Becky Peak and

Government Peak 

Final Wilderness Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Nevada State Office 

Ely District Office 

May 30, 2014 
BLM/NV/EL/EA/14-06+1792 

Cover Photo: Bristlecone Pine 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
	

1.1. Purpose of and Need for the Wilderness Management Plan.......................................... 2
	

1.2. Wilderness Overview ......................................................................................................... 2
	

1.3. Wilderness Management Strategy.................................................................................... 5
	

1.4. Wilderness Management Actions ..................................................................................... 7
	

1.5. Management Action Tables............................................................................................. 19
	

1.6. Monitoring Program........................................................................................................ 23
	

1.7. Plan Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 24
	

1.8. Activites Associated with Plan Implementation ............................................................ 24
	

Environmental Assessment ........................................................................................................ 26
	

2.0. Introduction and Background ........................................................................................ 27
	

2.1. Descriptions of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 31
	

2.2. Effected Environment and Environmental Effects....................................................... 34
	

2.3. Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 47
	

2.4. Consultation and Coordination ...................................................................................... 49
	

Appendix A. Maps ...................................................................................................................... 51
	

Map 1. Overview Wilderness
	

Map 2. Current Conditions Becky Peak Wilderness
	

Map 3. Current Conditions Government Peak Wilderness
	

Appendix B. References.............................................................................................................. 54
	

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT........................................................................... 56 

DECISION RECORD ................................................................................................................ 59
	

List of Tables
	

Table 1. Grazing Allotments Located Partially Within Wilderness................................... 11 

Table 2. Proposed Wilderness Use Restrictions ................................................................... 20 

Table 3. Proposed BLM Wilderness Management Decisions ............................................. 22 

Table 4. Resources/Concerns Considered for Analysis ....................................................... 35
	

Table 5. Fire Management Units by Wilderness .................................................................. 37
	

I 
 

 

 

 

1.0. Introduction 

On December 20, 2006, Congress passed the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and 

Development Act of 2006 (WPCCRDA) (Public Law 109-432), Subtitle B specifically addresses 

Wilderness. Section 323(a) of the WPCCRDA designated citizen proposed Becky Peak 

Wilderness at 18,119 acres and Government Peak Wilderness at 6,313 acres in White Pine 

County, Nevada. The two wilderness areas total 24,432 acres. Map 1 in Appendix A provides a 

general overview of the two wilderness areas. 

The WPCCRDA states that designated wilderness areas shall be managed in accordance with the 

Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act 

sets forth BLM’s responsibilities in administering wilderness areas, with the primary mandate 

being the preservation of wilderness character. In relevant part, the Wilderness Act states: 

“Except as otherwise provided..., each agency administering any area designated as wilderness 

shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area.” 

Wilderness Background 

The Wilderness Act established the National Wilderness Preservation System to ensure that an 

increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does 

not occupy and modify all areas of the United States. The Wilderness Act defines wilderness 

characteristics, the uses of wilderness, and the activities prohibited within its boundaries. 

Congress designates wilderness areas to protect and preserve the lands in their natural state. As 

such, wilderness areas provide a contrast to lands where human activities dominate the 

landscape. 

Wilderness areas are managed for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a manner 

that will: 

 leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, 

 protect and preserve wilderness character, and 

 allow for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and 

enjoyment as wilderness. 

 Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act describes uses that are generally prohibited in 

order to preserve wilderness character, as follows: 

	 “Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing 

private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent 

road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as 

necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area 

for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies 

involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no 

temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or 

motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, 

and no structure or installation within any such area.” 

	 Because the above-described uses are prohibited as a rule, limited (rare and 

occasional) exceptions to the rule must meet the rigorous test of being the minimum 

necessary to administer the areas for the purposes of the Wilderness Act, and must 

occur in a manner that preserves wilderness character. A Minimum Requirements 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 1 
 

Analysis (MRA) is used in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis. The MRA is described in BLM Manual 6340, Management of 

BLM Wilderness, Appendix B-1Minimum Requirements Analysis (and the 

MRDG). It is used to assist in documenting any decisions involving uses and is 

organized around answering two fundamental questions: 1) Is any action necessary 

(regardless of the tool or other use employed); and 2) if so, what is the minimum 

amount of a prohibited use necessary to address the issue at hand. 

1.1. Purpose of and Need for the Wilderness Management Plan 

BLM Manual 8561 (Wilderness Management Plans) requires that wilderness areas be managed 

pursuant to a specific management plan. In fulfillment of the above requirement, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Ely District has prepared this Wilderness Management Plan (WMP) 

to address future management of the two wilderness areas. A consolidated plan was determined 

appropriate for the areas due to their relative proximity, comparable natural and cultural 

resources and values, and similar management issues. 

The need for the Proposed Action stems from Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act, which requires 

administering agencies to preserve wilderness character. Further, Section 1.4.C. of BLM Manual 

6340 (Management of BLM Wilderness) requires BLM District and Field Managers, among 

other things, to develop and implement land use and activity-level plans addressing wilderness 

areas that conform to the Wilderness Act, the establishing legislation WPCCRDA and BLM 

wilderness policies and guidance. 

Based on the analysis herein, the BLM will decide whether to manage the wilderness areas 

strictly according to legislative and regulatory requirements, or whether to implement a 

management plan that provides additional management actions to manage approved uses while 

ensuring adequate protection and preservation of resources and values, as well as mitigation for 

potential impacts to those resources and values. 

This WMP describes the existing environment in the wilderness, defined in various sections. The 

plan proposes management actions to address specific management issues or concerns. The 

Environmental Assessment (EA) that follows the WMP describes and analyzes potential effects 

of imposing different levels of management to wilderness character. This WMP is analyzed as 

the Proposed Action, which is compared to the Minimal Management Alternative because it 

incorporates the maximum land use restrictions considered necessary to protect and preserve 

wilderness character. The Minimal Management Alternative does not include optional 

management actions. The Proposed Action includes directives from BLM Manual 6340. 

1.2. Wilderness Overview 

Wilderness Character 

The Wilderness Act defines wilderness and mandates that the primary management direction is 

to preserve wilderness character. The definition of wilderness is found in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act, and the qualities of wilderness character are commonly described as follows 

(Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, 2011): 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 2 
 

	 Untrammeled - The "earth and its community of life" are essentially unhindered and free 

from modern human control or manipulation in wilderness areas, "in contrast with those 

areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape." This quality is important 

because it helps insure that wilderness management respects the autonomy of nature that 

allows a place to be wild and free. This quality is impaired by human activities or actions 

that control or manipulate the components or processes of wilderness ecological systems. 

	 Natural - Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern 

civilization. Preserving this quality ensures that indigenous species, patterns and 

ecological processes are protected and allows us to understand and learn from natural 

features. This quality is impaired by human actions or activities that leave scars on the 

landscape that would not be there naturally, like roads, trails, and seeded areas. 

	 Undeveloped - Wilderness retains its "primeval character and influence," and is 

essentially "without permanent improvements" or modern human occupation. Preserving 

this quality keeps areas free from “expanding settlement and growing mechanization” 

and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable” as required by the 

Wilderness Act. Human developments, such as fences, water troughs, developed springs, 

degrade this quality. 

	 Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation - The Wilderness Act provides individuals with opportunities to experience 

primitive recreation, natural sights and sounds, solitude, freedom, risk, the physical and 

mental challenges of self-discovery and self-reliance, and to use traditional skills free 

from the constraints of modern culture. This quality is impaired by settings that reduce 

these opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, recreation 

facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior. 

	 Unique, Supplemental, or Other Features - The Wilderness Act states that wilderness 

areas “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value.” Though these supplemental values need not be present for an 

area to meet the definition of wilderness, where they are present they are part of that 

area’s wilderness character, and must be protected as rigorously as any of the four 

required qualities. 

Descriptions of the Wilderness Areas 

The two wilderness areas lie within the Central Basin and Range, a mosaic of basins, scattered 

low and high mountains, and salt flats. The area contains diverse landforms and vegetation types, 

ranging from sagebrush-covered valleys to pinyon and juniper in higher elevations. Becky Peak 

Wilderness spans 18,119 acres and ranges in elevation from 6,000 feet to 10,000 feet in the 

northern Schell Creek Range. Government Peak Wilderness encompasses 6,313 acres and ranges 

from 5,800 feet to 7,800 feet in the northern Snake Creek Range. See Map 1 Overview, 

Appendix A. These wilderness areas are generally located within a two-hour drive from Ely, 

Nevada. They are located in White Pine County in Nevada. 

The areas exhibit characteristics valued for wilderness designation. The two areas have retained 

their natural and wild characteristics but parts of all four wilderness characteristics are present. 

These areas in White Pine County are at the heart of the Great Basin, where majestic mountain 

ranges tower over wide valleys of sagebrush. The rugged and scenic landscape supports diverse 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

plant and wildlife species, including elk, mule deer, cougar, pronghorn, sage grouse, raptors, and 

a host of other birds, mammals, and reptiles. 

Visitors will experience very low levels of human impacts, abundant solitude, and may enjoy 

several primitive recreational opportunities, such as hiking, hunting, camping, scenic viewing 

and nature study. The wilderness areas provide opportunities to experience a sense of remoteness 

and isolation. The numerous draws, ravines, rocky outcrops, and ridges create secluded locales 

that provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, when combined with the remoteness of the 

wilderness areas and the low visitor numbers. Wilderness is managed under Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) Class I Management Objectives, generally defined as pristine landscape 

with few or no human developments, contributing to its undeveloped quality. 

Wildlife populations that are characteristic of the Basin and Range are supported by the diverse 

habitat types found in these wilderness areas. Key habitats include sagebrush steppe, cliffs and 

canyons, riparian areas, and montane woodlands. The big game species that occupy these 

wilderness areas are Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer; and pronghorn in the foothills and 

benches. There are numerous small game and furbearers in the project area such as black-tailed 

jackrabbit, gray fox, bobcat, mountain lion, and coyote. Raptors are commonly found nesting and 

foraging in the wilderness areas, and these areas provide habitat for non-game species of 

numerous small mammals, reptiles, and birds. 

Preliminary primary habitat and preliminary general habitat for the greater sage-grouse, a 

candidate species for federal listing, has been documented in the high mountain sagebrush 

communities of the Becky Peak Wilderness, and along the lower benches of the Government 

Peak and Becky Peak Wilderness Areas. Other special status species that may occupy or utilize 

these wilderness areas are Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, Northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, 

sage thrasher, brewer’s sparrow, pinyon jay, black rosy-finch, and numerous bat species. 

Water sources include a few developed and undeveloped springs in Becky Peak Wilderness. 

There are no developed or undeveloped water sources in Government Peak Wilderness. The 

region’s varying climate and elevation provide important habitat for a variety of wildlife. 

Both of the wilderness areas support livestock grazing. Active grazing permits existed at the time 

of wilderness designation and are authorized to continue under the direction of the Congressional 

Grazing Guidelines. 

Six cherry-stem routes provide public access to the Becky Peak Wilderness. Cherry-stem routes 

are usually defined as dead-end routes where the boundary of the wilderness extends up one side 

of the route, around its terminus, and down the other side. Government Peak Wilderness has no 

true cherry stem routes. However, one route bisects the Government Peak Wilderness, 

effectively splitting the wilderness in half. To ensure that wilderness areas are not impacted by 

vehicular use of cherry-stem routes, turn-arounds at the end of cherry-stem routes will be limited 

to the total width of the cherry-stem. 

Wilderness Issues Being Addressed 

This WMP was prepared to address issues identified through internal agency and public scoping. 

Interested publics were involved in this process during public meetings and through letters, 

email, the BLM website, and personal contact. Initial public scoping meetings were held during 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 4 
 

the summer of 2013 in Ely, Nevada. Issues and concerns raised during scoping were considered 

during development of this WMP and are described in the following sections. 

Protecting and preserving the untrammeled, undeveloped, and natural appearance of 

wilderness areas 

	 Long boundary perimeters increase the amount of wilderness that may be impacted by 

human-influenced changes to vegetative structure and composition in areas immediately 

adjacent to the wilderness areas. 

	 Wildfire suppression and post-fire rehabilitation may affect the natural and undeveloped 

wilderness character by disturbing soil and changing vegetative composition and 

structure. 

	 Human activities may increase the establishment of noxious and invasive plant species, 

the following in particular: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) and Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). 

	 Numbers of visitors to wilderness areas may increase, which could result in site-specific 

impacts to wilderness character. 

Management of non-conforming land uses allowed by Section 4(d) of the Wilderness Act 

	 Continued livestock grazing-related activities, including access to and maintenance of 

existing structures (i.e., developed springs, pipelines, fences, reservoirs), may adversely 

affect naturalness and undeveloped wilderness character. 

1.3. Wilderness Management Strategy 

The management strategy for designated wilderness is to manage human use in a manner that 

protects and preserves the natural, untrammeled, and undeveloped wilderness character, as well 

as the opportunities for solitude and primitive experience, and protecting the unique and 

supplemental features of wilderness. All these qualities are present in some way in Becky Peak 

and Government Peak Wilderness and therefore will be managed to protect them from the effects 

of human-caused disturbances. This WMP considers existing resource and management issues 

within the wilderness to develop management strategy. 

Wilderness Management Goals and Objectives 

This section outlines the goals and objectives that guide this WMP. The goals, along with related 

laws, regulations, and BLM policies, provide broad management direction and are refined into 

specific objectives. Standard Wilderness Goals are identified in BLM Manual 8561, and are 

required to be part of Wilderness Management Plans. The Wilderness Act suggests overall 

objectives as retaining primeval character, preserve natural conditions and maintaining 

untrammeled by man. Objectives herein are aimed at following the Wilderness Act and are 

statements of desired conditions stemming from current situations and assumptions about the 

future. 

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness ecosystems should retain their “primeval” character. 

The dictionary definition of primeval, “of or relating to the earliest ages,” suggests that the Act is 

directing managers to maintain wilderness ecosystems in a state that existed at some time in the 

past. The Wilderness Act also states that wilderness ecosystems are to be preserved “in their 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 5 
 

natural condition.” There is general agreement that preserving natural conditions means ensuring 

that the current composition, structure and/or functioning of ecosystems are consistent with the 

conditions that would have prevailed in the absence of humans. Adherence to this direction 

would mean allowing natural ecosystem change to occur, while avoiding or compensating for 

changes caused by the activities of people. The Wilderness Act provides for managing 

wilderness ecosystems that is untrammeled by man. Synonymous with unconfined, unfettered 

and unrestrained, however, “untrammeled” actually suggests freedom from human control rather 

than lack of human influence. They qualify as wilderness because they are wild and 

uncontrolled, despite substantial human influence. Managing for natural conditions—allowing 

ecosystems to evolve in novel ways, as long as the source of innovation is not human caused—is 

a more appropriate goal than managing for primeval conditions—freezing conditions at a certain 

state (Cole 2000). All goals and objectives must conform to the qualities of wilderness character. 

Wilderness Goal 1 

To provide for the long-term protection and preservation of the areas’ wilderness character under 

a principle of non-degradation. The areas’ natural condition, opportunities for solitude, 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation, and any ecological, geological, or 

other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value present will be managed so that 

they would remain unimpaired. 

