential conditions (e.g. with snow on ground).

Seeding: The seeding of native species may be conducted as a follow up treatment where residual herbaceous understory compromises treatment effectiveness. Seed would be broadcast by hand from on foot. The project would require periodic maintenance to remain effective. Photo monitoring would be conducted periodically to assess changes in treatment effectiveness. When treatment effectiveness is compromised maintenance actions, similar to the Proposed Action, could be initiated.

No Action Alternative In accordance with Chapter VI, Section 6.6.2 of BLM Handbook H-1790-1, this EA evaluates the No Action Alternative, as well. The objective of the evaluation of a No Action Alternative is to describe the environmental consequences that may result if the Proposed Action were not implemented. The No Action Alternative forms the baseline from which the impacts of the Proposed Action can be measured. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no treatments applied and hazardous fuel conditions would continue to accumulate beyond levels representative of the natural (historic) fire regime. The risk of an intense damaging wildfire would remain high.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter identifies and describes the current condition and trend of elements or resources in the human environment which may be affected by the Proposed Action and the anticipated environmental consequences. Per the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations found

7

at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.8, ‘effects’ and ‘impacts’ are synonymous in this EA. Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.

Scoping and Issue Identification In accordance with BLM Handbook H-1790-1 internal scoping was conducted by the SFFO interdisciplinary team (ID) to identify potential resources which may be impacted by implementation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Resources identified by the SFFO ID team as not being present or present but not affected are outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

Resources Considered for Analysis The BLM is required to address specific elements of the environment that are subject to requirements in statute or regulation or by executive order (BLM 2008). Table 1 lists the elements that must be addressed in all environmental analyses and indicates whether the Proposed Action and Alternatives affect those elements. Other resources of the human environment that have been considered for analysis are listed in Table 2. BLM Nevada IM NV-2009-030 (Supplemental Authorities to Consider in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents) provides guidance to BLM District and Field Offices on how supplemental authorities outlined in Appendix 1 of H-1790-1 should be considered in NEPA documents. Attachment 1 to IM NV-2009-030 provides the Supplemental Authorities list as a screening tool for review and documentation of relevant authorities (laws, regulations, executive orders, directives, etc.) in NEPA documents. The Supplemental Authorities list is organized by elements of the human environment; the elements and corresponding legal authorities are collectively referred to as “Supplemental Authorities.” The list expands on Appendix 1 of H-1790-1 to include other legal authorities, with requirements specified by statute or executive order, which must be considered in all Nevada BLM EA documents. The table below lists the Supplemental Authorities, their status in relation to the Proposed Action, and rationale for whether the topic will be carried forward for detailed analysis. Supplemental Authorities determined to not be present or present, but not affected by the Proposed Action need not be carried forward or discussed further. Supplemental Authorities determined to be present and may be affected may be carried forward in the document if there are issues which warrant a detailed analysis.

8

Table 1: Supplemental Authorities

Resource or Issue

Not Present

Present/Not Affected

Present/May be Affected

Rationale

Air Quality X Resource carried forward to analysis.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

X Resource not present.

Cultural Resources X Resource not present Environmental Justice

X Resource not present.

Farm Lands (Prime and Unique)

X Resource not present.

Floodplains X Resource not present. Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Species

X Resource not present.

Migratory Birds X Proposed action restricts treatment to periods outside migratory bird nesting season.

Native American Religious Concerns

X Written communication including a description of the Proposed Action and a map was provided to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California on July 1, 2019. No response was received.

Threatened or Endangered or BLM Sensitive Species (animals)

X Resource not present.

Threatened or Endangered or BLM Sensitive Species (plants)

X Proposed action designed to avoid known BLM special status plant occurrences and soils that could support such plants.

Wastes, Hazardous or Solid

X Resource not present.

Water Quality, Surface/Ground

X Resource not present.

Wetlands/Riparian Zones

X Resource not present.

Wild Horse and Burros

X Resource not present.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

X Resource not present.

Wilderness X Resource not present.

