Carson City Field Office

United State Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Land Management

 

Carson City Field Office

 Carson City, Nevada 

May 2001

CONSOLIDATED

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

PLAN
United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

 Carson City Field Office

 5665 Morgan Mill Rd.

Carson City, NV 89701

 (775) 885-6000

In Reply Refer To:

 1610 (NV-030)

Memorandum

To: State Director, Nevada (NV-910)

From: Field Office Manager, Carson City, NV

Subject: Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

The attached Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) incorporates

decisions from eight major field office planning documents and five amendments to these plans. The CRMP has

been created through a plan maintenance action, including extensive review by field office resource specialists,

and does not change the scope of the decisions made in previous land use plans or amendments to these plans.

The CRMP updates and modernizes these previous decisions and is designed to provide easy reference to the

planning decisions that guide management of the BLM managed public lands under jurisdiction of the Carson

City Field Office. The CRMP includes national policy statements for use in guiding management of what were

considered non-issue resources or programs in the mid 1980's. Upon completion of the CRMP all land use

plan conformance determinations will be based on the decisions and information contained in the CRMP. All

maps included in the CRMP are available on the field office GIS system which will facilitate examination of the

areas of interest in greater detail. The CRMP will be posted on the Carson City Field Office’s internet

homepage to improve public access to these decisions.

 

 John O. Singlaub

 Manager, Carson City Field Office

Attachment (61 pp)

Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan
CARSON CITY FIELD

OFFICE

CONSOLIDATED

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

May 11, 2001
CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................... INT-1

Standard Operating Procedures Common to All .......... SOP-1

Livestock and Rangeland Management ................. LSG-1

Wild Horses and Burros ........................... WHB-1

Riparian Management ............................... RIP-1

Forestry ........................................ FOR-1

Wildlife ....................................... WLD-1

Special Status Species ............................. SSS-1

Soils, Watershed and Air Quality .................... SWA-1

Water Resources ................................ WAT-1

Fire Management .................................. FIR-1

Lands and Realty ................................. LND-1

Right-of-way Corridors ........................... ROW-1

Communication Sites ............................. COM-1

Recreation ...................................... REC-1

Visual Resources ................................ VRM-1

Wilderness ..................................... WSA-1

Scenic Areas .................................... SAR-1

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC.) ........ ACE-1

Minerals and Energy ............................... MIN-1

Hazardous Materials .............................. HAZ-1

Cultural Resources ................................ CUL-1

....... 1

....... 2

....... 3

....... 4

....... 5

....... 6

....... 7

....... 8

....... 9

..... 10

..... 11
Release 05/11/2001
INT-1 Release 05/11/2001

INTRODUCTION

The Carson City Field Office was previously divided into the following eight planning units; 1)

Pinenut, 2)Markleeville, 3) Pyramid, 4) Long Valley, 5) Walker, 6) Mina, 7) Fort Churchill, and 8)

Clan Alpine.

Land use planning decisions for these planning units have been made in nine major planning documents. 

Pinenut, Markleeville, Pyramid, Long Valley Planning units (Reno Planning Area)

! The Final Reno Grazing Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision,

1982, (Reno Grazing EIS)

! The Management Framework Plan for the Reno Planning Area and Record of

Decision, 1982 (Reno MFP)

! Walker Wilderness Recommendations Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1987,

(Walker Wilderness EIS)

! California Section 202 Wilderness Study Areas Final Environmental Impact Statement,

1988, (California Wilderness EIS)

Walker, Mina, Fort Churchill, and Clan Alpine planning units

! The Walker/Mina Management Framework Plan (Walker/Mina MFP)

! The Fort Churchill/Clan Alpine Management Framework Plan, 1975 (Clan Alpine

MFP) 

! The Walker Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision, 1986 (Walker

RMP)

! The Lahontan Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision, 1985 (Lahontan

RMP)

! Lahontan Wilderness Recommendations Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1987,

(Lahontan Wilderness EIS)

! Walker Wilderness Recommendations Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1987,

(Walker Wilderness EIS)

The relationships between these plans and the draft and final versions of each are somewhat complex.

First of all, the Reno Grazing EIS and the Reno MFP make decisions for the same geographic area. In

fact, the decisions in the grazing EIS are included in the Reno MFP.

When the Walker and Lahontan Resource Areas were created, they each included two planning units

of the Reno Planning Area as well as two planning units to the east.. The Walker Resource Area

included the Pinenut, Markleeville, Walker and Mina Planning units. The Lahontan Resource Area

included the Pyramid, Long Valley, Fort Churchill, and Clan Alpine planning units. Resource

Management Plans were written for each of these resource areas. However, the Walker and Lahontan

Resource Management Plans do not make or alter decisions in the geographic area covered by the

Reno MFP. Instead, the Walker and Lahontan Resource Management Plans specifically incorporate by

reference the decisions made in the Reno MFP into the appropriate RMP. Thus decisions for the four
INT-2 Release 05/11/2001

planning units, Pinenut, Markleeville, Pyramid, and Long Valley were not changed in the RMPs.

On the other hand, the Walker and Lahontan Resource Management Plans also cover planning units

addressed by the Clan Alpine MFP and Walker/Mina MFP and replace decisions made in these

MFPs. The Walker and Lahontan RMPs do not include any incorporation language in regards to the

Clan Alpine MFP or Walker/Mina MFP.

The result is that current decisions for the Walker and Mina planning units are found in the Walker

RMP; while current decisions for the Pine Nut, and Markleeville planning units are found in the Reno

MFP, which were subsequently incorporated by reference into the Walker RMP. At the same time,

current decisions for the Fort Churchill and Clan Alpine planning units are found in the Lahontan RMP,

while current decisions for the Pyramid and Long Valley planning units are found in the Reno MFP,

which were also subsequently incorporated by reference into the Lahontan RMP. 

In addition, both the final Walker and Lahontan RMPs are abbreviated final RMPs. These abbreviated

final RMPs are intended to be used in conjunction with the draft RMPs. This is specifically stated in

both the final Walker and Lahontan RMPs. Thus some portions of the alternative section, chapter 2, of

the draft RMP are by necessity included in the final RMP. In the case of the Walker draft RMP,

Management Guidance for Non-Issue Resources should be considered as part of the preferred

alternative in the final RMP. In addition, both RMPs specifically state that the Implementation section

applies to all alternatives. 

Subsequent to the completion of the Walker and Lahontan RMPs, three Wilderness EISs and five

amendments to these Plans have been completed. The Wilderness EISs include: 1) Walker Wilderness

Recommendations Final EIS, 1987, 2) Lahontan Wilderness Recommendations Final EIS, 1987, and

3) Wilderness Recommendations California Section 202 Wilderness Study Areas Final EIS, 1988.

Amendments include: 1) The Carson City Urban Interface Plan Amendment, 1996, 2) Washoe

County Bomb Disposal and Training Facility Final Plan Amendment, 1996, 3) The City of Fallon

Landfill Final Plan Amendment, 1997, 4) The Fire Management Plan Amendment, 1998, 5) The

Central Nevada Communication Sites Modified Plan Amendment, 1998.

The end result of all this is current land use planning guidance for BLM managed public lands under the

jurisdiction of the Carson City Field Office are found in the Reno Grazing EIS, the Reno MFP, the

Walker RMP, the Lahontan RMP, three Wilderness EISs and five subsequent amendments made to

these documents.

In addition to these amendments several maintenance activities have also been completed. These

activities include: 1) Walker Resource Management Plan Update: Standard Operating Procedures,

December 1993, 2) Lahontan Resource Management Plan Update: Standard Operating Procedures,

April 1994, 3) Plan Change 96-1, April 1996.

Other updates and guidance are provided by the following: 1) Lahontan Rangeland Program Summary

(LRPS), October 1985, 2) The LRPS update, December 1989, 3) The Lahontan Management
INT-3 Release 05/11/2001

Decision Summary 1987 Update, () The Walker Rangeland Program Summary, November 1989, 5) 

The Walker Management Decision summary, 1986, and 6) Rangeland Program Summary Reno

Planning Area 1984.

The following Consolidated Resource Management Plan for the Carson City Field Office

(Consolidated RMP) incorporates decisions: 1) That are RMP level decisions, implementation level

decisions, or administrative actions, 2) Found inappropriate sections of the draft or final Walker or

Lahontan Resource Management Plan or their associated records of Decision, or 3) Will be traced to a

valid Management Framework Plan later incorporated into either the Lahontan or Walker Resource

Management Plan, 4) Decisions found in the amendments described above, 5) Decisions found in the

three wilderness EISs 6) designations of cultural resource sites on the National Register of Historic

Places and a National Landmark and 7) includes national policy statements for each resource, issue, or

program for which policy direction has been provided.

The Consolidated RMP has been created through a maintenance action and does not change the scope

of the decisions made in previous land use plans or amendments to these plans. The Consolidated RMP

updates and modernizes these previous decisions and is designed to provide easy reference to the

planning decisions that guide management of the BLM managed public lands under the jurisdiction of

the Carson City field Office.
SOP-1 Release 05/11/2001

CARSON CITY FIELD OFFICE CONSOLIDATED

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN DECISIONS

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

1. The resource management plan will generally be implemented through activity plans. These are

detailed, site-specific management actions outlined in livestock allotment management plans

(AMP), wildlife habitat management plans (HMP), wild horse herd area management plans

(HMAP), and wilderness management plans (WMP), among others. These plans are multipleuse in nature and include such actions as range improvements and grazing systems. Monitoring

will be used to ensure that plans meet objectives.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES COMMON TO ALL

1. An environmental review (i.e., environmental assessment) will be prepared before projects are

developed except when they are covered by categorical exclusion or previous analysis deemed

adequately through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) so that implementation,

modification, or abandonment of the project may be considered depending on identified

impacts.

2. Permanent roads will not be constructed into temporary project sites. Existing access roads, off

road travel, or temporary roads which will be rehabilitated after construction activity will be

used.

3. Application of herbicides on proposed treatment areas will be in accordance with procedures

established in Bureau Manual 9011 and 9015 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States

(1991). Herbicide use on BLM lands in California is covered by California Vegetation

Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (1988).

4. All areas of new surface disturbance will be rehabilitated, where such action is necessary and

practical, to replace ground cover and prevent erosion.

5. Construction of all fences (except in cases of public safety) will conform to the objectives and

specifications in Bureau Manual 1737 to minimize impacts to wildlife, wild horses, recreation,

and visual resources.

6. The clearing of vegetation from all project sites will be restricted to the minimum amount

necessary.

7. All construction, maintenance, or rehabilitation activities on public lands will use every

reasonable means to minimize erosion and soil damage, including but not limited to, construction
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SOP-2 Release 05/11/2001

of water bars, cross ditches, or other structures as required by the authorized officer.

8. Authorized public land users will remove or dispose of all waste in accordance with a plan

approved by the authorized officer and in a manner consistent with federal, state and local laws

and regulations.

9. Activities in key fish and wildlife areas will, when necessary, be restricted during periods of

breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing, or calving activity, and during major migrations of fish and

wildlife.

10. All operations by authorized public land users will be conducted in such a manner as will avoid:

(a) permanent blockage of any drainage system; (b) changing the character, or causing the

pollution or siltation, of rivers, streams, reservoirs, ponds, water holes, or springs; and (c)

damaging fish and wildlife resources and habitats.

11. Authorized public land users will take such measures as are necessary to assure unrestricted

passage and movement of fish and wildlife. No artificial structure or stream channel alteration

that would cause a blockage to the movement of fish will be allowed.

12. Authorized public land users will comply with construction practices and mitigating measures

established by 33 CFR 323.4, which sets forth the parameters of the “nationwide permit”

required by section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If the proposed action exceeds the

parameters of the nationwide permit, the holder will obtain an individual permit from the

appropriate office of the Army Corps of Engineers and provide the authorized officer with a

copy of the same. Failure to comply with this requirement will be cause for suspension or

termination of their authorization.

13. Authorized public land users will rebuild or repair roads, fences, and established trails that may

be destroyed or damaged by construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized project

and build or maintain suitable crossings for existing roads and significant trails that intersect the

project.

14. Benefit/cost analysis will be performed on improvements required to implement new AMPs and

other appropriate activity plans subsequent to the EIS. The benefit/cost analysis will be

performed in compliance with Bureau policy.

15. During the pre-construction and construction periods, the Bureau will make modifications to

any land use authorization necessary to maintain stability of geologic materials, fish and wildlife

habitats, the environment, and the public interest.

16. The Bureau will, if necessary, suspend any construction maintenance activity if there is an

immediate threat to life (including wildlife and aquatic life), property, or the environment.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SOP-3 Release 05/11/2001

17. Public land users will abate any conditions, created by implementation of their project, that

could potentially cause irreparable harm or damage to any person or property.

18. Revegetation of disturbed areas will be required as specified by the Bureau. The appropriate

seed mixture and proper planting techniques will be specified by the Bureau.

19. Authorized public land users will construct, maintain, operate, and/or modify structures or

facilities as directed by the Bureau to protect and minimize adverse effects upon raptors and

other wildlife.

20. Authorized land users will comply with state and federal laws applicable to the authorized use

and such additional state and federal laws, along with implementing regulations, that may be

enacted and issued during the term of their authorization. 

21. Authorized public land users will ensure that activities in connection with the authorization will

not violate applicable water quality standards or related facility siting standards established by

or pursuant to applicable federal or state laws.

22. Authorized public land users will prevent or control damage to scenic, aesthetic, cultural and

environmental values (including damage to fish and wildlife habitat), damage to federal property

and hazards to public health and safety.

23. Authorized public land users will comply with state standards for public health and safety,

environmental protection and siting, construction, operation, and maintenance when those

standards are more stringent than federal standards.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-1 Release 05/11/2001

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 4100 - Grazing Administration - Exclusive of Alaska

02/16/89)

1. The BLM’s policies are designed to ensure proper administration of an efficient and effective

livestock grazing management program. Livestock grazing management will be prescribed to

provide harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources. Grazing is a natural

process on most plant communities and most American rangeland vegetation evolved under

grazing. The BLM recognizes that properly prescribed and managed livestock grazing are an

economically important use of the rangeland resource and a most effective and efficient means

of changing plant communities to achieve land use plan resource goals and objectives. The

BLM is committed to the maintenance and improvement of the condition of the public

rangelands so that they may become as productive as feasible for all rangeland uses, including

provision of habitat for wildlife and domestic livestock. See BLM manual Section 4100, .06

policies for specific policies regarding: 1) Management Priorities, 2) Inventory and Monitoring,

3) Consultation, Coordination and Cooperation, 4) Grazing Supervision, 5) Range

Improvements.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS:

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Maintain or improve the condition of the public rangelands to enhance productivity for all

rangeland and watershed values.

2. Initially, manage livestock use at existing levels.

3. Provide adequate, high quality forage for livestock by improving rangeland condition.

4. Improve overall range administration 

Reno Planning Area

5. Within ten years the objective of the proposed action is to cause an overall shift in ecological

condition of the native ranges follows: (1) increase excellent condition by 3,017 acres, (2)

increase good condition by 28,448 acres, (3) reduce fair condition by 12,687 acres and poor

condition by 18,778 acres.

Walker and Lahontan Rangeland Program Summary (RPS)

6. The long range objectives of the grazing management program are to manage, maintain, and

improve the rangeland conditions on the public lands through the following:
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-2 Release 05/11/2001

A. Maintain a sufficient quality, and diversity of habitat and forage for livestock, wildlife,

and wild horses through natural regeneration and/or vegetation manipulation methods.

B. Improve the vegetation resource and range condition by providing for the physiological

needs of key plant species.

C. Reduce soil erosion and enhance watershed values by increasing ground cover and

litter.

D. Improve and maintain the condition of the riparian habitat. (Reno RPS 1984).

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

Lahontan Resource Area

1. Initially, authorize livestock use at the three-year average use level of (94,481 AUMs 1987

LMDS) (64,239 AUMs 1985 LMDS). There would be no initial decisions to adjust active

preference.

2. Discontinue livestock grazing in allotments where grazing is no longer practical due to land

ownership patterns, real estate development, and disposal of the connected base properties.

(1). Dry Lake, (2). Pah Rah Mountains, (3). Peavine Watershed, (4). Haskell Peak.

.......................................................... Dry Lake gone. 

....................................... Peavine Watershed transferred to USFS. 

....................................... No grazing implemented on Haskell Peak.

Walker Resource Area

3. Initially authorize livestock use at the three-year average licensed use level of 36,962 AUMs.

There would be no initial change in active preference.

4. The Black Canyon Road will not be used for public access.

5. The Faye Canyon, Spratt Creek and Hangman allotments will continue as areas set aside for

wildlife use.

Pine Nut-Markleeville Planning Units.

6. Initially authorize livestock’s use at the three-year average licensed use level of 11,536 AUMs.

There would be no initial change in active preference.

7. Exclude livestock grazing from the Prison Hill, Diamond Valley, Spratt Creek, Hangman, Faye

Canyon, and Luther Creek allotments as grazing administration is no-longer practical.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-3 Release 05/11/2001

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. Initiate land exchanges with the Southern Pacific Railroad and the private owners in the Spanish

Springs to block up public lands in the White Hills and Olinghouse allotments.

............................ Completed 01/31/1995, Dapoli Phase II land exchange.

2. Initiate land exchanges in the Jumbo Allotment to block in the higher country and to release

lands in the low country next to residential zones.

.................................... Completed 04/2001 Laborde Land Exchange

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS:

1. Rangeland Program Summary. A Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) will be issued within five

months of the completion date of the RMP. The RPS will inform livestock permittees and the

interested public about implementation of the rangeland management program. The RPS will

identify allotment specific objectives for livestock, wild horses and burros, and wildlife. It

outlines specific monitoring studies necessary to evaluate the attainment of objectives and the

range improvements proposed to implement the RMP.

2. The Selective Management Policy. It is the policy of the BLM to address rangeland

management problems through a selective management approach. This approach assigns

management priorities among allotments within a planning area. This is based on identifying

allotments with similar management needs, resource characteristics, and potential for

improvement in both resource and economic returns.

The similarity among the allotments allows them to be grouped into three categories with each

having its own objective. The three categories and their objectives are: Maintain current

satisfactory condition; Improve current unsatisfactory condition; or manage the allotments

Custodially, while protecting existing resources. The use of these allotment categories will help

to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel in such a way as to achieve

cost-effective improvement of rangeland production and condition. These funds will be used to

develop grazing treatments and systems and install range improvements in order to resolve

grazing related problems. The priorities identify those allotments where more intensive

management is needed.

Allotments have been placed in the (M) Maintenance, (I) Improvement, and (C) Custodial

categories using the criteria outlined in Appendix D of the draft RMP.

3. Allotment Management Plans. Allotment management plans would be developed for all

Category I allotments, and Category M and C allotments as needed. These plans would be
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-4 Release 05/11/2001

multiple-use in nature. They would be developed in consultation with interested parties and

coordinated with wildlife, wild horse and burro, watershed, and wilderness plans. Key

components of AMPs are allotment specific objectives, monitoring studies, grazing systems,

range improvements, and evaluations.

4. Grazing Treatments and Systems. A grazing treatment describes the level of grazing use and

periods-of-use for a unit (usually a pasture) of an allotment, or an entire allotment in one or

more years. Grazing treatments are the building blocks of the grazing plan, and are designed to

improve rangeland condition by manipulating livestock grazing to accomplish objectives of

management. The deferment of grazing or complete rest from grazing during the critical growth

period of key management species would allow these species to maintain and/or increase their

density, composition, vigor, production, and reproduction. The following rest treatments (singly

or in various combinations) would be combined with scheduled grazing treatments to form

grazing systems in amps for specific allotments.

Treatment one: Rest from livestock grazing for two consecutive growing seasons

(approximately April 1 of one year to August 31 of the following year. Two growing seasons of

rest would allow key management species to improve vigor, increase litter accumulation, seed

production, and seedling establishment. Rest for two growing seasons is required in order for

grass seedlings to develop adequate root growth to withstand appreciable grazing and trampling

(Hormay 1970.)

Treatment two: Livestock grazing from midsummer to fall (approximately July 16 to November

15 dates vary with allotments). Grazing after seed-ripe would provide better seed dispersal and

trampling. When coupled with other treatments that provide for spring rest the following year,

this treatment would allow an improvement in plant vigor and seedling establishment for key

grass species and many shrubs.

Treatment three: Provide rest from livestock grazing for two years, until seedlings are

established or until it is determined that a vegetation manipulation or recovery project is

unsuccessful. This treatment provides the protection necessary for establishment or recovery of

key management species following wildlife seeding, burning, or herbicide spraying projects.

Treatment four: Defer livestock grazing from early spring to midsummer each year

(approximately April 1 to June 30). This treatment may be required yearly and could be

retained until the systems are implemented. Improved vigor and reproduction of key

management species in each allotment would result. Where intensive grazing management

systems are implemented, utilization levels may be exceeded during each grazing cycle. The

periodic rest from grazing would allow the key management species to increase in vigor and

production.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-5 Release 05/11/2001

Treatment five: For key deer winter range where bitterbrush is the key species, a special

grazing treatment is recommended. This requires two years of rest, followed by one year of

grazing after seed-ripe and finally one year of season-long grazing. Variations of this treatment

are acceptable as long as they include the two-year rest period required for bitterbrush seed

production.

5. Range Improvements. Range improvements will be developed to meet identified management

objectives. Fencing and water developments improve livestock distribution, especially when

developed in conjunction with a grazing management plan. Table 2-1 identifies potential range

improvements and their costs.

6. Resource Monitoring. Future adjustments in livestock and wild horses will be based on

consultation with interested parties and an analysis of data from monitoring studies. This

involves the use of vegetation study techniques to measure ecological status and trend, grazing

utilization and distribution, actual use information, and climatic data. Category I allotments have

the greatest number of resource conflicts and potential for improvement. Therefore, more

intensive range monitoring efforts, including frequency transects (1981 Nevada Range

Monitoring Procedures), key area utilization, ecological status, use pattern mapping, actual use,

and precipitation studies will be implemented or continued in these allotments to determine

whether management objectives are being met with proposed management treatments.

Management and/or grazing use levels may be changed based upon results of these studies.