Objectives 

	 Avoid restoration activities that influence the entire wilderness and/or must be continued 

indefinitely. Including restoration activities in which the wilderness goals of naturalness 

and wildness are clearly in conflict, such as a program of scheduled management fires set 

to replace natural fire. 

 Protect and preserve wildlife habitat to support healthy and viable wildlife populations to 

retain the wilderness areas’ natural and undeveloped character. 

 Maintain the natural wilderness character by reducing or eliminating infestations of 

noxious weeds and non-native invasive species. 

Wilderness Goal 2 

To manage the wilderness areas for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that would 

leave the areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The wilderness resource 

will be dominant in all management decisions where a choice must be made between 

preservation of wilderness character and visitor use. 

Objectives 

	 Utilize education and interpretation as a proactive approach to address agency decisions 

and visitor activities that may impact wilderness character. 

	 Prevent unauthorized use of motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment by 

managing vehicle access points, posting appropriate boundary and informational signs, 

and blocking and rehabilitating unauthorized routes. 

Wilderness Goal 3 

To manage the wilderness areas using the minimum tool, equipment, or structure necessary to 

successfully, safely, and economically accomplish the objective. The chosen tool, equipment, or 

structure should be the one that least degrades wilderness values temporarily or permanently. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 6 
 

Management will seek to preserve spontaneity of use and as much freedom from regulation as 

possible. 

Objective 

 Implement proposed actions as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the 

administration of the areas as wilderness and to have the least impact to wilderness 

character. 

 Utilize the MRA to determine actions necessary and the minimum necessary, methods 

and tools while preserving wilderness character to the greatest extent practicable. 

Wilderness Goal 4 

To manage nonconforming but accepted uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and subsequent 

laws in a manner that would prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the areas’ wilderness 

character. Nonconforming uses are the exception rather than the rule; therefore, emphasis is 

placed on maintaining wilderness character. 

Objectives 

 Close or limit access to specific areas when resources, such as soils, vegetation, sensitive 

plant or animal populations or habitat, or cultural resources are being negatively affected 

by visitor activities. 

 Maintain or enhance the natural wilderness character by removing unnecessary facilities 

and minimizing or reclaiming human-caused surface disturbances. 

1.4. Wilderness Management Actions 

Education and Interpretation 

General interpretive information regarding natural and cultural resources and recreation 

opportunities in wilderness would be located on kiosks outside of wilderness, in brochures, on 

BLM recreation maps, and on the BLM Ely and State Office websites. Wilderness maps would 

include area descriptions, designated trails, interpretive information, and information on 

wilderness ethics and Leave No Trace principles. Leave No Trace ethics would also be 

emphasized in classes and workshops presented at local schools and in the field. Interpretive 

trails would not exist in wilderness areas. 

When feasible, interpretive and informational materials would be developed in collaboration 

with other agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and interested individuals. 

Wilderness boundary signs would be simple installations (e.g., carsonite or metal posts) used to 

delineate wilderness boundaries from adjacent non-wilderness, and would be located in 

accordance with BLM Manual 6340. 

Key entrance signs would identify the name of the wilderness and would be placed where 

visitors are likely to contact the wilderness boundary. Entrance signs are large, BLM-brown 

signs. One key entrance sign is placed at each main road access to the wilderness. There are three 

at Becky Peak and one at Government Peak Wilderness. 

Information boards containing one-panel informational and interpretive signs would exist at 

access points, or at staging areas. These signs would provide local and regional information 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 7 
 

 

about wilderness, natural and cultural resources, regulatory information, and interpretation. 

There is one information sign at Becky Peak. Additional signs would be installed, as visitor 

needs warrant (see Maps 2 & 3). 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

The overall goal of the wilderness Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) program 

is to maintain the natural wilderness character by facilitating the natural recovery of burned 

areas, while minimizing or precluding noxious weed and non-native invasive species 

infestations. 

No ES&R treatments have occurred in either wilderness since designation. 

Pursuant to BLM Manual 6340, ES&R activities should be conducted as part of the fire incident 

and in accordance with current Department of Interior policy (Departmental Manual 620 DM 3 -

Wildland Fire Management Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation) and BLM 

ES&R policy (H-1742-1 - Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook). 

Stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration activities may be intensive when post-fire processes 

threaten ecological integrity or wilderness character. ES&R activities within wilderness must 

follow the guidance below: 

1.		 Natural recovery of native plant species is preferable to all other treatments. 

2.		 Seeding or planting would be used when objectives for natural recovery cannot otherwise 

be accomplished and there is a threat to wilderness character and values if no action is 

taken. The use of native material, preferably of local or regional genetic stock, would be 

first priority. 

3.		 Non-native species may be seeded or planted if no native species are available and or the 

non-native species are part of an assisted succession program, which promotes the 

rehabilitation of native vegetation. The proposed action must meet at least one of the 

following criteria: 

a.		 the natural biological diversity of the treated area would not be diminished; or 

b.		 exotic and naturalized species can be confined within the treated area, or 

c.		 ecological site inventory information indicates that a site would not support 

reestablishment of a species that was historically a part of the natural 

environment. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 8 
 

The District Manager may approve prohibited uses for ES&R projects on a case-by-case basis 

subject to a MRA. These may include: 

 Standard erosion control techniques that prevent or minimize soil movement and loss (i.e. 

straw bales, wattles, mulch) 

 Stabilize and mitigate post-fire related degradation to cultural resources 

 Sling loading materials into or out of wilderness using a helicopter 

 Helicopters or other aircraft used for aerial seeding 

Fire Management 

The overall goal of wilderness fire management is to emphasize protection and preservation of 

wilderness character. This goal requires BLM to facilitate the operation of natural processes and 

ecological change by allowing fire to function in its natural role of disturbance and succession, 

except where life, property, and/or high value resources are threatened. An integral part of this 

process is ensuring that Fire Management Plans (FMPs) are consistent with Wilderness 

legislative requirements and BLM management policies, as well as the goals and objectives of 

this WMP. The goals and objectives of this WMP would be incorporated into future FMP 

revisions. 

Only one fire has occurred since designation in Becky Peak Wilderness. The Dolans Trap fire 

(2008) caused by natural ignition, was managed as fire for resource benefit at 80.8 acres. No 

fires have been recorded in Government Peak Wilderness. 

In addition to the Wilderness Act, fire suppression and rehabilitation activities would be 

consistent with current National Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 

(NIFC 2011), FMP and RMP. Fire management activities within wilderness areas would utilize 

Minimum Impact Strategies and Tactics (MIST) (USDI 2010b). The intent of MIST is to manage 

a wildland fire with the least impact to natural and cultural resources. By minimizing impacts of 

fire management actions, unnecessary resource damage is prevented and cost savings can be 

realized. 

Response to a wildland fire in or near wilderness would consider the full range of fire 

management strategies and tactics to achieve multiple objectives (ranging from monitoring to 

full suppression). BLM staff would define the set of multiple objectives to protect and/or 

enhance wilderness character, while considering situational factors, such as fuel loading, fire 

behavior, and threats to human life and property. 

Fire Suppression Actions 

Pursuant to Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, otherwise prohibited uses may be authorized in 

wilderness areas only when they are determined to be “...necessary to meet minimum 

requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act...” While 

administrative activities should always be accomplished with economic efficiency, both the 

Wilderness Act and the agency’s wilderness policy direct managers away from using either the 

cost or the time required for implementation as over-riding considerations when evaluating the 

potential use of otherwise prohibited activities. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 9 
 

An evaluation and approval template for emergency actions that functions as a Minimum 

Requirements Analysis is in Appendix B-1 of BLM Manual 6340. Revisions to this approval 

process would be consistent across BLM District boundaries, as well as with this WMP. 

The following process would be used to evaluate the following a ctions (and any others) that may 

be considered during development of a proposed emergency fire response. 

 Assign a resource advisor with knowledge and experience in wilderness stewardship to 

the firefighting team to assist in identifying and protecting wilderness character. 

 Prevent the establishment of noxious weeds and invasive species to preserve the natural 

wilderness character thus: 

o Inspect and wash all suppression equipment prior to wilderness entry, but locate 

wash-down sites outside of wilderness areas. 

o Locate camps and other assembly points outside of wilderness areas and away 

from areas infested by noxious weeds and invasive species. 

o Avoid using water sources containing invasive species for suppressing fires in 

wilderness. 

 Use MIST when feasible, as long as the safety of firefighters, human life and property is 

protected. 

 Locate support operations, such as helispots, fire camps, and staging areas outside of 

wilderness. 

 Remove or rehabilitate evidence of human intervention to the maximum extent possible. 

o Repair fire suppression-related resource damage immediately 

o Plan and implement actions prior to the suppression incident organization 

demobilization. 

 Repairs to damaged sites or resources may occur with the same type of equipment that 

was used for suppression. For example, if motorized, earth-moving equipment was used to 

construct fire lines, then the same type of equipment may be used to contour and 

rehabilitate. 

The District Manager, as the delegated authority must document their approval of otherwise 

prohibited uses, and the documentation must be included in the wilderness fire activity reports. 

Type of Prohibited Use: 

 Motorized Water Pumps 

 Aerial Retardant Application 

 Air Transport/Personnel Shuttle (landings) and Supply Drops 

 Fence (Facility) Repair or Temporary Fence Installation 

 Chainsaws 

 Motor Vehicles 

• Engines 

• Helicopter Transports 

• Crew Trucks 

• UTV/ATV 

 Helispot Construction (major ground disturbance) 

 Heavy Equipment (equipment associated with major ground disturbance, 

i.e. bulldozers, excavators) 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 10 
 

 

 

 

Livestock Management 

The overall goal of livestock management is to provide for continued livestock grazing in 

wilderness areas in a manner that minimize impacts to the natural, undeveloped, and 

untrammeled wilderness character. 

Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act provides for continued livestock grazing where it 

existed prior to wilderness designation, subject to reasonable regulations deemed necessary by 

the Secretary of Interior. 

A total of ten grazing allotments are located partially within the two wilderness areas. Livestock 

grazing is currently authorized within the wilderness portions of the allotments. 

Table 1. Grazing Allotments Located Partially Within Wilderness. 

Allotment Name 

Approximate 

Acres within 

Wilderness 

Approximate 

Range 

Developments 

Wilderness 

Becky Creek 7,320 1 Becky Peak 

Becky Springs 314 0 Becky Peak 

Cherry Creek 3,323 1 Becky Peak 

Chin Creek 846 0 Becky Peak 

North Steptoe 67 0 Becky Peak 

Sampson Creek 2,821 1 Becky Peak 

Tippett 3,116 0 Becky Peak 

Devils Gate 221 1 Government Peak 

Indian George 1,516 0 Government Peak 

Muncy Creek 4,576 3 Government Peak 

Acreage calculated using GIS. 

Becky Creek, Cherry Creek and Sampson Creek allotment developments are troughs. Devils 

Gate and Muncy Creek allotment developments are portions of fences that originate outside 

wilderness. 

Planning related to grazing operations would be guided by the Congressional Grazing Guidelines 

(House Report 105-405 Appendix A, 1990) and BLM Manual 6340. Livestock grazing in 

wilderness areas will be administered pursuant to the Northeastern Great Basin Resource 

Advisory Council Standards so long as the grazing does not conflict with the preservation of 

wilderness character. 

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act requires activities in wilderness areas to be accomplished 

without motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment unless truly necessary to administer 

the area, or when specifically permitted by other provisions of the Wilderness Act. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 2 of the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Appendix A of House Report 101-405, 

1990) provides the following direction for maintenance of livestock grazing-related facilities and 

the occasional use of motorized equipment in wilderness: 

“The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in an area prior to its classification as 

wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.) is permissible 

in wilderness. Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may be 

accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment...Such occasional use of 

motorized equipment should be expressly authorized in the grazing permits for the area involved. 

The use of motorized equipment should be based on a rule of practical necessity and 

reasonableness...Moreover, under the rule of reasonableness, occasional use of motorized 

equipment should be permitted where practical alternatives are not available and such use would 

not have a significant adverse impact on the natural environment. Such motorized equipment 

uses will normally only be permitted in those portions of a wilderness area where they had 

occurred prior to the area’s designation as wilderness or are established by prior agreement.” 

Routine livestock management activities in wilderness areas, including project inspection and 

maintenance (e.g. minor fence repairs or small quantity salt distribution) would normally be 

accomplished by non-motorized, non-mechanized means. Motorized or mechanized vehicles and 

equipment would be authorized on a limited basis on existing administrative access routes only 

for major project maintenance or repair, when needed to transport equipment or supplies that 

cannot reasonably be accomplished by foot, pack stock, or other non-motorized or nonmechanized means. 

Requests by grazing permittees for occasional use of motorized or mechanized vehicles and 

equipment will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through a MRA to determine whether they 

are the minimum tool necessary for administration of the area as wilderness. 

Removal 

The viability and usefulness of existing wilderness range projects would be evaluated in 

consultation with the permittee during the permit renewal process. Prior to removal of any 

structure by the permittee, BLM staff, or authorized volunteers, an evaluation would take place. 

If a range project or other structure is determined by an Ely District Cultural Resource Specialist 

to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it will be recorded. All 

activities that would impact or affect cultural resources would be subject to prior National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Section 106 process. 

New Developments 

Proposals for new livestock water or other developments would not be approved unless they are 

determined to be the minimum necessary to protect or preserve wilderness character. New 

project proposals would require both an environmental analysis and a MRA. 

Existing Operations 

Specific wilderness access requirements and schedules would be included as terms and 

conditions in affected grazing permits, during renewal periods. Terms and conditions would 

specify the timeframe during which vehicular access would be authorized, as well as the specific 

administrative route(s) and the type(s) of vehicles to be used. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 12 
 

Prior to a motorized, mechanized vehicle or equipment entry, a MRA must be conducted and a 

BLM letter of authorization must be issued to the permittee for the conditions described below: 

1. Salt and mineral supplement may be delivered into wilderness areas via motor vehicle in 

quantities sufficient to ensure only one motorized entry annually. Subsequent distribution of 

stockpiled salt would be accomplished by foot, horseback, or pack stock. 

2. Motorized and mechanized inspection and maintenance for troughs and pipelines in Becky 

Peak Wilderness may occur one time per year prior to livestock entry. Maintenance would be 

identified or accomplished during inspection. For large repair or reconstruction projects, such as 

pipeline or trough replacement, a one-time motorized equipment entry under this plan, would be 

authorized in conjunction with a MRA to determine the equipment necessary. 

3. Fence repair or replacement in Government Peak Wilderness would be accomplished by foot 

or pack stock as there is very little fence inside the wilderness boundary. 

Administrative access routes would not be maintained or repaired except on a site-specific basis 

with BLM authorization. Prior to authorizing route maintenance, the BLM would complete a 

MRA to ensure that the minimum tool necessary was to be used to accomplish the objective. If 

necessary, a gate or bollard, signed as administrative access, would be installed at the entrance to 

an administrative route to prevent unauthorized motorized access. 

Permittees would be authorized to use motorized vehicles during emergencies, such as rescuing 

sick or stranded animals. A permittee would not need prior authorization for emergency 

vehicular access, though they would be required to notify the BLM authorized officer 

immediately afterward. Authorization for emergency access would be included as a term and 

condition of the grazing permit. 