9

Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities BLM specialists have evaluated the potential impact of the Proposed Action or Alternatives on these resources and documented their findings in Table 2. Resources or uses that may be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternatives are further described in this EA (BLM, 2008). Table 2: Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities

Resource or Uses

Not Present

Present/Not Affected

Present/May be Affected

Rationale

General Wildlife X Present not affected. Land Use Authorization

X Resource not present.

Livestock Grazing

X Resource not present.

Geology and Minerals

X Resource not present.

Paleontology X Present not affected. Public Health and Safety

X Resource not present.

Recreation/ Access

X Resource not present.

Socioeconomics X Resource not present. Soils X Present not affected. Travel Management

X Resource not present.

Vegetation/Fire Management

X Resource carried forward to analysis.

Visual Resources

X Present not affected.

Noise X Present not affected. Global Climate Change/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions

X Present not affected.

Resources/Uses Present and Brought Forward for Analysis A BLM IDT consisting of NEPA and Resource Specialists, contributed to this EA. The IDT used various sources of information to prepare the EA, including existing data inventories, and data collected during field visits. The potential impacts to the Supplemental Authorities and resource uses listed in Tables 1 and 2 were evaluated by the IDT to determine if detailed analysis would be necessary. Through this process, the IDT determined there were no resources/uses that warranted a detailed analysis in this EA.

10

Air Quality Affected Environment Air quality regulations for the Project area fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Air Quality (NDEP BAQ). Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and designated six common pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, in order to improve air quality throughout the country. These criteria pollutants are lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. The EPA established standards for each pollutant that must not be exceeded. Areas that exceed a federal air quality standard are designated as nonattainment areas. Nevada has adopted the EPA air quality standards and has the right to establish more stringent state or county standards but may not lessen the federal standards. With minor exceptions, ambient air quality standards must not be exceeded in areas where the general public has access.

The Nevada Bureau of Air Quality Planning operates an ambient air quality network of gaseous and particulate pollutant monitors throughout rural Nevada (those areas outside of Washoe and Clark Counties). Storey County is in attainment for lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, meaning the County adheres to criteria pollutant concentration limits established by the EPA and adopted by the State of Nevada. Environmental Consequences Proposed Action The potential adverse effects on air quality of the Proposed Action are expected to be minor and would be minimized by conformity to established Nevada Bureau of Air Quality protocols. The Proposed Action would result in a localized short-term effect on air quality in the Project vicinity as a result of smoke generated from pile burning and exhaust generated by power tools. The Proposed Action is expected to result in long-term benefits to air quality because of decreased smoke emissions generated during uncontrolled wildfire events. Smoke - The Proposed Action would have minor adverse effects on air quality as a result of pile burning. The expected smoke emissions generated by the proposed pile burning are expected to be dramatically less than those generated by an uncontrolled wildfire event if no fuel reduction actions are taken. Exhaust - The Proposed Action would have minor adverse effects on air quality through the generation of exhaust emissions from power tools such as chainsaws. Emissions generated during implementation are a negligible and short-term, effect on air quality. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no treatments would occur, there would be no effects to air quality from the Proposed Action. In the event of a large-scale wildland fire, during the event air quality in the area would likely be adversely affected.