Few changes in management or treatments are anticipated for Category M and C allotments.

Therefore, less intensive range monitoring efforts, including utilization, actual use, precipitation,

and perhaps a few frequency studies within selected key areas will be implemented or

continued to determine whether current conditions are being maintained, and existing resources

protected with present management.

7. Construct the following range improvements in the Lahontan Resource Area: (1) Four miles of

water pipeline, (2) One windmill, (3) Four water storage tanks and sixteen water troughs, (4)

Three spring developments, (5) One hundred thirty-four miles of fence and nine cattleguards,

(6) Treatment of 1,960 acres of brushland and old seedings, and developing 8,260 acres of

new seedings, and (7) drilling four wells and (8) twelve miles of fence removal.

8. Install the following range improvements in the Walker Resource Area to assist in meeting

management objectives: (1) Drill two wells, (2) Eleven miles of water pipeline, (3) One water

storage tank and fourteen water troughs, (4) Eight spring developments, (5) One reservoir (6)

thirty-two miles of fence and five cattleguards, (7) Brush control on 500 acres.

9. Install the following range improvements in the Pine Nut and Markleeville planning units to assist

in meeting management objectives: (1) One Well, (2) Three water tanks, (3) Six spring
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-6 Release 05/11/2001

developments, and (4) One reservoir.

Reno Planning Area

10. Allotments in Category C will receive such management as is necessary to prevent resource

deterioration. These allotments will be monitored to detect change in resource condition should

situations change an allotment may be moved into the intensive management category.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS:

1. In the Lahontan Resource Area develop AMPs/grazing systems on 12 Category I allotments

and grazing systems as needed on 19 Category M and 5 C allotments to improve condition,

provide for proper utilization within key areas, achieve better livestock distribution to obtain

more uniform utilization, and provide for an increase in available forage and water for livestock,

wild horses and wildlife.

...... AMP/Grazing systems implemented on 12 Category I and 19 Category M allotments.

2. In the Walker Resource Area develop AMPs/grazing systems on 7 Category I allotments and

continue implementation of existing AMPs on 1 Category I and 4 Category M allotments to

improve and/or maintain condition, provide for proper utilization within key areas, achieve

better livestock distribution to obtain more uniform utilization, and provide for an increase in

available forage and water for livestock, wild horses and burros and wildlife.

...................... Completed AMP/Grazing systems implemented on 7 Category I 

 and 4 Category M allotments

Pine Nut-Markleeville Planning Units.

3. Develop and implement AMPs as needed. AMPs have been identified for development on all

four Category I allotments. .......................................... Completed

....................................... Implemented, Pinenut Allotment decisions.

....................................... Implemented Buckeye allotment decisions.

....................... Implemented, Churchill Allotment decisions and grazing system.

...................................... Implemented, Servsese Allotment decision.

4. Obtain necessary easements to insure continued access over Cottonwood Stock Trail in the

Flanigan Allotment. ................... Completed Easement Acquired November 1989.

5. Delete the Dead Horse Well allotment by incorporating it into the LeBeau Flat and Phillips Well

allotments. ...................................................... Completed
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-7 Release 05/11/2001

6. Adjust allotment boundaries in the Antelope Mountain Allotment to reflect changes in land use.

.............................................................. Completed 

7. Combine the Shovel Springs and Hungry Valley allotments into the Paiute Canyon Allotment.

.............................................................. Completed

8. Combine Peavine and Black Springs into Peavine Mountain allotment

........................................... Completed and transferred to USFS

9. Reestablish the Lincoln Flat Allotment by splitting it off from the Spring Gulch Allotment.

Change livestock use from sheep to cattle and establish a grazing period from 12/31 to 1/31.

.............................................................. Completed

10. Eliminate the Colony Settlement Allotment and incorporate the remaining public land into the

Hudson Hills Allotment. ............................................ Completed

11. Combine Fish Springs and Jacobson allotments with the Buckeye Allotment. ..... Completed

12. Combine the Gold Hill Allotment with the Carson Plains allotment. ............ Completed

13. Continue rangeland and watershed monitoring to determine if management objectives are being

met and what future adjustments in grazing use are necessary.

14. In the long-term, the range monitoring program would provide data on which to base future

adjustments in livestock and wild horse use and to identify additional range improvements. All

future adjustments and improvements would be designed to achieve the objectives of this

alternative.

15. The initial assignment of allotments into the categories of “Maintain,” “Improve,” and

“Custodial,” would be evaluated periodically. These evaluations would assure that the

management objectives are being reached and that AMPs and range improvements would be

initiated for those allotments requiring more intensive management.

Reno Planning Area

16. Allotments in Category C will receive such management as is necessary to prevent resource

deterioration. These allotments will be monitored to detect change in resource condition, should

situations change an allotment may be moved into the intensive management category.

17. Livestock use (numbers, class, periods of use) will be permitted as authorized under a 10-year

permit. Increases in use may be allowed when consistent with multiple use objectives.

Prescribed flexibility will occur in livestock operations through consultation
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-8 Release 05/11/2001

18. Through consultation and coordination in a public process develop or revise intensive grazing

systems with monitoring that will insure proper periods of use as part of allotment management

plans. Prioritization of Category I allotments will be made through consultation and

coordination. CRMP is the preferred process. ........................... Completed

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

1. Benefit Cost (B/C) analysis will be performed on improvements required to implement

Allotment Management Plans and other appropriate activity plans subsequent to the EIS. Such

improvements will be analyzed on an allotment basis.

2. Permanent roads will not be constructed into project sites. Existing access, off road travel, or

temporary roads which could be rehabilitated after construction will be used.

3. Construction of all fences will conform to the objectives and specifications in Bureau manual

1737 to assure minimizing impacts on wildlife, wild horses, recreation, and visual resources.

4. The clearing of vegetation from project sites will be restricted to the minimum amount

necessary.

5. Application of herbicides such as 2,4-D on treatment areas to reduce sagebrush and other plant

species would be in accordance with procedures established in Bureau Manual 9222 and other

applicable regulations, laws, and court orders to ensure non-impairment of other than target

species.

6. All disturbed areas will be rehabilitated where such action is necessary and practical to replace

ground cover and prevent erosion.

7. Maintenance of structural improvements shall be provided by the user deriving the primary

benefit from the improvement through cooperative agreements and as specified in the Bureau’s

range improvement policies.

8. Livestock permits will be adjusted, if necessary, to reflect decreases in public land acreage

available for livestock grazing use within an allotment as a result of land disposal.

9. When public lands are disposed of or devoted to a public purpose which precludes livestock

grazing, the permittees and lessees will be given two years prior notification, except in cases of

an emergency (i.e., military defense requirements in the time of war, natural disasters, national

emergency needs, etc.), before their grazing permit or grazing lease and grazing preference may

be canceled in whole. A permittee or lessee may unconditionally waive the two prior

notifications. Such waivers shall not prejudice the permittee’s or lessee’s right to reasonable
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-9 Release 05/11/2001

compensation for the fair market value his interest in authorized permanent range improvements

located on these public lands.

10. Livestock grazing will be deferred for at least two growing seasons on all vegetation

manipulation projects, including prescribed burns, to allow vegetation to be established.

11. Wildlife escape ramps will be installed in all livestock troughs to prevent wildlife from drowning.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. Walker Resource Area Rangeland Program Summary ................. November 1989.

2. Lahontan Resource Area Rangeland Program Summary Update .......... December 1989.

3. Desatoya Mountains Ecosystem Management Plan ......................... July 1999.

The following allotments are managed under provisions of the Desatoya Ecosystem

Management Plan: (1) Clan Alpine 03009, (2) Porter Canyon 10013, (3) Eastgate 03020, and

(4) Edwards Creek 03021.

4. Allotment Management Plans

Northern CCFO

Antelope Mountain 03001 Frenchman Flat 03024

Carson 03003 Horse Springs 03032

Big Canyon 03004 Hole In the Wall 03030

Constantia 03012 Mountain Well-Laplat 03039

Red Rock 03014 Paiute 03043

Dixie Valley 03018 Rock Springs 03049

Flanigan 03022

Southern CCFO

Artesia 03500 Hudson Hills 03545

Buckeye 03509 Lincoln Flat 03555

Central 03516 Parker Butte 03572

Churchill Canyon 03518 Perry Spr-Deadman 03573

Garfield Flat 03535 Pilot-Table Mountain 03574

Gray Hills 03539

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health, Sierra Front Northwestern Great Basin,

February 12, 1997.

2. Final EIS Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands In Thirteen Western States ....... July 1991

3. California Vegetation Management Final EIS ........................... August 1988
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LSG-10 Release 05/11/2001

GIS MAP REFERENCES:

1. LSG-1 Herd Management Areas, Livestock Grazing Allotments
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WHB-1 Release 05/11/2001

WILD HORSE AND BURROS

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 4700 - Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro

Management 11/23/88)

It is the policy of the Bureau of Land Management, in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse

and Burro Act (Public Law 92-195, as amended) and other laws governing the public lands, to:

1. Protect, manage, and control wild horses and burros on public lands as an integral part of the

public land’s ecosystem. Appropriate management levels shall be determined for Wild horses

and burros through the resource management planning process. Wild horses and burros shall be

considered comparable with other resource values on each herd area in the formulation of

resource management plans and managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in

balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat. Current inventories of herd

management areas shall be maintained. Management of wild horses and burros shall be

constrained as necessary to ensure the protection of the habitat of a candidate, threatened, or

endangered species. Management actions shall be at the minimum feasible level that allows

attainment of herd and habitat objectives and protects the range from deterioration associated

with over population. Wildhorse and burro ranges shall be designated when it is determined to

be in the public interest to manage herd management areas principally, but not necessarily

exclusively, for wild horses and burros.

2. Remove excess wild horses and burros from public lands to preserve and maintain a thriving

ecological balance and multiple-use relationship. Priority shall be given to removing wild horses

and burros from private land when the landowner submits a written request to BLM for their

removal.

3. Destroy humanely old, sick, or lame wild horses and burros, using methods judged acceptably

for euthanasia of large animals by the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on

Euthanasia. Excess wild horses that are not adopted shall be humanely maintained by the BLM

or its’ agents, preferably on sanctuaries on private land, until such time that the BLM is ordered

by an appropriate authority to implement the provision in the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and

Burro Act for destruction of unadopted excess wild horses and burros in the most humane and

cost-efficient manner possible.

4. Ensure that aircraft and motor vehicles used to administer the Act meet appropriate safety

standards and are operated in a safe and humane manner and that a public hearing is held prior

to the use of helicopters to capture wild horses and burros and motor vehicles to transport

captured animals.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WHB-2 Release 05/11/2001

5. Place health excess wild horses and burros in private maintenance with qualified individuals who

pay a fee established by regulation. The Director may reduce the adoption fee for excess wild

horses and burros not adopted at the standard fee when the Director determines it is in the

public interest to do so. The BLM shall convey title to eligible adopters at the end of 1 year of

humane private maintenance.

6. Carry out compliance activities necessary to ensure humane treatment of adopted wild horses

and burros.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Initially, manage for wild horses and their habitat in herd areas at current population levels, or at

a level identified in an approved activity plan.

.............................. Completed, AMLs set through multiple use decisions.

2. Maintain sound thriving populations of wild horses within herd management areas.

3. Maintain or improve the condition of public rangelands to enhance productivity for wild horses

and burros within herd management areas.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Totally remove wild horses from the following areas:

 A. Pah Rah WHA ........................................... Completed 1984.

 B. Jumbo WHA ............................................ Completed 1984.

 C. Southern Pine Nut WHA ................................... Completed 1984.

Removal in these areas is the result of conflicts resulting from wild horse use of private lands

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Propose an area of about 68,000 acres in the Marietta Land Area for designation as the

Marietta National Wild Burro Range. ............................. Completed 1991.

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Conduct wild horse gatherings to initially maintain the herds at the current population levels

established in the RMP and outlined in the following:

Herd Area Appropriate Management Level Date

A. Lahontan 7-10 1993

B. Horse Mountain 60-95 1992

C. Pine Nuts Trace

D. South Stillwaters 16 1994

E. North Stillwaters 49 1994

F. August Mountains 155
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WHB-3 Release 05/11/2001

G. Clan Alpines 619-979 1992

Herd Area Appropriate Management Level Date

H. Desatoya Mountains/Both F.Os.73-98/127-180 1992

I. Flanigan 80-124 1990

K. Dogskin Mountain 10-15 1994

L. Granite Peak 11-18 1993

M. Garfield Flat (horses) 83-125 Nov. 1996

N. Marietta (burros) 78-104 Nov. 1998

O. Montgomery Pass (horses) 38 *1

P. Pilot Mountain (horses) 228-346 *2 Oct. 1993

Q. Pine Nut-northern (horses) 119-179 Aug. 1995

R. Powell Mountain (horses) 3 *1 *3 .............. Transferred to USFS.

S. Wassuk (horses) 109-165

T. New Pass (horses) 69-90 1992

U. Fort Sage 36

 Total 4,064

*1 The Forest Service has management responsibility for these herd areas. Population levels listed are prorated to

percent BLM lands. The population of the Montgomery Pass Herd Area is an estimated current population figure.

Actual management levels will be determined by the Forest Service.

*2 The Gabbs Valley Range Herd Area has been combined with the Pilot Mountain Herd Area.

*3 The Powell Mountain Herd Area population will be managed to maintain the population set in an existing

management plan. ................................................................ Transferred to USFS

2. Develop eleven water sources for wild horses and burros. (7 in the Walker Resource Area and

4 in the Lahontan Resource Area). First priority will be a spring development in the Pilot

Mountain Herd Area. Second priority will be a well in the Horse Mountain Herd Area. Other

water developments will be determined in subsequent HMAPs.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Develop and implement Herd Area Management Plans for wild horse herds and burros in the

following areas:

A. Horse Mountain J. Pine Nut-northern

B. Clan Alpine (revision) K. Garfield

C. Flanigan L. Pilot Mountain

D. Augusta Mountains M. Wassuk

E. Lahontan N. Fort Sage

F. South Stillwater Range O. Tule Ridge/Mahogany Flats

G. Dogskin Mountain P. North Stillwater Range

H. Granite Peak Q. Desatoya Mountains

I. Marietta
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WHB-4 Release 05/11/2001

2. Wild horse and burro management in specific areas will be guided by HMAPs. The plans will

be developed through consultation with interested parties and coordinated with livestock,

wildlife, and watershed plans. They will be focused on wild horse and burro management

through maintaining or improving wild horse and burro populations and habitats, development

of water sources, and population and habitat monitoring studies.

3. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has been designated lead management responsibility for wild

horses in the Powell mountain and Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Herd Areas. The USFS has

prepared a management plan for the Powell mountain Wild Horse Territory (USFS term) which

sets the wild horse population management level at 29. The Forest Service is in the process of

preparing a management plan for the Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Territory which may

require adjustments in that population.

4. Monitoring of wild horse and burro populations will be conducted in accordance with Nevada

State Office Manual Supplement 4730.

5. Designated wild horse and burro ranges are devoted primarily to the protection and

preservation of wild horses or burros. This means that other uses may be constrained to the

extent necessary to provide fully for their welfare. This could require reductions or closure to

livestock grazing, although in the case of the Marietta Herd Area, current livestock/wild burro

use areas overlap only slightly.

6. Designation of wild horse and burro ranges is reserved to the Director of the Bureau of Land

Management. Following approval of the Walker RMP, the recommendation for designation of

the Marietta National Wild Burro Range will be forwarded to the Director for his/her action.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

1. Section four of the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act of 1971, requires that wild horses

and burros that stray from public lands on to privately owned lands be removed on request of

the landowners.

2. Fences in wild horse and burro herd areas will be located or constructed in accordance with

BLM Manual Supplement 4730 so as to minimize interference with the normal distribution and

movement of wild horses. Selected portions of new fences constructed in these areas will be

flagged or otherwise marked for one year after construction to make them more visible to

horses and burros.

3. A range of wild horse numbers will be set for each HMA. The upper end of the range will not

exceed the carrying capacity of the HMA so that an ecological balance can be maintained

between wild horses, livestock, wildlife and their habitat. The range of horse numbers will be

designed to maximize the interval between removals (3-5 years). Also, contraceptive

techniques may be used to slow the rate of an increase of wild horses within the HMAs. Older
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WHB-5 Release 05/11/2001

unadaptable horses may be removed from a herd management area within the Resource Area

that is over appropriate management level and relocated to a herd management area that is

under appropriate management level.

4. Helicopter capture techniques will be the primary method used to capture horses. Where

feasible, water trapping will be used. Roping and capture net techniques may be used when

necessary.

5. Riparian area fencing will be utilized when necessary to protect these areas. Spring

development and protection may be undertaken to increase the quantity and quality of water at

these sources for the use by wild horses, wildlife and livestock.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

Herd Area Management Plans

Northern CCFO

1. Horse Mountain December 1991 Lahontan May 1991

2. Clan Alpine July 1993 Desatoya July 1993

3. New Pass August 1993 Flanigan October 1990

4. Granite Peak August 1993 Fort Sage March 1995

5. Dogskin July 1994 Augusta Mtn. March 1995

6. South Stillwater March 1995 North Stillwater February 1994

Southern CCFO

7. Marietta

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. LSG-1 Herd Management Areas, Livestock Grazing Allotments
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

RIP-1 Release 05/11/2001

RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 1737 Riparian-Wetland Area Management 12/10/92)

1. Departmental Policy. The Department of the interior has a mandate for management of the

Nation’s natural resources, including riparian-wetland areas. The Department’s policy is to:

A. Exercise leadership and take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and

short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of

wetlands and floodplains.

B. Avoid the direct or indirect support of wetland or floodplain projects whenever there is a

practical alternative.

2. BLM’s Policy. In accordance with the laws, EO’s, and Departmental policy to maintain,

restore, or improve riparian-wetland ecosystems to achieve a health proper functioning

condition that assures biological diversity, productivity, and sustainability, it is the BLM’s policy

to:

A. Use an interdisciplinary team to conduct and maintain an inventory of all riparianwetland areas, quantifying physical, biological, chemical condition and potential.

B. Focus management on entire watersheds using an ecosystem approach and involving all

interested landowners and affected parties whenever possible.

C. Achieve riparian-wetland area improvement and maintenance objectives through

management of existing and future uses wherever feasible.

D. Ensure that new resource management plans (RMP’s) and activity plans, and existing

plans when revised, recognize the importance of riparian-wetland values, and initiate

management to maintain, restore, improve or expand them.

E. Prescribe management for riparian-wetland values that is based upon site-specific

characteristics and settings.

F. Use an interdisciplinary team approach to monitor and evaluate management activities in

riparian-wetland areas and revise management practices where objectives are not being met.

G. Ensure public involvement in the planning and management of riparian-wetland

ecosystems. This includes federal, state, local governments, and industry organizations

sharing information, implementing management actions, coordinating activities, and

providing education on the value , productivity, and management of riparian-wetland

areas.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

RIP-2 Release 05/11/2001

H. Retain riparian-wetland areas in public ownership unless disposal would be in the public

interest, and acquire riparian-wetlands as determined in the land use planning system.

I. Identify, encourage, and support research and studies needed to ensure that riparianwetland area management objectives can be properly defined and met. Incorporate

research findings into the planning and management of riparian-wetland ecosystems.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Protect and maintain existing and potential fisheries and riparian areas in good or better

condition. (Proper functioning condition).

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. See Wildlife Section.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Riparian protection measures would involve implementation and evaluation of grazing

management systems and techniques which have been designed to enhance riparian habitats

before initiating extensive fencing of specific areas to exclude wild horses and livestock.

Riparian and fisheries habitat protection measures will involve fencing of some specific areas to

prevent over-utilization and trampling. Some grazing uses by livestock and wild horses could

occur on those riparian areas where monitoring studies indicate the area has recovered to a

good or better condition class. The degree and season of grazing use will be determined

through consultation and coordination with affected livestock permittees and other interested

parties.

2. See Wildlife Section.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. None

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

RIP-3 Release 05/11/2001

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health; Sierra Front Northwestern Great Basin;

February 12, 1997.

2. Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990's; September 1991.

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FOR-1 Release 05/11/2001

FORESTRY

NATIONAL POLICY:

1. None

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Forest and woodland management will be based on the principles of multiple use, sustained

yield, and ecosystem management.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Allow commercial timber sales (Markleeville and Long Valley Planning Units) consistent with

VRM class designations and objectives for scenic value management.

2. Commercial sales will not be allowed in the Class II VRM area (Indian Creek Recreation

Lands) that is highly visible from recreation developments unless needed for disease or hazard

reduction.

3. Salvage and sanitation cutting of commercial timber and other cutting consistent with VRM and

wildlife guidelines will be provided for in the Long Valley and Markleeville Planning Units.

4. Sell green pinyon and juniper for fuelwood and fence posts, for personal use, at the rate of up

to 5,000 cords and 1,000 posts annually. These sales would take place only in areas where

there would be no conflicts, or in areas where the conflicts could be mitigated.

5. The sale of dead standing and down fuelwoods, for personal use, with the exception of standing

cottonwood or aspen will continue in the Reno Planning Area outside of deer migration

corridors and identified critical watersheds. Any sales within identified high erosion areas must

not reduce ground cover more than 50 percent.

6. The J.W. Ranch area will be open to woodcutting for a one-year period to improve forage for

wintering mule deer.

7. Pinyon pine nuts may be harvested throughout the Field Office area of jurisdiction. The first 25

pounds are free and do not require a permit. After the initial 25 pounds the harvester is

considered a commercial user and will be required to get a permit and pay fair market value. 

Commercial use is subject to Field Office Manager approval.

8. Protect the five-acre stand of western white pine located in T 11N. , R 22E. , Sec. 16, from

damage or destruction.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FOR-2 Release 05/11/2001

9. Limit logging in the East Fork of the Carson River Canyon to Class II VRM recommendations.

Logging would be allowed if the visual quality of the canyon will be maintained. Salvage logging

will be allowed if the Watashema Dam is constructed.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Vegetation manipulations such as chaining, burns, and chemical treatments will be allowed only

after attempts have been made to sell or dispose of forest products through forestry sales

programs.