Pursuant to Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, the use of motor vehicles for livestock 

monitoring, herding, and gathering is prohibited, as are off-road and over-snow travel and 

development of new routes. 

Recreation Management 

Solitude and primitive and unconfined recreational opportunities exist in both wilderness areas. 

One of the main goals of wilderness management is to provide for visitor use and enjoyment in a 

manner that leaves wilderness areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment. Thus, the 

protection and preservation of wilderness character, and the protection and enhancement of 

wilderness supplemental values that are of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value 

would be dominant in all decisions regarding the promotion or management of visitor use. 

Although annual visitation is difficult to quantify across such a large area, visitor encounters are 

infrequent. Year round visitation is possible, but the wilderness areas’ remoteness and 

ruggedness have historically prohibited high levels of human use and development. 

BLM would use public outreach and education about Leave No Trace land use ethics to 

encourage minimum impact practices to accomplish wilderness recreation goals. 

No permits are required for the public to visit the wilderness. The BLM would aim to minimize 

limitations or controls on visitor use in wilderness areas, while still reducing effects to resources 

and maintain compliance with wilderness policy. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 13 
 

 

 

 

Camping 

No heavily used campgrounds or campsites exist in the area and would not be developed or 

improved in wilderness areas. Therefore, the following restrictions would be imposed on 

dispersed and unmanaged camping to minimize potential effects to wilderness character, 

including impacts to soils, vegetation, and water quality, and conflicts with wildlife and 

livestock. 

	 The BLM Nevada occupancy rule: A person may not occupy undeveloped public lands or 

designated sites or areas for more than 14 days within a 28 consecutive day period. 

Following the 14 days, a person and their personal property must relocate to a site outside 

of at least a 25-mile radius from the occupied site for a period of 14 days. An occupancy 

limitation rule was established to reduce user conflicts caused by long-term occupancy 

that may hamper reasonable opportunities for other members of the public to camp in or 

use the same area. Additionally, long-term occupancy can result in vegetation trampling, 

erosion, wildlife disruption and improper waste disposal. BLM established occupancy 

limits for camping with the publication of a notice in the Federal Register on Oct. 5, 

1993. 

	 Campers must be 300 feet from natural springs or developed upland water sources (e.g., 

troughs, reservoirs) to limit potential conflicts with wildlife and livestock. 

	 Campers are encouraged to use Leave No Trace principles and bury human waste in 

catholes dug at least 6” to 8” deep and 200 feet from water, trails, and campsites. Proper 

disposal of human waste will minimize pollution of water sources, avoid the possibility 

of someone else finding it, and minimize the potential to spread disease. 

	 Campers must use pack-in/pack-out land use ethics, including toilet paper, to reduce 

noxious odors, insects and/or unwanted animal encounters. 

Hunting and Trapping 

Hunting and trapping are allowed in wilderness. They are not a common activity in Becky Peak 

and Government Peak; all federal and state regulations apply. 

	 Pursuant to Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, commercial trapping is prohibited in 

wilderness areas. Commercial trapping is defined as trapping that involves the sale of 

furs, hides, or other animal body parts. Persons having state issued permits to trap may do 

so on designated wilderness lands. However, any person of any age who sells raw furs of 

any kind, whether taken by trap or firearm from a designated wilderness area is in 

violation of Section 4c of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and 43 CFR 6302.20(a). The BLM 

manual specifically states that the “sale of wildlife products gathered from wilderness is 

prohibited. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to: the sale or barter of fish or 

meat; sale or barter of skull, skins, or mounts; sale or barter of antlers, either as collected 

or “value-added furniture”; sale or barter of any trapped animals or their fur.” 

	 Personal, non-commercial trapping would be permitted, subject to applicable State and 

Federal laws and regulations. Access to traps would be limited to foot or horseback. 

	 Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act precludes structures and installations in wilderness 

areas. As such, permanent blinds for hunting, photography, or other purposes are 

prohibited. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 14 
 

	 Temporary, portable or “pop-up” blinds would be permitted for hunting, photography, 

wildlife observation or similar purposes for a 14-day use period. They must be attended 

or occupied at least some portion within the 14 days or will be subject to removal. 

Trails and Routes 

Hiking to the summits of Becky and Government Peaks are current recreational activities. The 

peak summit registers consisting of paper and pencil in a container would remain. Pedestrian or 

equestrian trails would not be constructed within the wilderness; there is not the need to facilitate 

visitor use or reduce impacts to wilderness character and resources. Signs and structures related 

to recreational use would not be placed in wilderness unless a MRA determined that they are the 

minimum necessary for administration of the area as wilderness. They may be justified due to an 

extraordinary hazard or to protect naturalness where it is being impacted from visitor use, but not 

for visitor convenience. 

Remnant two-track roads and user-created trails would be considered part of the wilderness 

experience and would not be marked or signed, would not receive routine maintenance, and 

would not be displayed on BLM recreation maps or brochures. As time and funding allow, BLM 

may take action to rehabilitate surface disturbances with actions similar to those discussed in the 

fire rehabilitation and weed control sections of this document. Otherwise, trails and two-track 

roads would be allowed to revegetate naturally unless their continued use causes excessive soil 

erosion, poses an unacceptable public safety hazard, or adversely affects wilderness character. 

Access points are defined as locations along wilderness boundaries where focused entry occurs. 

Over time, these and other areas used for parking along boundary roads may be impacted to the 

point at which improvements should be made in order to protect wilderness character. These 

access points and parking areas may be defined by creating a vehicle turn-around at or before the 

wilderness boundary and would not extend into wilderness. As necessary, BLM appropriate land 

use authorization or right-of-ways would be obtained. 

Other Visitor Use 

	 Traditional geocaching and letterboxing are prohibited to reduce soil and vegetation 

disturbance caused by object burial and leaving items in wilderness. 

	 To reduce weed transport and infestation within the wilderness areas, supplemental feed 

for riding and pack stock should be certified weed-free. Recommend 96 hours before 

entering public lands, feed pack animals only certified weed free feed. Remove weed 

seeds from pack animals by brushing them thoroughly and cleaning their hooves. 

	 Casual collection on foot or horseback (surface only, no digging) of small quantities (<25 

lbs.) of renewable and mineral resources would be permitted (i.e., wood, fruit, vegetation, 

rock and mineral specimens, petrified wood, and common invertebrate and plant fossils). 

	 To reduce impacts to the natural wilderness character and protect the area for future 

generations, individuals may not cut, break, or otherwise destroy standing live and dead 

trees or shrubs for firewood or clear an area for a campsite, visitor convenience, or 

comfort (RMP FP-5, 9). 

	 To preserve the area’s history, vertebrate fossils and cultural, archaeological, and historic 

sites and artifacts may not be damaged or removed without BLM authorization. Prior to 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 15 
 

any action in wilderness, the potential effects on cultural resources will be evaluated per 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, per Ely District guidelines 

and the BLM Nevada State Protocol Agreement with the State Historic Preservation 

Office. 

Vegetation Management 

Restoration of Vegetation 

Manipulation of vegetation through any one or a combination of prescribed fire, chemical 

application, mechanical treatment, or introduced biological agents may be permitted in 

wilderness areas only to preserve wilderness character and values. Robert C. Lucas, Wilderness 

Research Social Scientist asserts, “The object is not to stop change, nor to recreate conditions as 

of some arbitrary historical date, nor to strive for favorable change in big game populations or in 

scenic vistas. The object is to let nature ‘roll the dice’ and accept the results with interest and 

scientific curiosity.” (1978) Further, “... once large-scale restorations have been implemented, it 

will be impossible to evaluate their success. All wildlands will be consciously constructed, so 

there will no longer be any examples of unmanipulated systems to serve as reference areas. 

Ecosystem manipulations in wilderness will ultimately be experiments without controls.” (Cole 

2000) 

Thus, for these two areas, over the life of this plan, in terms of active restoration, the "hands-off" 

approach will be the management direction for vegetation restoration. The hands-off strategy, 

refrains from actions that manipulate, control, or hinder the conditions (e.g., habitat), 

components (e.g., species), or processes (e.g., fire) of an ecological system. This approach 

furthers the mandate of untrammeled nature and requires only that the area be free from 

intentional manipulation, not that the area be free from all human influence. By willfully not 

manipulating or intervening in ecological systems, the hands-off approach is a way to foster 

greater respect and humility toward the autonomy of nature (Cole 2010). 

Therefore, the management direction will be focused primarily on preservation of the 

untrammeled character of wilderness within these two areas. This type of management would 

provide control areas for interventions and would provide scientists with a place to monitor the 

dynamics of an unrestrained ecosystem. 

Noxious Weeds and Non-Native Invasive Plants 

The goal of weed management is to protect and preserve the natural wilderness character by 

sustaining native plant communities, and reducing or eliminating infestations of noxious weeds 

and non-native invasive species. 

The Restoration and Vegetation Management section (Section 1.6.C.15.) of BLM Manual 6340 

outlines the protocol and approval process for vegetation treatments in wilderness. Current 

noxious weeds and invasive plant infestations in wilderness areas include, but are not limited to 

Bull thistle, Canadian thistle, Musk thistle and cheatgrass. The potential exists for further 

infestations of these and other species from surrounding areas. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 16 
 

The Becky Peak and Government Peak Wilderness have long perimeters compared to the area 

within their boundaries. These long wilderness boundaries increase the potential for the spread of 

noxious weeds and non-native invasive plants from surrounding areas. The wilderness areas 

must be managed to maintain the degree of wilderness character that existed at the time of 

designation. 

If, through a MRA, the BLM authorized officer determines that weed treatment is necessary, 

emphasis would be placed on controlling small (<0.1 acre) infestations of noxious and invasive 

weeds that have the potential to spread and displace native plants. Larger infestations would be 

considered separately, since they could involve several treatment applications or associated 

tactics. Post-treatment seeding and/or transplant projects would follow guidelines contained in 

the ES&R section of this plan. BLM Ely District weed management protocols (BLM 2010) 

would guide the use of herbicides. Determination of the following treatments, following an 

MRA, would be prioritized in the following order, though it is likely that treatment combinations 

would be necessary in some situations: 

1.		 Manual removal with hand tools if weeds can be controlled or eradicated without causing 

re-sprouting, without undue soil disturbance leading to expansion of infestations, and 

where infestations are of a size manageable by hand crews. 

2.		 Herbicides applied by backpack or pack stock (horse, mules, or llamas). 

3.		 Biological control approved by APHIS or US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

4.		 Herbicides applied aerially or with motorized equipment, where control is feasible, where 

control impacts may be quickly and readily rehabilitated, and where the infestation is of 

such size that herbicide(s) cannot be effectively applied without motorized equipment. 

5.		 Alternative treatments, including targeted grazing by livestock. 

For treatments involving herbicides, Standard Operating Procedures, the manufacturer’s label, 

and mitigation and conservation measures listed in the Record of Decision for the Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic EIS (USDI 2007) (or more current decision), as well 

as the Ely District Integrated Weed Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (DOIBLM-NV-L000-2009-0010-EA) (or more current decision) would be followed. Treatments 

would be designed to facilitate movement toward native vegetative composition and structure. 

Actions to rehabilitate the effects from fire or other natural disasters are considered emergency 

actions and could be authorized in locations where natural seed sources are inadequate to 

compete with non-native vegetation and/or where substantial unnatural soil loss is expected (also 

see ES&R Section above). Managers would adjust the level of response by considering current 

ecological health and vigor against the potential for invasion by undesirable species. 

Chemical treatment may be necessary to prepare habitat for the reestablishment of native species, 

to protect or recover habitat that supports Federally-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate 

species, or to correct unnatural conditions resulting from modern human influence. Management 

actions must comply with label directions and regulatory requirements for chemical application 

near water bodies. 

Wildlife Management 

The overall goal of wildlife management in wilderness areas is to protect, preserve, and where 

appropriate, enhance habitat to retain the wilderness areas’ natural character at the time of 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

designation, and to support healthy wildlife populations. To facilitate these efforts, the current 

BLM-Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU 6300-

NV-930-0402(2012)), as amended, would be adhered to. Under this agreement, NDOW annually 

submits a letter of proposed projects. In addition, the forthcoming Nevada and Northern 

California Greater Sage – Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and EIS guidance would be 

adopted. 

According to the BLM-NDOW MOU (2012), wildlife relocation may be permitted if necessary: 

1) to perpetuate or recover a threatened or endangered species; or 2) to restore the population of 

indigenous species eliminated or reduce by human influence. Additionally, NDOW may submit 

requests for use of helicopter in wilderness areas in order to retrieve date from radio telemetry 

collars which have dropped off study animals or from animals that have died. 

While NDOW has the primary and critical role in fish and wildlife population management (43 

CFR 24), fish and wildlife management activities in wilderness would be administered in 

conformance with the Wilderness Act's purpose of securing an "enduring resource of wilderness" 

for the American people through the preservation of wilderness character. It is expected that 

nature, not human intervention, would play the dominant role. Therefore, to be authorized in 

wilderness areas, proposed wildlife actions would need to be determined necessary to protect or 

preserve wilderness character. 

Any ground disturbing activities in wilderness would be restricted by the following wildlife 

timing stipulations: 

 Sage grouse – within four miles of active leks from March 1 – July 15 during breeding, 

nesting, and early brood-rearing seasons. 

 Migratory birds – during the migratory bird nesting season from April 15 - July 15. If 

disturbance occurs during this time, a bird nest survey must be completed one week prior 

to disturbance. 

 Raptors – within a half-mile of active raptor nests and one mile from eagle nests from 

April 15 – July 30; unless the nest has been determined to be inactive for at least 5 years. 

 Big Game – within big game calving/fawning/kidding grounds from April 15 – June 30. 

Although wilderness overflights are not precluded by the WPCCRDA, every effort would be 

made to coordinate with wildlife managers and researchers so that overflights minimize 

disturbance to both wildlife and visitors. For requests, involving only the management of a 

wildlife population(s) and/or that involve no ground disturbance, the MRA and a letter of 

authorization with associated terms and conditions would suffice as approval. 

Wildlife-Related Facilities 

Similar to livestock permittees, NDOW, or other State or Federal agency may request 

administrative access into a wilderness with motorized vehicles and/or equipment for wildlife 

management. The are no existing water developments inside either wilderness. There are two 

developments adjacent to Government Peak Wilderness (see Map 3). 

Water developments for wildlife in wilderness would only be considered to replace existing 

natural sources lost because of human influence. Restoration of existing natural water sources is 

preferred and will be analyzed for wildlife benefit prior to considering artificial water 

developments. Any new facilities would be considered outside of wilderness first. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 18 
 

The BLM Wilderness Specialist would work with the requesting agency to complete a MRA that 

documents the evaluation of the agency’s request. An environmental analysis, MRA and 

associated decision document would be needed for proposals involving ground disturbance, or 

motorized/mechanized use. 

The effects of non-ground disturbing operations for wildlife management in wilderness areas are 

analyzed in the accompanying environmental analysis for this WMP. A NDOW report would be 

included in an annual report to be completed by the BLM to document any landings and other 

motorized and mechanized access for maintenance and repairs. 

