Table Of ContenteCM.U.BRARV c,
United States Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Carson City District
Battle Mountain District June 24, 1996
Nevada
Central
Communication
Sites
Amendment
Final Plan
HD
211
.N3
B34
1996
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for
the stewardship of our public lands. It is committed
to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a
manner to serve the needs of the American people for
all times. Management is based upon the principles of
multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's
resources within a framework of environmental
responsibility and scientific technology. These
resources include recreation, rangelands, timber,
minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, air
and scenic, scientific and cultural values.
BLM/CC/PL-96/018+1792
jou UUWQOoL
t "I
If);
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
NevadaState Office
P.O. Box 12000
IN REPLY REFERTO:
Reno, Nevada89520-0006
1610 (NV-030)
Dear Reader,
This Spring, we invited you and other interested citizens to assist us in finalizing a plan
amendment for the management of communication sites in central Nevada. The comments
we received from organizations, individuals and the State of Nevada helped us improve' the
final plan amendment in this document.
The plan amendment is intended to resolve long-standing issues regarding the location of
communication sites in central Nevada. It helps maintain public land ecosystems and the
quality of life of central Nevada residents and visitors to public lands. It facilitates
communication site development by identifying preferred locations and provides flexibility in
the location of future communication sites.
The amendment will be implemented on August 9, 1996, pending the outcome of the protest
process. You may protest the final amendment to the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management if you have participated in the planning process and have an interest that is or
may be adversely affected by the plan amendment. Protests must be postmarked on or before
August 9, 1996 and include a statement of the issues and parts of the document being
protested. Please refer to the Appendix for the mailing address and detailed information on
protest procedures. You are welcome to call or visit the Battle Mountain District at 702-
635-4000, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, NV 89820 or the Carson City District at 702-
885-6149, 1535 Hot Springs Rd., Carson City, NV 89706 for further information on the
implementation of this plan.
My thanks to those of you who gave us your comments and suggestions. I hope that you will
continue to help us manage your public lands.
ti&
00
40* ^Morgan!
Stars^Director, Nevada
V^
tf &•
jWblW fl£
Central Nevada Communication
Sites
Amendment
Final Plan
Pl'RPOSE AND NEED beyond the scope of the amendment.
The purpose of this amendment to the Most of this expansion has occurred in the
Shoshone-Eureka. Lahontnn and Walker area managed under the Lahontan RMP. An
Resource Management Plans (RMPs) is to evaluation of the RMP'1 concluded that
identity preferred locations tor future management direction for military activities
communication sites in central Nevada. The was needed. This amendment also includes
amendment identities areas where sites will portions of the Shoshone-Eureka and Walker
RMP
and will not he permitted, identities the areas with similar needs.
types o{~ sites that are appropriate for
location on public lands and identifies An evaluation of the cumulative amount of
measures needed to protect public health and sites found that 69 Navy electronic warfare
safety as related to their use. and communication sites have been
constructed on public lands. More than 200
The amendment is needed to protect the miles of associated powerlines. roads and
long term quality ii\' the human environment, fiber-optic cable rights-of-way have also
including public land ecosystems and the been authorized. This is the most extensive
public's health, safety, use and enjoyment of and intensive military electronic warfare
public lands from direct, indirect and facility use of civilian public lands anywhere
cumulative impacts associated with in the nation. Sites of primary concern are
development and operation of threat emitters. These sites simulate enemy
communication sites. The amendment is surface to air threats. They emit
also needed to facilitate site processing by electromagnetic radiation and are directly
identifying preferred locations. The associated with military combat aircraft
amendment was initiated at the request of training flight locations. Many sites are
residents of central Nevada and the State of manned and security patrolled.
Nevada. State and public concern resulted
from changed circumstances involving the The expansion of these sites and associated
expansion of electronic warfare and military air combat training exercises in
communication sites for air combat warbire central Nevada are affecting the quality of
training in central Nevada by the Fallon the human environment, including the quality
Naval Air Station. The amendment is of life of BLM's neighbors in central
intended to address the management o\' Nevada and the public's use and enjoyment
public land ecosystems and their relation to of public lands.
the quality of life in central Nevada.