2. Sell vegetation and woodland products such as pine boughs, pine cones, ephedra, juniper

berries, ming moss, wildlings, and others as supply and demand allows.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. The establishment of greenwood cutting areas and harvest levels will be implemented through

Woodland Management Activity Plans which include ten-year sale levels and are based on

woodland inventories and classifications.

2. Commercial firewood and Christmas tree sales will be dealt with on a case by case basis. 

These sales will be covered by an environmental assessment and a checklist of contract

stipulations that conform with the guidelines developed in the Carson City Woodland

Management Policy (BLM Manual Supplement, 1983). Commercial sales may be either

negotiated or competitive bid depending on the size of the sale and local demand. Sales of

250,000 board feet or more will be competitive bid.

3. A variety of woodland products will continue to be available to the public. Designated green

firewood and Christmas tree cutting areas will be maintained and developed as public demand

directs. Firewood gathering and Christmas tree cutting by individuals for home use will be

permitted in these areas. Woodland products will be sold at fair market value. Maximum Field

Office-wide harvest rates are currently 5,000 cords and 16,000 Christmas trees annually.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. Forest resources will continue to be evaluated case-by-case as a part of project level planning. 

Such evaluations will consider the significance of the proposed project and the sensitivity of the

forest resources in the affected area. Stipulations will be included with harvest authorizations to
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FOR-3 Release 05/11/2001

assure the project meets forest management objectives for each project.

2. Harvest procedures will require limiting individual cutters to five cords per year where demand

is high.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Final EIS Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands In Thirteen Western States ....... July 1991

2. California Vegetation Management Final EIS ........................... August 1988

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-1 Release 05/11/2001

WILDLIFE

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 6500 - Wildlife and Fisheries Management 06/17/88)

The general policies below are supplemented by more specific policies in BLM Manual Sections 1622

and 6501-6880. It is BLM policy to manage habitats with emphasis on ecosystems to ensure selfsustaining populations and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife, fish, and plant resources on the

public lands. To carry out this responsibility, the BLM will:

1. Prepare and maintain on a continuing basis, an inventory of the wildlife and fish resources, plant

communities, and threatened, endangered, and candidates (special status) species on the public

lands.

2. Ensure full consideration of the wildlife, fish, and special status species in land use plans and

other BLM activities.

3. Use strategic planning to establish long range goals and objectives for the wildlife, fish and

special status species and identify management activities needed to achieve these goals and

objectives.

4. Develop and implement habitat management plans identified during the planning process.

5. Ensure all activity plans (HMPs, AMPs, etc.) Include site specific objectives for wildlife, fish,

and special status species and the actions necessary to achieve those objectives.

6. Monitor ongoing management actions and determine if habitat management objectives are being

met.

7. Carry out habitat management activities identified during the planning process and in NEPA

documents.

8. Maintain the continued effectiveness of habitat improvements.

9. Maintain a staff of professional employees with the formal training and expertise necessary to

achieve the objectives of the program.

10. Ensure a level of communication and coordination necessary to provide effective cooperation

between BLM, private groups, and local, state and federal agencies concerned with

management of the wildlife, fish, and special status species on the public lands.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-2 Release 05/11/2001

11. Support or carry out research necessary to ensure availability of data and techniques necessary

for proper and efficient management of the wildlife, fish, and special status species.

12. Develop and maintain wildlife and fisheries automated records and systems with a balance of

standardization and flexibility to improve the efficiency and manageability of the program and

resources.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Initially, manage habitats for existing numbers of big game.

2. Manage wildlife habitat for a long-term goal of providing forage for reasonable numbers of big

game as follows:

Lahontan Resource Area

(see Lahontan Rangeland Program Summary, December 1989 for allotment specific allocations)

Species Animal Unit Months (AUMs)

A. Mule Deer 13,254

B. Bighorn Sheep 960

C. Antelope Objectives only in RPS.

Walker Resource Area

(see Walker Rangeland Program Summary, November 1989 for allotment specific allocations)

Species Animal Unit Months (AUMs)

A. Mule Deer 9,220

B. Bighorn Sheep 180 

C. Antelope Objectives only in RPS.

3. Protect and maintain existing and potential fisheries habitat and riparian habitats in a good or

better condition.

4. Maintain and improve wildlife habitat, including riparian/stream habitats, and reduce habitat

conflicts while providing for other appropriate resource uses.

5. Maintain or improve the habitat condition of meadow and aquatic areas. Habitat condition for

any wildlife species can be defined as the ability of a specific area to supply the forage, cover,

water and space requirements of an animal. Habitat condition, therefore, is a measure of habitat

quality, and is determined by assessments, surveys and studies.

6. Maintain or improve the condition of the public rangelands so as to enhance productivity for all

rangeland values (including wildlife).
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-3 Release 05/11/2001

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Support reintroduction of Lahontan cutthroat trout, bighorn sheep and other endemic species

into suitable, potential and historic habit.

Species Site(s)

 A. Bighorn sheep Stillwater Mountains, Clan Alpine Mountains, Desatoya

Mountains

 B. Lahontan cutthroat trout Streams and springs identified by NDOW as potential habitat

 C. Other T&E fish Streams and springs identified by NDOW as potential habitat

Reno Planning area

2. Intensive grazing systems will be implemented on the category I allotments within mule deer

habitat areas which have cattle, and will recognize bitter-brush as a key species on these

allotments.

3. The Faye Canyon, Spratt Creek and Hangman allotments will continue as areas set aside for

wildlife use.

4. Limit OHV use to designated roads and trails in the Petersen Mountain and Sand Hills crucial

deer areas.

......... Federal Register Notice, Sept. 15, 1988 Closed Petersen Mountains Year round.

........................................... Sand Hills Closed Dec. 1 - April 30.

5. Close Bedell Flat strutting ground to OHV use from March 1 to May 30 each year.

............................................ Strutting Ground has Disappeared.

6. The Jacks Valley Wildlife Management Area will be closed to OHVs between Dec. 1st and

May 1st annually. ................................... Transferred to USFS in 1988.

7. Limit vehicle traffic to designated roads and trails in the higher elevations of the Pine Nut

Mountains. All existing roads and trails will be designated open to OHV use except where

roads or trails impact sensitive meadows, seeps, springs and other waters as identified in the

watershed decisions.

8. Protect Jack's Valley Wildlife Management Area (WMA) from wildfires, especially that

portion of it south of Jack's Valley road. .................. Transferred to USFS in 1988.

9. Carson City District's Normal Year Fire Plan will provide for maximum protection of Sand Hills

deer winter range from wildfires.

10. Protect all occupied identified raptor eyries threatened by OHV events or mining operations

with area closures from March 1st thru June 15.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-4 Release 05/11/2001

11. The JW Ranch area will be open to commercial or noncommercial wood cutting for a one year

period to improve forage for wintering mule deer. If this practice does not accomplish the

desired objective, chaining and reseeding will be allowed.

12. Dead-standing or live cottonwood or aspen trees will remain. Any dead or live trees in

identified deer migration corridors will be left for wildlife use.

13. All riparian areas will be given special management consideration through the consultation and

coordination process to provide for adequate protection.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. Acquire private lands in the following areas for wildlife:

A. Lassen-Washoe deer winter range and migration corridor. About 7,400 acres.

.............................. Petersen Exchange Acquired 3,812 acres, April 1996.

......................... Perma Bilt Exchange Acquired 123 acres, September 1997.

B. East Walker River lands for fisheries and wildlife habitat management.

................................................ Transferred to USFS in 1988

C. Pine Nut Mountains for wildlife habitat management, about 35,000 acres.

........................ Perma Bilt Land Exchange Acquired 4,310 acres, June 1997.

2. Acquire legal access to Faye Canyon, Bagley Valley and the Hangman's Bridge area near

Markleeville. Legal access will be acquired in coordination with the USFS.

............................... Completed Faye/Luther Trailhead EA, August 2000 

3. Acquire or provide legal access through or around Big Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon and

Hardscrabble Canyon to provide vehicular access into the Virginia Mountains. Legal access

will be provided for administration of BLM lands.

.................................. Cottonwood Canyon Easement Acquired, 1990.

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Implement range improvement projects to protect and improve (big game) mule deer, bighorn

sheep, sage grouse, fisheries, and riparian habitat and to improve livestock and wild horse

distribution and vegetation utilization. This includes:

A. Protection of 10.7 miles of fishable rivers and creeks.

B. Rehabilitation of meadow habitats in the McBride Flat allotment.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-5 Release 05/11/2001

C. Protection of 20 developed spring sources and 7 undeveloped riparian areas.

D. Removal of 600 acres of pinyon-juniper overstory on selected sites in the Pine Nut

Mountains, Excelsior Mountains, Wassuk Range, and the McBride Flat area through

fuelwood harvest.

E. Installation of 10 guzzlers.

F. Development of water for wildlife at six spring development and 5 undeveloped riparian

areas.

G. Removal of 250 acres of pinyon-juniper and potential chaining and seeding in the J-W

ranch area.

H. Protection of 95 small wildlife habitat areas.

I. This also includes protection of riparian/meadow habitat areas with the following

priority:

Site Miles Acres

1. Edwards Creek 4.6

2. Horse Creek 5.0

3. Big Dens Creek 6.0

4. Cherry Valley Meadows 1,600

5. Park Canyon Creek 1.1

6. Willow Creek 3.4

7. War Canyon Creek 5.1

8. Cherry Creek 4.6

9. Carson River 0.2

J. The protection of 65 spring sources is also included with the following top 20 prioritized.

Inventory Number Area Location

1. K0780008A 13 Cherry Valley T.20 N., R.36 E, Sec.33, NE

2. K0770001A 13 South War Canyon T.20 N., R.26 E, Sec.13, NESW

3. K0770002A 13 South War Canyon T.20 N., R.36 E, Sec.23, NWNW

4. K0770003A 13 South War Canyon T.20 N., R.36 E, Sec.23, SWSW

5. K0780003A 13 South War Canyon T.20 N., R.36 E, Sec.28, SESW

6. L0020007B 63 Burnt Canyon T.19 N., R.33 E, Sec.33, NESW

7. D0370001A 13 Cherry Valley T.20 N., R.36 E, Sec.20, SESE

8. D0370002A 58 Cherry Valley T.20 N., R.36 E, Sec.28, SWNW

9. D0580002A 12 Silver Hill T.21 N., R.33 E, Sec.12, SENW
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-6 Release 05/11/2001

10. D0570002A 13 Silver Hill T.21 N., R.33 E, Sec.07, NWNW

11. D0570001A 12 Silver Hill T.21 N., R.33 E, Sec.12, SENW

12. D0610001B 42 Mud Spring T.20 N., R.34 E, Sec.05, SWNE

13. D0610005A 13 East Job Canyon T.21 N., R.33 E, Sec.25, NESW

14. D0580004A 13 West Wood Canyon T.21 N., R.34 E, Sec.30, SWNE

Inventory Number Area Location

15. D0360001A 36 Mount Augusta T.19 N., R.36 E, Sec.09, SESE

16. K0750004A 13 North War Canyon T.20 N., R.37 E, Sec.19, NWSE

17. K0750006A 13 North War Canyon T.20 N., R.37 E, Sec.18, NESW

18. K0750007A 13 North War Canyon T.20 N., R.37 E, Sec.18, SENW

19. K0440004A 27 Straight Canyon T.21 N., R.38 E, Sec.30

20. K0440005A 27 Rocky Canyon T.21 N., R.38 E, Sec.19

2. Rehabilitate 6,000 acres of burned deer winter range (Petersen Mountain).

3. Rehabilitate 6,000 acres of burned critical deer winter range. The specific locations and types

of rehabilitation will be determined by consultation and coordination through a public process.

CRMP is the preferred process.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Continue implementation of the following Habitat Management Plans (HMPs):

A. Job Peak ........................ Incorporated in Stillwater HMP, completed 1987.

B. Dogskin/Virginia .......................................... Completed 1977.

C. Lassen/Washoe .............................................. Revised 1988.

D. Desert Mountain ............................. Completed 1983, Needs Revision.

E. Sand Springs/Fairview Peak ..................... Completed 1981, Needs Revision.

F. Alkali Lake ................................. Managed by NDOW since 1980s.

G. East Walker River ............................... No Plan Transferred to USFS.

H. Jacks Valley .......................................... Transferred to USFS.

I. Excelsior Mountain ................................................ No Plan.

J. Pilot Mountain ................................................... No Plan

K. Mina .................................................... Completed 1988

2. Complete or revise the following HMPs:

A. Pah Rah ................................................ Completed 1982.

B. Jumbo ......................................................... No Plan.

C. Pine Nut .......................................... Revision completed 1987.

3. Fencing of small habitats will be accomplished through the Activity Planning process and will

include public participation and collaboration.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-7 Release 05/11/2001

4. Wildlife habitat improvement projects will be guided, in the most part, by provisions in activity

level plans such as habitat management plans, or interdisciplinary activity plans. These plans will

be developed through consultation with interested parties and will be coordinated with

livestock, wild horse, and wilderness plans. These plans will be focused on rehabilitation and

improvement of wildlife habitat through protective fencing, water developments, grazing

management, and vegetation treatments.

5. Riparian protection measures would involve implementation and evaluation of grazing

management systems and techniques which have been designed to enhance riparian habitat

before initiating extensive fencing of specific areas to exclude wild horses and livestock.

Riparian and fisheries habitat protection measures will involve fencing of some specific areas to

prevent over-utilization and trampling. Some grazing uses by livestock and wild horses could

occur on those riparian areas where monitoring studies indicate the area has recovered to a

good or better condition class. The degree and season of grazing use will be determined

through consultation and coordination with affected livestock permittees and other interested

parties.

6. Monitoring of big game habitat and fisheries will be conducted in accordance with BLM

manuals 6630 and 6672. Monitoring of other wildlife habitats will be conducted as appropriate.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. Current BLM Riparian Area Management Guidelines, as outlined in the 1987 Policy Statement

clarified in the BLM's Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for the 1990's shall be followed.

2. There shall be no change in class of livestock from cattle to sheep in identified bighorn habitats

of any type. Current BLM guidelines for domestic sheep management in bighorn sheep habitats

as outlined in BLM Instruction Memo 98-140, as updated, shall be followed.

3. Identified bighorn lambing areas are considered very sensitive and essential to the continued

existence of established bighorn populations. No activities shall be allowed which adversely

affect these areas. Areas currently identified include Chalk Mountain, Bald Mountain, and the

Desatoya Mountains

4. Active occupied raptor nests shall be protected with an administrative one-half mile wide buffer

to protect them from disturbance by participants in OHV races, trail rides and other organized

recreational events, unless sites specific conditions allow otherwise.

5. Vegetation control measures will be prohibited within 100 yards of a stream or meadow, on

sage grouse breeding complexes, or wintering grounds, unless they are intended to improve

sage grouse habitats.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-8 Release 05/11/2001

6. BLM activities in this district shall adhere to current BLM policies and procedures to enhance

ecosystem management on public lands.

7. Proposed introductions, transplants, augmentations, and reestablishment for both floral and

faunal species shall follow BLM Manual 1745, and any additional Nevada State Office

guidelines.

8. Animal damage control is an integral part of livestock management on public lands. It shall be

allowed to continue as it has in the past 20+ years, provided there is a current annual plan of

work prepared by Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, and an environmental analysis prepared by the district, per current BLM/APHIS

guidelines.

............ Replaced with 1995 National Level MOU whereby APHIS/ADC prepares a 

state-wide EA and cooperates with BLM and NDOW in preparing an annual plan of work.

9. Big game guzzlers will be fenced to exclude domestic livestock and wild horses.

10. No broadleaf trees, dead or green, will be harvested because of their superior values to wildlife

for nest trees.

11. Where the need is identified for wildlife use, water improvements will include protected seep

areas and fences around spring developments.

12. Water for wildlife will be made available at all livestock watering developments where

appropriate.

13. Spring improvement projects will be fenced and water will be piped away from the source to a

trough or pond if necessary. Water will also be left at the spring source in accordance with

Nevada law.

14. All water improvements will include bird ramps in watering troughs, lateral water sites off

pipelines, overflows at troughs, protected seep areas, and fences around spring developments.

15. Brush control by herbicides, prescribed burning, or by mechanical means will be in accordance

with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the

Bureau of Land Management. The procedures specify, among other things, that vegetation

control measures will be prohibited on sage grouse breeding complexes, wintering grounds, or

within 100 yards of a stream or meadow.

........... All vegetation management actions in Nevada will conform with decisions in the 

final Environmental Impact Statement on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States and Record

of Decision 1991. All vegetation management actions in California will conform with decisions
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WLD-9 Release 05/11/2001

in the California Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of

Decision 1988.

16. BLM will adhere to current habitat modification guidelines prepared by the Western Sage

Grouse Committee of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

Habitat Management Plans (HMP)

1. Stillwater Range HMP ........................................ September 1987.

2. Amendment to Stillwater Range and Clan Alpine HMPs .................. August 1995.

3. Lassen-Washoe Wildlife Habitat Area HMP (Revised) ..................... June 1988.

4. Desatoya Mountains HMP .......................................... June 1994.

5. Desatoya Range Bighorn Sheep HMP ............................... August 1986.

6. HMP Desert Mountains Wildlife HMA ................................. June 1983.

7. HMP Sand Springs - Fairview Peak ................................... April 1981.

8. HMP Dogskin - Virginia Mountain Wildlife HMA .................... September 1977.

9. HMP Pah Rah Range Wildlife HMA ................................ August 1982.

10. Pine Nut HMP (Revised) .......................................... March 1987.

11. Mina HMP ................................................... August 1988.

12. Gillis Mountains Desert Bighorn Sheep Release Package ................. October 1997.

13. Clan Alpine HMP ............................................. February 1988.

 

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Lahontan Rangeland Program Summary Update ...................... December 1989.

2. Walker Resource Area Rangeland Program Summary ................. November 1989.

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. WLD-1 Critical Areas, Deer Winter Range, Sage Grouse Leks.

2. WLD-2 Critical Areas, Pronghorn Antelope, Mountain Quail

3. WLD-3 Critical Areas, Desert Mountain Goat, Valley Quail, Mountain Lion
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SSS-1 Release 05/11/2001

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM manual Section 6840 - Special Status Species Management 09/16/88)

The policy of the BLM is listed below.

1. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

A. The BLM shall conserve T/E species and the ecosystems upon which they depend and

shall use existing authority in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. Specifically BLM

shall:

1. Determine, to the extent practical, the occurrence and distribution of all T/E species on

lands administered by BLM, and evaluate the significance of lands administered by

BLM in the conservation of those species.

2. Identify land administered by BLM that is essential habitat and designated Critical

Habitat of T/E species and prescribes management for the conservation of these

habitats in land use plans.

3. Develop and implement management plans that will ensure the conservation of T/E

species and their habitats.

4. Evaluate ongoing management activities to ensure T/E conservation objectives are being

met.

5. Ensure that all activities affecting the populations and habitats of T/E species are

designed to be consistent with recovery needs and objectives.

B. Ensure that all actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM are in compliance with

the ESA. To accomplish this BLM shall:

1. Screen all proposed actions to determine if T/E species or their habitat will be affected.

Normally the environmental analysis process is used, but for some actions, such as

3809 notices or APDs, no EA is prepared; however, they must still be screened.

2. Initiate consultation with the FWS/NMFS, as appropriate, for those actions that may

affect T/E species or their habitats.

3. Until the consultation proceedings are completed and a final decision has been reached,

BLM shall not carry out any actions that would cause irreversible or irretrievable

commitment of resources or reduce the future management options for the species

involved.

4. Ensure that no BLM action will adversely affect the likelihood of recovery of any T/E

species.

C. Cooperate with the FWS/NMFS in planning for the recovery of T/E species. To

accomplish this BLM shall:

1. Participate on recovery teams and in recovery plan preparation, as well as State or

regional working teams responsible for T/E species recovery.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SSS-2 Release 05/11/2001

2. Review technical and agency review drafts of recovery plans for species affected by

BLM management to ensure that proposed actions assigned to BLM are technically

and administratively feasible and consistent with BLM’s mission and authority.

3. Ensure that the decisions, terms and conditions of resource management plans, and

more detailed site-specific plans, prepared for lands by previously approved recovery

plans are consistent with meeting recovery plan objectives.

D. Retain in federal ownership all habitat essential for the survival or recovery of any T/E

species, including habitats used historically by these species.

2. Species Proposed For federal Listing. Species proposed for listing as T/E and proposed

Critical Habitat shall be managed with the same level of protection provided for T/E species

except that formal consultations are not required.

A. BLM shall confer with FWS/NMFS on any action that will adversely affect a proposed

species or proposed Critical Habitat.

B. Until the conference proceedings are completed BLM shall ensure that all actions authorized

or carried out do not cause any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources or

reduce the future management options for the species involved.

3. Candidate Species. The BLM shall carry out management, consistent with the principles of

multiple use, for the conservation of candidate species and their habitats and shall ensure that

actions authorized, funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need to list any of these

species as T/E. Specifically BLM shall:

A. Determine the distribution, abundance, reasons for current status, and habitat needs for

candidate species occurring on lands administered by BLM and evaluate the

significance of lands administered by BLM in maintaining those species.

B. For those species where lands administered by BLM or actions have a significant effect on

their status, manage the habitat to conserve the species by:

1. Including candidate species as priority species in land use plans (BLM MS 1622).

2. Developing and implementing range wide and/or site-specific management plans for

candidate species that include specific habitat and population management objectives

designed for recovery, as well as the management strategies necessary to meet those

objectives.

3. Ensuring that BLM activity that effect the habitat of candidate species are carried out in

a manner that is consistent with the objectives for managing those species.

4. Monitoring populations and habitats of candidate species to determine whether

management objectives are being met.

C. Request technical assistance from FWS/NMFS, and other qualified sources, on any
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SSS-3 Release 05/11/2001

planned action that may contribute to the need to list a candidate species as T/E.

4. Sensitive species. State Directors, usually in cooperation with state wildlife agencies, may

designate sensitive species. By definition the sensitive species designation includes species that

could easily become endangered or extinct in a state. Therefore, if sensitive species are

designated by a State Director, the protection provided by the policy for candidate species shall

be used as a minimum level of protection.