Wild Horse Management 

The goal within a Herd Management Area (HMA) is to “maintain and manage healthy, selfsustaining wild horse herds ... within appropriate management levels ... to ensure a thriving 

natural ecological balance” (RMP, 2008b). Management of wild horses is accomplished by 

activity plans created by the BLM Wild Horse Burro Specialist. Becky Peak Wilderness is within 

the Antelope HMA. Government Peak is not in a HMA. There are no burros in the wilderness 

areas. 

For wilderness, if the minimum requirement analysis results in motorized means for horse 

gathers, aircraft, including helicopters, may be used to survey, capture, and monitor wild horses. 

However, aircraft may not land inside wilderness boundaries except in cases of emergency nor 

will capture pens be allowed. In cases where impacts to springs and riparian systems result from 

wild horses, mitigation measures may be employed to prevent further degradation or to restore 

wilderness character. 

1.5. Management Action Tables 

One of BLM’s goals for wilderness management is to provide opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation by limiting the number and type of land use restrictions that 

visitors must follow, while still maintaining compliance with wilderness policy. To that end, and 

pursuant to the discussions of the affected environment, Table 2 contains a consolidated list of 

legislatively-required actions and proposed visitor use restrictions, and indicates whether a use: 

1) is authorized without further requirements, 2) is authorized, but restricted in some manner, 3) 

requires prior BLM authorization, or 4) is prohibited. Table 3 contains BLM wilderness 

management decisions not specifically related to use regulation. 

All wilderness actions are subject to a MRA, to determine the action necessary. Some actions 

may require site specific NEPA. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 19 
 

Table 2. Proposed Wilderness Use Restrictions. 

Use is Motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment may be used in 

authorized wilderness areas during emergencies involving search and rescue, the 

health or safety of individuals, or the rescuing of sick or stranded 

animals. Individuals must notify the BLM authorized officer 

immediately following completion of emergency activities. The removal 

of downed airplanes or other vehicle accidents, associated equipment, 

parts, or debris is not considered an emergency, and would require prior 

BLM authorization subject to a MRA. 

Use is Only temporary, portable or “pop-up” blinds would be permitted for 

authorized hunting, photography, wildlife observation or similar purposes for a 14-

day use period. They must be attended or occupied at least some portion 

within the 14 days or will be subject to removal. 

Use is Casual non-commercial surface collection (no digging) of small 

authorized quantities (<25 lbs.) of renewable and non-renewable resources would be 

permitted (i.e., dead and down wood, fruit, vegetation, rock and mineral 

specimens, petrified wood and common invertebrate and plant fossils). 

Use is Personal, non-commercial trapping on foot or horseback would be 

authorized permitted subject to State and Federal regulations. 

Use is restricted Backcountry camping would be limited to 14 days in any one location. 

After 14 days, camps must be moved at least 25 miles from the previous 

campsite. 

Use is restricted Campers must pack-in/pack-out all trash. 

Use is restricted Campers may not cut, break, or otherwise destroy standing live and dead 

trees or shrubs for firewood (or clear an area for a campsite, visitor 

convenience, or comfort, such as cutting out poison ivy). Firewood 

collection permits are not issued for wilderness. 

Use is restricted Campers must bury human waste in catholes dug at least 6” to 8” deep 

and 200 feet from water, trails, and campsites. 

Use requires Administrative access routes for permittee use may not be maintained or 

authorization repaired without BLM authorization. 

Use requires Motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment may be authorized in 

authorization wilderness areas following a MRA for: 

a. Wildlife management projects 

b. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

c. Weed control projects 

Use requires The scientific study of paleontological resources, such as vertebrate 

authorization fossils, or cultural resources, such as archaeological and historic sites 

and/or artifacts, will be permitted through a fieldwork authorization in 

instances where mitigation measures are determined to be necessary. 

Use requires Reclamation of surface disturbances associated with mining claims 

authorization would be authorized subject to Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3809. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 20 
 

Use requires 

authorization 

BLM would continue to issue SRPs to the following entities, as long as 

they provide services deemed necessary for realizing the recreational 

values of the wilderness, and as long as they operate within the terms 

and conditions of their SRP: 

a. Licensed commercial outfitters and guides for activities 

involving: 

1. Hunting 

2. Pack trips 

3. Hiking 

4. Camping 

5. Nature viewing 

b. Entities whose mission includes the promotion of wilderness 

ethics, Leave No Trace, or environmental education, and 

c. Entities whose primary purpose is to support individuals with 

disabilities. 

Use requires 

authorization 

Research and monitoring activities and devices may be authorized 

subject to a MRA if the information cannot be collected outside of 

wilderness. 

Use requires 

authorization 

New water or other developments could be permitted for livestock 

management or wildlife purposes if they are determined to be the 

minimum necessary to protect and preserve; or enhance wilderness 

character. 

Use requires 

authorization 

Wildlife management proposals may be authorized subject to a MRA. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Motor vehicles are prohibited for livestock monitoring, herding, and 

gathering. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Motorized and mechanized travel and equipment are prohibited in 

wilderness areas, including, but not limited to: off-highway, over-snow, 

and other vehicles, chainsaws, power drills, suction dredges, generators, 

motorboats, bicycles, game carts, wagons, and wheelbarrows. 

Development of new access routes is also prohibited. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Livestock grazing is prohibited in burned areas until vegetative recovery 

objectives are met. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Motorized vehicles, helicopter landings and trap sites would not be 

constructed in wilderness during wild horse gathers. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Unattended personal property not associated with an active campsite 

may not be left. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Traditional geocaching and letterboxing activities are prohibited. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Collection of any resource for the purpose of commercial sale is 

prohibited. 

Use is 

prohibited 

Ground-based military maneuvers and associated activities are 

prohibited except in support of emergency actions, as previously 

described. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 21 
 

Table 3. Proposed BLM Wilderness Management Decisions.
	

BLM would continue to authorize livestock grazing in wilderness, and grazing would be 

administered subject to the Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Standards. 

Planning related to grazing operations would be guided by the Congressional Grazing 

Guidelines (House Report 105-405 Appendix A, 1990) and BLM Manual 6340. 

BLM would authorize the livestock-related administrative access according to guidelines 

defined in Livestock Management section of the WMP. Authorizations would be subject to 

a MRA, and if approved, would be added as terms and conditions to existing grazing 

permits. 

1. Salt and mineral supplement may be delivered into wilderness areas via motor vehicle in 

quantities sufficient to ensure only one motorized entry annually. Subsequent distribution of 

stockpiled salt would be accomplished by foot, horseback, or pack stock. 

2. Motorized and mechanized inspection and maintenance for troughs and pipelines in 

Becky Peak Wilderness may occur one time per year prior to livestock entry. Maintenance 

would be identified or accomplished during inspection. For large repair or reconstruction 

projects, such as pipeline or trough replacement, a one-time motorized equipment entry 

under this plan would be authorized in conjunction with a MRA to determine the equipment 

necessary. 

3. Fence repair or replacement in Government Peak Wilderness would be accomplished by 

foot or pack stock as there is very little fence inside the wilderness boundary. 

BLM would temporarily close or limit access to specific campsites or areas (at its 

discretion) when recreational or other activities are negatively affecting wilderness 

character. 

BLM would consider commercial enterprises proper for realizing wilderness recreational 

purposes if the enterprises: 1) are wilderness-dependent, 2) contribute to Leave No Trace or 

environmental education, and 3) do not degrade wilderness character. Enterprises currently 

meeting these criteria include commercial outfitting and guide services, and therapy pack 

trips. 

BLM would not place signs and structures in wilderness unless a MRA determines that they 

are the minimum necessary for administration of the area as wilderness. 

BLM would not maintain, repair, or enhance any routes along old road beds or game trails. 

BLM managers may consider the full range of fire management strategies and tactics 

(ranging from monitoring to full suppression) to protect multiple values. 

Repairs to burned facilities or resources may be accomplished with the same or similar type 

of equipment that was authorized for suppression. 

The following activities may be authorized during ES&R subject to a MRA, site-specific 

NEPA analysis and District Manager approval: 

a. Install temporary emergency structures (i.e., fences, hydrologic monitoring 

devices). 

b. Install erosion control (i.e., straw bales, wattles, mulch). 

c. Repair or replace burned or damaged facilities (i.e., fences, boundary signs, trails). 

d. Stabilize and mitigate post-fire related degradation to cultural and historic sites and 

resources. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 22 
 

BLM would remove existing structures and installations if they: 1) are not associated with a 

valid existing right, 2) are not of historical or cultural value, or 3) are not the minimum 

necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness. 

BLM would treat surface disturbances subject to a MRA, using methods that have the least 

impact to wilderness character. 

1.6. Monitoring Program 

Wilderness Monitoring 

The current wilderness monitoring strategy (BLM Manual 6340, Appendix C) evaluates impacts 

to the four wilderness qualities identified in the Wilderness Act - “untrammeled,” “natural,” 

“undeveloped,” and “solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” These 

wilderness characters form the foundation of the monitoring protocol, and each character is 

divided into monitoring questions, indicators, and measures to allow measurement of trends. 

Wilderness monitoring activities would assess the effects to wilderness character from visitor 

use, activities conducted under a valid existing right, activities conducted under BLM permit, 

natural events (i.e., wildfire, floods, insects), and management decisions. A single activity may 

affect several wilderness qualities. Monitoring the effects of activities to multiple qualities of 

wilderness character would improve understanding of the overall effects on wilderness character. 

The monitoring program would provide a greater understanding of the condition of each 

wilderness area. Effects of intentional, unintentional, and unauthorized activities would be 

captured. Information generated during wilderness monitoring would help managers determine: 

 the current state of wilderness character; 

 if and how wilderness character is changing over time; 

 if and how stewardship actions are affecting wilderness character; and 

 what stewardship priorities and decisions would best preserve and sustain wilderness 

character. 

If monitoring reveals that visitor use is damaging cultural resources, BLM staff, in 

consultation with Native American tribes and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, 

would develop a management strategy to minimize further damage, including, but not 

limited to education, signage, and natural barriers. 

All field reports, photographs, and monitoring data, with the exception of archaeological reports, 

photographs, and data would be maintained in the official file for each wilderness at the BLM 

Ely District Offices. All archaeological information is considered proprietary and confidential 

and will be kept in a separate file for each wilderness area at the BLM Ely District cultural 

records repository. Monitoring will also provide wilderness managers with more complete 

information, which will improve the evaluation of future proposed activities. 

Law Enforcement 

BLM law enforcement rangers would enforce Federal laws and regulations in wilderness areas. 

State and local law enforcement, BLM staff, contractors, and volunteers may indirectly assist 

BLM law enforcement by providing information regarding wilderness-related violations. Law 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 23 
 

enforcement rangers and other BLM staff would patrol the wilderness perimeter with motorized 

vehicles, and would conduct patrols within wilderness on foot or horseback. Motorized vehicles 

and equipment, including helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, may be used for temporary 

emergencies involving search and rescue operations, violations of law, and/or the pursuit of 

fugitives, and would be immediately followed up with notification to the appropriate BLM 

District manager and subsequent incident report. 

1.7. Plan Evaluation 

The WMP will be revised when the management actions or a change in the existing situation no 

longer meets wilderness management objectives. If the decision were made to revise this plan, it 

would be accomplished with public input. Where it would not conflict with the enabling 

legislation or other pertinent laws and regulations, the WMP may be revised if necessary to 

conform to future land use planning documents or revisions. 

1.8. Activities Associated with Plan Implementation 

The following list reflects the implementation priority for management actions identified in this 

WMP. Actual implementation would be subject to staff and funding availability outside the 

control of this plan. 

Ongoing Activities 

 Maintenance of boundary and road closure signs 

 Visitor information and education 

 Wilderness monitoring: 

o Visitor use monitoring 

o Resource condition monitoring 

o Wilderness character monitoring 

Future Activities 

 Reclamation: 

o Vehicle routes not used for authorized administrative access 

o Undesirable or highly impacted campsites 

o Unauthorized vehicular impacts
	

 Signs:
	

o Vehicle access points 

o Off-site information signs 

 Modify or remove unused or unnecessary livestock developments or other structures 

 Control infestations of noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant species 

 Monitor noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant infestations and proactively treat 

small infestations to prevent large-scale landscape changes 

 Issue an unlimited number of Special Recreation Permits to licensed outfitters and guides 

for hunting, fishing, and other commercial and group activities on an as-needed basis 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 24 
 

 

 

Subsequent Environmental Analysis 

If in the future, conditions change sufficiently to warrant subsequent actions not already 

addressed in this WMP, additional environmental analysis may be required. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 25 
 

Environmental Assessment 

Becky Peak and Government Peak Wilderness 

Management Plan 

DOI-BLM-NV-L000-2013-0006-EA 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 26 
 

2.0. Introduction and Background 

Section 1503 (a) of the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 

2006 (WPCCRDA) (Public Law 109-432) designated approximately 24, 432 acres of wilderness 

in White Pine County, Nevada, as Becky Peak and Government Peak Wilderness Areas. The 

WPCCRDA requires the wilderness areas to be managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 7202). 

Wilderness management actions described in the Wilderness Management Plan (WMP) form the 

Proposed Action analyzed herein. The Proposed Action will be analyzed against an alternative 

that would normally be considered a continuation of current management; however, Section 4(b) 

of the Wilderness Act requires administering agencies to preserve wilderness character. Land 

uses and activities that are inconsistent with this legislative guidance are prohibited within the 

designated areas. 

BLM is required to manage the wilderness areas according to standards that were not in effect 

when the lands were previously managed under FLPMA for multiple use. As such, a No Action 

Alternative (continuation of current management) does not exist, since new requirements were 

imposed through wilderness designation. As such, Alternative A is being termed the Minimal 

Management Alternative because it contains the minimum land use restrictions deemed 

necessary to protect and preserve wilderness character and to comply with applicable laws and 

regulations. The Proposed Action contains most of the management actions. 

The analysis in this EA will focus mainly on the Proposed Action’s management actions to 

determine: 1) whether the actions individually and cumulatively fulfill legislative requirements 

to protect and preserve wilderness character, and 2) whether the actions individually or 

cumulatively involve significant environmental effects. 

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 

The purpose of the WMP is to implement guidelines and actions designed to preserve wilderness 

character by identifying conditions and opportunities that will be managed for over at least the 

next ten years, or as changes in wilderness character and/or resource conditions require. 

The need for the Proposed Action stems from Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act, which requires 

administering agencies to preserve wilderness character. Further, Section 1.4.C. of BLM Manual 

6340 (Management of Designated Wilderness Areas) requires BLM District and Field Managers, 

among other things, to develop and implement land use and activity-level plans addressing 

wilderness areas that conform to the Wilderness Act, the establishing legislation, and BLM 

wilderness policies and guidance. 

Based on the analysis herein, the BLM will decide whether to manage the wilderness areas 

strictly according to legislative and regulatory requirements, or whether to implement a 

management plan that provides management and additional management actions to ensure 

adequate protection and preservation of resources and values, as well as mitigation for potential 

impacts to those resources and values. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 27 
 

Compliance with Existing Laws and Regulations 

The WMP complies with the Wilderness Act and the enabling WPCCRDA, as well as numerous 

other applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders, including 43 CFR Parts 6300 and 8560. 