Overall management of Navy training is
LOCATION The amendment includes the following
management prescriptions:
The planning area includes 5.2 million acres
of public land administered by the Bureau of
Land Management in the central Nevada Prohibit new threat emitter sites
counties of Churchill, Lander, Eureka, Nye outside of the Dixie Valley area. New
and Mineral (Map, page 3). threat emitters outside of this area
would be incompatible with FLPMA s
FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT DECISION requirement to manage public land
resources in a harmonious and
A proposed amendment, two action coordinated manner without permanent
alternatives and a continuation of present impairment of the quality of the
management alternatives were analyzed in environment and productivity of the
an environmental assessment. Based on that land* These sites and their associated
analysis, subsequent public input, military air combat training exercises
consultation with the Navy and other are incompatible with the health, safety
communication site users, the proposed and quality of life of central Nevada
amendment was selected. Sevenil residents and the public's use and
adjustments to the proposed amendment enjoyment of public lands. These sites
have been made as a result of additional are manned by military personnel
analysis. These are identified below in including contractors; require
italics. Table I presents land management extensive infrastructure developments
categories by acreage for the amendment. such as fiber optic cables, powerlines
and roads; are dedicated to military use
The objective of the amendment is to and closed to other users because there
facilitate future communication site is a safety hazard, there is a significant
application processing, to fully protect the investment in facilities or the military
health, safety and quality of life of central presence will be continuous and long
Nevada residents and public hind visitors, term; and/or there is a direct
and to protect public land ecosystems by relationship between the sites and
identifying preferred locations for military combat aircraft
communication facilities and eliminating overflights/exercxves, such as terrain
inappropriate uses. masking maneuvers. This prescription
applies to any sites which meet the
above criteria.
Central Nevada Communication Site
Final Plan Amendment
Preferred Communication Sites
Communication Sites Only Permitted (Threat Emitters Prohibited)
I I
%
Communication Sites and Threat Emitters Permitted
Mountain
Communication Sites and Threat Emitters Prohibited » '
Private/Other Lands
I
2. Facilitate communication site include portions of the Clan Alpine,
processing and minimize surface Desatoya, Stillwater, Gabbs Valley and
disturbance by grouping future Simpson Park Mountain ranges. Bald
communication facilities at locations Mountain and the Sand Mountain and
where existing facilities occur, access Hickison Petroglyph recreation areas
is reasonably available, terrain is (Map, page 3).
appropriate for communication facility
needs, and other resource values are Ensure that public health and safety on
limited. These preferred locations are public lands are protected by including
Fairview Peak, New Pass, Mt. Moses, the following stipulation on all new
the north end of the Fish Creek Mts. and existing communication and
and Mt. Lewis (Map). Commun- electronic warfare sites: "No harmful
ication site applicants would be levels of electromagnetic radiation
encouraged to locate in these areas. from communication facilities will be
These areas would be availablefor all permitted on open public lands."
civilian and military non-threat emitter
sites'1 Other than the electromagnetic
.
radiation stipulation above, existing
\. With proper justification, continue to communication and electronic warfare
provide for the location of future sites would not be affected by this
civilian and military communication amendment.*
sites (including telemetry sites and
excluding threat emitters) on more Management decisions apply to all
than four million acres of central communication and electronic warfare
Nevada. Proper justification includes sites and associated facilities,
physical and economicfactors* regardless of the type of authorization.
This includes rights-of-way, with-
Facilitate continued Navy electronic drawals and cooperative agreements.
\.
warfare site development by per-
mitting additional communication Monitoring and Evaluation. Commun-
sites, including threat emitters, in the ication and electronic warfare site
currently heavily used Dixie/Fairview development under the plan amend-
valleys/Bell Flat/Middlegate area ment will be periodically monitored
(Map, page 3). This includes an and evaluated to determine the
additional 80,000 acres beyond that effectiveness of the decisions. The
identified in the proposed amendment. objective is to determine whether or
not implementation of communication
site management is achieving the
Protect important natural, recreation, desired results. Information obtained
wilderness, wildlife, watershed, visual through the evaluation process will be
and Native American values by used to adjust management, including
prohibiting future communication and any subsequent amendments if
electronic warfare sites of all types in
the most sensitive areas. These
appropriate. Monitoring and evalu- Current standard operating procedures
ation will be consistent with the for environmental analysis will be
schedules identified in the appropriate followed. Each proposal for an
RMP. individual communication site or threat
emitter will be further analyzed in a
10. In response to concerns raised as a project-specific environmental analysis.
result ofthis plan amendment process,
the Navy has agreed to drop radar
avoidance chaffonly over lands under
the jurisdiction of the Navy.