5. State Listed Species. The BLM shall carry out management for the conservation of state listed

plants and animals. State laws protecting these species, apply to all BLM programs and actions

to the extent that they are consistently with FLPMA and other federal laws. In states where the

state government has designated species in categories that imply local rarity, endangerment,

extirpation, or extinction, the State Director will develop policies that will assist the state in

achieving their management objectives for those species.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. None

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Support reintroduction of Lahontan cutthroat trout, bighorn sheep and other endemic species

into suitable, potential and historic habit.

Species Site(s)

 A. Bighorn sheep Stillwater Mountains, Clan Alpine Mountains, Desatoya

Mountains

 B. Lahontan cutthroat trout Streams and springs identified by NDOW as potential habitat

 C. Other T&E fish Streams and springs identified by NDOW as potential habitat

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Use fencing, emergency OHV closure, no disposal of public lands, minerals’ coordination, or

any other legal means necessary to protect identified T/E plant populations. Work with

applicants who present mining plans to avoid destruction of T/E plant populations, following

guidance in the 43 CFR 3802 and 3809 regulations.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SSS-4 Release 05/11/2001

1. None

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. A Threatened and Endangered Species clearance for plants or animals will be required before

any action will be approved could affect those species. If any action could impact a Threatened

or Endangered Species or its habitat, Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service will be initiated. Results of the consultation will determine if modification or

abandonment of the project is required.

2. No actions will be authorized, funded or carried out that would contribute to the need to list a

federal Category 1 Candidate Species as Threatened or Endangered.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. WLD-1 Critical Areas, Deer Winter Range, Sage Grouse Leks.

2. WLD-2 Critical Areas, Pronghorn Antelope, Mountain Quail

3. WLD-3 Critical Areas, Desert Mountain Goat, Valley Quail, Mountain Lion
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SWA-1 Release 05/11/2001

SOIL, WATERSHED AND AIR

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Sections 7000 - Soil, Water and Air Management and 7001 -

Soil Resource Management 03/08/84)

BLM Manual Section 7000: It is the policy of BLM to:

1. Manage the public lands in a manner that will protect and improve the quality of the soil, water,

and air resources and watershed values associated with public lands.

2. Obtain and keep current needed soil, water, and air resource information to support the various

planning and multiple-use management activities associated with BLM administered public

lands.

3. Stop the deterioration of public lands due to accelerated erosion and runoff and rehabilitate

those areas where watershed values are significantly below their potential.

4. Coordinate the BLM’s soil, water, and air quality activities with the related programs of state,

local and other federal agencies and departments.

5. Provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including state and federal air,

water, or other pollution control standards, programs, or implementation plans.

BLM Manual Section 7001 (08/15/84): It is the policy of BLM to:

6. Collect and maintain soil resource information at a level of intensity consistent with management

needs and in accordance with the NCSS program.

7. Develop, test, and apply soil interpretations to guide the use and management of the soil and

related resources.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Reduce soil loss and associated flood and sediment damage on public lands caused by

accelerated wind and water erosion due to man’s actions.

2. Maintain air quality standards through case by case review of activities on public lands.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Bureau and Bureau authorized activities will be limited or prohibited in watersheds that are

degrading, or in specific portions of those watersheds that are in the most immediate risk of

degradation. These areas include but are not limited to the following:

A. Northwest Reno E. East Washoe Valley
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SWA-2 Release 05/11/2001

B. Sun Valley F. Pyramid Lake Area

C. Sparks G. Honey Lake Valley

D. Virginia Foothills H. Other critical watersheds

2. Critical or at-risk watersheds will be delineated as necessary in order to give these areas

special consideration in activity plan development, with the goal of preventing accelerated soil

loss and watershed degradation associated flood and sediment damage to private property or

adjacent lands, or to prevent destruction of important wildlife habitat. Delineate high erosion

hazard and/or flood-prone areas within the urban interface areas.

3. Limit any Bureau development, authorized activity, or land treatment so not to exceed a 50%

reduction in ground cover in High Erosion Susceptibility Areas (HESA). Exceptions include

water stabilization projects designed to promote vegetative cover, "open" OHV designations on

Prison Hill, North Flannigan, Pah Rah Mountains, McClellan Peak, and East Churchill Canyon,

non-discretionary mining and prospecting activities, lands disposal in HESAs, green firewood

cutting in Bailey Canyon HESA and Christmas tree cutting in the Brunswick Canyon.

4. Retain public lands within 100-year flood plain boundaries. Authorize development within 100-

year flood plain only if consistent with existing federal, state and local government restrictions.

5. Limit off-highway vehicle use to designated roads and trails in areas of severe erosion hazard

susceptibility and in watersheds where OHV use is causing flood and sediment problems. The

areas to be limited, include: 

A. Peterson Mountain 

B. Warm Springs/Hungry Valley 

C. Sun Valley 

D. Peavine Mountain ..................................... Transferred to USFS. 

E. Jumbo/Geiger Grade 

F. Portions of Prison and C Hill

G. Mullen Pass

6. Eliminate OHV use in the following areas: 

A. Through or in the immediate vicinity (near enough to the source area that its water

quality or quantity may be affected) of any surface water source such as a spring or

seep.

B. Any riparian zone associated with meadows, marshes, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes,

reservoirs, or streams.

C. Any channel, bank or streamed of a perennial stream. Exceptions are counties or BLM

improved roads.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SWA-3 Release 05/11/2001

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Initiate an erosion control treatment or management actions designed to reduce surface impacts,

in areas where accelerated erosion is occurring due to BLM authorized activities. Develop

specific management plans by watershed area, and implement action found to be economically

feasible.

2. All Bureau and Bureau authorized activities will be reviewed to determine appropriate measures

or stipulations to enhance positive or reduce negative air quality impacts.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Develop and implement watershed management plans on the following water sheds:

A. Corey Creek Watershed

B. Rough Creek Watershed ...................... Rough Creek Transferred to USFS.

It is projected that twenty erosion control structures will be required to implement these plans.

2. Establish goals on a case-by-case basis in all grazing management plans to reduce or stabilize

erosion rates by increasing ground cover. Specify those portions of each plan where sufficient

ground cover cannot be established to meet erosion goals.

3. Watershed management plans will be developed through consultation with interested parties

and will be coordinated with livestock, wildlife, and wild horse and burro management plans.

After the plans have been implemented, watershed conditions will be monitored through water

quality, wind and water erosion studies as appropriate. If necessary, changes in the future

watershed treatments will be proposed.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

1. Soil disturbance from activities on public lands will be minimized through activity planning and

environmental assessment procedures.

2. Air quality will be protected through compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1990 and all federal, 

state and local emission standards for air quality. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act 42

(U.S.C. 7506 states that “No department, agency or instrumentality of the federal Government

shall engage in, support in any way, or provide federal assistance for, license or permit, or

approve any activity which does not conform to an implementation plan after it has been
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SWA-4 Release 05/11/2001

promulgated under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.”

3. Actions which interfere with or prevent achievement of proper functioning condition of riparianwetland areas, and associated uplands will be avoided or mitigated.

4. Pollution control and abatement programs will be developed to provide for both environmental

protection and reasonable resource uses.

5. Best management practices will be instituted and necessary plans and permit requirements will

be employed in activity plans for the abatement and control of non-point source pollution from

public lands.

6. Maintain or strive to maintain all riparian systems and upland areas in proper functioning

condition. Monitor and re-assess these areas appropriately, and address riparian and upland

health in all pertinent activity plans.

7. In order to insure watershed health, control or elimination of noxious weeds on both upland and

riparian areas will be in cooperation with local, state, and other federal agencies, as well private

groups or other interested parties.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCES:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WAT-1 Release 05/11/2001

WATER RESOURCES

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Sections 7240 10/31/78 - Water Quality and 7250 - Water

Rights 03/19/84)

1. BLM Manual Section 7240 Water Quality

A. It is the Bureau policy to protect, maintain, restore and/or enhance the quality of water

on public lands so that its utility for other dependent ecosystems, including present

and/or desired human environments, will be maintained equally or above legal water

quality criteria. The water quality limits are those defined by the most stringent

applicable laws and regulations. It is also policy to inventory, monitor, and evaluate

natural and developed water systems to determine existing conditions, make

cause/effect determination of resource activities on water quality, and recommend

appropriate actions.

2. BLM Manual Section 7250 Water Rights

A. The water policy of the BLM is that the states have the primary authority and

responsibility for the allocation and management of water resources within their own

boundaries, except as otherwise specified by Congress on a case-by-case basis.

B. Implement Water Policy. In order to implement the BLM water policy of state water

resource’s primacy, Bureau personnel shall:

1. Cooperate with state governments under the umbrella of state law to protect all water

uses identified for public land management purposes.

2. Comply with applicable state law, except as specifically mandated by Congress, to

appropriate water necessary to manage public lands for the purposes intended by

congress.

C. Withdrawn Lands. Where congress has by statute withdrawn lands from the public

domain for a specific federal purpose pursuant to congressional authorization, the

Bureau may assert a federal reserved water right to appurtenant and unappropriated

water which was unappropriated as of the date of the reservation only in the minimum

amount necessary.

D. Primary Purpose. Where the primary purposes of the reservation can be served as, or

more effectively by application of the receipt thereof of, a state appropriative water

right, the Bureau is not required to assert an otherwise available federal reserved water

right, unless the Bureau is required to participate in a McCarran Amendment

Proceeding, in which case all federal reserved water rights must be asserted. (See

Section .2.22A McCarran Amendment.)
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WAT-2 Release 05/11/2001

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Maintain or enhance water quality and availability on public lands in the field office Area of

jurisdiction.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. None

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Water availability and distribution will be enhanced through water developments proposed for

livestock, wild horses, and wildlife.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Water quality will be improved through development of watershed management plans and

protection of riparian areas.

Reno Planning Area (only)

2. Proof of water right permits will be required regarding any or all non-reserved waters before

initiating development in such waters. If water right permit does not exist, the Bureau will

encourage the permittee to choose and follow through on one of the following three options:

D. Obtain water permit solely in his/her name.

B. Obtain a permit as co holder with BLM.

A. Requests BLM to obtain the permit.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. The BLM under the mandates of Sections 208 and 313 of the Clean Water Act of 1977,

Executive Order No. 12088, and the provisions of the federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976 is required to comply with the State of Nevada’s water quality and

implementation plan. Bureau commitment and responsibility are further emphasized by the

Memorandum of Understanding signed by the BLM. Nevada State Director in December 1980

and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Among other things the BLM has agreed

to: 

A. Continue to develop pollution control and abatement programs which provide for both

environmental protection and reasonable resource uses on BLM administered lands.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WAT-3 Release 05/11/2001

B. Wherever appropriate, institute best managements practice and employ other necessary

plans and permit requirements in the development of Resource Management Plans, allotment

management plans, grazing permits, etc., for the abatement and control of non-point source

pollution from public lands.

C. Develop and institute a “208" water quality monitoring and survey program, and upon

request, provide NDEP with any available water quality data gathered by BLM.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FIR-1 Release 05/11/2001

FIRE MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Sections 9212- Fire Prevention 07/22/92 and 9214 -

Prescribed Fire Management 02/02/88)

BLM Manual Section 9212, Fire Prevention

Consistent with Departmental policy (910 DM 1.4), it is the BLM’s policy that:

1. Prevention of disaster wildfires is a high priority. Commitment to an effective wildfire prevention

program is expected at all levels within the Bureau.

2. The wildfire prevention program shall be designed to minimize losses from fire consistent with

resource objectives identified in Resource Management Plans.

3. Wildfire prevention shall stress the analysis of risks, hazards and values and the development of

specific educational, engineering, enforcement and administrative prevention actions.

4. Wildfire prevention activities shall be coordinated with all federal, state, county, and Municipal

agencies.

5. Each state and district office shall provide coordination, guidance, and assistance to achieve an

aggressive wildfire prevention program and shall maintain and update as required a Wildfire

Prevention Plan integrated with the Fire Management planning process.

6. Wildfire Prevention Program funding shall be consistent with the identified needs as determined

through a prevention analysis that is approved as an operational plan of the FMAP (BLM

9212-1).

7. The BLM shall emphasize the use of hazardous fuel reduction techniques as part of the wildfire

prevention program.

BLM Manual Section 9214, Prescribed Fire Management. 

8. The fire role and its potential use will be considered in establishing the management strategy for

all ecosystems.

9. Prescribed fires may be initiated by planned or unplanned (unscheduled) ignition. See definitions

under 9210.

10. All prescribed fire (including hazard reduction) projects will support one or more approved

land management objective(s) derived from the Bureau’s land management planning process.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FIR-2 Release 05/11/2001

11. The planning and execution of the prescribed fire will be funded by the benefitting program(s).

12. Each prescribed fire project will have an approved Prescribed Fire Plan completed before

ignition and will be reported upon completion. Other agency projects supported by the Bureau

will have approved participation.

13. Each prescribed fire will be managed and executed in conformance with the approved plan by

qualified personnel. The term qualified will include experience, training, and physical fitness for

key positions.

14. Prescribed fire projects will comply with federal, state and local regulations and standards,

including air quality and Smoke Management programs.

15. Pre-burn, burn, and post-burn fuel and weather measurement(s) will be taken on all prescribed

fire projects for planning purposes, prescription, compliance, and project evaluation. It may not

be necessary to take post weather measurements on fuel reduction projects.

16. Pre-burn and post-burn monitoring will be conducted to determine whether resource and fire

objectives are achieved, unless where previous documented experience is adequate to predict

post-burn results.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Restore fire as an integral part of the ecosystem, improve the diversity of vegetation and to

reduce fire hazard fuels.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Carson City Field Office is divided into four fire management categories A, B, C and D (see

map X). Fire will be managed in these areas according to the following guidance.

A. Category A: Those areas where wildfires are not wanted. These areas include

threatened and endangered species habitat and the urban/wildland interface. 

Full suppression of wildfires will be the objective. Treatments using prescribed fire and

selective tree cutting could be used on a limited basis to reduce fuel loading and the potential

for severe wildfires. 

Wildfires in Category A areas will be suppressed with the intent of holding them to 10 acres

or less 90% of the time, and continue aggressive suppression until fires are contained. 

Category A fire management with full suppression will be limited to about 20,000 acres in
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FIR-3 Release 05/11/2001

the Carson City Field Office administrative boundary.

B. Category B: Those areas where wildfires are not wanted, but if fires occur and escape,

management options on how to suppress the fire is available. It is recognized that fire has a

role in the natural environment and opportunities for prescribed fire are significant. Many of

the areas in this category have a history of severe fires that have escaped, despite aggressive

full suppression responses. 

Hazardous fuels will be reduced in order to reduce the threat of rapid fire spread and

escaped fires. Techniques to accomplish this will include prescribed burning and selective

tree cutting. Major considerations are wildland/urban interface, threatened, endangered, or

sensitive species habitat, or areas that have experienced so much fire in the last 10 to 15

years that special consideration is warranted. 

Wildfires in Category B areas will be suppressed with the intent of holding 90% to 10 acres

or less in forested areas, and to 25 acres or less in brush or grass areas. Escaped fires will

be closely analyzed to consider protection of life, then property and natural resources, and

suppression strategies that will most effectively meet these goals will be used. Category B

fire management will be applied to about 500,000 acres in the Carson City Field Office

administrative boundary.

C. Category C: Those areas where fire has a significant role in the environment, and

wildfires should be used to accomplish resource management goals. Constraints exist,

but are generally localized (small towns, ranches, riparian sites, etc.), and will require

buffer zones of full protection and fuel treatments, but as a whole, the areas are

delineated for the beneficial effects of fire. In this category, the need for prescribed fire

is less and tends to be site specific to accomplish protection or improvement goals. The

desired future condition is a healthy ecosystem characterized by a good distribution and

proportion of successional stages such as will occur over time under a natural fire

regime. The desired outcome is that fires will be irregular in shape, exhibit varied

intensities, and not consume more than half of any major drainage.

The objective for Category C will be to contain unplanned ignitions to less than 2,000 acres

90% of the time in all vegetative types. Fire suppression tactics will be constrained to

protect scenic, natural resource, and wilderness values. Category C fire management will be

applied to about 1,100,000 acres in the Carson City Field Office administrative boundary.

D. Category D: Those areas where wildfires should be allowed to burn in a mostly

unrestricted fashion to achieve resource objectives. All fires receive a response and

will be evaluated for potential threats or negative impacts. Fire suppression actions will

be limited to protection of small sites with constraints (such as ranches, improvements,
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FIR-4 Release 05/11/2001

or riparian zones) by either applying preventive fuels management treatment before

wildfires start or by herding wildfires around in a manner that will achieve resource

objectives. Opportunities for prescribed fire or selective tree cutting are usually

localized in nature, either protect, enhance, or restore specific values in particular areas.

Wildfires in Category D will have no specific acreage limitation. Fires will be contained by

appropriate means where and when conditions will result in significant damage to natural

resources or threaten private developments. Category D fire management will be applied to

about 3,300,000 acres within the Carson City Field Office administrative boundary.

2. Land to the west of U. S. Highway 95 will be managed under a mix of fire management

categories A, B, C, and D, as depicted on Map X. 

A. Category A management will occur in the Carson City urban area, areas with special

status species, and portions of Petersen Mountain and the Sand Hills. 

B. Category B management will occur to the north and east of developed areas in the western

edge of the Field Office, including Long and Bagley Valley and the Indian Creek Recreation

Area in California and Smith, Carson, and Mason Valleys and the Virginia and Pah Rah

Ranges. 

C. Category C management will occur in the Winnemucca Ranch area, the Pah Rah

Range, the Pine Nut Mountains, Bald Mountain, Bagley Valley, the Desert Mountains,

and the Wassuk Range. 

D. Only one area west of Highway 95, near Marietta in Mineral County will be managed

under Category D.

3. Lands to the east of U. S. Highway 95 will be managed primarily as described in Category D,

which provides for a low intensity of fire suppression activities. Exceptions to Category D

management include areas in Dixie and Edwards Creek Valleys, Sand Mountain, and portions

of the Gillis Range, which will be managed under Category C.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. See Phase One through Phase Three of the Fire Management Planning Process. (Information
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FIR-5 Release 05/11/2001

Bulletin No. NV-97-061, Information Bulletin No. 97-2031.)

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Information Bulletin No. NV-99-143. Approved Fire Management Plans are not the final steps

in allowing BLM personnel to use the full range of Appropriate Management Responses

(AMR). Until and implementation process is developed and an activity plan is in place for each

polygon identified in Phase I of the FMP, including full environmental analysis, your options to

use fire for resource benefit are severely limited. Unless this implementation process has been

completed, full suppression is the only viable alternative under current policy. As is, the current

policy, human caused fires will always be suppressed.

2. In the case of a wildland fire that escapes initial attack, a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis

(WFSA) must be completed to determine the complexity level and identify suppression

alternatives. When analyzing alternatives, consideration should always be given to least cost

suppression tactics as long as other resource objectives can be met. 

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. Fire suppression and management activities in wilderness study areas (WSAs) will be guided by

the Wilderness Interim Fire Management Plan. The objective in WSAs is to allow fires to play

their natural role.

2. Minimum impact suppression tactics will apply, whereby the environmental impacts of

emergency fire management methods will be no greater than necessary to meet fire management

objectives.

3. Prescribed burns will be reseeded, using native species to the extent practical, wherever

residual vegetation is not adequately abundant to revegetate the sites naturally, prevent

domination by invasive weed species, and meet ecosystem restoration objectives.

4. Increased emphasis will be placed on natural resource objectives for each fire and fuels

treatment. A monitoring and evaluation program will be established to determine the

effectiveness of the management implemented. This will include the purposeful collection and

analysis of data to determine the results of implementing management actions. It will require

monitoring both pre- and post-fire environmental conditions. This information will be used to

adjust management determinations. Adjustment in fire and fuels management practices based

on sound scientific monitoring and analysis will be consistent with this plan amendment.

5. Current standard operating procedures for environmental analysis will be followed. Each
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

FIR-6 Release 05/11/2001

proposal for a prescribed burn or selective tree cutting will be further analyzed in a project

specific environmental analysis.

6. The assignment of one or more resource advisors will be a standard practice for all intermediate

and large wildfires in Category A and B areas. Because of reduced initial attack in Category C

and D areas, resource advisors will be assigned to all wildfires regardless of size in those areas.

7. Fire management plans which include fire prescriptions will be developed before any prescribed

burning occurs.

8. Prescribed natural fire plans will be developed for limited suppression areas.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Final EIS Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands In Thirteen Western States ....... July 1991

2. California Vegetation management Final EIS ............................ August 1988

3. Phase One Fire Management Planning Information Bulletin No. NV-97-061

4. Information Bulletin No. 97-2031

5. Information Bulletin No. NV-99-143

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. FIR-1 Fire Category and Zones
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-1 Release 05/11/2001

LANDS AND REALTY

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 2100 Acquisition 09/30/84)

It is the policy of the Bureau to:

1. Acquire lands and interests in lands needed to manage, protect, develop, maintain, and use

resources on public lands and further provide access for public use and enjoyment of such lands

(as exemplified by perpetual access to lands having outstanding recreational value); provided

such acquisitions are within the limitations of applicable authorities and available funds and are

in conformity with land-use plans that apply to the area involved.

2. Acquire the real property necessary for program operation. Before acquisition, BLM personnel

must determine whether requirements may be met by improved utilization of present holdings;

whether other suitable existing federal holdings are available, including possible joint-use

agreements; or whether requirements may be met by obtaining excess property from other

agencies.

3. Obtain legal access for its operations through negotiations with landowners as expeditiously as

possible. While BLM employees have a right to enter the public land and manage uses on

public land, they do not have an unrestricted right to cross private lands or use private roads to

reach public land. Negotiations must be carried out in an efficient, courteous, and fair manners

with “face to face” meetings with the owners wherever possible. All negotiations shall comply

with Title III of the Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.

4. Purchase lands or interests in lands through the use of written instruments (deeds), only after

final review and approval for technical adequacy and compliance with applicable standards by

the respective state office staff.