The WPCCRDA states, “the boundary of any portion of a wilderness area designated by 

subsection (a) that is bordered by a road shall be at least 100 feet from the edge of the road to 

allow public access.” Further, subsection 324(d) states “Nothing in this subtitle--shall affect any 

water rights in the State (including any water rights held by the United States) in existence on the 

date of enactment of this Act;” 

Neither of the designated wilderness areas contain private and/or State-owned inholding 

properties within their boundaries. There is a private parcel on the southwest perimeter of Becky 

Peak Wilderness. No authorized Right of Ways (ROW) are inside the designated wilderness and 

no active mining claim exists in Becky Peak Wilderness or Government Peak Wilderness. 

Conformance to Existing BLM Land Use Plan 

This WMP has been analyzed within the scope of the Ely District Approved Resource 

Management Plan (2008) and has been found to be in conformance with the goals, objectives, 

and decisions of the Decision Summary and Record of Decision. 

BLM planning regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations 1610.3.2[a]) require that BLM 

resource management plans be consistent with officially approved plans of other federal, state, 

local, and tribal governments to the extent those plans are consistent with federal laws and 

regulations applicable to public lands. Although this regulation does not apply to other official 

plans created after the land use plan is implemented, the BLM strives for management decisions 

to be consistent with other official plans. 

Specific management actions from the RMP (listed below) provide direction to meet the goals 

and objectives of wilderness management. 

 Visual Resources: VR-1: Manage designated wilderness...for scenic qualities under 

Visual Resource Management Class I objectives. 

	 Communication Sites: LR-37: Establish designated wilderness as exclusion areas. 

	 Land Use Authorizations: LR-41: Establish designated wilderness as exclusion areas. 

	 Renewable Energy: RE-5: Establish designated wilderness as exclusion areas. 

	 Travel Management: TM-1: Close designated wilderness to motorized and mechanized 

travel according to policy and enabling legislation. 

	 Recreation: REC-5: Manage for recreation facilities and services such as trails, trailheads, 

staging areas, and associated structures in extensive recreation management areas 

following activity-level plans and NEPA analysis for the management of designated 

wilderness...for management of recreational impacts to natural and cultural resources. 

	 Fuelwood Collection: 

o	 FP-5: Allow collection of fuel wood from both live and dead trees for personal 

use (pinyon, juniper, and mountain mahogany) and commercial use (pinyon and 

juniper) throughout the planning area, except in closed areas (e.g., wilderness 

study areas, designated wilderness). 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 28 
 

o	 FP-9: Make pinyon, juniper, and white fir available for personal use throughout 

the planning area, except in closed areas (e.g., wilderness study areas, designated 

wilderness). 

	 Minerals: 

o	 MIN-7: Closed to leasing – Close approximately 1.5 million acres to leasing 

including designated wilderness and wilderness study areas. 

o	 MIN - 12: Closed to leasing – Close approximately 1.6 million acres to solid 

mineral leasing. This includes designated wilderness and wilderness study areas. 

	 Special Designations: SD-5: Manage 22 designated wilderness areas in accordance with 

the Wilderness Act of 1964; the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989; the Lincoln 

County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004; the White Pine County 

Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006. Twenty-two designated 

wilderness areas totaling approximately 1.1 million acres have been designated by 

Congress in this decision area. This includes six citizen-proposed areas of wilderness 

quality that were not managed by the Ely District Office as wilderness study areas. 

	 Monitoring – Special Designations Management - Areas managed as a special 

designation (such as ACECs, backcountry byways, and designated wilderness) will be 

monitored annually to determine if the resource values for which the area was designated 

are stable. Monitoring will focus on threats to resource values and the effectiveness of 

management provisions in protecting and preserving those resource values. Monitoring 

will assist the BLM in tracking resource conditions and making effective decisions to 

improve conditions for the special resource over time. Where necessary, the monitoring 

strategy for special designation areas will be refined during activity level planning, 

e.g.,...designated wilderness management plans. 

Consistency with State and Local Plan 

The WMP is consistent with the management direction contained in the 2007 White Pine County 

Public Lands Policy Plan. 

Consistency with BLM Policy Manuals and Handbooks 

The WMP is consistent with the requirements and management direction contained in the 

following BLM and Departmental policy manuals and handbooks: 

 BLM Manual 1626 - Travel and Transportation Manual 

 BLM Manual 6340 - Management of Designated Wilderness Areas 

 BLM Manual 8100 – The Foundations for Managing Cultural Resources 

 BLM Manual 8140 – Protecting Cultural Resources 

 BLM Manual 8150 – Permitting Uses of Cultural Resources 

 BLM Manual 8400 – Visual Resources Management 

 BLM Manual 8561 - Wilderness Management Plans 

 BLM Handbook H1742-1 - Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

 BLM Handbook 1790-1 – National Environmental Policy Act 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 29 
 

 

 

 

Decisions to be made 

The WMP implements legislative and regulatory direction from the Wilderness Act and the 

WPCCRDA. Management actions common to both alternatives consist of restrictions on 

activities that could potentially affect wilderness character. Use restrictions common to both 

alternatives that implement legislative and regulatory direction to preserve wilderness 

character will not be analyzed herein. 

The following management categories contain management actions that address issues identified 

during scoping related to the following uses: 

 Fire management 

 Livestock management 

 Noxious weed and non-native invasive plant management 

 Hunting and trapping 

 Other visitor use 

 Wildlife management 

 Wild Horse management 

The EA will focus on the potential environmental effects of management actions, as well as their 

effect on wilderness character. Based on their potential effects, the authorized officer will decide 

whether to implement some or all of the proposed actions. 

Scoping and Alternative Development 

Public meetings were held in August and September 2013 in the Ely District Office, to present 

Wilderness and BLM management objectives for these areas. The meetings provided a 

forum for public input regarding specific wilderness issues. BLM also posted information 

on its website about the planning process, which provided the public with another venue 

for submitting comments or information regarding their use of and interest in these areas. 

Additionally, BLM staff consulted directly with affected livestock operators and other 

individuals and organizations interested in wilderness. The proposed action addresses 

relevant internal and public issues and concerns. 

Based on an analysis of the issues raised during public and internal scoping, the BLM 

Interdisciplinary Team identified five issues: 

 Management actions associated with wildfire may affect wilderness characteristics. 

 Long boundary perimeters increase the amount of wilderness that may be impacted by 

human-influenced changes to vegetative structure and composition in areas immediately 

adjacent to the wilderness areas, especially following large-scale wildfires. 

 Continued livestock grazing-related activities, including access to and maintenance of 

existing structures (i.e., springs, pipelines, fences), may adversely affect naturalness and 

undeveloped wilderness character. 

 Human activities may increase noxious weed and invasive plant infestation and spread. 

 Visitor use activities may affect wilderness character. 

Management guidelines for resolution of these issues are included in Proposed Action. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 30 
 

2.1. Descriptions of Alternatives 

Wilderness areas are designated by Congress for the purpose of protecting and preserving 

wilderness character. BLM must manage various land uses and activities consistent with the 

purposes for which the Wilderness Areas were designated. Land uses and activities that are 

inconsistent with guidance provided by the Wilderness Act, the WPCCRDA, and House Report 

No. 101-405 are prohibited within the affected areas. 

Based on the above guidance, a true No Action Alternative does not exist, since BLM is required 

to manage designated wilderness areas according to standards that were not in effect prior to 

their designation. Alternative A is described as the Minimal Management Alternative because it 

contains the minimum land use restrictions deemed necessary to protect and preserve wilderness 

character and to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Alternative A contains no 

discretionary management actions. Most of the land use restrictions are also incorporated in 

Alternative B - Proposed Action. The difference between the two alternatives is that the 

Proposed Action includes management actions designed to preserve wilderness character 

including: 1) addressing the effects of past human activities, 2) managing or responding to 

natural processes, such as wildfire, and their effects on wilderness character, and 3) providing 

limited authorizations for otherwise prohibited activities. 

Management Actions Common to Both Alternatives 

The following management actions are either expressly authorized by the enabling legislation or 

are standard land use authorizations and/or restrictions deemed necessary for the proper 

management of the designated wilderness areas. As such, the actions are incorporated in both 

alternatives. Table B in the WMP contains a consolidated list of legislatively-required actions 

and proposed visitor use restrictions, and indicates whether a use: 1) is authorized without further 

requirements, 2) is authorized, but restricted in some manner, 3) requires prior BLM 

authorization, or 4) is prohibited. Table C in the WMP contains BLM wilderness management 

decisions not specifically related to use regulation. 

Management Actions Common to Both Alternatives: 

1.		 Pursuant to WPCCRDA Section 324(b), livestock grazing would continue to be 

authorized in allotments located wholly or partially in wilderness areas that existed prior 

to designation, consistent with Section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act and the guidelines 

in Appendix A of House Report 101-405. Grazing would continue to be administered 

subject to the Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Standards. 

2.		 Motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment may be used in wilderness areas during 

emergencies involving search and rescue, the health or safety of individuals, or the 

rescuing of sick or stranded animals. Individuals must notify the BLM authorized officer 

immediately following completion of emergency activities. The removal of downed 

airplanes (or other vehicle accidents) and associated equipment, parts, or debris is not 

considered an emergency, and would require prior BLM authorization subject to a MRA. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 31 
 

3.		 Pursuant to Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, the use of motor vehicles for livestock 

monitoring, herding, and gathering is prohibited. 

4.		 Livestock grazing would be prohibited in burned areas until vegetative recovery
	

objectives are met. 

5.		 Existing structures and developments would be removed if they: 1) are not associated 

with a valid existing right, 2) are not of historical or cultural value, or 3) are not the 

minimum necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness. Eligible structures 

and installations would be retained in accordance with BLM Manual 6340, Section 5.d. 

6.		 Traditional geocaching and letterboxing would be prohibited. 

7.		 Casual non-commercial surface collection (no digging) of small quantities (<25 lb.) of 

renewable and non-renewable resources would be permitted (i.e., wood, fruit, vegetation, 

rock and mineral specimens, petrified wood, shed antlers, and common invertebrate and 

plant fossils) unless or until it results in unacceptable effects to wilderness character. 

8.		 Vertebrate fossils and cultural, archaeological, and historic sites and artifacts, may not be 

damaged or removed without prior BLM authorization. 

9.		 Temporary, portable or “pop-up” blinds would be permitted for 14 days only while 

occupied. 

10. BLM would continue to issue SRPs to the following entities, as long as they provide 

services deemed necessary for realizing the recreational values of the wilderness areas, 

and as long as they operate within the terms and conditions of their SRP: 

a.		 Licensed commercial outfitters and guides for activities involving: 

1. Hunting, 

2. Fishing, 

3. Pack trips, 

4. Hiking, 

5. Camping, and 

6. Nature viewing. 

b.		 Entities whose mission includes the promotion of wilderness ethics, Tread 

Lightly!, Leave No Trace, or environmental education, and 

c.		 Entities whose primary purpose is to support individuals with disabilities. 

11. Commercial filming is considered a “commercial service”, and is not permitted in 

wilderness unless it is necessary for realizing the recreational or other wilderness 

purposes of the area and does not otherwise utilize a prohibited use.
	

12. Campers must pack-in/pack-out all trash. 

Alternative A – Minimal Management 

The Minimal Management Alternative represents the baseline condition of managing 

designated wilderness areas with the fewest restrictions possible consistent with 

legislatively authorized activities, as well as those deemed necessary to protect and 

preserve wilderness character. Requirements or restrictions imposed in this alternative are 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 32 
 

those that are either: 1) specifically mandated by legislation, or 2) are designed to preclude 

or minimize, but not treat, the impacts of human use on wilderness. 

Alternative A includes the following management actions in addition to the common 

management actions identified in the previous section: 

1.		 Off-road and over-snow travel and development of new routes would be prohibited, and 

existing administrative routes would not be maintained or repaired. 

2.		 Motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment would not be authorized for: 

a.		 Project or facility inspection, maintenance, or repair; 

b.		 Delivery of livestock salt and/or supplement; 

c.		 Wildlife management proposals; 

d.		 Wildfire suppression; 

e.		 Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation; and 

f.		 Weed control projects. 

3.		 Pedestrian or equestrian trails would not be designated, maintained, or repaired. 

4.		 No new water or other developments would be permitted for livestock or wildlife
	

purposes.
	

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

The WMP is the Proposed Action and incorporates the common management actions 

identified in sections of the WMP. In addition, the Proposed Action incorporates 

management actions to address otherwise prohibited uses in a manner that best preserves 

wilderness character. Future proposals not discussed herein would be evaluated through a 

MRA and possible site-specific NEPA, to determine if they utilize the minimum tools needed 

to protect or enhance wilderness character. 

Alternative B includes the following management actions in addition to the common 

management actions identified in the previous section: 

1.		 BLM would continue to authorize livestock grazing in wilderness, and grazing would be 

administered subject to the Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Standards. 

2.		 BLM would authorize the livestock-related administrative access according to guidelines 

defined in Livestock Management section of the WMP. Authorizations would be subject 

to a MRA, and if approved, would be added as terms and conditions to existing grazing 

permits. 

3.		 BLM would temporarily close or limit access to specific campsites or areas (at its 

discretion) when recreational or other activities are negatively affecting wilderness 

character. 

4.		 BLM would consider commercial enterprises proper for realizing wilderness recreational 

purposes if the enterprises: 1) are wilderness-dependent, 2) contribute to Leave No Trace 

or environmental education, and 3) do not degrade wilderness character. Enterprises 

currently meeting these criteria include commercial outfitting and guide services, and 

therapy pack trips. 

5.		 BLM would not place signs and structures in wilderness unless a MRA determines that 

they are the minimum necessary for administration of the area as wilderness. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 33 
 

6.		 BLM would not maintain, repair or enhance any routes along old roadbeds or game trails. 

7.		 BLM managers may consider the full range of fire management strategies and tactics 

(ranging from monitoring to full suppression) to protect multiple values. 

8.		 Repairs to burned facilities or resources may be accomplished with the same or similar 

type of equipment that was authorized for suppression. 

9.		 Temporary structures, erosion control, repair of facilities and cultural site stabilization 

may be authorized during ES&R subject to a MRA, site-specific NEPA analysis and 

District Manager approval. 

10. BLM would remove existing structures and installations if they: 1) are not associated 

with a valid existing right, 2) are not of historical or cultural value, or 3) are not the 

minimum necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness. 

11. BLM would treat surface disturbances subject to a MRA, using methods that have the 

least impact to wilderness character. 

2.2. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 

The Wilderness Act requires land managers to preserve wilderness character. As such, both 

alternatives contain basic and requisite land use restrictions designed to carry out this legislative 

direction by precluding or minimizing, but not treating, the effects of human use on wilderness. 

The Proposed Action includes measures designed to manage approved uses on these areas. 

This environmental analysis focuses on the environmental effects of the management actions 

described in Alternative B, while also describing their effect on wilderness character. Since 

wilderness character reflects the natural and undeveloped nature of designated areas, they are 

representative of the resources that would normally be considered in the effects analysis section 

of an environmental document. 

The cumulative effects analysis considers the past, current, and potential future conditions of 

resources affected by a given action as the result of past, ongoing, and future foreseeable actions. 