11

Vegetation/Fire Management Affected Environment The dominate vegetation type within the proposed project area is Great Basin pinyon-juniper. This woodland type is dominated by single leaf pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), with these species either co-dominating the woodland or occurring as a pure or nearly pure stand. Species commonly associated with this vegetation system includes Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) and various grasses and forbs. Project area vegetation has been moderately impacted by historic and modern human disturbances. The natural historic frequency and severity of fire within an ecosystem is the identified Fire Regime. The project area can be characterized by Fire Regime Group III which has a natural historical fire frequency of 35-100+ years and a mixed fire severity. Fire is widely recognized as a natural process influencing vegetation patterns in many mountain landscapes of the western United States including the Virginia Range. In recent history, management policy has been the systematic exclusion of fire, which influences vegetation patterns by removing the influence of the predominant disturbance process. As tree crown cover and density increases in the pinyon-juniper woodlands with the absence of disturbance, fuel loads also increase and understory vegetation is depleted. Increases in woody fuel loads result in a shift from frequent low and mixed intensity fires to less frequent high intensity fires. Environmental Consequences Proposed Action The Proposed Action would remove a large portion of the pinyon and juniper trees and have minimal impacts to understory vegetation. Residual woody biomass would provide protection to regenerating grasses, other herbaceous plants and brush species. Additionally, soil water retention would be greater with the residual woody biomass on the soil surface limiting evaporation, benefiting residual plants. The overall effect of the Proposed Action would result in the intended consequences of reducing the risks of catastrophic wildfire and its potential adverse impacts to life, property and ecosystem health. Strategically placed treatments have proven effective reducing high fire behavior potential, helping to facilitate the suppression of wildfires and protecting values at risk. Both natural and human caused fires will continue to occur on the landscape. The goal of the Proposed Action is not to eliminate the process of disturbance caused by fire but to reduce its impact to values at risk and increase the resilience of ecosystem. The structure and continuity of flammable vegetation within the project area would be altered resulting in reduced fire intensity. The project area would be moved from high to extreme intensity wildfire fuel conditions to moderate intensity wildfire fuels conditions. Tree thinning would reduce tree torching, crowning and spotting potential. The Proposed Action, which will reduce total canopy cover, could result in increased wind speeds, higher temperatures, and lower humidities for a given time and place, resulting in slightly lower fine fuel moisture in the fine surface fuels.

12

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, as canopy cover of trees continues to increase, the amount of light and water available to the understory becomes limited. Understory species eventually become stressed and die out. This may also indicate that an ecological threshold has been or is close to being crossed, and the sites are likely to become very vulnerable to catastrophic disturbance events such as fire, insects, or disease; and the resistance and resilience of the sites becomes drastically reduced. Without the presence of a perennial herbaceous and shrub vegetation component, the site becomes open to other invasive species which may dominate. This results in a possible vegetation community change to invasive annual plants or weeds, like cheatgrass, and subsequently perennial invasive species may establish. Species diversity and composition would remain the same at the current conditions in the short term and may be reduced through canopy closure and reduced nutrient and water availability. Biomass loading would continue to increase in the long-term, increasing the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires.

4.0 Cumulative Impacts The Council on Environmental Quality formally defines cumulative impacts as follows:

‘…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time’ (40 CFR 1508.7).

Past and Present Actions The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action are based on the direct and indirect effects of the project when considered in combination with the effects of past, present, and planned future actions in the Virginia and Flowery Ranges. Past actions and their effects include all actions that have occurred from the time of European settlement in the late 1800s. Past, present, and planned future activities considered in the following analysis include:

• Fire suppression (since 1940s) • Grazing (since 1880s) • Historic woodland harvest (since 1880s) • Vegetation/fuels treatments (since 1960s) • Urban/recreational development (since 1880s)

Less than 1,000 acres of the Virginia and Flowery Ranges (approximately 265,000 acres) has been treated in the past decade to move vegetative conditions toward a more historic vegetative composition and structure which is more resistant to adverse effects of uncharacteristic wildfire. Present actions include public land projects with currently approved environmental analysis and private land projects with currently awarded grants. Currently approved environmental analysis and currently awarded grants exist for less than 500 acres of vegetation treatment. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include those projects that are in the planning stage and likely to be completed in the next 10 years. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include up to 50 acres of