5. Secure a written opinion of title from the appropriate Regional or Field solicitor as to the

sufficiency of the title to the land or interest therein that is being acquired by the United states

through purchase, exchange, or donation prior to making payment to the grantor. The title

evidence must assure that proper owners are identified and unacceptable title encumbrances

must be removed from the title. Managers must comply with 40 U.S.C. 255 which states in part

“Unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the sufficiency of the title to land

for the purposes for which the property is being acquired by the United States, public money

may not be expended for the purchase of the land or interest therein.”

6. Use eminent domain only after diligent negotiations to purchase have failed, when an emergency

situation exists, or when a landowner is unable to convey a clear title.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-2 Release 05/11/2001

7. Accept gifts (donations) or bequests of lands or interest in lands which will help consolidate and

facilitate the management, use, and protection of the public lands and its resources. This must

be a bonafide, landowner-initiated action.

8. Dispose of unneeded easements under procedures delegated to the BLM from GSA to the

underlying landowner when it is determined that such easements are no longer needed by the

United States and that the United States has received fair market value.

9. Use cost effective alternatives to the direct purchase of private lands whenever possible and

only acquire the minimum interest necessary to meet the management objectives when using the

federal portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

43 CFR 2200.0-6 Land Exchange Policy: (Selected Provisions)

10. The Secretary is not required to exchange any federal lands. Land exchanges are discretionary,

voluntary real estate transactions between the federal and non-federal parties.........................

11. The authorized officer may complete an exchange only after a determination is made that the

public interest will be well served....................

12. The federal and non-federal lands involved in an exchange authorized pursuant to FLPMA as

amended shall be located within the same state.

13. The authorized officer shall consider only those exchange proposals that are in conformance

with land use plans or plan amendments where applicable................

43 CFR 2710.0-6 Land Sale Policy (Selected Provisions)

14. Sales under this part shall be made only in implementation of an approved land use plan or

analysis in accordance with part 1600 of this title.

15. Public land determined to be suitable for sale shall be offered only on the initiative of the Bureau

of Land Management. Indications of interest to have specific tracts of public lands offered for

sale shall be accomplished through public input to the land use planning

process................................

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Transfer lands out of federal ownership that is uneconomic to manage or have been identified

for community expansion or agricultural development and have little value for other resource

uses. (see land disposal map)

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-3 Release 05/11/2001

1. Designate for potential future disposal approximately 185,000 acres in of BLM managed public

lands, under jurisdiction of the CCFO, as a pool of lands which meet preliminary criteria for

transfer from federal ownership. In general these lands are those where BLM management is

not cost effective. To determine the land tenure designation applicable to specific parcels of

BLM managed public lands refer to map LND-1, Land Status, Disposal, Acquisition,

Retention. For specific parcels in the Pyramid and Pine Nut Planning Units review decision 5 A

and B in this section.

A. These include lands that are difficult and uneconomic to manage because of the location

and other characteristics; (e.g. Scattered parcels south of Hawthorne and in Smith and

Mason Valleys, checkerboard lands near Fernley, Silver Springs and the Carson Sink).

B. Land that would support community expansion (e.g. land west of Yerington, land

surrounding the towns of Luning, Mina, Sodaville, Fallon, Gabbs, Reno, Verdi, and lands

east of Montgomery Pass, near Honey Lake Valley, and Dixie Valley).

C. Lands with possible agricultural potential (e.g. Smith Valley, Mason Valley, Honey

Lake Valley, and Edwards Creek).

D. Lands along the East Walker River identified for exchange to benefit Bureau programs.

2. Identify as potentially suitable for disposal 5,100 acres for community expansion and 7,700

acres as suitable for disposal for recreation and public purposes in the Pine Nut/Markleeville

Planning Units.

3. The objective of the City of Fallon Landfill Final Plan Amendment (1997) is to allow for the

transfer of 240 acres of public land to the City of Fallon under the Recreation and Public

Purposes Act and to make 600 acres of adjacent land available for disposal for expansion of

the landfill or other compatible uses in the future. The amendment includes the following

management prescription: The land tenure designation on the public land shown in Figure

2 (within T. 16 N., R. 29 E., sections 20 and 21) is changed from retention to disposal.

Following the change in land tenure designation, BLM will offer 240 acres of public land for

sale at $10/acre to the City of Fallon for use as a landfill. In addition a 30-year FLPMA Title V

right-of-way will be issued to the City of Fallon across public land for access to the landfill.

................... Completed, 240 Acres patented to the City of Fallon June 16, 1997.

4. Within the Carson City Urban Interface Plan Amendment Area:

A. Designate 15,690 acres for retention in public ownership under the administration of the

Bureau of Land Management BLM (Map LND-3).
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-4 Release 05/11/2001

B. Designate 2,049 acres for potential disposal to state and local government through

Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

C. Designate 153 acres for potential disposal through exchange for other lands in Carson

City.

D. Disposals along the V&T railroad corridor would be limited to those that fully protect

the corridor’s historic and scenic values

E. Withdraw 17,892 acres from the operation of the locatable mining laws and close these

lands to mineral exploration and leasing to protect open space and other public land values. 

These are discretionary actions.

.................... Completed PLO 7348, July 28, 1998, 18,584.68 acres withdrawn.

F. Lands retained in public ownership would be managed to protect open space, visual,

recreation, watershed, and wildlife resources. Protection of these resources would be given

priority over other land uses.

G. Management of mineral materials in the planning area would be determined through a

joint aggregate resource plan to be developed with Carson City.

Within the Reno Planning Area covered by the Management Framework Plan

5. Identify the following tracts as suitable for disposal for urban or suburban purposes, consistent

with the local comprehensive plans or the views of local governmental authorities.

 Acres Acres

Pyramid Planning Unit Public Land Pine Nut Planning Unit Public Land

D1 Red Rock Valley 80 D3 Carson Plains 860

D5 Cold Springs Valley 370 D6 Carson Valley 40

D6 Lemmon Valley 3,840 D7 Indian Hill Area 320

D7 Spanish Spr. Valley 1,870 D8 Johnson Lane 3,120

D9 Reno & U.S. 395 N. 660 D11 U.S. Route 395 40

D10 Mustang Interchange 40 D12 U.S. Route 50 (SR 17) 240

D11 U.S. 395 south 480

D12 Pleasant Valley 80

D13 Washoe Valley 400

D14 Patrick 580

Total 8,400 4,640
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-5 Release 05/11/2001

6. Identify the following tracts as available for transfer out of federal ownership to state, county, or

local government agencies, or to non-profit corporations and associations, for recreation and

public purposes.

Pyramid Planning Unit Acres Pine Nut Planning Unit Acres

Public Land Public Land

P1&P2 Lemmon Valley 2,050 P3 Carson Valley 3,920

P4 Honey Lake Valley 4,270 P5 Indian Hill 160

P5 Sun Valley East 920 P6 Carson Plains 160

P6 Sun Valley West 240 P7&P8 Mound House 160

P9 Huffaker Hills 210 P10 Carson River Canyon 210

P12 Steamboat Hot Spr. 40 P11 Six Mile Canyon 320

P16 School Sites 390 P12 Mud Lake 80

P17Galena,Thomas,Whites Cr 30 P13 Diamond Valley 40

P15 Airport 100

Total 8,150 5,150

7. Identify 6,760 acres in Honey Lake Valley as suitable for Desert Land Entry and subsequent

agricultural development and disposal.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. Consolidate by land acquisition 66,970 acres of private land for crucial Lassen-Washoe deer

winter range and migration corridors by acquiring about 7,400 acres of private lands in this

area.

................. Petersen Mountain Exchange Acquired 3,812 Acres, December 1997.

......................... Perma Bilt Exchange Acquired 123 Acres, September 1997.

2. Consolidate by land acquisition 34,880 acres of private land that is important as wildlife habitat

in the Pine Nut-Markleeville Planning Units (Pine Nut Mountains).

3. Acquire private lands adjacent to Prison Hill and along the Carson River if Carson City and the

state approve the acquisition.

........ Perma Bilt Exchange Acquired 703 Acres (Silver Saddle Ranch), September 1997.

.............................. Bernhard Exchange Acquired 32 Acres, March 2000.

4. Land exchanges will be done to block in the higher country in the Pine Nut Range and Jumbo

allotment and to release land next to residential zones.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-6 Release 05/11/2001

.... 04/2001 Laborde Land Exchange Acquired about 12,000 acres in the Jumbo Allotment

... September 1997 Perma Bilt Exchange Acquired about 5,000 Acres in the Pine Nut Mtns.

5. Land exchanges will be initiated with Southern Pacific Railroad and private owners in the

Spanish Springs and Mustang allotments to block in lands in the White Hills and Olinghouse

allotments.

......................... DePaoli Exchange (Phase II) acquired the majority of private

lands in the white Hills and northern portion of the Olinghouse allotment, January, 1995.

6. Acquire legal access in coordination with USFS to Faye Canyon, Bagley Valley and the

Hangman's Bridge area near Markleeville. Leave primary roads open.

7. Acquire or provide legal access through or around Big Canyon, Black Canyon, Cottonwood

Canyon, and Hardscrabble canyon to provide vehicular access for the administration of BLM

lands in the Virginia Mountains.

........... Cottonwood Canyon easements acquired in 1970 (1) and 1990 (4) for access.

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Identify lands suitable for retention for management of Bureau resource management programs

in cooperation with local government planning and zoning.

2. The Resource Management Plan does not propose any acreage for immediate sale to the

private sector. It identifies a pool of lands with the potential for transfer to state and local

governments, as well as to the private sector. Preliminary analysis indicates those tracts of

public land identified meet the disposal criteria outlined in section 203 of FLPMA.

3. These are lands that are difficult or uneconomic to manage; are not suitable for management by

another federal agency; were acquired for a purpose which is no longer required, or would

serve an important public objective, which cannot be obtained otherwise and outweigh other

public values.

4. The methods for tenure adjustments for these lands include lease and sale under the Recreation

and Public Purposes Act (R&PP); and lease, sale, or exchange under FLPMA.

5. Any land sales are subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) and Section 203 of the federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-7 Release 05/11/2001

which mandate a detailed analysis of each specific disposal. This analysis includes preparation

of an environmental assessment, a cultural resources clearance, a report on mineral values, and

an appraisal to establish fair market value. Tracts that this analysis indicates are not suitable for

disposal will be retained. If the analysis indicates that a tract is suitable for disposal, a Notice of

Realty Action will be distributed to interested parties, including local governments. This notice

is published with a right of protest. A final decision will occur upon completion of the protest

period.

6. Exchanges and minor non-Bureau initiated realty proposals will be considered where analysis

indicates they are beneficial to the public.

7. All land disposal actions proposed are discretionary. Bureau initiatives for disposals, other than

through exchange, would only be in those areas identified for disposal. Proposed land tenure

adjustments would be evaluated through the environmental analysis process to determine if the

action would be consistent with the objectives of the plan. These adjustments would be

coordinated with interested parties, including local governments. 

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. Transfer of land from federal ownership is subject to the following provision: Mineral rights will

be reserved to the United States unless there are no known mineral values in the land or the

nonmineral development of the land is of more value than the minerals and the reservation of

mineral rights interferes with such nonmineral development.

2. Lands identified as not suitable for disposal will be retained in federal ownership. The

determination of suitability will include, but not be limited to an analysis of threatened and

endangered species, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, wildlife, livestock and wild horse

values.

3. Rights-of-way will be reserved where appropriate to provide public access prior to disposal of

public lands.

4. In most cases BLM managed public lands will not be disposed of if a cultural resources survey

determines that they contain sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic

Places, unless those sites fall within the category of sites which are to be managed for their

information potential only. In that case, the sites will be mitigated following an approved

treatment plan and the costs of such mitigation, including the analysis and report preparation will

be borne by the proponent.

5. When public lands are disposed of or devoted to a public purpose which precludes livestock

grazing, the permittee and lessees will be given two years prior notification, except in cases of

emergency (i.e., military defense requirements in time of war, natural disasters, national
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-8 Release 05/11/2001

emergency needs, etc.) before their grazing permit and grazing lease and grazing preference

may be cancelled in whole. A permittee or lessee may unconditionally waive the two-year prior

notification. Such a waiver shall not prejudice the permittee's or lessee's right to reasonable

compensation for fair market value of his interest in authorized permanent range improvements

located on these public lands.

6. Livestock permits would be adjusted, if necessary, to reflect decreases in public land forage

available for livestock grazing use within an allotment as a result of land tenure adjustments.

7. New communication site development will be allowed only when expansion of an existing site is

not reasonable.

8. Only public lands identified for disposal may be transferred under the Desert Land Act or

Carey Act.

9. Applicants for major rights-of-way shall submit a plan of development prior to issuance of a

land use authorization that addresses specific construction, operation, maintenance, and/or

termination features which will satisfactorily mitigate the impacts.

10. No agricultural entry will be allowed on lands with agricultural soil ratings of Class IV or higher

or with soils having a high susceptibility to erosion or on lands which can potentially qualify for

the Conservation Reserve Program from the USDA.

11. Land use permits and leases are granted under the authority of Section 302(b) of the federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Permits are issued for short-term, low impact uses

of the public lands. In general, all lands within the Field Office Area of Jurisdiction which have

not been dedicated to a specific use or uses are open to consideration for land use permits. 

Leases are issued for long-term uses which tend to establish a proprietary interest in the lands. 

The same public resource values considered prior to disposal will be considered prior to the

issuance of a lease; consequently, such leases will be considered as disposals for the purposes

of land use conformance.

12. To protect visual resource values and to enhance safety on highway rights-of-way across public

lands, no permits will be issued for advertising signs or billboards.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

LND-9 Release 05/11/2001

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. LND-1 Land Status Disposal, Acquisition, Retention

2. LND-2 Rights-of Way and Communication Sites

3. LND-3 Carson City Urban Interface Land Tenure Designations
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ROW-1 Release 05/11/2001

RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDORS

NATIONAL POLICY:

43 CFR 2800.0-2 - Rights-of-Way - Objectives (Selected Provisions)

1. It is the objective of the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way and temporary use

permits, covered by the regulations in this part, to any qualified individual, business entity, or

governmental entity and regulate, control and direct the use of said rights-of way on public land

so as to:

A. Protect the natural resources associated with the public lands and adjacent private

property or other lands administered by a government agency.

B. Prevent unnecessary or undue environmental damage to the lands and resources.

C. Promote the utilization of rights-of-way in common with respect to engineering and

technological compatibility, national security and land use plans.

D. Coordinate to the fullest extent possible, all actions taken pursuant to this part with state

and local governments, interested individuals, and appropriate quasi-public entities.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Provide for an east-west and north-south network of rights-of-way corridors in the Field Office

area of jurisdiction.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. None

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Designate 686 miles of rights-of-way which include existing transmission lines and identify 218

miles of planning corridors, as shown on the Corridor map. All corridors are two miles in width.

Private lands are not included in these corridors.

2. In the Reno planning area: Designate right-of-way corridors along existing transportation and

utility facilities, where there is potential for future expansion, with a width of 1.5 miles on each

side of the existing transportation/utility facility. Exceptions to this width requirement will be

made on a case-by-case basis following a multiple use analysis of a specific proposal. The

corridors are:

A. Lahontan Resource Area

1. A-J. A corridor running from Fernley to the Fort Churchill Power Plant. The corridor
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ROW-2 Release 05/11/2001

follows U.S. Highway Alternate 95. It contains a railroad, phoneline, secondary

powerlines, and pipelines.

2. A-B-G. A corridor running from Fernley to southern California and southern Nevada.

This corridor does not contain any utility transmission facilities, however, it contains an

existing right-of-way held by Western Area Power Administration. The present rightof-way is the eastern boundary of the corridor from B to G.

3. A-B-I. A corridor running north south through the Field Office area which contains a

major powerline from Oregon to southern California.

4. P-Q-D-F-W-S-G. A planning corridor, running from Dixie Valley to southern

California. It is expected to provide an outlet for geothermal power to be produced in

Dixie Valley. A portion of this corridor follows the existing gravel road up the Dixie

Valley.

5. Q-E. A planning corridor, running from the Dixie Valley toward Austin. This corridor

passes north of the Clan Alpine Mountains WSA and south of the Augusta Mountains

WSA.

6. I-W-F-R-E. A corridor running from the Fort Churchill Power Plant to Utah. It

contains a major powerline, supplying much of the electricity for northern Nevada. This

right-of-way provides the northern boundary of the Desatoya Mountains WSA. The

corridor does not include any portion of the WSA.

7. S-R. A planning corridor, running to the south of the proposed U.S. Navy withdrawal.

8. C-B. A corridor from Valmy to the Lahontan substation.

B. Reno Planning Area of Lahontan Resource Area

1. L-J. A corridor supplying power to the South Lake Tahoe area from the Fort Churchill

Power Plant.

2. A-H-M. The I-80 corridor system containing a highway, railroad and two major power

lines.

3. H-O. A corridor used for transmission of power from Tracy to Fort Churchill.

4. M-W-K-J. A corridor bring power to the Reno area from the Fort Churchill Power

Plant.

5. H-T. The Valmy-Tracy Corridor containing a 345 KV powerline.

6. H-V. The Tracy-Brunswick Corridor containing a 120 KV powerline.

7. H-K. The Tracy-Steamboat Corridor containing two major powerlines.

8. M-U. The Mount Rose-Brunswick Corridor containing a 120 KV powerline.

C. Walker Resource Area

1. C-A. A right-of-way corridor, containing a major powerline from the Fort Churchill

Power Plant to the South Lake Tahoe area.

2. D-H. A right-of-way corridor following the existing major powerline from Bonneville to

Los Angeles. Another major powerline is being planned for this route.

3. C-F. A right-of-way corridor following the existing major powerline from the Fort
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ROW-3 Release 05/11/2001

Churchill Power Plant to southern Nevada. Portions of this route also contain U.S.

Highway 95, a railroad, telephone, and other powerlines.

4. E-G. A right-of-way corridor following the existing Western Area Power

Administration right-of-way. The existing right-of-way is the eastern boundary of this

corridor. While it does not contain a powerline, a major powerline from Bonneville to

southern Nevada and California is planned for this route.

5. I-J. A planning corridor for a powerline between Austin and the Los Angeles area. A

portion of this route borders U.S. Highway 6 and contains telephone and secondary

powerlines. It may be considered for power transmission to southern California from

Dixie Valley.

6. E-M. A planning corridor for a proposed powerline from Dixie Valley connecting to a

Forest Service corridor.

7. D-L. A planning corridor for a potential major gas pipeline to the west coast. A portion

of this route follows an existing powerline corridor route.

8. C-B. A right-of-way corridor following the existing major powerline from the Fort

Churchill Power Plant to Reno and Carson City.

D. Reno Planning Area of Walker Resource Area

1. C-Y. A right-of-way corridor containing a major powerline from the Fort Churchill

Power Plant to Reno.

2. Z-Y. A right-of-way corridor containing a major powerline from the Valmy Power

Plant to Reno.

3. Z-A. A right-of-way corridor containing major powerlines from the Tracy Power Plant

to Carson City and Gardnerville.

4. Portions of planning corridors CAW and CB are in the Reno planning area and are

governed by decisions regarding corridors and rights-of-way for the area.

3. The separation of rights-of-way within the designated corridors will be limited to the minimum

spacing required by technology, topography, reliability, visual impacts, etc.

4. All new powerline rights-of-way grants within raptor areas will contain raptor protection

stipulations as means of mitigation.

5. Future rights-of-way corridors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but should be as

consistent as possible with the Western Regional Corridor Study.

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ROW-4 Release 05/11/2001

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. The designation of rights-of way corridors is intended to minimize the proliferation of dispersed

rights-of way by indicating the Bureau’s preferred location. Designation does not mean that

future rights-of-way are restricted to corridors, nor is it a commitment by the Bureau to

approve all rights-of way applications within corridors - a corridor is not a withdrawal.

2. Corridor management involves encouraging prospective applicants to locate within corridors.

This may limit other activities within corridors which are compatible with right-of-way use. Land

disposals within corridors will be analyzed for their impact on future right-of-way activities.

3. All applicants for right-of-way grants, whether or not they are within corridors, are subject to

standard approval procedures as outlined in the right-of-way regulations (43 CFR 2802).

These procedures include: 1) Preparation of an environmental assessment in accordance with

the National Environmental policy Acto of 1969, 2) A determination of compliance of the

applicants proposed plan with applicable federal and state laws, 3) Consultation with federal,

state, and local agencies, and 4) Any other action necessary to fully evaluate and make a

decision to approve or deny the application and prescribe suitable terms and conditions for the

grant or permit. Consultation with the public, including adjacent landowners, will occur

throughout the process.

4. Corridors provide for a variety of right-of-way uses including powerlines, pipelines, railroads

and highways. The major use expected in the Field Office area of jurisdiction is powerlines.

5. Lahontan Reource Area

Future rights-of-way located in corridors crossing U.S. Navy withdrawals would be subject to

review by the Navy. Powerlines over 50 feet in height are of particular concern.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. During the pre-construction and construction periods, the Bureau will make modifications to

any rights-of-way necessary to maintain stability of geologic materials, fish and wildlife habitats,

the environment, and the public interest.

2. The Bureau will, if necessary, suspend any construction or maintenance activity if there is an

immediate threat to life (including wildlife and aquatic life), property, or the environment.

3. A right-of-way holder shall abate any conditions that could potentially cause irreparable harm

or damage to any person or property.

4. Existing roads and trails will be used whenever possible during construction.

5. The right-of-way holder shall permit free and unrestricted public access to and upon the right-
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ROW-5 Release 05/11/2001

of-way for all lawful and proper purposes, except in areas designated as restricted by the

Bureau in order to protect the public safety or facilities constructed on the right-of-way.

6. The Bureau will approve the location of all rights-of-way prior to construction through an

analysis of the proposed action in an environmental assessment unless the proposal is

categorically excluded or adequately analyzed in a previously prepared NEPA document. The

environmental assessment will include cultural resource clearances, evaluations of impacts to

threatened and endangered species, visual resources and other issues raised during scoping.

7. The right-of-way holder will use every reasonable means to minimize erosion and soil damage

in connection with construction, rehabilitation or maintenance operations under a grant,

including (but not limited to) construction of water bars, cross ditches, or other structures.

8. Holder shall remove or dispose of all waste in accordance with a plan approved by the

authorized officer and in a manner consistent with federal, state and local laws and regulations.