The enabling legislation limits the management of wilderness character to the areas incorporated 

within the designated boundaries. 

The effects analysis for wilderness analyses proposed actions on wilderness character. 

Specifically, the analysis will determine if actions proposed in the WMP will affect the natural, 

untrammeled, and undeveloped character of wilderness, including associated opportunities for 

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Resources/Concerns Considered for Analysis 

The following table identifies issues that have been evaluated for potential direct, indirect, or 

cumulative impacts due to implementation of the Proposed Action. Some of these items are 

being considered to ensure compliance with laws, Executive Orders, or regulations that impose 

requirements on all Federal actions. Other items are relevant to the management of public lands 

in general, and to the BLM Ely District in particular. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 34 
 

 

 

Table 4. Resources/Concerns Considered for Analysis.
	

Resource or 

Concern 

Analyzed 

(Y/N) 

Rationale for Dismissal from Analysis or Issue(s) 

Requiring Detailed Analysis 

Air Quality N Proposed action would not increase air pollutant 

concentrations. 

Cultural Resources N 

Proposed projects that have the potential to affect cultural 

resources would be subject to a MRA, as well as a 

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 review, 

including SHPO and Tribal consultation. Affected areas 

would be inventoried to identify cultural resources, and if 

approved, activities must avoid adversely affecting 

cultural resources. Cultural resources within the 

designated wilderness areas and extending out to a one 

mile buffer of the wilderness boundaries were analyzed in 

Cultural Resource Inventory Needs Assessment number 

8111 NANV040FY13-099, completed in September 2013. 

Environmental 

Justice N 

No minority or low-income groups would be affected by 

disproportionately high and adverse health or 

environmental effects. 

Federally Threated 

and Endangered 

Species 

N 

No federally listed plants or animals in wilderness. 

Fire Management Y 

Fire suppression and management actions may affect 

wilderness character through suppression actions. Under 

the proposed action, management tools that would 

otherwise be prohibited within the wilderness areas may 

be allowed for fire management. 

Fish and Wildlife Y 

The proposed action through NDOW proposals (collar 

retrieval, overflights, facilities) may affect fish and 

wildlife populations or habitat. 

Floodplains N Resource is present but not affected. 

Forest and 

Rangeland (HFRA 

only) 

N 

The proposed action and minimal action would not have a 

direct impact to Forests and Rangelands. Project does not 

meet HFRA criteria. 

Grazing Uses Y 

The WPCCRDA provides for continued livestock grazing 

in wilderness areas. Appendix A of House Report 101-405 

describes allowable uses and maintenance of range 

developments in wilderness. 

Invasive Non-native 

Plant Species 

(includes noxious 

weeds) 

Y 

The proposed action may allow tools when necessary to 

potentially reduce the risk of increased invasive annual 

grasses, reduce the potential need for ES&R treatments 

and protect wilderness character where it is determined 

that it is being threatened. 

Land Uses N Land uses are affected by Wilderness designation, not the 

WMP. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 35 
 

Resource or 

Concern 

Analyzed 

(Y/N) 

Rationale for Dismissal from Analysis or Issue(s) 

Requiring Detailed Analysis 

Migratory Birds N 

Following BLM’s management guidance for the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act would prevent or diminish 

impacts. 

Mineral Resources N No open mine claims existed at the time of wilderness 

designation. 

Native American 

Religious Concerns N No specific concerns are known. 

Paleontological 

Resources N No sites of high scientific value are known. 

Recreation Uses N No visitor use restrictions proposed. 

Special Designations 

Other Than 

Wilderness 

N None present. 

Special Status 

Animal Species Y 

The proposed action does not affect special status animal 

species in the Wilderness Areas. However, special status 

animal species are present and future activities may 

modify habitat. 

Special Status Plant 

Species N There are no documented special status plant species in the Wilderness Areas. 

Vegetation/Soils/ 

Watershed Y 

Constructing staging areas and route decommissioning 

would affect small areas of vegetation. Soils would not be 

destroyed or removed and watershed function would not be 

affected. Fire management, weed management, 

reclamation, and recreational activities may affect soils 

and vegetation. 

Vegetative 

Resources (Forest or 

Seed Products) 

N 

The Wilderness Act does not allow forest or seed products 

to be sold. It is not possible to track or measure individual 

gathering impacts. 

VRM N 

The proposed action is consistent with VRM Class I 

management objectives for wilderness. The proposed 

action would not result in a level of change to the 

landscape that would be noticeable from access roads. 

Wastes, Hazardous 

or Solid N No hazardous or solid wastes are known or anticipated. 

Water Quality, 

Drinking/Ground N No action to affect. 

Water Resources 

(Water Rights) N BLM is subject to State of Nevada water right laws. 

Wetlands/Riparian 

Zones N Intermittent springs are not affected. 

Wild Horses N Resource is not affected. 

Wilderness Y Proposed actions seek to maintain, restore, or enhance 

wilderness character. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 36 
 

 

 

Fire Management 

Proposed Action 

Fire management objectives in these wilderness areas would be structured in accordance with the 

Ely District Fire Management Plan (FMP) as updated. Following fire, Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation (ES&R) activities may be undertaken in accordance with current Department 

of Interior policy (620 DM 3 Wildland Fire Management Burned Area Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation) and Bureau of Land Management policy (H-1742-1 Burned Areas 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook). BLM Manual 6340 provides detailed 

categories related to fire management are as follows: 

 Fire Use Guidelines 

 Fire Suppression Guidelines 

 Suppression Activity Damage 

 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Activities 

Minimal Management Alternative 

Fire management activities would occur without the guidance of a comprehensive wilderness 

management and only to enhance wilderness character. 

Affected Environment 

The Becky Peak Wilderness area occurs within the Northern Mountains and Northern Benches 

Fire Management Units (FMUs) as designated within the Ely District Fire Management Plan 

(FMP). The Government Peak Wilderness area occurs within the Kern/Snake/Cherry Creek/Park 

Mtn and the Northern Benches FMUs. The categorization of these FMUs as well as the 

corresponding acres by wilderness area is presented in the table below. All of these FMUs allow 

for the use of wildland fire for resource benefit as an option for fire management. In the past 30 

years, there have been two ignitions reported within the Becky Peak Wilderness and no ignitions 

within the Government Peak Wilderness. The only fire of notable size is the Dolan’s Trap fire 

(2008) that was managed as a wildland fire for resource benefit and burned 80.8 acres. 

Table 5. Fire Management Units by Wilderness. 

Becky Peak 

Wilderness 

Northern Mountains 

FMU 

Vegetation (Pinyon and 

Juniper) 

17,617 

acres 

Northern Benches FMU 

High Value Habitat – High 

Constraints 510 acres 

Government 

Kern/Snake/Cherry 

Creek/Park Mtn FMU 

High Value Habitat – Low 

Constraints 

6,091 

acres 

Peak 

Wilderness Northern Benches FMU 

High Value Habitat – High 

Constraints 222 acres 

Fuels within the Becky Peak Wilderness area are typical of Great Basin fuel models. The fuel 

types vary with elevation moving from sagebrush communities on the lower benches 

transitioning to pinyon-juniper (PJ) woodlands, mountain sagebrush and mixed conifer as you 

increase in elevation. Fuels within the Government Peak Wilderness are predominantly 

sagebrush communities and pinyon and juniper woodlands. 

Fuel trends within the wilderness areas are typical of most of the northern Ely District where due 

to past influences on the historic fire regime vegetation has shifted to later seral communities 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 37 
 

 

dominated shrubs and/or conifers. Fuels in this state have the potential to support large higher 

severity fires than is thought to have occurred within these vegetative communities prior to 

human influence. Fire behavior that occurs at these levels combined with the presence of 

invasive annual grasses can lead to an increased potential for invasions and vegetative 

conversions as evidenced by the Sampson Creek Fire (adjacent to the Becky Peak Wilderness). 

Fires that occur at moderate to low intensity and severity has less of a chance of promoting 

invasive species while promoting early seral vegetation with good representation of native 

species. 

The overall emphasis of managing fire in wilderness is to allow the frequency and intensity of an 

ecosystems natural fire regime to play its inherent role in that system. 

Impacts of Proposed Action 

The environmental impacts associated with Alternative A, would include a reduced capacity to 

manage wildland fires regardless of the potential impacts. These restrictions on fire management 

may result in fires being able to grow larger and burn at higher severity levels then would occur 

if the management tools were available. This would only impact fires where the Ely District 

would engage in suppression or fire management activities where the potential impacts of the fire 

would outweigh the impacts to the untrammeled character of the wilderness areas. These impacts 

also extend outside of the wilderness boundaries. Fires have the potential to grow to a more 

complex level prior to crossing outside of the wilderness where these tools would then become 

available for suppression and fire management. 

Under the proposed action, management tools that would otherwise be prohibited within the 

wilderness areas may be allowed for fire management. These tools would provide the authorized 

officer greater ability to respond with either suppression or other management actions once the 

potential risks and benefits of the fire have been evaluated. Suppression tactics would continue to 

follow MIST standards and thereby attempt to minimize the impacts of the actions upon 

wilderness character. The ability of managers to utilize these tools when necessary would 

potentially reduce the risk of increased invasive annual grasses, reduce the potential need for 

ES&R treatments and protect wilderness character where it is determined that it is being 

threatened. 

There is potential for vegetation treatments to occur within the wilderness areas as reference 

within the proposed action. Any proposed treatments would be conducted in accordance with all 

applicable laws, policies and regulations. Proposed treatments would be subject to site specific 

NEPA and would be covered in additional analysis. At this point, there are no proposals within 

the wilderness and therefore no impacts to fuels or fire management. 

The re-introduction of fire to the landscape using prescribed fire and allowing naturally ignited 

fires to burn would further enhance the naturalness of the wilderness. The implementation of 

prescribed fires would minimize the risk of negative impacts resulting from wildfire as well as 

increase the rate at which the desired future condition would be achieved. 

Impacts of Minimal Management Alternative 

The Minimal Management Alternative would not allow prohibited uses in wilderness, which 

would eliminate the impacts associated with normal suppression tactics. However, limiting 

suppression to the use of MIST could substantially increase fire size, which could increase the 

spread of invasive species or noxious weeds. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 38 
 

 

Fish and Wildlife 

Proposed Action 

Management of wildlife is the responsibility of the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and 

management of wildlife habitat is the responsibility of the BLM. Over the life of this plan, it may 

be necessary to implement wildlife or habitat management activities to prevent degradation or 

enhance wilderness characteristics by promoting healthy, viable and more naturally distributed 

wildlife populations. Under the NDOW MOU, specific proposed projects are submitted annually 

for review. No new water developments are proposed. Detailed guidelines are found in the 

Wildlife section of the WMP. 

Minimal Management Alternative 

A comprehensive wilderness management plan would not guide wildlife or habitat related 

management actions. Activities within these wilderness areas would be conducted in 

conformance with the current and subsequent BLM-NDOW Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) and guided by the BLM Manual 6340. 

Affected Environment 

Wildlife species characteristic of the Great Basin are supported by the diverse habitat types 

found in these wilderness areas. Key habitats, as defined in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan 

(2006), can be used to infer likely occurrences of wildlife species assemblages when survey data 

is lacking, as is the case for many species in these wilderness areas. Key Habitats include 

primarily lower montane woodlands and sagebrush, and Inter-mountain conifer forests and 

woodlands (Nevada Wildlife Plan Action Team 2006). 

The big game species that occupy these wilderness areas are Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer and 

pronghorn in the foothills and benches. There are numerous small game and furbearers in the 

project area such as black-tailed jackrabbit, gray fox, bobcat, mountain lion and coyote. Raptors 

are commonly found nesting and foraging in the wilderness areas, and these areas provide habitat 

for non-game species of numerous small mammals, reptiles, and birds. There two small game 

water developments near the border of Government Peak Wilderness. 

Impacts of Proposed Action 

Authorized livestock activities and ground-disturbing methods relating to fire management 

activities, vegetation treatments, noxious and invasive weed treatments, emergency stabilization 

and rehabilitation, and route conditioning could have short-term impacts on behavior and 

movement of individuals. Wildlife would be temporary displaced, however once these actions 

have concluded, wildlife may return to area. Wildlife timing stipulations outlined in the WMP 

will lessen these impacts. 

Vegetation treatments, noxious and invasive weed treatments, and emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation would improve habitat for all wildlife by increasing native plant composition for 

forage and cover, as well as increasing habitat diversity. Vegetation treatments that remove 

encroaching trees from riparian areas, sagebrush communities, and aspen stands will improve 

habitat for all wildlife. Route decommissioning and restoration will reduce habitat fragmentation 

in the wilderness for all wildlife species. 

Impacts of Minimal Management Alternative 

Under the Minimal Management Alternative, wildlife habitat quality has the potential to 

deteriorate without limiting or direction to exclude the use motorized and mechanized vehicles 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 39 
 

and equipment for wildfire suppression, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, and weed 

control. While certain areas may benefit from wildfire, large and intense fires could remove 

important wildlife habitat and may take longer to naturally recover. 

Grazing Uses 

Proposed Action 

Both alternatives prohibit the use of motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment for 

livestock monitoring, herding, and gathering. As such, livestock grazing that meets rangeland 

health standards is consistent and compatible with the protection and preservation of wilderness 

character. However, constraints on vehicles and equipment would not prohibit maintenance of 

existing facilities or response to emergencies, both alternatives would inhibit the trend toward 

mechanization in livestock monitoring and management. The Proposed Action would allow for 

the minimum motorized access needed for livestock grazing-related purposes and specific 

guidance for the maintenance and repair of livestock grazing-related facilities. Regular 

maintenance of range improvements and facilities would be distinguished from emergency 

operations. 

Minimal Management Alternative 

No difference from the proposed action except all requests would be required to have a sitespecific EA for each repair or maintenance action. 

Affected Environment 

There are 10 grazing allotments partially located within the wilderness areas. Livestock grazing 

allotments in the wilderness are managed entirely by the Ely District Office and the Schell Field 

Office. Livestock numbers may vary based on rotational grazing systems and the terms and 

conditions of the individual term grazing permits. Range developments currently exist in support 

of rangeland health and the management of livestock grazing. Existing range developments 

identified through administrative records and field reconnaissance within the wilderness areas 

are depicted in Maps 2 & 3. The grazing permittee is responsible for maintenance of all livestock 

grazing facilities in the wilderness areas by cooperative agreements. Detailed descriptions are 

found in the Livestock Management section of the WMP. 

Impacts of Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action for management of livestock grazing provides specific guidance for the 

maintenance of facilities and activities in support of a livestock-grazing program. Administrative 

access routes would be clearly defined and regular maintenance of structures in support of 

livestock grazing would be distinguished from emergency operations. This may enhance the 

ability of the BLM to manage livestock grazing activities within wilderness and eliminate time 

delays in approval for access to maintain range developments and respond to emergency 

situations. The proposed action may create temporary localized impacts to other resources. The 

proposed action intent is to minimize the potential to increase the spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species. Wildlife may benefit from the maintenance of rangeland water developments as 

they provide additional sources of water. 

Impacts of Minimal Management Alternative 

Administrative access and maintenance needs for livestock grazing operations would occur on a 

case-by-case basis. Site specific NEPA for developments would be required for all inspection, 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 40 
 

 

maintenance and repair. Impacts to and from other resources would not differ from the proposed 

action. 