Table
1
Land Management Prescriptions
Preferred Lands Closed to all Lands Closed to Lands Potentially
Communication Site future Communication future Threat Available for all types of
Locations (acres (# Sites and Threat Emitters Only (acres) Communication Sites and
sites)) Emitters (acres) Threat Emitters (acres)
4.000 (5) 640.000 3,950,()(K) 620.000
RATIONALE
environmental assessment, a variety of air
combat training missions utilize the threat
Most public comments on the proposed emitters ranging from low level flights directly
alternative focused on military telemetry and over the emitters to low. medium and higher
threat emitter sites. Comments ranged from level flights at various speeds in the vicinity of
prohibiting all new sites and removing existing the emitters. Due to the current concentration of
sites to full development of electronic warfare threat emitters in Dixie Valley, additional
throughout the area. The more moderate emitters there are not expected to substantially
approach selected for the plan amendment affect associated airspace or public land use.
protects the health, safety and quality of lift' of
central Nevada residents, public land visitors, Currently, air combat training in the affected
and public land ecosystems while providing for area is occurring even in areas without threat
the existing high quality of electronic warfare emitters. While potential future Navy training
training facilities and the ability to expand those and its costs could be affected, as analyzed in
facilities to improve training. the environmental assessment, current training
would not be affected. In addition, economic
The primary management prescription is the benefits from current Navy training activity to
limitation of new threat emitters to the Dixie the City of Fallon and Churchill County will
Valley region. The primary reason for this continue to be realized. Furthermore, the
limitation is the direct relationship between relocation of air-to-air training from Miramar to
threat emitters and the intensity of air combat Fallon would not be affected, since that
training in their vicinity. As outlined in the relocation is not connected to communication
site development.11 Environmental impacts electronic warfare facilities. As noted in the
associated with the amendment are related to environmental assessment, the Navy identified
avoiding increases in the intensity of air combat five existing sites that emitted harmful levels of
training exercises in the vicinity of potential radiation.' Following this public disclosure, the
future threat emitters. Navy indicated that these hazards have been
mitigated. The management prescription does
The area available for electronic warfare threat not conflict with existing Navy procedures and
emitters has been expanded by more than 80.000 would help to ensure that such hazards are
acres compared to the proposed amendment. minimized in the future.
The amendment has been clarified to explain
that new telemetry sites would continue to be The preferred communication site locations
permitted on more than four million acres. prcwide for a rational network of facilities as
indicated by State of Nevada and Nevada Bell
Quality of life impacts to central Nevada communications experts. These experts also
residents are an important consideration. The indicate that the flexibility to locate at other
environmental assessment concluded that quality sites with proper justification will enable them
of life in central Nevada would decrease if the to provide for any of their foreseeable
proposed amendment is not implemented and communications needs in central Nevada.
current management continues. This conclusion
was based on accepted methodology.' FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Residents of the affected area expressed strong
conclusions about the negative consequences of While it would decrease the area available for
current and potential future air combat training new military air combat training threat emitters,
activities in central Nevada as related to the implementation of the plan amendment would
placement of threat emitters. reduce the potential for future adverse
environmental impacts. Specifically, identifi-
The amendment is compatible with the cation of preferred areas would result in
management of adjacent publicly owned lands minimizing the proliferation of sites throughout
managed by the U.S. Forest Service. On those the area. Prohibiting communication sites in the
lands, communication and electronic warfare most sensitive areas would prevent future
facilities are limited to six specific locations. adverse surface disturbance and associated air
The remainder of these lands are closed to combat training impacts. Prohibiting harmful
communication and electronic warfare facilities. levels of radiation from communication sites
The amendment would prcwide for more would eliminate public health risks associated
compatible land use decisions across with the sites. Prohibiting future electronic
jurisdictional boundaries. Compared to adjacent threat emitter sites outside the Dixie Valley area
lands managed by the Forest Service, it would would reduce adverse air combat training related
provide greater flexibility to the Navy and others impacts associated with potential future threat
in the location of communication and electronic emitters. Consequently, the proposed amend-
warfare facilities. ment would have no significant impact.
The amendment also includes a management
prescription for the prevention of electro-
magnetic radiation hazards associated with