9. Revegetation of disturbed land will be required as specified by the Bureau. The appropriate

seed mixture and proper planting techniques will be specified by the Bureau.

10. The right-of-way holder’s activities in key fish and wildlife areas will be restricted by the

Bureau, if necessary, during periods of fish and wildlife breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing or

calving activity; and during major migrations of fish and wildlife.

11. All operations under right-of-way grants will be conducted in such a manner as will avoid: 1)

Permanent blockage of any drainage system, 2) Changing the character, or causing the pollution

or siltation of rivers, streams, reservoirs, ponds, water holes, or springs, and 3) Damaging fish

and wildlife resources and habitat.

12. The right-of-way holder shall take such measures as are necessary to assure unrestricted

passage and movement of fish and wildlife. No artificial structure or stream channel alteration

that would cause a blockage to the movement of fish will be allowed.

13. Right-of-way holders shall construct, maintain, operate and/or modify structures or facilities as

directed by the Bureau to protect and minimize adverse effects upon raptors and other wildlife.

Raptors will be protected through the use of “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection On

Powerlines,” Raptor Research Report No. 4, Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. (1981).

Holder shall report any and all wildlife kills, including raptor electrocutions, discovered or

reported on or near project facilities to the Bureau.

14. If the Bureau deems necessary, a complete intensive cultural resources survey (BLM Class III)

will be completed prior to issuance of a grant. Known or located cultural sites would be
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ROW-6 Release 05/11/2001

avoided within the corridors when locating roads, assembly areas and towers.

15. Holder will immediately bring to the attention of the authorized officer all antiquities or other

objects of historic or scientific interest, including but not limited to historic or prehistoric ruins,

fossils, or artifacts discovered as a result of operations under the grant and will leave such

discoveries intact.

16. Materials and colors used in tower construction will visually blend with the surrounding

landscape to meet the approval of the Bureau. Only non-reflective materials will be used for

towers, lines, and insulators.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. LND-2 Rights-of Way and Communication Sites
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

COM-1 Release 05/11/2001

COMMUNICATION SITES

NATIONAL POLICY:

1. None

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. None

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. COMMUNICATION SITES RENO PLANNING AREA

Allow new communication site development only when expansion of an existing site is not a

reasonable alternative in the Reno Planning Area.

Pyramid Planning Unit Pine Nut Planning Unit

CS1 Warm Springs Mtn. CS1 McClellan Peak

CS2 Virginia Peak CS2 Como Pass

CS3 TV Peak (Red Hill) CS3 Rawe Peak

CS4 Peavine Mtn. CS4 Pinyon Hill

CS5 Beacon Peak

CS6 McClellan Peak

AREA COVERED BY CENTRAL NEVADA COMMUNICATION SITES MODIFIED

FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT (1998)

2. Applications for rights-of-way for communication sites, including all military electronic warfare

sites, will be considered in the area identified as permitted on the map (page 4). Any such

applications for electronic warfare sites will be analyzed through the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process, within the context of a comprehensive Electronic Warfare Range

Plan to be prepared and updated as needed by the Navy. The plan will address the

comprehensive management of all Navy facilities on public lands in central Nevada, with

provisions for establishing possible thresholds on reasonable numbers of sites on public lands

(as determined through the NEPA process), annual assessments of the continuing need for

individual sites, including alternative configurations to reduce numbers of sites without sacrificing

training quality, and eventual clean-up, rehabilitation and relinquishment of sites no longer

required to meet the Navy's mission.

3. Facilitate communication site processing and minimize surface disturbance by grouping future

communication facilities at locations where existing facilities occur, access is reasonably

available, terrain is appropriate for communication facility needs, and other resource values are

limited. These preferred locations are Fairview Peak, New Pass, Mt. Moses, the north end of
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

COM-2 Release 05/11/2001

the Fish Creek Mountains, and Mt. Lewis (map, page 4). Communication site applicants will be

encouraged to locate in these areas. These areas will be available for all civilian and military

sites.

4. With proper justification, continue to provide for the location of future civilian and military

communication sites (including telemetry sites and threat emitters) on more than four million

acres of central Nevada. Proper justification includes physical and economic factors.

5. Encourage additional Navy electronic warfare site development in the currently heavily used

Dixie/Fairview Valleys Bell Flat/Middlegate area.

6. Protect important natural, recreation, wilderness, wildlife, watershed, visual, and Native

American values by prohibiting future communication and electronic warfare sites of all types in

the most sensitive areas. These include portions of the Clan Alpine, Desatoya, Stillwater,

Gabbs Valley and Simpson Park Mountain Ranges, Bald Mountain and the Sand Mountain and

Hickison Petroglyph recreation areas (map, page 4).

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. None

AREA COVERED BY CENTRAL NEVADA COMMUNICATION SITES MODIFIED

FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT (1998)

2. Ensure that public health and safety on public lands are protected by including the following

stipulation on all new and existing communication and electronic warfare sites: "No harmful

levels of electromagnetic radiation from communication facilities will be permitted on open

public lands."

3. Other than the electromagnetic radiation stipulation above, existing communication and

electronic warfare sites will not be affected by this amendment.

4. Management decisions apply to all communication and electronic warfare sites and associated
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

COM-3 Release 05/11/2001

facilities regardless of the type of authorization. this includes rights-of-way, withdrawals, and

cooperative agreements.

5. Monitoring and evaluation: Communication and electronic warfare site development under the

plan amendment will be periodically monitored and evaluated to determine the effectiveness of

the decisions. The objective is to determine whether or not implementation of communication

site management is achieving the desired results. Information obtained through the evaluation

process will be used to adjust management, including any subsequent amendments if

appropriate. Monitoring and evaluation will be consistent with the schedules identified in the

appropriate RMP.

6. In response to concerns raised as a result of this plan amendment process, the Navy has agreed

to drop radar avoidance chaff only over lands under the jurisdiction of the Navy.

7. Current standard operating procedures for environmental analysis will be followed. Each

proposal for an individual communication site or threat emitter will be further analyzed in a

project specific environmental analysis.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. LND-2 Rights-of-Way and Communication Sites
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-1 Release 05/11/2001

RECREATION

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 8300 Recreation Management)

The Bureau of Land Management shall ensure the continued availability of Public Lands and related

waters for a diversity of resource dependent outdoor recreation opportunities while maintaining its

commitment to managing the Public Lands as a national resource in harmony with the principle of

balanced multiple use.

1. In carrying out this policy, the BLM shall focus its efforts on two distinct management roles: 1)

managing the majority of the Public Lands for traditional dispersed recreation use and 2)

intensively managing certain areas of the Public Lands where outdoor recreation is a high

priority.

2. To support its traditional role as a provider of dispersed recreation, BLM shall maintain the

undeveloped, open character of a vast majority of the Public Lands. Within the bounds of legal

requirements and sound management practices, efforts shall be taken to exercise minimal

regulatory constraints to preserve the visitors freedom to choose where to go and what to do.

Management shall ensure these lands continue to provide wide-open spaces where visitors can

explore on their own and be away from crowds. Under these circumstances, visitors are

expected to rely on their own skills, knowledge, and equipment in their recreational pursuits.

Actions will be limited to basic custodial management such as providing information through

signs and maps and securing public access. Public Land areas in which this management role

shall predominate generally fall into the category of Extensive Recreation management Areas

(ERMA).

3. In responding to the Bureau’s second management role, the agency shall provide for more

intensive visitor management, resource protection, and facility investments where: 1) the public

has demonstrated its desire to use the Public Lands for outdoor recreation, 2) Congress has

determined that the resources present in the area are of national importance, or 3) BLM has

determined that outdoor recreation is a high priority. Efforts shall ensure the long-term

availability of these areas for high quality outdoor recreation opportunities. Major investments in

recreation facilities and visitor assistance shall be carried out to deal with identified issues and

concerns related to these areas. Priority shall be given to reducing resource damage, mitigating

user conflicts, and providing for visitor safety. Public Land areas in which this management role

shall predominate generally fall into the category of Special Recreation Management Areas

(SRMA).

4. Specific recreation management policies. To meet the objectives of BLM recreation policy,

specific recreation program policies have been developed to provide additional

guidance..............................
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-2 Release 05/11/2001

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Provide a wide range of quality recreation opportunities on public lands under management by

the Carson City Field Office.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. All Public lands under Carson City Field Office jurisdiction are designated open to OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) use unless they are specifically restricted or closed.

2. Eliminate OHV use in the following locations

A. Through or in the immediate vicinity (near enough to the water source that its water

quality or water quantity may be affected) of any surface water source, such as a spring

or seep.

B. Any riparian area associated with meadows, marshes, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes,

reservoirs or streams.

C. Any channel bank, or streambed of a perennial stream.

D. Threatened or Endangered Plant location.

3. The following areas are closed to OHV use:

A. Grimes Point Archaeological Area 400 acres

B. Steamboat Hot Springs 20 acres

........ OHV Limited to Designated Routes Federal Register Notice, September 15, 1988.

C. Petersen Ridge 5,120 acres

D. Sand Springs Desert Study Area 50 acres

E. North End Prison Hill 1,480 acres

F. Burbank Canyons Scenic Area 13,395 acres

G. Middle Portion of Prison Hill Middle Portion

Post RMP Emergency Closures

H. Unnamed Canyon North of War Canyon, Clan Alpine WSA

............................... Completed Federal Register Notice, April 12, 1994.

I. Sand and Gravel Pit, Pine Nut Road No. 2.

............................ Completed Federal Register Notice, October 15, 1997.

J. Sagebrush Flat East of Petersen Mountain

................................ Completed Federal Register Notice, April 2, 1999.

K. Sand and Gravel Pit south of hungry Ridge and Fire Rehabilitation Areas.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-3 Release 05/11/2001

.............................. Completed Federal Register Notice, March 30, 2000.

L. Faye/Luther Canyon Area all BLM Public Lands

......................................... Notice to Federal Register April, 2001

4. The following areas are subject to the non-impairment criteria outlined in the Interim

Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP). Essentially, this limits OHV

use to existing roads and ways, except in emergency situations as defined in the IMP.

A. Gabbs Valley Range WSA 79,600 acres

B. Burbank Canyons WSA 13,395 acres

C. Slinkard WSA 6,350 acres

D. Carson Iceberg WSA 550 acres

E. Clan Alpine WSA 196,128 acres

F. Stillwater WSA 94,607 acres

G. Job Peak WSA 90,209 acres

H. Desatoya WSA 51,262 acres

I. Augusta Mountains WSA 51,000 acres

5. Restrict OHV use to designated roads and trails in the following areas:

A. Peavine Mountain

....................................................... Transferred to USFS

B. Red Rocks 700 acres

C. Incandescent Rocks & Virginia Mountains 67,500 acres

D. Steamboat Hot Springs 40 acres

E. Bailey-Jumbo Watershed 8,600 acres

.......................... Completed Federal Register Notice, September 15, 1988.

F. East Walker River Scenic Area

....................................................... Transferred to USFS

G. Stewart Valley ACEC 16,000 acres

H. Bagley Valley 6,200 acres

 I. Indian Creek/East Fork Carson River SRMA 6,065 acres

 J. Pine Nut Mountain Crest 45,000 acres

K. McClellan Peak

L. “C” Hill

M. West Side of Walker Lake 2,640 acres

N. Sun Valley West

O. Sun Valley East

6. Post RMP Designations of Roads and Trails

Q. Sand Mountain Recreation Area 2,096 acres
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-4 Release 05/11/2001

.......................... Completed Federal Register Notice, September 15, 1988.

R. Warm Springs-South Dogskin OHV Area 40,000 acres

.......................... Completed Federal Register Notice, September 15, 1988.

S. American Flats Millsite 190 acres

.......................... Completed Federal Register Notice, September 15, 1998.

7. Seasonal closures to OHV use apply in the following areas:

A. Jacks Valley Wildlife Management Area; March 1 to May 1.

....................................................... Transferred to USFS

B. Sand Hill critical deer range; December 1 to April 30.

C. Bedell Flat strutting ground; March 1 to May 30.

..................................................... Strutting Ground Gone

D. Area surrounding all occupied raptor eyries; March 1 to June 15.

8. Phase out Mullen Pass OHV Area. Develop a new area in the Hungry Valley/Warm Springs

Mountain area, and a motocross course in Lemmon Valley.

.......................................................... Completed 1985

9. Maintain nationally important historic sites in public ownership. Provide for public interpretation

of the following major historic trails:

A. Pony Express

B. Butterfield Overland Stage

C. Transcontinental Telegraph

D. California Emigrant Route

E. John Fremont Trail

F. Jumbo Water System Pipeline

G. V&T Railroad

H. Nevada-California-Oregon Railroad

10. Guarantee public access to the following fishable waters in case of public land disposal:

A. Galena Creek .......................................... Transferred to USFS

B. Whites Creek .......................................... Transferred to USFS

C. Jumbo Reservoir ......................................... Reservoir Breached

D. Truckee River

E. East Fork Carson River

F. Carson River

G. Jones Canyon Reservoir ........................... No Fish, Should be Breached

11. Allow development of a facility at Granite Mountain for use by hang-glider recreationists.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-5 Release 05/11/2001

Designate a safety zone to discourage new above-ground structures on public lands.

12. Maintain the opportunity for the public to have panoramic views of the Truckee Valley - Reno

area by controlling developments and allowing vehicle access to ridge points on existing roads

and trails on Peavine Mountain. ............................... Transferred to USFS

13. Limit development of communication sites and access roads on Peavine Mountain to existing

locations. ................................................ Transferred to USFS

14. Identify the Jumbo Postpile on maps and construct an interpretive trail. Authorize no mineral

material disposal in the 40 acre area.

15. Maintain the roaded natural, general recreation opportunities in Bedell Flat and Dry Valley

areas by keeping the existing 2-wheel drive dirt road system, and limiting developments to

those which do not alter the present undeveloped character of the landscape.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Special Recreation Management Area designations will be maintained for the following areas:

A. Indian Creek/East Fork of the Carson River

B. Walker Lake

2. Designate 10,000 acres of the Petersen Ridge Area as "Recreation Lands" and manage for

semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation. Acquire legal vehicle access to the Petersen Ridge

trailhead. Develop facilities and a hiking trail system.

............................................... Completed November 1, 1984 

3. Designate approximately 60,000 acres as the Pine Nut "Recreation Lands" under 43 CFR

2071. Manage the area to preserve both vehicle and non-vehicle recreation opportunities in a

natural environment.

........................ CFR 2071 No Longer Exists, These Lands Now Included in 

 Walker Extensive Recreation Management Area.

4. Designate the Virginia Mountains as "Recreation Lands" and manage the area to maintain,

provide, and protect semi-primitive recreation opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized users. Encourage use by the public of the area for hiking horseback riding, hunting,

and other semi-primitive activities that do not require substantial development.

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. Acquire legal access to the area on the west side of the Virginia Mountains, up Cottonwood,

Hardscrabble, Big, and Black Canyons.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-6 Release 05/11/2001

........... Cottonwood Canyon easements acquired in 1970 (1) and 1990 (4) for access.

2. Acquire 2,200 acres along the East Carson River and at Prison Hill to improve recreation

management. ........................ Silver Saddle Ranch (703 acres) Acquired 1997.

................................... Bernhard Exchange (32 acres) Acquired 2000.

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Develop day use facilities, and fisherman access near the boat takeout on the Carson River

above Gardnerville. Develop hiking trails along the river between Horseshoe Bend and the day

use area. ................................................ Transferred to USFS

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Recreation Management Plans will be maintained for the following areas:

A. Indian Creek .................................. Operation Plan for Campground.

B. Prison Hill

C. Walker Lake

D. East Fork of the Carson River

E. Grimes Point Archaeological Area

F. Sand Mountain Recreation Area

G. Cold Springs Historical Area ................... Included in Churchill County SRMA.

2. On public land within areas identified as limited for off-highway vehicles, such use will be

restricted to existing identified roads and trails. Exceptions may be allowed on a case- by-case

basis in Wilderness Study Areas based on application of the Interim Management Policy for

Lands Under Wilderness Review. Portions of these may be closed seasonly or year long to all

or specified types of vehicle use.

3. On public land identified as closed to off-highway vehicle use no such use would be allowed.

4. On public land designated open for off-highway vehicles there will generally be no restrictions

on such use. Organized competitive off-highway vehicle events have been allowed in Mason

Valley, Wilson Canyon, Hungry OHV Area, Moon rocks, Lemmon Valley MX area, Dead

Camel Mountains, Salt Wells Area, Wassuk Range and in the Frontier 500 and Carson Rally

OHV corridors. Organized events will be handled on a case-by-case basis through Special

Recreation Permit review and Environmental review process. Organized activity is generally

restricted to existing roads and trails. Casual OHV use is generally unrestricted, but occurs

primarily on existing roads and trails.

Exceptions to these general rules may be authorized after consideration of the following criteria:

A. The need to promote user enjoyment and minimize use conflicts.

B. The need to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resource values.

C. The need to promote user safety.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-7 Release 05/11/2001

5. Revise existing management plan for Indian Creek Reservoir to meet new public demands for

use of the recreation lands. Specifically evaluate methods to improve access and use of the

picnic area, bring the hiking trail system up to standards by relocating steep sections, develop a

group vehicle camping area, improve parking at the access to Summit Lake and the

interpretative area, and improve interpretation of the area's values for the developed

campground users.

6. Support South Tahoe Public Utilities District (STPUD) proposals to convert Indian Creek

Reservoir to fresh water. Protect Stevens Lake for warm water fishery (catfish) by locating any

new sewage storage reservoirs away from the lake. Enter into an agreement that will maintain

adequate water quality and quanity.

7. The BLM will provide input to the United States Forest Service and National Park Service in

support of the East Carson River to be studied for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River

System, and alternatives that will maintain the free-flowing, scenic and recreational values.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. A broad range of outdoor recreation opportunities will continue to be provided on all segments

of the public land, subject to the demand for such opportunities and the need to protect other

resources. Special Recreation Management Areas, areas of concentrated use and existing

facilities will receive first priority for operation and maintenance funds. Investment of public

funds for new recreation developments will be permitted only on land identified to remain in

public ownership.

2. Recreation resources will continue to be evaluated on an individual basis as part of activity and

project level planning. Such evaluations will consider sensitivity, and impacts on recreation

resources in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate to assure the

compatibility of projects with recreation management objectives.

3. All public lands that are not limited or closed in the RMP are open to all individual, commercial

and competitive outdoor recreation uses. Opportunities for exploring the back-country by

vehicle, hunting, camping, sightseeing, and hiking are encouraged.

4. All public lands designated as open for off highway use are subject to Conditions of Use in 43

CFR 8341 where no person shall operate an off highway vehicle in a manner causing, or likely

to cause significant, undue damage to or disturbance of soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat,

improvements, cultural, or vegetative resources or other authorized uses of the public lands.

Additionally, competitive or commercial OHV use will remain subject to environmental review
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-8 Release 05/11/2001

and the discretionary authority of the authorized officer.

5. Where the authorized officer determines that OHVs are causing or will cause considerable

adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical

resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or

other resources, the authorized officer shall close the areas effected to the type(s) of OHV

causing the adverse effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and mitigating measures

implemented to prevent recurrence (43 CFR 8341.2). Emergency closures and interim

designations will not require a planning amendment.

6. Identification of “Designated Routes” in limited use areas will be made at the activity

planning/travel management level. Within limited designations certain existing routes may be

closed or relocated. These actions will not require a planning amendment where they carry out

the intent of the land use plan decisions. Prior to completion of activity planning, OHV use may

occur within areas identified as “Limited to Designated Routes” on existing routes shown on

current USGS 1:24,000 topographic Maps.

7. River segments eligible for Wild and Scenic designation shall be accorded protective

management, as necessary, to ensure that the qualities upon which eligibilty is based are not

degraded. A river’s outstanding remarkable values shall be afforded adequate protection,

subject to valid existing rights. Until the eligibility determination is superseded, management

activities and authorized uses shall not be allowed to adversely affect either eligibility or the

tentative classification (43 CFR 8351). These requirements apply to Field Office lands in

California along the East Fork of the Carson River.

8. Any areas designated by Congress as Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964 will be

closed to motorized vehicle use.

9. Recreation permits will be processed according to the Carson City Field Office’s Recreation

Permit Policy and National Special Recreation Permit guidance.

10. Recreation activities and planning will follow the Recreation Management Strategy Carson City

District

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. Walker Lake Recreation Management Plan ........................ December, 1979.

2. Recreation Project Plan for Walker Lake .............................. April, 1992.

3. Sand Mountain Recreation Area Action and Implementation Plan .......... January, 1993.

4. Indian Creek Recreation Lands Operations and Maintenance Plan ......... January, 1974.

5. Recreation-Cultural Resources Project Plan, Grimes Point
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

REC-9 Release 05/11/2001

Archaeological Area ............................................... June, 1989.

6. Master Plan for Grimes Point Archaeological Area .................... February, 1995.

7. Interdisciplinary Management Plan for the Silver Saddle Ranch and the Ambrose Carson River

Natural Area (draft) .............................................. April, 2000.

8. Prison Hill Recreation Management Plan .................................... 1977.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Carson City Field Office Recreation Permit Policy ........................ June, 2000.

2. Recreation Management Strategy Carson City District ................ September 1995.

3. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) ................................... 1990.

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. REC-1 Recreation Management Areas, Recreation Sites and OHV Designations
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WSA-1 Release 05/11/2001

WILDERNESS

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 8560 Management of Designated Wilderness Areas

04/27/83)

1. Wilderness areas are managed so as to preserve their wilderness character, and for the use and

enjoyment of the American people in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness. The wilderness areas may be devoted to the public purposes of

of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

2. The nonconforming but accepted uses specifically permitted in wilderness areas by the

Wilderness Act and subsequent laws are allowed in a manner that will prevent unnecessary or

undue degradation of the area’s wilderness character.

3. Wilderness areas are managed consistent with the policies above so as to augment multiple-use

management of adjacent and nearby lands through protection of watersheds and water yield,

wildlife habitat, natural plant communities, and similar natural values.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Wilderness designation is recommended for those study areas where wilderness values are

capable of balancing other resource values and uses which would be foregone due to

wilderness designation. Manage as wilderness those areas for which wilderness values are

higher than other values and which have no existing or potential manageability problems.