Invasive Non-Native Invasive Plant Species 

Proposed Action 

Current noxious and invasive weeds in or near wilderness include, but may not be limited to, 

Bull thistle, Canadian thistle, Musk thistle and cheatgrass. Management emphasis in wilderness 

would be placed on controlling small infestations with the potential to spread and displace native 

plants. Treatments for large infestations (defined by the BLM Ely District Weeds Program) 

would be considered separately. Treatment methods include hand pulling, herbicides, biological 

control, reseeding, and alternatives such as targeted grazing would be considered for small 

infestations. 

Minimal Action Alternative 

Noxious weeds would be treated on a case-by-case basis as per the District Noxious Weed Plan 

and BLM Manual 6340. When a vegetation treatment is deemed appropriate following an 

environmental analysis and a MRA, management activities would emphasize protection and 

enhancement of wilderness character. 

Affected Environment 

Noxious and non-native invasive weeds are frequent obstacles to managing wilderness character 

in the Central Basin Ecoregion. The ongoing recreational activities may contribute to the spread 

of noxious and invasive species. Rehabilitating small-scale surface disturbances would include 

methods such as soil decompaction, scarification, and pitting that could stimulate the growth of 

noxious and invasive weeds. Vegetation restoration projects may cause small, local disturbances 

that increase noxious and invasive weed populations. Motorized access could be authorized for 

ES&R, wildlife management, range project maintenance, or fire-management; all of which could 

exacerbate weed establishment and spread. 

The adaptive management provided for in the Proposed Action for managing weeds and invasive 

plants, combined with proper grazing management, would optimize the protection and 

restoration of wildlife habitat. Vegetation treatments and proper grazing management would help 

re-establish and maintain a balanced mixture of vegetation stages (age classes) and types 

essential for the habitat needs of wildlife species within the wilderness areas. 

Impacts of Proposed Action 

In general, the management actions outlined in the proposed action, apply best management 

practices and standard operating procedures that are focused on preventing the spread of weeds 

by vectors such as vehicles or equipment. Weed treatment procedures within these areas would 

be clearly defined and compatible with limiting or eliminating noxious and invasive weeds. The 

continued presence and anticipated increase of recreational activities, including hunting, 

camping, hiking, and horse packing, may contribute to the spread of noxious and invasive 

species as a result of trampling of native species and the possibility of spreading noxious and 

invasive seeds into wilderness. Allowable motorized access could occur through emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation, wildlife management and livestock access projects may cause 

small, local disturbances that could increase local noxious and invasive weed populations. 

Impacts of Minimal Management Alternative 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 41 
 

Weed introduction from individuals hiking and from vehicles along cherry-stemmed routes and 

wilderness boundary roads may occur. Compared to the proposed action, weed treatment would 

be sporadic and would not occur in a timely manner. Additionally, when weeds are found, site 

specific NEPA would be guided by the noxious weed program as outlined in the RMP without 

the additional benefit of specific wilderness guidance provided by the WMP, further slowing 

down the ability to treat weeds in a timely manner. 

Special Status Animal Species 

Proposed Action 

Over the life of this plan, it may be necessary to implement wildlife or habitat management 

activities to prevent degradation or enhance wilderness characteristics by promoting healthy, 

viable, and more naturally distributed populations of special status species. Future Nevada and 

Northern California Greater Sage – Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment guidance would be 

adopted. 

Minimal Management Alternative 

Wildlife activities would rely solely upon the (2012) BLM-NDOW Memoranda of 

Understanding (MOU) (BLM-MOU-6300-NV-930-0402), as amended and the RMP, without 

specific wilderness oriented guidance that the WMP provides. Activities within these wilderness 

areas would be conducted in conformance with the current and subsequent and guided by the 

BLM Manual 6340. 

Affected Environment 

The wilderness areas provide habitat for numerous special status species. Preliminary primary 

habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat (PGH) for the greater sage-grouse, a candidate 

species for federal listing, has been documented in the high mountain sagebrush communities of 

the Becky Peak Wilderness, and along the lower benches of the Government Peak and Becky 

Peak Wilderness Areas. Other BLM special status species that may occupy or utilize these 

wilderness areas are Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, Northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, sage 

thrasher, brewer’s sparrow, pinyon jay, black rosy-finch, and numerous bat species. 

Impacts of Proposed Action 

The impacts of the Proposed Action to special status species are the same as fish and wildlife. 

None of the actions outlined in the WMP would cause a special status species to become listed 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Greater sage-grouse and migratory bird timing 

stipulations outlined in the WMP will lessen impacts to these species. 

Impacts of Minimal Management Alternative 

The impacts of the Minimal Management Alternative to special status species are the same as 

fish and wildlife. Important greater sage-grouse habitat could be lost without adequate wildfire 

suppression. This alternative would not cause a special status species to become listed under the 

ESA. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 42 
 

Vegetation/Soils/Watersheds 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action outlines management actions designed to protect wilderness character near 

access points, cherry stem roads and old vehicle routes. Trails and two tracks would be allowed 

to regenerate. Parking areas would be defined as necessary. 

Minimal Management Alternative 

Visitors would be able to park their vehicles and access wilderness from any public point outside 

of the wilderness boundary. No vehicle staging areas would be designated or defined to direct 

recreational use to most desired and suitable access points. 

Affected Environment
	

These wilderness areas lie entirely within the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion (Great Basin). 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007). Biophysical setting (BPS) models have been 

developed for most major vegetation types. These models describe the vegetation, geography, 

biophysical characteristics, succession stages, disturbance regimes, and assumptions for each 

vegetation type. 

Impacts of Proposed Action 

These actions are proposed on relatively disturbed sites, thus, there would be nominal impacts to 

vegetation communities. Vehicle barriers would be constructed outside of wilderness to prevent 

vehicles from unauthorized travel inside wilderness, thus further limiting impacts to vegetation. 

Very small amounts of vegetation may be temporarily impacted along cherry-stemmed or 

administrative access routes from authorized motorized access that may occur through future 

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, wildlife management, grazing permittee 

administrative access, or fire management actions. Rehabilitating decommissioned routes will 

reduce or eliminate further unauthorized incursions and new plant growth will enhance the 

vegetation communities in proximity to these former routes. Small areas of vegetation could be 

disturbed or destroyed if vegetation is cut back or removed to protect sensitive archaeological 

and historic resources, such as prehistoric rock art, from wildland fire. 

Approved research on native plant communities or wildland fire for resource benefit and 

monitoring could improve and restore vegetation communities within wilderness. The 

prohibition of geocaching would prevent disturbance to vegetation that could occur through 

object burial and the development of social trails relating to geocaching. 

Impacts of Minimal Management Alternative 

Without the guidance of a management plan and subsequent monitoring, altered vegetation 

communities may persist or further degrade impacting wildlife habitat and increasing fire 

frequency and severity. Unmonitored recreational use of the wilderness areas could result in 

impacts to vegetation on foot-worn paths and at campsites. Not designating administrative access 

routes, staging areas, or pullouts, could lead to degradation of vegetative communities through an 

increase in motorized trespass and poor wilderness ethics from recreational users. 

Wilderness 

Fire Management 

Natural: Fire suppression detracts from the natural role of fire as an ecological process. 

Suppression activities affect soils, vegetation, wildlife, and possibly cultural resources. Fireline 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 43 
 

 

 

construction, even using MIST, would disturb soils and displace vegetation, and would change 

the natural course of a wildfire. Although, fire suppression and fireline construction degrade the 

natural character, the activity could reduce the infestation and spread of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive plants. The degree of effect would depend on the current ecological condition of 

the affected area(s), fuels and climatic conditions at the time. The use of MIST would limit 

suppression-related impacts to soil and vegetation, and thus better balance the degradation to 

naturalness by minimizing the spread and density of noxious or invasive weeds and maintaining 

native vegetation diversity. Motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment would have 

localized, short-term impacts to naturalness. The use of retardant would be less of an impact than 

motorized/mechanized equipment. 

Untrammeled: Activities associated with fire suppression cause trammeling. When compared to 

the range of possible trammeling actions, the use of MIST would be the minimum requirement 

once a decision to suppress a fire to preserve other wilderness characteristics is made. A 

reduction in ground-disturbing actions that aggressively manipulate ecological processes would 

minimize trammeling effects. Prohibited uses, including vehicles and equipment, are more 

efficient, but aggressively manipulate ecological processes that cause longer-term trammeling 

effects. 

Undeveloped: Preserving this quality prevents a noticeable imprint from “man’s work”. The use 

of any prohibited, motorized, or mechanized activity degrades this characteristic. Using MIST 

would minimize or eliminate the use of equipment that would modify the environment. The 

undeveloped character would not be substantially affected by managing fire using MIST. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation: The presence of 

fire suppression resources, even those using MIST, would reduce solitude in the short-term. 

Impacts to wilderness would occur to recreation and solitude after the conclusion of suppression 

activity. Recreationists would tend to avoid burned areas for areas untouched by fire. The use of 

motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment adversely affect solitude and primitive 

experiences in the short-term. These actions would also be a movement away from the use of 

traditional skills. Prohibited uses (specialized equipment) would be more efficient at minimizing 

the intensity and size of the fire, which in turn, would minimize the exposure of visitors to an 

interruption in their solitude and primitive wilderness experience. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Natural: In general, wildlife management activities, including transplants (i.e., removal, 

augmentation, or reintroduction) would have a short-term effect on the natural wilderness 

character. Wildlife actions, however, would be designed to preserve the diversity of wildlife and 

the resilience of special status species, and as such, would serve to protect and preserve the 

natural character in the long-term. 

Untrammeled: Habitat alteration needed to address adverse impacts of human activities on 

wildlife populations would cause trammeling effects. The extent of the impacts would depend on 

the type of alteration and how quickly the affected area responded to the treatment. The use of 

motorized equipment and landing of aircraft would also cause short-term trammeling. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 44 
 

 

Undeveloped: The use of motorized equipment, the landing of aircraft, and the development of 

any facility would degrade the undeveloped character in the short- or long-term, depending on 

the type of facility or structure. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation: The use of 

motorized equipment, landing of aircraft, or the temporary use of a structure would adversely 

affect wilderness solitude in the short-term. Noise, visual impact and disruption of unconfined 

recreation experience would result in the short-term. Installations would affect the primitive 

wilderness experience of visitors. 

Grazing Uses 

Natural: Livestock grazing conducted within rangeland health standards should have minimal 

effects to naturalness, except for the long-term effects around livestock concentration areas, such 

as salt licks and water sources. Under either alternative, livestock grazing could result in 

overgrazing of vegetation, incised “cow paths”, manure-strewn slopes and trampling, all of 

which degrade recreation and scenic values. There is a potential for livestock to contribute to the 

spread of invasive weed seeds into wilderness. The Proposed Action would seek to treat weed 

infestations. The use of motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment for salt delivery and 

range project maintenance on existing administrative routes would cause short-term, localized, 

and minor impacts to the natural character by leaving tire tracks and ruts, and by suppressing 

vegetative establishment in the tracks. Vehicles would introduce non-native and weedy species 

into the wilderness, which could aggravate ongoing long-term and region-wide ecological 

impacts to native plant communities and habitat. Although, the Minimal Management 

Alternative would provide an avenue for weed infestation and spread through the use of horses, 

the level of influence on natural vegetation would be less (possibly much less) than the Proposed 

Action. Horses would also cause less soil compaction than vehicles. 

Untrammeled: Livestock grazing, salt delivery and project maintenance manipulate the 

environment and cause trammeling effects, especially along administrative travel routes and at 

livestock concentration points. Although legislatively permitted, livestock management reflects 

man’s influence on the landscape. Since grazing occurred long before wilderness designation, 

trammeling should not increase substantially, but the effect would be greater in the Proposed 

Action due to more vehicular use. 

Undeveloped: Under either alternative, grazing should not affect the undeveloped wilderness 

character; however, the presence of grazing-related structures and improvements (i.e., fences, 

springs, reservoirs, pipelines, water troughs) detracts from the undeveloped wilderness character. 

Permanent structures and projects would have the same adverse effect in both alternatives. The 

continued use of motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment for salt delivery and range 

project maintenance under the Proposed Action would maintain ongoing temporary and shortterm effects to the undeveloped character for as long as permittees continue their current 

operations. The Minimal Management Alternative would have less short- and long-term impact 

due to much more limited use of motorized/mechanized vehicles and equipment. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation: Livestock are 

regarded by some individuals as being unnatural intruders on the native ecosystem, and thus, an 

impact to their solitude. These effects would be similar in both alternatives and would be 

considered localized, temporary, and recurring effects specific to the grazing season and to the 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 45 
 

affected allotments. Temporary effects would include livestock-related impacts that detract from 

both solitude and unconfined primitive recreation. The Proposed Action’s allowance of 

motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment would result in localized short-term and 

recurring effects to wilderness solitude. Limiting the use of motorized and mechanized vehicles 

and equipment to the minimum necessary would increase the reliance on primitive skills, 

including the use of riding and pack stock. The Minimal Management Alternative would protect 

this character more than the Proposed Action, although the use of motorized/mechanized 

equipment may still occasionally influence these values. 

Invasive non-native plants Species 

Natural: The Proposed Action incorporates guidelines to minimize or prevent the spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive species in wilderness areas. Successful implementation of these 

guidelines should substantially minimize the effects of modern civilization, thus preserving the 

natural wilderness character. Under the Minimal Management Alternative activities would still 

be conducted under the RMP, but may not be as effective in the short term preservation of 

naturalness because the manner of treatment would not be as wilderness friendly as under the 

proposed action and therefore, would not preserve the natural wilderness character. 

Untrammeled: Noxious and invasive weed control activities would cause trammeling. The 

greatest and longest-lasting trammeling effects would occur from projects that include ground 

disturbance, such as drill seeding, planting or motorized herbicide application. Aerial seeding 

and herbicide application would have a smaller trammeling effect. 

The Minimal Management Alternative would cause few or no trammeling effects because 

prohibited uses identified in the Wilderness Act would be precluded. 

Undeveloped: The Proposed Action would allow for larger treatment areas, thus having a greater 

positive effect on controlling weed and invasive plant populations. Motorized or mechanized 

activities, including motorized aerial and ground-based herbicide delivery, and mechanized 

equipment, would degrade the undeveloped character. Weed treatments that use backpack or 

horse pack delivery would not degrade this character. While the Minimal Management 

Alternative would not adversely affect the undeveloped character, it would limit the number of 

acres that could be treated, due to non-motorized delivery. This would likely result in a greater 

influx of noxious and invasive weeds, thus requiring more aggressive methods at a later date that 

include prohibited uses, which would further degrade the undeveloped character. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation: Noxious weed 

and invasive species treatments would temporarily impair opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation. The use of any detect and destroy methods would include 

employees and/or equipment in the wilderness, which would degrade this character. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 46 
 

 

 

 

 

2.3. Cumulative Effects 

The purpose of the cumulative effects analysis for the Proposed Action is to evaluate the 

combined, incremental effects of human activity within the scope of the project. The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations define scope and state that connected actions, 

cumulative actions, and similar actions should be included in the effects analysis (40 CFR 

1508.25). With the exception of wildfire suppression, noxious weed and invasive species 

management, and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, the scope of the cumulative effects 

analysis will be restricted to an area that includes a one-mile buffer around each of the 

wilderness areas. The one-mile distance equates to the proximity of human activities that may 

affect wilderness character. This distance was chosen to represent the visual and sound intrusion 

that could be carried to and from, due to topography, as well as the heightened risk of wildfire, 

weed invasion, and non-native seedlings that are currently in close proximity to the wilderness. 