13

vegetation treatment per year. The Geiger Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project would affect a very small area, 1/10,000 of 1 % of the Virginia and Flowery Ranges. Cumulative Impacts Analysis Examination of the affected environment and environmental consequences section of this environmental assessment reveals that the proposed action may affect air quality and vegetation/fire management thus only those resources to be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. Past actions such as fire suppression, grazing and woodland harvest have resulted in an ecosystem that has moved away from the historic range of variability in terms of stand densities, species composition and vegetative structure. General trends across the landscape as a result of past actions include denser vegetation, species composition shifts, vegetative structure that is more dominated trees rather than shrubs and perennial grasses and increased accumulation of fuels. These trends have led to changes in habitat, uncharacteristic fuel profiles, increased fire hazard and increased potential for uncharacteristic severe wildfire that can lead to undesirable property and resource damage. All present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are designed to reverse the trends of past actions that have resulted in a shift away from the historic range of variability. Present vegetation management projects and reasonably foreseeable future vegetation management projects in the Virginia and Flowery Ranges, under the current management paradigm, have or will be designed to move vegetative conditions toward a more historic vegetative composition and structure which is more resistant to adverse effects of uncharacteristic wildfire. There are no anticipated negative cumulative effects, but rather beneficial effects when considered with other vegetative treatments in the Virginia and Flowery Ranges designed to move vegetative conditions toward a more historic vegetative composition and structure.

14

5.0 PERSONS, GROUPS OR AGENCIES CONSULTED Agencies were contacted during the nomination process, including but not limited to: Storey County.

List of Contributors Table 3: BLM Resource Specialists

NAME TITLE PROJECT EXPERTISE Victoria Wilkins Sierra Front Field Manager (Acting) Authorized Officer Tim Roide Supervisory Fire Management

Specialist Project lead, air quality, vegetation, fire management

Dean Tonenna Botanist Threatened and Endangered plants, special status plant species

Jason Wright Archeologist Cultural resources, paleontology, Native American religious concerns

Katrina Krause Wildlife Biologist Threatened and Endangered animals and special status wildlife

Gerrit Buma Planning and Environmental Coordinator

NEPA

6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES BLM (US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2001. Carson City Field Office Consolidation Resource Management Plan. U.S Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada. _____. 2008. Handbook H-1790-1, National Environmental Policy Handbook. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. January 2008. _____. 1991. Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Executive Order 13855, Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands To Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk (2018) Nevada Fire Safe Council. 2005. Nevada Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment Project, Storey County. Protecting People and Natural Resources, A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy (2006) Secretary Order 3336, Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration (2015)

15

Tausch, R. J.; Miller, R. F.; Roundy, B. A.; Chambers, J. C. 2009. Pinon and Juniper Field Guide: Asking the Right Questions to Select Appropriate Management Actions. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1335. Reston, Virginia.

7.0 Appendices

Appendix A – Figures

Vicinity Map Roide, 06.19.2019

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management (BLM)Carson City District5665 Morgan Mill RoadCarson City, NV 89701

No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data.

Bureau of Land ManagementCarson City DistrictFuels Management

Geiger

Copyright:(c) 2018 Garmin

0 1 2 3 4 50.5Miles

Legend

®Proposed Project Area _̂

Geiger

Project Map 06.19.2019

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management (BLM)Carson City District5665 Morgan Mill RoadCarson City, NV 89701No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data.

Bureau of Land ManagementCarson City DistrictFuels Management

Geiger

GRAVES

GRANDE

CRESTVIEWCALAVARAS

HIGHLAND

BULLION

FEY

PHOEN

IX

BONANZA

HIGHLAND SPUR

0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet

Legend

®Proposed Treatment Area(18 Acres) _̂Previously Completed Treatment

Land StatusBureau of Land ManagementPrivate

Unit A

Unit B

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

××

×

×

×

× × × ×

×

×

××

×

×

×

×

××

×

×

××

×

×

× Private Residence

Project Map 07.16.2019

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management (BLM)Carson City District5665 Morgan Mill RoadCarson City, NV 89701No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data.

Bureau of Land ManagementCarson City DistrictFuels Management

Geiger

CALA

VARA

S

BULLION

GRANDE

BONANZA

CRESTVIEW

HIGHLAND SPUR

FEY

HIGHLAND

PHOEN

IX

GRAVES

CRESTVIEW

BULLION

0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet

Legend

®Proposed Treatment Area(18 Acres) _̂

Previously Completed Treatment

Unit A

Unit B