Whether or not an area can be effectively managed as wilderness over the long-term has also

been considered.

2. Acreage with high quality wilderness characteristics and no major resource conflicts, major

manageability problems, or significant combination of lesser conflicts or problems will be

included in areas recommended as suitable. Manage any lands designated by Congress under

the Wilderness Act of 1964 as provided for in enabling legislation and the BLM’s wilderness

Management Policy.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Designated wilderness areas would be closed to off-highway vehicle use unless it takes place as

part of a valid existing right or is authorized in the wilderness management plan. Separate

management plans tailored to the characteristics of each area would be developed through

consultation with interested parties. They would be coordinated with other activity plans for

their areas. Specific management objectives, requirements and decisions implementing

administrative practices and visitor activities would be developed in each plan.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WSA-2 Release 05/11/2001

2. Designated wilderness areas would be segregated against appropriation and operation under

the mining laws, mineral leasing laws, and other mineral disposal authorities subject to valid

existing rights. These areas will also be closed to appropriations under the existing land disposal

laws.

3. Designation would allow for continuation of livestock grazing permits.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Burbank Canyons: Recommended as non-suitable for designation as wilderness. The entire

area (13,395 acres) will be designated as a Scenic Area. The Scenic Area would be closed to

OHV use except on designated existing roads.

..................................................... Completed June, 1986.

2. Carson Iceberg: The entire 550 acres are recommended as suitable for designation as

wilderness.

3. Gabbs Valley Range: Manage the 79,600 acres in the Gabbs Valley Range WSA not suitable

for wilderness designation under multiple use guidelines as outlined in the Management

Decisions Summary. If this recommendation is accepted by Congress, this area will be

managed for other multiple uses.

4. Slinkard: Entire area under CCFO jurisdiction (2,830 acres) recommended as non-suitable for

wilderness designation. If this recommendation is accepted by Congress, this area will be

managed for other multiple uses except that vehicles will be limited to existing roads and trails.

5. Clan Alpine Mountains: A portion (68,458 acres) of this unit is recommended preliminarily

suitable. Wilderness values are high, the area can be managed as wilderness over the long term,

and the great majority of resource conflicts have been eliminated.

6. Stillwater Range: This entire unit (94,607 acres) is recommended non-suitable. Wilderness

values are not of sufficient quality to warrant designation. Major resource conflicts and

manageability problems exist. The Geology, Energy, and Mineral (GEM) report evaluation finds

it to be one of the best “...potential areas for future metallic mineral finds of all the WSAs

studied in the Basin and Range province...”.

7. Desatoya Mountains: A portion of this unit (43,053 acres) is recommended preliminarily

suitable. Wilderness values are high and outweigh the relatively minor resource conflicts which

remain. Fifty-one acres were added to the WSA to enhance manageability of the area. Further

field analysis resulted in a boundary adjustment in response to the Governor’s consistency

review.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WSA-3 Release 05/11/2001

8. Job Peak: This entire unit (90,209 acres) is recommended non-suitable. Wilderness values are

moderate to good in portions of the WSA, however; they are not sufficiently high to either

outweigh resource conflicts and manageability problems or warrant designation.

Suitable Non-suitable

WSA Name Acres Acres

Burbank Canyons (NV-030-525a) 0 13,395

Carson Iceberg (NV-030-532) 550 0

Gabbs Valley Range (NV-030-407) 0 79,600

Slinkard (NV-030-531) 0 2,830

Clan Alpine Mountains(NV-030-102) 68,458 127,670

Stillwater Range (NV-030-104) 0 94,607

Desatoya Mountains (NV-030-110) 43,053 8,260

Job Peak (NV-030-127) 0 90,209

Total 112,061 416,571

 (21%) (79%)

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. All wilderness study areas will continue to be managed under BLM’s Interim Management

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review until designation or release from further

consideration by the U.S. Congress. Wilderness recommendations made in the final wilderness

environmental impact statement (EIS) are subject to change during administrative review. 

2. A separate final Wilderness EIS will be prepared and filed by the Secretary of the Interior.

................ Completed, Walker Wilderness Recommendations Final EIS, July 1987.

.................. Completed, Lahontan Wilderness Recommendations Final EIS, 1987.

............. Completed California Section 202 Wilderness Study Areas Final EIS, 1988.

3. A wilderness technical report describing each WSA in detail provides additional information in

support of these documents. ................................. Completed 1979-80.

4. Following review of these documents, detailed mineral surveys will be conducted by the U.S.

Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines for each area recommended as preliminarily suitable

for wilderness designation. .................................. Completed 1983-84.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

WSA-4 Release 05/11/2001

5. After review of this data, those areas determined to be suitable would be recommended to

Congress for designation. Those areas determined to be non-suitable would be recommended

to Congress for elimination from wilderness consideration.

....................................................... Completed 1988-89

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. Wilderness study areas will be managed in accordance with Section 603(c) of FLPMA and the

Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP), so as not to impair

their suitability for preservation as wilderness. The IMP provides management policies for

WSAs between the time of WSA designation (11/15/80) and final decisions of Congress

regarding these areas. The IMP contains specific management direction for activities in WSAs

which may occur or be authorized.

2. Management of areas designated as wilderness will be guided by the requirements of the

Wilderness Act of 1964, specific enabling legislation, and the BLM's wilderness management

procedures. While site-specific management objectives for wilderness areas will be included in

future wilderness management plans, certain actions are non-discretionary, including closure to

motorized vehicle use (except for valid existing rights and approved non-conforming uses by

permit) and withdrawal from mineral entry.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Wilderness Management Policy, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management September, 1981

2. Nevada Wilderness Study Area Notebook, CCFO ....................... April, 1997

3. Walker Wilderness Recommendations Final EIS ........................... July, 1987

4. Lahontan Wilderness Recommendations Final EIS ............................. 1987

5. California Section 202 Wilderness Study Areas ............................... 1988

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. SMA-1 Special Management Areas
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

VRM-1 Release 05/11/2001

VISUAL RESOURCES (VRM)

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 8400 Visual Resource Management 04/05/84)

1. The Bureau has a basic stewardship responsibility to identify and protect visual values on public

lands. The basic policy parameters for accomplishing this task are as follows:

A. The Bureau shall prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of visual

values on all public lands. Priority for new inventory shall be given to those areas where

it is needed for issue resolution in RMPs or in those areas where a project is proposed

and an inventory does not exist or needs updating. The goal is to have a completed

VRM inventory for each RMP effort. The level of detail should vary with the relative

value of the visual resources within the planning area.

B. Visual management objectives (classes) are developed through the RMP process for all

Bureau lands. The approved VRM objectives shall result from, and conform with, the

resource allocation decisions made in RMPs.

C. Interim visual management objectives are established where a project is proposed and

there are no RMP (or MFP) approved VRM objectives. These objectives are

developed using the guidelines in Manual Section 8410 and must conform with the land

use allocations set forth in the RMP which covers the project area. The establishment of

interim VRM objectives will not require a plan amendment unless the project itself

requires one.

D. The approved VRM objectives (classes) provide the visual management standards for

the design and development of future projects and for rehabilitation of existing projects.

E. Visual design considerations shall be incorporated into all surface disturbing projects

regardless of size or potential impact. Emphasis shall be placed on providing these inputs

during the initial planning and design phases of project design and development. Ensuring

early visual design inputs into non-Bureau initiated projects in many cases is beyond Bureau

control. However, every effort should be made to inform potential applicants of the visual

management objectives so they can be adequately incorporate visual design considerations

into their initial planning and design efforts.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

VRM-2 Release 05/11/2001

F. The contrast rating process (Manual Section 8431) is used as a visual design tool in project

design and as a project assessment tool during environmental review. Contrast ratings are

required for proposed projects in highly sensitive areas or high impact projects, but may also

be used for other projects where it would appear to be the most effective design or

assessment tool. A brief narrative visual assessment is completed for all other projects which

require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

G. Ensure that project monitoring efforts include timely and thorough compliance

evaluations, especially during the construction phase, to ensure that visual management

provisions are effectively carried out.

2. Visual resource management is a management responsibility shared by all resource programs.

(Section .04A.2).

3. VRM training shall be conducted in each District and Resource Area to maintain skill levels for

VRM coordinators and project coordinators. Emphasis shall be placed on improving design

skills so that visual design considerations will be incorporated into all project proposals

beginning with initial planning and design.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Protect the visual resource values of Bureau managed public lands against unnecessary and

undue degradation.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. None

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Manage the following areas to achieve VRM Class II standards. Changes in the landscape

caused by management activities should not be evident or attract attention.

A. Incandescent Rocks

B. Red Rocks

C. Mount Siegel

D. Burbank Canyons

E. East Fork of the Carson River

F. Indian Creek

G. Walker Lake

H. East Walker River
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

VRM-3 Release 05/11/2001

2. Manage the following areas to achieve VRM Class III standards. Activities may be evident in

the landscape, but should remain subordinate to the existing landscape characteristics.

A. Virginia Mountains

B. Palomino Valley

C. Spanish Springs Valley

D. Winnemucca Ranch Valley

E. Pah Rah North

F. Truckee River

G. Fort Sage

H. Long Valley

I. Red Rock Road

J. Peavine ..... Transferred to USFS

K. Mount Rose . Transferred to USFS

L. Huffaker Hills

M. Orlean Hills

N. Virginia City

O. Flowery Ridge

P. Lower Carson River

Q. Carson City

R. Prison Hill

S. Rawe Peak

T. Pine Nut Mountains Crest

U. Highway 395 South

V. Markleeville

W. Bagley Valley

3. Manage the following areas to achieve VRM Class IV standards. Development may attract

attention and even dominate the landscape as long as the changes repeat the basic elements

found in the landscape character.

A. Common hills and valleys north of

Reno

B. Urban and congested lands around

Reno

C. Pah Rah South

D. Jumbo

E. Highway 50 East

F. Pine Nut Foothills

4. Areas having outstanding (Class A) scenery will be protected if the Clan Alpine and Desatoya

WSAs are designated as wilderness as recommended in this document.

5. Other areas in the Clan Alpine, Desatoya, Stillwater, and New Pass Ranges as well as Sand

Mountain and the Carson River are ranked as having above average (Class B) scenery.

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

VRM-4 Release 05/11/2001

1. Visual resource management objectives and mitigation will be established on a case-by-case

basis through the environmental assessment process.

2. Visual resources will continue to be evaluated as a part of activity and project planning. Such

evaluation will consider the significance of the proposed project and the visual sensitivity of the

affected area.

3. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects with management

objectives for visual resources.

4. Visual Resource Management refers to public lands only. Private lands will not be affected.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. Visual Resource Management objectives provide the visual management standards for the

design and development of future projects and for rehabilitation of existing projects.

2. Interim Visual Management objectives will be established where a project is proposed and

there are no approved VRM objectives. Objectives will be developed using the guidelines

established in BLM Manual Section 8410 and will conform with land use allocations set forth in

the RMP. The establishment of interim VRM objectives will not require a plan amendment

unless the project itself requires one.

3. The contrast rating process ( Manual Section 8431) is used in project design and to assess

projects during environmental review. These evaluations will consider the significance of the

proposed project and the visual sensitivity of the affected area. If the visual contrast of a project

exceeds the requirements of Visual Resource Management objectives, the impact is considered

significant and mitigating measures and alternatives will be examined.

4. The Field Office Manager may allow temporary projects to exceed VRM standards if the

project will terminate within two years of initiation and be in compliance with VRM objectives

immediately upon removal and initial rehabilitation efforts.

5. To comply with BLM policy for Wilderness Study Areas, these areas will be managed as

Interim VRM Class II until Congress makes final decisions on wilderness suitability.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

VRM-5 Release 05/11/2001

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. VRM-1 Visual Resource Classes
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SAR-1 Release 05/11/2001

SCENIC AREAS

NATIONAL POLICY: None (BLM Manual Section deleted)

1. None

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Protect and enhance the visual qualities of areas with outstanding scenic values.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. None

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Red Rocks Area

A. Designate the Red Rocks Area (700 acres) as a Scenic Area.

................................................ Completed November, 1984.

B. Manage the area under an agreement with mining claimants to protect the geologic features.

C. Develop a day-use picnic area, with 2-wheel vehicle access and interpretation geologic

features in the Red Rocks Scenic Area.

D. Restrict OHV use to designated roads and trails. .................... Completed

E. Ensure Mining Plans of Operations within the Red Rocks Scenic Area would protect the

area's scenic quality and not impair recreation use.

2. East Walker Scenic Area

A. Expand the Scenic Area from 3,889 acres to 4,173 acres

B. Adjust the Scenic Area boundary in T. 8 N., R. 27 E., Sec. 34 by deleting lots 6 and 7 and

adding lots 8 and 9 to correct an error in the legal description.

C. Manage the Scenic Area as a Class II Visual Resource Management Zone, where

management actions can be evident but should not detract from the scenic quality of the

area.

D. The exclusion from oil, gas and geothermal leasing in the East Walker Scenic Area will

be adjusted to conform with the segregation from mineral entry. This will result in a net

reduction of 334 acres in the exclusion area.

E. Limit vehicles to designated roads.

............................. East Walker Scenic Area Transferred to USFS in 1988

3. Burbank Canyons

A. Designate 13,395 acres in the eastern Pine Nut Mountain Range as the Burbank

Canyons Scenic Area. ............................. Completed June, 1986.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

SAR-2 Release 05/11/2001

B. Motor vehicles will be limited to designated roads in this area.

4. East Fork of the Carson River

A. Designate the East Fork of the Carson River as a Scenic Area and develop specific

management directives. ............... Nevada Part Transferred to USFS in 1988.

.............................. California Part Remains Under CCFO Administration.

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Scenic Areas are established to identify areas of outstanding visual quality. Scenic Areas will be

managed to protect and enhance scenic qualities while allowing for appropriate recreation use.

These lands are managed within Class II Visual Resource Management objectives where

actions may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. The level of

change to the characteristic landscape should be low.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. None

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. SMA-1 Special Management Areas
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ACE-1 Release 05/11/2001

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL

CONCERN

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 1613 - Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern09/29/88)

1. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) requires that priority shall

be given to the designation and protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC). The ACECs are identified, evaluated, and designated through BLM’s resource

management planning process. An ACEC designation is the principal BLM designation for

public lands where special management is required to protect important natural, cultural and

scenic resources or to identify natural hazards. Therefore, BLM managers will give precedence

to the identification, evaluation, and designation of areas which require “special management

attention” during resource management planning. An ACEC designation will not be used as a

substitute for wilderness suitability recommendations.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Provide a high level of protection for Incandescent Rocks, Steamboat Hot Springs, and Soda

Lake while recognizing other resource values.

............... Soda Lake ACEC Designation Abandoned Due to Lack of Public Lands.

2. Provide protection and enhancement of natural and scientific values at Stewart Valley, while

allowing public use and enjoyment and other resource uses.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. None

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Designate 1,075 acres in the Incandescent Rocks area as the Incandescent Rocks

Natural Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern. This action is being taken in

order to protect the scenic quality of the area (Class A), plus the unique geologic features.

Incandescent Rocks is within the foreground - middle ground viewing zone from the Pyramid

Lake Highway, and contains critical raptor nesting sites.

.................................................. Completed January, 1984.

A. Plans of Operation will be pursued with the mining industry to protect portions of the

unit for recreation use and scenic quality. Heavy reliance will be placed upon 43 CFR

3809 to mitigate impacts.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ACE-2 Release 05/11/2001

B. Provide the public legal access to Incandescent Rocks by obtaining an easement across a 40

acre parcel of private land in T. 23 N., R. 20 E., Section 6, NE1/4NE1/4. Completed 1994.

C. Limit OHV use to designated roads and trails. Existing roads will be be designated

open to OHV use except where those roads and trails impact sensitive meadows,

seeps, springs and other waters.

.................................. Completed in RMP Recreation Decision No. 10.

D. Manage the area as a VRM Class II Area, according to the requirements established

by BLM Manual 8400.

.......................................... Completed in RMP VRM Decision 1.

E. Designate Incandescent Rocks as a Scenic Area under 43 CFR 8352.0-6 and develop an

ACEC management plan. ............................ Completed January, 1984.

2. Designate 40 acres in the Steamboat Hot Springs Area as the Steamboat Hot Springs

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. This action is being taken in order to protect,

manage, develop and interpret the 40-acre geyser field and other thermal features in the area.

Steamboat Hot Springs is near a large population center and has easy access. Other public

agencies have expressed interest in protecting and developing the site. Completed January, 1984

A. Acquire legal access to the Steamboat Hot Springs Area.

B. Acquire adjacent thermal features occurring on private land to the north and east of the

geyser terrace, through voluntary exchange or purchase.

C. Complete the suspected occupancy and mining trespass proceedings, and rehabilitate

degradation within the 40 acre Steamboat Springs ACEC.

.............................................................. Completed

D. Classify 40 acres at Steamboat Springs for Recreation and Public Purposes.

E. Develop minimal recreational facilities within the area to protect the thermal features and the

public and to allow for public enjoyment of the area.

F. Fence the 40 acre Steamboat ACEC. ................ Completed by Washoe County

G. Close to OHV use.

H. Develop an ACEC Management plan for the Steamboat Hot Springs area.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ACE-3 Release 05/11/2001

3. Designate 16,000 acres in Stewart Valley as an Area of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC), and withdraw 1,420 of those acres from mineral entry.

A. Limit OHV use in the Stewart Valley ACEC to designated roads, trails and washes.

B. Manage the Stewart Valley ACEC as a Research Natural Area. Establish special rules and

permits for scientific research and field schools. No commercial or private collection will be

allowed.

......... Stewart Valley Fossil Site ACEC Management Plan Completed September 1990.

4. Designate Soda Lake an Area of Critical Environmental Concern

A. Support nomination of the Soda Lake factory site and buildings for the National

Register of Historic Places.

B. Acquire via transfer, exchange, or fee title purchase, all land in T19N, R28E, Section 7,

exclusive of the N1/2NW1/4 (TCID & Churchill County); Section 8, exclusive of the

E1/2E1/2 and NW1/4 or NE1/4(TCID);Section 18, NE1/4 of NE1/4 (TCID); and Section

17, N1/2 of NW1/4 (Bureau of Reclamation). These lands totaling 619 acres will be added

to the ACEC when acquired.

C. Implement a minor level of facility development including signs, underwater markers,

trails and other recreational facilities as needed.

D. Establish cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners for the protection and

management of Soda Lake.

............... Soda Lake ACEC Designation Abandoned Due to Lack Of Public Lands.

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern does not by itself preclude any

activities allowed under the public land laws. The ACEC designation is a recognition of the

special resources of an area and a commitment to provide management which protects and/or

enhances the area. No action that is inconsistent with the terms of an ACEC designation or that

would adversely impact an ACEC protected resource will be permitted, unless it is found

through the plan amendment process that the public benefits of such an action outweigh the

public benefits of continuing the ACEC protection and that there is no feasible alternative to the
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

ACE-4 Release 05/11/2001

proposed inconsistent action. Protection of an ACEC is accomplished through management

actions developed specifically for each individual area.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. All mining operations, other than casual use, occurring in an ACEC area are approved through

a Plan of Operations filed pursuant to 43 CFR 3809, so as to prevent unnecessary and undue

degradation.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Management Plan 

Stewart Valley Fossil Site ...................................... September, 1990.

2. Management Plan Incandescent Rocks Scenic ACEC .................... January, 1988

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. SMA-1 Special Management Areas
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

MIN-1 Release 05/11/2001

MINERALS AND ENERGY

NATIONAL POLICY: (43 CFR 3809.0-6 - Surface Management -Policy )

1. Consistent with section 2 of the Mining and Mineral policy Act of 1970 and section 102(a) (7),

(8), and (12) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it is the policy of the

Department of the Interior to encourage the development of federal mineral resources and

reclamation of disturbed lands. Under the mining laws a person has a statutory right, consistent

with Departmental regulations, to go upon the open (unappropriated and unreserved) federal

lands for the purpose of mineral prospecting, exploration, development, extraction and other

uses reasonably incident thereto. This statutory right carries with it the responsibility to that

operations include adequate and responsible measures to prevent unnecessary or undue

degradation of the federal lands and to provide for reasonable reclamation.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Encourage development of energy and mineral resources in a timely manner to meet national,

regional and local needs consistent with the objectives for other public land uses.

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Public lands in the Field Office area of jurisdiction are open to mineral and energy development

activity with the following exceptions:

2. Areas Closed to Mineral Entry and Energy development:

A. Lands Classified under the Classification and Multiple Use Act. (Approximately 8,000

acres in Sun Valley, Washoe Valley, Steamboat and Peavine Mountain).

........................................ Peavine Mountain Transferred to USFS.

A. Within the Walker Planning Area about 11,000 acres is either segregated against

mineral entry under the Classification and Multiple Use Act or withdrawn from mineral

by through formal withdrawal processes.

A. The Carson City Urban Interface Plan Amendment states; Withdraw 17,892 acres

from operation of the locatable mining laws and close these lands to mineral exploration

and leasing to protect open space and other public land values. these are discretionary

actions.

3. Areas Closed to Mineral Entry (22,672 Acres)

A. Grimes Point Archaeological Area 400 acres

B. Cold Springs Historic Area 200 acres

C. Sand Mountain Recreation Area 2,760 acres

D. Stewart Valley ACEC (sensitive areas) 1,420 acres

E. Carson City Urban Interface 17,892 acres
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

MIN-2 Release 05/11/2001

4. Areas Where Mineral Entry and Development is Restricted to Valid Existing Rights

(582,191 Acres)

The following areas are Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and are subject to the provisions of

the Wilderness Interim Management Policy. These provisions restrict mining and energy

development activities to those that are allowed under valid existing rights and do not impair

wilderness quality. WSA designated as wilderness by Congress will be closed to mineral entry.