The 1997 CEQ Handbook Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts states 

that the cumulative effects analysis can be focused on issues and resource values identified 

during scoping that are of major importance. Relevant issues identified for this project include 

the following: 

Past actions (includes activities that have occurred since designation in 2006): 

 Large wildfires that threaten wilderness and non-wilderness, 

 Fire Suppression and ESR in wilderness, 

 Fence construction and repair, 

 Livestock grazing operations, 

 Sign installation. 

Current and ongoing activities: 

 Livestock grazing operations, 

 Pine nut collection 

 Fuels treatments adjacent 

 Monitoring, 

 Commercial outfitting and guiding, 

 Hunting. 

Future actions (includes those that are reasonably foreseeable within the project area): 

 Large wildfires that threaten wilderness and non-wilderness values. 

 Water development. 

 Vegetation treatments and fire breaks. 

 Travel Management Plan for valley. 

 Maintenance and repair of access routes. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 47 
 

There are few activities in the Proposed Action that, when combined with other activities, result 

in a cumulative impact. These include: 

1. Actions that may include motorized incursions. 

2. Actions that may disturb soils, vegetation, or other natural or cultural resources. 

Motorized wilderness incursions may cause direct and indirect effects usually associated with 

noise and/or visitor experience and may affect untrammeled, undeveloped, solitude, and 

primitive wilderness character. Such operations pertain to grazing, emergency access situations, 

wildfire suppression, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, treatment of large weed 

infestations, or vegetation manipulation. An example of the direct effect would be a permittee 

entering a pasture to repair fence damage or for a large salt delivery. Incursions would occur in 

the wilderness and the impact would be localized or limited in scope to the affected pasture(s) 

and area adjacent to the pasture (effects would not be noticeable outside of an estimated one-mile 

radius from the motorized activity, and no more than one mile from the wilderness boundary). 

Cumulative impact may result from activities that occur simultaneously even when separated by 

space (up to one mile). However, there is a low probability for this cumulative impact to occur 

due to the low frequency of motorized incursions into the wilderness. The impact is considered 

negligible and is related mostly to authorized livestock operations. An example of the cumulative 

impact would be a hunter traveling within a mile from the permittee at the same time and just 

outside the wilderness. The combined actions would result in an annual cumulative effect within 

a localized portion of wilderness allotment. 

Authorized actions in wilderness may involve disturbance to soils, vegetation, or other natural or 

cultural resources. Actions considered for their contribution to cumulative impacts to natural 

resources include wildfire suppression, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, large weed 

treatments, and livestock concentration areas. An example of the direct effect would be the 

application of sagebrush seed to 200 acres of wilderness to improve naturalness, which would 

secondarily support habitat for greater sage grouse. 

A cumulative impact commonly occurs when two activities overlap in both time and space. 

However, cumulative impacts can be separated by time and space, as the impacts are occurring 

to the same resource as the direct and indirect effects are influencing. There is a low probability 

for that to occur because such actions occurring within wilderness must be authorized by BLM. 

In addition, livestock grazing operations must adhere to Rangeland Health Standards designed to 

prevent effects to vegetation community and ecosystem health. The cumulative effect could be 

described through an example in which a livestock concentration area is located within the same 

200-acre seeding project area. 

In conclusion, cumulative impacts associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions within the analysis area would have an estimated negligible, but positive effect. When 

added to other foreseeable actions in the analysis area, management actions included in the 

Proposed Action Alternative would preclude, minimize, or mitigate natural and human-caused 

impacts to natural resources and wilderness character. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 48 
 

2.4. Consultation and Coordination 

Public Involvement 

Public meetings were hosted by the BLM in the summer of 2013 to inform the public of the 

policies and regulations associated with Wilderness management. Input was solicited during 

these meetings and for several weeks afterward concerning wilderness-related issues and 

concerns, as well as the development of alternatives and management actions proposed in the 

WMP. 

Additionally, the BLM consulted with affected livestock grazing permittees regarding their needs 

for access to manage livestock and maintain currently authorized range improvement projects in 

wilderness allotments. These meetings resulted in the proposed actions associated with Livestock 

Management in the WMP. 

List of Preparers 

S. Gus Malon, Planning and Environmental Coordinator (Wilderness), Ely District Office 

Emily Simpson, Wilderness Specialist, Ely District Office 

List of Reviewers 

Ben Noyes, Wild Horse Specialist, Schell Field Office 

Chris McVicars, Natural Resource Specialist, Ely District Office 

Craig Hoover, Rangeland Management Specialist, Schell Field Office 

Elena Montenegro-Long, Realty Specialist, Schell Field Office 

Elvis Wall, Native American Coordinator, Ely District Office 

Erica Husse, Rehabilitation Manager, Ely District Office 

Jennifer Frederick McGuire, Archaeologist, Schell Field Office 

John Miller, Park Ranger, Wilderness, Ely District Office 

Matt Rajala, Fire Ecologist, Ely District Office 

Melanie Peterson, Assistant Field Manager, Schell Field Office 

Nancy Herms, Wildlife Biologist, Schell Field Office 

Paul Nordstrom, Geologist, Schell Field Office 

Paul Podborny, Field Manager, Schell Field Office 

Solomon Odom, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Schell Field Office 

Agencies and Groups Consulted 

The following agencies, organizations, and individuals were briefed or consulted with during 

preparation of the Final WMP: 

Shoshone Tribes 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 49 
 

 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Park Service 

Nevada Department of Wildlife 

Southern Nevada Water Authority 

White Pine County 

Nevada Outfitter & Guide Association 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 50 
 

Appendix A. Maps 
	

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 51
 
[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 52
[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 53
 

 

 

 

Appendix B. References 

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. 2011. "Minimum Requirements Analysis."
	

Wilderness.net. 30/07/2012. <http://wilderness.net/MRDG/documents/MRDG_instructions.pdf>. 

(October 3, 2012).
	

BLM 2008. White Pine County Wilderness Ground Disturbance Reclamation Plan. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely District Office, Ely, Nevada. April
	

2008. 

BLM 2008b. Ely District Approved Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of the
	

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely District Office, Ely, Nevada. November 2008. 

BLM 2009. Wilderness Signs & Information Kiosks Categorical Exclusion. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely District Office, Ely, Nevada. 

BLM, 2010. Ely Fire Management Plan U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Ely District Office, Ely, Nevada.
	

BLM 2011. Updated Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sensitive Species List for Nevada. 

Instruction Memorandum NV-2011-059. June 27, 2011. 

BLM 2012. Manual 6340 - Management of Designated Wilderness. July 13, 2012. 

Cole, David N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: Ecological restoration in wilderness.
	

Ecological Restoration. 18(2): 77-86.
	

Cole, David N. , Young, Laurie. 2010. Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness 

Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Island Press: 88-101. 

Landres, P., C. Barns, J. Dennis, T. Devine, P. Geissler, C. McCasland, L. Merigliano, J. 

Seastrand, and R. Swain. 2008. Keeping it Wild: an interagency strategy to monitor trends in 

wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
	

Mountain Research Station. 77 pp.
	

Landres, P., 2008. “Preserving Wilderness Character” Powerpoint. Accessed at 

http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/WC/Presentation%20(with%20notes)%20preser
	

ving%20wilderness%20character.pdf on February 19, 2014.
	

Lucas, Robert C. 1973. Wilderness: A management framework. Journal of Soil and Water
	

Conservation 28:150-154. 

Miller, C. 2005. When to prescribe. Wildfire Magazine July/August. Pages 16-21. 

NIFC. 2011. Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. National Fire
	

Equipment System (NFES) Publication 2724. Produced by the Federal Fire and Aviation Task 

Group, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 54 
 

USDI. 2007. Record of Decision – Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 Western States. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington D.C. 

USDI. 2010b. Incident Response Pocket Guide 2010. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 

Product Management System #461. < http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/pubs.htm>. (October 3, 

2012). 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 55 
 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
 

For the 

Becky Peak and Government Peak
 

Wilderness Management Plan
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Environmental Assessment # DOI-BLM-NV-L000-2013-0006-EA
 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

I have reviewed Environmental Assessment (EA), dated May 28, 2014. After consideration of 

the environmental impacts as described in the EA, which is incorporated herein, I have 

determined that the proposed action (wilderness management plan) as described in the EA will 

not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) is not required. This finding and conclusion is based on my consideration of the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) criteria for significance (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations 1508.27), both with regard to the context and the intensity of impacts described in 

the EA. 

Context 

The Becky Peak and Government Peak Wilderness areas are part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. These areas are of most interest to residents in Nevada, California and 

Utah. 

Intensity 

1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. 

The environmental assessment has considered both beneficial and adverse 

impacts of the wilderness management plan. Overall, the plan will result in 

enhancements to the wilderness character, which includes untrammeled, 

naturalness, undeveloped, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation, and various special features 

including cultural resources. Preserving a more natural system is considered 

improving the quality of the human environment through proactive 

management, and is not considered a significant effect both in the short or long 

term. 

2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 

Implementation components of the proposed wilderness management plan will 

not result in potentially substantial or adverse impacts to public health and 

safety. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas. 

The action areas are within and adjacent to designated wilderness. These two 

areas were designated for their unique characteristics including high scenic 

qualities, diverse cultural resources, important wildlife habitat, and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreational pursuits. 

4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to 

be highly controversial. 

The effects of implementing decisions of the wilderness management plan are 

well known and documented and not highly controversial in that wilderness 

management plans are essential to maintaining the natural condition of 

wilderness as required by the Wilderness Act. The methods chosen to complete 

implementation actions are accepted methods to meet resource and 

management objectives and are not considered highly controversial. 

5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly 

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 

There are no effects of the proposed action identified in the EA which are 

considered uncertain or involve unknown risks. All actions proposed to be 

employed are accepted standard practices. 

6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

The proposed action does not establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects and does not represent a decision in principle about a future 

consideration. 

7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. 

No significant cumulative impacts have been identified in the EA. 

8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, 

structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical 

resources. 

The proposed action will not cause the loss or destruction of significant scientific, 

cultural or historical resources. 

9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened 

species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. 

There are no known federally listed species in these two wildernesses. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 57 
 

 

 

 

 

10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirement 

imposed for the protection of the environment. 

The proposed action will not violate or threaten to violate any Federal, State, or 

local law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION RECORD
 

For the 

Becky Peak and Government Peak
 

Wilderness Management Plan
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Environmental Assessment # DOI-BLM-NV-L000-2013-0006-EA
 

Decision 

It is my decision to approve and implement the wilderness management plan for the Becky 

Peak and Government Peak Wildernesses (which is the proposed action and contains all 

identified mitigation measures). The proposed action is in conformance with the Ely District 

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (2008). 

Legal Compliance 

 The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136, September 3, 1964, as amended 

1978). 

 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1782, October 

21, 1976, as amended 1978, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990-1992, 1994 and 1996). 

 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 

as amended 1975 and 1994). 

 The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006 (public 

Law 109-432). 

 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as 

amended 1976-1982, 1984, and 1988). 

 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d, June 8, 1940, as amended 

1959, 1962, 1972, and 1978). 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 

1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989). 

 Executive Order 13186─Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001). 

 Management of Designated Wilderness Areas (43 CFR Part 6300). 

 Recreation Management Restrictions: Occupancy Stay Limitation (43 CFR 8365.1-2(a) 

and Federal Register Notice NV-930-4333-02. 

 Unlawful Manner of Camping Near Water Hole (Nevada Revised Statute 503.660). 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Involvement 

A Notice of Proposed Action was mailed to known interested parties on July 17, 2013. Public 

scoping workshops were held in Ely, NV on August 20, 2013. A meeting specifically for livestock 

grazing permittees was held on September 10, 2013. A 45-day public comment period for the 

Final Plan and EA was initiated on March 20, 2014. 

Public Comment 

No written comments were received during the comment period. Comments received during 

the public meetings and with specialists during the management plan process were given 

serious consideration. Some comments related to associated programs were not incorporated 

as they are beyond the scope of this plan. Changes were made to the plan based on significant 

public comments including, but not limited to: 

	 Commercial enterprises in wilderness degrading wilderness values. 

	 Natural fire for resource benefit. 

	 Livestock grazing activities. 

Rationale for Decision 

The purpose of creating a Wilderness Management Plan is to preserve the areas’ wilderness 

character by identifying the conditions and opportunities that will be managed for within the 

wilderness areas over a ten-year span. Wilderness Management Plans must be prepared for all 

wilderness areas on public lands. Management direction must be based on the pertinent 

objectives of the BLM wilderness management policy as identified in BLM Manual 6340. 

The need for the plan stems from the Wilderness Act of 1964, which defines wilderness and 

mandates that the primary management direction is to preserve wilderness character. The plan 

creates specific management guidance addressing resources and activities in these wilderness 

areas. Wilderness character is a complex idea and is not explicitly defined in the Wilderness Act; 

however wilderness character is commonly described as: 

 Untrammeled ─ area is unhindered and free from modern human control or 

manipulation. 

 Natural ─ area appears to have been primarily affected by the forces of nature. 

 Undeveloped ─ area is essentially without permanent improvements or human 

occupation and retains its primeval character. 

 Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation ─ area provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude 

or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values associated with physical 

and mental inspiration and challenge. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Supplemental values ─ complementary features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic values. 

The proposed action (wilderness management plan) was selected over the alternative 

because it met the need and objectives outlined in the plan. The proposed action has been 

analyzed and determined that there is no significant impact as referenced in the (FONSI) 

attached to the EA. The proposed plan will guide management so that the preservation 

objectives of the Wilderness Act can be met. The decision is also based on the fact that there 

was a finding of no significant impact. 

Appeal Opportunities 

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in 

accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4 and Form 1842-1 (enclosed). If an 

appeal is taken, a notice of appeal and/or request for stay must be filed in writing, on paper, in 

this office, either by mail or personal delivery. Notices of appeal and/or request for stay that 

are electronically transmitted (e.g., email, facsimile, or social media) will not be accepted as 

timely filed. The notice of appeal is considered filed as of the date our office receives the hard 

copy and places our BLM date stamp on the document. 

If you wish to file a petition pursuant to regulation 43 CFR 4.21 (58 FR 4939, January 19, 1993) 

(request) for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of this decision during the time that your 

appeal is being reviewed by the Board, the petition for a stay must accompany your notice of 

appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards 

listed below. Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to 

each party named in this decision and to the Interior Board of Land Appeals and to the 

appropriate office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the original documents 

are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate 

that a stay should be granted. 

Standards for Obtaining a Stay 

Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a 

decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards: 

(1) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied, 

(2) The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits, 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 61 
 

 

 

(2) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and 

(4) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay. 

[BP&GP-WMP&EA] 62