A. Clan Alpine WSA 196,128 acres

B. Stillwater WSA 94,607 acres

C. Job Peak WSA 90,209 acres

D. Desatoya WSA 51,262 acres

E. Augusta Mtns. WSA 51,000 acres

F. Gabbs Valley Range WSA 79,600 acres

G. Burbank Canyons WSA 13,395 acres

H. Slinkard WSA 5,440 acres

I. Carson-Iceberg WSA 550 acres

5. Areas Where Existing Withdrawals and Segregation From Mineral Entry Will be

Maintained (22,500 acres)

A. Key Watershed and Wildlife Areas

1. Alkali Lake

2. Antelope Valley

3. Pine Nut Mountains

4. Topaz Lake

B. Major Recreation and Scenic Areas

1. East Walker River

2. Wilson Canyon

3. Walker Lake

4. Prison Hill

6. Areas Closed to Oil, Gas and Geothermal Leasing (45,392 acres)

A. Key Scenic, Wildlife, Recreation, and Historic Areas

1. Jack’s Valley ................................... Transferred to USFS, 1988.

2. East Walker River ............................... Transferred to USFS, 1988.

3. Walker Lake

4. Indian Creek

5. Virginia City

6. Aurora (680 acres) .............................. Transferred to USFS, 1988.

7. Prison Hill

8. Alkali Lake
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

MIN-3 Release 05/11/2001

9. Wilson Canyon ...................... South of River Transferred to USFS, 1988.

10. Sand Mountain 1,960 acres

B. Carson City Urban Interface 17,892 acres

7. Areas Closed to Oil, Gas, Sodium and and Potassium Leasing

A. Key Areas In the Reno Planning Area

1. Galena Creek

2. Whites Creek

3. Jumbo Reservoir

4. Truckee River

5. E. Fork Carson River

6. Carson River

7. Jones Canyon Reservoir

8. Areas Where Some Restrictions Apply to Oil and Gas Leasing

A. No Surface Occupancy (NSO)

1. Within 500 feet of any water (Lahontan MDS)

2. Within 300 feet of any water (Walker MDS)

3. Cold Springs Pony Express Station 40 acres

4. Grimes Point 960 acres

B. Seasonal Restrictions on Activities

1. Spring Restrictions

A. Six Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds 56,320 acres

(Fort Churchill/Clan Alpine Goethermal EAR 1975)

B. All Occupied Raptor Eyries

2. March 1 to July 30 Restrictions

A. Sage Grouse Habitat 85,300 acres

B. East Walker River Area

C. Pine Nut Mountains

3. February 1 to September 1 10,240 acres

A. Prairie Falcon Habitat

B. Excelsior Mountains

9. Areas Closed to Geothermal Leasing Only

A. Key Areas

1. Cold Springs Pony Express Station 40 acres

2. Grimes Point 640 acres
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

MIN-4 Release 05/11/2001

10. Areas Where Some Restrictions Apply to Geothermal Leasing

A. No Surface Occupancy (NSO)

1. Within 500 feet of any water

B. Seasonal Restrictions on Activities

1. Spring Restrictions

A. Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds 9,920 acres

B. North of Cold Springs

(Fort Churchill/Clan Alpine Geothermal EAR 1975)

2. March 1 to July 30 Restrictions

A. Sage Grouse Habitat 85,300 acres

B. East Walker River Area

C. Pine Nut Mountains

3. February 1 to September 1 10,200 acres

A. Prairie Falcon Habitat

B. Excelsior Mountains

11. No mineral material sales or disposal will be authorized within the 40 acre Jumbo Postpile area.

12. The Navy has proposed to withdraw an additional 181,323 acres in Churchill County. These

areas are segregated from operations under the mining law, mineral leasing laws, and the

Material Sales Act pending a decision on the proposed withdrawal.

.................. Completed “Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999" October 1999.

13. Keep areas with geothermal potential (in the Reno Planning Area) open to leasing, exploration,

development and production through applicable law, policy and procedure.

14. In the Reno Planning Area, Keep 46 mineral material sites open for sales and free use,

restructure use of the sites to accommodate Visual Resource Management (VRM) and monitor

to insure compliance.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Public Water Reserves will be maintained on key streams and springs to protect public water

rights. These areas are open to mineral leasing and mineral entry for metallic minerals but are

closed to non-metalliferous minerals.

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

MIN-5 Release 05/11/2001

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. Identify hazards to the public around inactive and active mine claims through signing, fencing or

other appropriate means. Priorities for hazard reduction will be established and carried out by

the minerals program, in cooperation with the State Mine Inspector and claimants.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. Continue to provide mineral material commodities to the using public, following these general

criteria:

A. Avoid duplication of pits within the same general area.

B. Examine hauling distances and place sites according to acceptable VRM classification where

possible.

C. Use existing sites to the greatest extent possible.

D. For major transportation R/Ws, place sites a minimum of 10 miles apart.

E. Determine life expectancy of sites and set rehabilitation requirements in advance.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

Salable Minerals

1. Each mineral material disposal is a discretionary action with appropriate terms and conditions

implemented to guard against undue or unnecessary degradation of existing resources.

2. Mineral material disposal will not occur in Wilderness Study Areas, ACECs or areas deemed

unsuitable by Washoe County.

3. Mineral material sales in the Reno/Sparks market area that are for quantities in excess of

30,000 cubic yards will be advertised and sold competitively.

4. Common-variety mineral material disposal is not made where there is a valid existing mining

claim. Mining claimants are prohibited from selling mineral material from their unpatented mining

claims.

Leasable Minerals

5. Oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and production upon BLM land are conducted through

leases with the Bureau and are subject to terms and stipulations to comply with all applicable

federal and state laws pertaining to various considerations for sanitation, water quality, wildlife,

safety, and reclamation. Stipulations may be site specific and are derived from the

environmental analysis process.

6. Geophysical exploration permits for oil, gas or geothermal resources may be obtained prior to

leasing of the lands. Mitigation of any resource conflicts identified in the review process will be

stipulated in the permit.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

MIN-6 Release 05/11/2001

7. Wilderness Study Areas are closed to mineral leasing.

Locatable Minerals

8. Pursuant to the mining laws, BLM lands are available for mineral entry, location, exploration,

and operations which will not cause undue or unnecessary degradation of the public lands.

9. The authorized officer will be notified by the operator prior to conducting surface disturbance

other than casual use and cumulative disturbance under 5 acres within the project area. These

disturbances will be reclaimed in a timely manner so as not to cause undue or unnecessary

degradation, and prior to the authorization of additional surface disturbance to maintain the

notice level of activity.

10. Where cumulative surface disturbance of a project area is greater than five acres, a Plan of

Operations and a Reclamation Plan are required of the operator. These plans will be reviewed

in conjunction with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Reclamation

and Regulation to ensure that all state permits are obtained and all state regulations are

followed. Plans of Operation may be revised to ensure that federal and state regulations are

complied with to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation.

11. Plans of Operation will require adequate bonding to guarantee that reclamation will be

accomplished at mine closure or project completion.

12. Reclamation is required of all levels of activity so as not to cause undue and unnecessary

degradation.

13. All mineral exploration roads on cut and fill slopes will be reclaimed by recontouring unless they

are within or part of a pre-1981 mining disturbance.

14. All levels of activity, casual use, notice, or plan of operation, will comply with federal and state

regulations regarding air quality, water quality, solid wastes, wildlife and its habitat,

archaeological and paleontological resources.

15. Mining claim validity examinations will be conducted under these circumstances:

A. Mineral patent applications.

B. Where a mining claim conflicts with a land-use or mineral material disposal application and it

is deemed in the public interest to void the claims if possible. If the mining claims are

determined to be valid, the disposal action could not be executed.

C. Where the land is needed for a federal program.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

MIN-7 Release 05/11/2001

D. Where there is unauthorized use of the mining claim such as occupancy or removal of

saleable minerals.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. Nevada Cyanide management Plan .................................. August, 1991.

2. Bureau of Land Management Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook, BLM Manual handbook

H-3042-1 ..................................................... April, 1992.

3. Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands Report, State of Nevada ............. September, 1999.

4. Interim Guidance On Mine Closure Carson City Field Office ...................... 1999

5. Nevada Bureau of Land Management’s Closure Policy for Water Management for Hardrock

Mining Activities .............................................. August 3, 2000

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. MIN-1 Mining

2. MIN-2 Minerals and Energy (Oil and Gas)
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

HAZ-1 Release 05/11/2001

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 1703 Hazardous Materials Management 10/20/95)

The BLM will manage hazardous materials based on the following principles.

1. And request funds to correct or prevent noncompliance with federal and state hazardous

materials laws and regulations.

2. Comply with applicable federal and state environmental laws and regulations with available

funding.

3. Minimize wastes and prevent pollution generated or released on public lands and BLM

facilities, consistent with executive policy.

4. Manage all releases or threatened releases on or affecting public lands or BLM facilities, giving

immediate priority based on hazard and risk. Priority shall be given to the control of all releases

or threatened releases that pose an imminent health, safety or environmental danger.

5. Base decisions and timing of longer term remedial action on hazard and risk; judicial, statutory

and regulatory requirements; approved interagency and intergovernmental orders or

agreements; and consistency with current funding and workload.

6. Develop and maintain contingency plans for both CERCLA and EPCRA.

7. Take the lead in site evaluations and remediation for public land sites in a cost effective and

timely manner.

8. Unless the State Director approves an exception, do not use public lands for hazardous waste

treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facilities (RCRA Subtitle C).

9. The State Director must approve entry by qualified BLM personnel onto hazardous materials

sites subject to OSHA and other requirements.

10. Maintain an inventory of hazardous materials sites.

11. Dispose RCRA, Subtitle C, hazardous wastes generated by BLM only at TSD facilities that are

on the EPA’s most recent list of approved facilities.

12. Provide funding and training to maintain and support a qualified cadre of employees to

implement hazardous materials management.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

HAZ-2 Release 05/11/2001

13. Integrate hazardous materials management into other BLM functions.

14. Coordinate hazardous materials management with local, state and federal agencies.

15. Prepare and maintain the necessary documentation, including retention of all necessary

hazardous materials management-related case and personnel files.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. None

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. None

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. None

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. None

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. No disposal of hazardous materials on public lands will be authorized. When hazardous

materials are located on public lands, the following sequence of actions will occur: reporting,

necessary site security, coordination of procedural clean-up, and monitoring results of clean-up.

Actions taken by the BLM can also include prosecution of those responsible for illegal

dumping.

2. Initiators of actions which use hazardous materials on public lands will be required to have the

necessary permits, from the State of Nevada and (if necessary) the Environmental Protection

Agency, which are designed to protect the environment. These permits become conditions of

approval by the BLM for actions on federal lands.

3. Authorized public land users shall comply with the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as

amended (15 U.S.C. 2601. Et seq.) With regard to any toxic substances that are used

generatedby or stored on the authorized area or facilities. See 40 CFR, Part 702-799 and
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

HAZ-3 Release 05/11/2001

especially, provisions on polychlorinated biphenyls, $0 CFR 761.1 - 761.193. Additionally,

any release of toxic substances (leaks, spills, etc.) In excess of the reportable quantity

established by 40 CFR, Part 117, shall be reported as required by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Section 102b. A copy of

any report required or requested by any federal agency or state government as a result of a

reportable release or spill of any toxic substances shall be furnished to the authorized officer

concurrent with the filing of the reports to the involved federal agency or state government.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. None

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. None

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. None
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

CUL-1 Release 05/11/2001

CULTURAL RESOURCES

NATIONAL POLICY: (BLM Manual Section 8100 cultural Resource Management 12/06/89)

1. Cultural resources are recognized as fragile, irreplaceable resources with potential public and

scientific uses, representing an important and integral part of our Nation’s heritage.

2. The BLM manages cultural resources under its jurisdiction or control according to their relative

importance, protecting against inadvertent loss, destruction, or impairment, and encouraging

and accommodating the uses determined appropriate through planning and public participation.

3. Apart from certain considerations derived from specific cultural resource statutes, management

of cultural resources on the public lands is primarily based on FLPMA and is fully subject to the

same multiple use principles and the same planning and decision making processes as are

followed in managing other public land resources.

RMP LEVEL DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES

1. Cultural and paleontological resources will be protected to the maximum extent practicable,

consistent with other resource values.

2. The objective of the Bureau's cultural resource program is to manage cultural resources for

public benefit. The Department of the Interior has issued instructions setting forth this

management structure through a use evaluation system. The purposes of the system are to

analyze the scientific and sociocultural values of cultural resources, to provide basis for

allocation of cultural resources, to make cultural resources an important part of the planning

system, and to identify information needed when existing documentation is inadequate to

support a reasonable cultural resource-based land use allocation

LAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. The Sand Springs and Cold Springs Pony Express Stations have been scientifically excavated,

stabilized, and developed as public interpretive sites.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. National Register of Historic Places

A. Grimes Point Petroglyph Site.

B. Hidden Cave Archaeological Site.

C. Rock Creek Stage and Telegraph

Site.

D. Cold Springs Pony Express Station.

E. Sand Springs Pony Express

Station.

F. Lahontan Dam and Power Station.

G. Carson River Diversion Dam.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

CUL-2 Release 05/11/2001

2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

A. Stewart Valley Fossil Site.

3. National Historic Landmark

A. Virginia City

LAND TENURE DECISIONS

1. None

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL DECISIONS

1. None

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

1. A Cultural Resource Management Plan is in effect for the Grimes Point Archaeological Area.

The plan has guided research and interpretation at this highly significant locality. Major features

are interpretive trails at Grimes Point Petroglyph Site and at Hidden Cave. Hidden Cave has

been developed as an in situ interpretive center with scheduled tours which have proven to be

quite popular. A cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) has been established with the

Churchill County Museum Association to provide volunteer tour guides for the public tours.

2. A management plan has been written for the Sand Springs Desert Study Area. Included are a

self-guided interpretive trail and informational signs.

3. Monitor the Trailer Park cultural resources site at least bi-monthly to measure any degradation.

4. Monitor the Tule Ridge cultural resource site complex at least semi-annually to measure any

degradation and to create a BLM presence in the area.

5. Post a minimum of two historic sites per year which have been evaluated as highly significant,

using positive protection signing.

6. Coordinate with the Nevada Department of Transportation in order to explore the feasibility of

installing an interpretative panel (at BLM cost). The panel would be located on Interstate 80

east of Reno to point out this highly significant complex of (petroglyph) sites and their

relationship to regional prehistory.

......................... Site located on private property not under BLM jurisdiction.

7. Cultural resources will continue to be inventoried and evaluated as part of project level

planning. Such evaluation will consider the significance of the proposed project and the

sensitivity of cultural resources in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate

to assure compatibility of projects with management objectives for cultural resources.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

CUL-3 Release 05/11/2001

8. The evaluation of cultural resources requires the consideration of actual or potential use of

individual sites or properties within the following categories:

A. Scientific Use: This category applies to any cultural resource determined to be available for

consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study at the present time, using currently

available research techniques. Study includes methods that would result in the resource’s

physical alteration or destruction. This category applies almost entirely to prehistoric and

historic archaeological properties, where the method of use is generally archaeological

excavation, controlled surface collection, and/or controlled recordation.

B. Conservation for Future Use: This category is reserved for any unusual cultural property

which, because of scarcity, a research potential that surpasses the current state of the art,

singular historic importance, cultural importance, architectural interest, or comparable reasons,

is not currently available for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study that

would result in its physical alteration. Cultural resources within this category are deemed

worthy of segregation from all other land or resource uses, including cultural resource uses, that

would threaten the maintenance of its present condition or setting, as pertinent, and will remain

in this use category until specified provisions are met in the future.

C. Traditional Use: This category is to be applied to any cultural resource known to be

perceived by a specified social and/or cultural group as important in maintaining the cultural

identity, heritage, or well-being of the group. Cultural properties assigned to this category are

to be managed in ways that recognize the importance ascribed to them and seek to

accommodate their continuing traditional use.

D. Public Use: This category may be applied to any cultural property found to be appropriate

for use as an interpretive exhibit in place, or for related educational and recreational uses by

members of the general public. 

E. Experimental Use: This category may be applied to a cultural resource judged well-suited

for controlled experimental study, to be conducted by BLM or others concerned with the

techniques of managing cultural resources, which would result in the property’s alteration,

possibly including loss of integrity and destruction of physical elements.

F. Discharged from Management: This category is assigned to cultural properties that have no

remaining identifiable use. Most often these are prehistoric and historic archaeological

properties, such as small surface scatters of artifacts or debris, whose limited research potential

is effectively exhausted as soon as they have been documented. Also, more complex

archaeological properties that have had their salient information collected and preserved

through mitigation or research may be discharged from management, as should cultural

resources destroyed by any natural event or human activity.
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

CUL-4 Release 05/11/2001

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES:

1. Paleontological resources are managed for preservation, protection, scientific use, recreational

use, and educational use. The BLM must insure that authorized land uses do not inadvertently

damage or destroy important paleontological resources on public land. Relevant laws,

regulations and policy include the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-

579), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), 43 CFR 8365, 43 CFR

8200, 43 CFR 8364, 43 CFR 8365.1-5, 43 CFR 8360.0-7, 18 USC Section 641, Secretarial

Order 3104, Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 and 43 CFR 3162, Federal Cave Resources

Protection Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-691) and 43 CFR 37.

2. Cultural resources are preserved and protected on public lands; the BLM must ensure that

proposed land uses, initiated or authorized by BLM, avoid inadvertent damage to cultural

resources on both federal and non-federal lands. Relevant laws, regulations, and policy include

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579), the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P. L. 91-190), National Historic Preservation Act of 1969

and its subsequent amendments (P.L. 89-665), Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act

of 1974 (P.L. 86-523), American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-431),

Executive Order 1193, Executive Order 13007, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of

1979 (P.L. 96-95), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (P.L.

101-601), Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-209), 43 CFR 3, 43 CFR 60, 43 CFR 800, 43

CFR 7, 43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(1), and 43 CFR 10, Subpart B.

3. Cultural resources will be managed for a variety of purposes depending upon the nature of the

property. Management categories and their appropriate treatments are defined in BLM Manual

8110, Identifying Cultural Resources.

4. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the federal agency to consider

the effects of an undertaking on cultural resources eligible to, or listed on, the National Register

of Historic Places. This mandate extends federal responsibility to cultural resources located on

private lands. 

5. Identification and evaluation of cultural resources, determination of project effects, and

development of treatment plans for eligible resources will be conducted in accordance with 36

CFR 800 and the procedures within the Nevada State Protocols, BLM Manual 8110,

Identifying Cultural Resources, BLM Manual 8120, Protecting Cultural Resources, the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic

Preservation, BLM supplements to the Nevada State Protocols and SHPO written guidance. 

Class III cultural resource inventory will generally be conducted for all undertakings unless

special exemption is obtained on a case-by-case basis or if the undertaking will take place in an

area that has previously received an adequate inventory that is less than 10 years old and has

previously received SHPO review. 
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

CUL-5 Release 05/11/2001

6. Cultural resources managed by the BLM Carson City Field Office in California will be subject

to the State Protocol Agreement between the California State Director of the Bureau of land

Management and the California State Historic Preservation Officer.

7. Cultural properties without National Register eligibility determinations will be treated as eligible

properties until such determinations can be made. 

8. Avoidance of cultural properties is the preferred treatment. However, avoidance may be

inappropriate or insufficient if, 1) the project will create on-going activity in the area, 2) the

project will greatly increase access into the area, or 3) the project will alter the visual, audible

or atmospheric characteristics of the cultural properties setting. These conditions could lead to

increased vandalism and/or accidental damage, or detract from the overall significance of the

property. 

9. If eligible properties cannot be avoided, a treatment plan will be developed pursuant to the

Nevada State Protocols which will set forth appropriate mitigation to reduce the effect of the

project upon the properties. If the effect is still adverse, consultation with the President’s

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is required. The treatment plan must be approved

and, if necessary, consultation must be completed prior to authorization of the undertaking.

10. If in the event that previously unidentified cultural properties are encountered during the course

of construction, development, or activation of a BLM undertaking, all activity in the immediate

vicinity of the cultural resource will cease and the appropriate BLM Authorized Officer will be

notified. The Authorized Officer will than take such action as to comply with Section 106 of

NHPA prior to the resumption of the undertaking activity in the vicinity of the cultural property.

11. The views of Native Americans will be considered prior to BLM decisions or approvals that

could result in changes in land use, physical changes to lands or resources, changes in access,

or alienation of lands. Consultation with Native American religious and secular leaders will be

conducted pursuant to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the National Historic

Preservation Act to identify geographic areas which may be associated with traditional

lifeway/religious practices. Executive Order 13007 directs the federal agencies to protect

Native American sacred sites. Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) shall be identified

through the guidance in National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and

Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Significant TCPs are eligible for the National

Register of Historic Places. When identified TCPs are significant to Native Americans,

consultation with Tribes to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act will be guided

by BLM Manual 8160, Native American Consultation and Coordination, and BLM
Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan

CUL-6 Release 05/11/2001

Handbook H-8160-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation. 

12. Whenever possible, Native American human remains will be preserved in place. Human

remains inadvertently displaced from original burial locations will be collected and treated in the

following manner: 1) In-situ human remains and funerary objects on the surface shall be

removed when the burial site cannot be protected, and 2) Human remains or associated

funerary items not associated with an in-situ burial site will be collected. Such items will be held

by the Nevada State Museum pending appropriate disposition or repatriation to the tribe

identified as the genetic or cultural descendants according to 43 CFR 10 Subpart B.

ACTIVITY PLANS:

1. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Management Plan

Stewart Valley Fossil Site ....................................... September,1990

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:

1. BLM Cultural Resources Inventory General Guidelines, January 1990, Fourth Edition, 

Revised.

2. 43 CFR 3622, 43 CFR 3221, 43 CFR 3610

3. BLM Manuals 8100, 8110, 8120, 8130, 8160 and 8170

4. Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement between BLM and the President’s Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, January 14, 1980

5. National Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, the National Council of State Historic

Preservation Offices, and the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

6. National Register Bulletins

7. Paleontological Instruction Memorandums WO 95-51 and WO 96-67

8. Paleontological Resource Management Handbook H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance

for Paleontological Resource Management.

9. Revised 36 CFR 800 Regulations 

10. Treatment of Archaeological Properties - A Handbook (President’s Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation)

GIS MAP REFERENCE:

1. None