VOLUME 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ES-1 

Introduction .................................................................................................................... ES-1

Purpose of and Need for Action ..................................................................................... ES-3

Management Alternatives............................................................................................... ES-3

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) .................................................................. ES-5

Alternative B ...................................................................................................... ES-5

Alternative C, Option 1 ....................................................................................... ES-6

Alternative C, Option 2 ....................................................................................... ES-7

Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................. ES-7

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... ES-8

Rationale for Indentifying the Preferred Alternative ........................................................ ES-8

Comparison and Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences ............. ES-9

Resources ......................................................................................................... ES-9

Resource Uses ................................................................................................ ES-19

Special Designations ....................................................................................... ES-24

Social and Economic ....................................................................................... ES-26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 

ES-1 Winnemucca District Office RMP/EIS Planning Area ............................................................. ES-2

ES-2 Winnemucca District Office RMP/EIS Decision Area ............................................................. ES-4

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 

ES-1 Land Status within the Planning Area ..................................................................................... ES-1

ES-2 Summary of Effects on Minerals—Alternatives A, B, C, and D ............................................ ES-20

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1-i 
LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

AFY acre-feet per year 

AML appropriate management level 

AMP allotment management plan 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

APHIS-WS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services 

AQ air quality 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

AUM animal unit month 

BCB Backcountry Byways 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BIA US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs best management practices 

BPS budget planning system 

BRDHRCET Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CK cave and karst resources 

CNHT California National Historic Trail 

CR cultural resources 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA extensive recreation management area 

ES Executive Summary 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ES&R emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FLTFA Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

FMU Fire Management Unit 

FMUD final multiple use decision 

FOFEM First Order Fire Effects Model 

FPA fire program analysis 

FW fish and wildlife 

FRCC fire regime condition class 

G geology 

GAWS general aquatic wildlife survey 

GIS geographical information system 

HA herd area 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1-ii 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1-iii 

HAP hazardous air pollution 

HMA herd management area 

HMAP herd management area plan 

HMP habitat management plan 

HUA herd use area 

HVH high value habitat 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IDT interdisciplinary team 

IMP interim management policy 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISA instant study area 

ITA Indian Trust Assets 

KGRA known geothermal resource area 

LCT Lahontan cutthroat trout 

LG livestock grazing 

LR lands and realty 

MACT maximum available control technology 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MFP management framework plan 

MIST minimum impact suppression tactics 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MR minerals: leasable, locatable, salable 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOA Nevada Department of Agriculture 

NDOM Nevada Division of Minerals 

NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 

NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGO non-government organizations 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHT National Historic Trail 

NRCS US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRS new source review 

NSO no surface occupancy 

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River Systems 

NV Nevada 

OCTA Oregon-California Trail Association 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1-iv 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

ORV Outstanding Remarkable Value 

PE chemical and biological control 

PFC proper functioning condition 

planning area Winnemucca District Office boundary and scope for the RMP

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter 

PMU population management unit 

ppm part per million 

PR paleontological resources 

PS public health and safety 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

R recreation 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RAC resource advisory council 

RAMS risk assessment and mitigation strategy 

RE renewable energy 

RFDS Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

RIP range improvement project 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP resource management plan 

RMZ recreation management zone 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD record of decision 

ROI region of influence 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW right-of-way 

S soils 

SASEM Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SNPLMA Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act 

SOG standard operating guideline 

SOP standard operating procedure 

SRMA special recreation management area 

SRP special recreation permit 

SSS special status species 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TA transportation and access 

TC tribal consultation 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TM transportation and travel management 

TNEB thriving natural ecological balance 

TNR temporary nonrenewable 

TSP total suspended particles 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1-v 

TSS total suspended solids 

US United States 

USC United States Code 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

USFS United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

USFWS US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS US Geological Survey 

VF vegetation forest and woodland products 

VR vegetation rangelands 

VRI visual resource inventory 

VRM visual resource management 

VRW vegetation riparian and wetlands 

VW vegetation weeds 

WA wilderness area 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WD Winnemucca District 

WDM wildlife damage management 

WDO Winnemucca District Office 

WFDSS Wildland Fire Decision Support System

WFM wildland fire ecology management 

WFSA wildland fire situation analysis 

WHB wild horses and burros 

WR water resources 

WSA wilderness study area 

WSR wild and scenic river 

WUG Western Utility Group 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

WWV watchable wildlife viewing site 
This page intentionally left blank. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1-vi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared 

this draft resource management plan (RMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) to provide 

direction for managing public lands under the jurisdiction of the Winnemucca District Office 

(WDO) in northwestern Nevada and to analyze the environmental effects that could result from 

implementing the alternatives addressed in this plan. 

The WDO boundary defines the planning area assessed in this RMP, which encompasses 11,091,545 

acres in Humboldt and Pershing Counties and parts of Washoe, Lyon, and Churchill Counties; this 

acreage includes all lands within the WDO administrative boundary regardless of ownership and 

includes public lands within the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National 

Conservation Area (NCA). The BLM administers about 8,448,130 acres, or 75 percent of the 

planning area. Land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered 

by the federal government, State of Nevada, and private property. Over 78 percent of the planning 

area is administered by the federal government, including the BLM, the US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Table ES-1 and Figure ES-1 highlight 

the ownership pattern of the planning area. 

Table ES-1 

Land Status within the Planning Area 

Land Status Acres Percentage of 

Planning Area

BLM 8,448,130 * 75.27 

US Forest Service 274,825 2.45 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 107,169 0.95 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 21,991 0.20 

State of Nevada 0.28 0.000002 

Private 2,338,639 20.84 

Water Features 32,812 0.29 

Total 11,223,566 ** 100 

*Includes NCA acres 

**Does not reflect land administered by WDO outside of administrative boundary. 

Source: BLM 2005a 

The WDO RMP decision area, which is the area applicable to this planning effort, encompasses 

about 7.3 million acres of public lands; it does not include private lands, federal lands not 

administered by the BLM, tribal lands, or state lands. Public lands within the NCA are also not 

included in the decision area, except where program administrative boundaries overlap, for example, 

grazing allotments, priority wildlife areas, and herd management areas (HMAs), in which case these 

public lands would be managed in full conformance with both land use plans. The BLM manages 

the surface and subsurface of federal lands under its jurisdiction and, in some cases, has 

administrative duties for mineral activities on lands managed by other federal agencies or on private 

split-estate lands. Split-estate lands are nonpublic lands on which the subsurface mineral estate 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

§ ̈¦80 

§ ̈¦80 

£¤95 

þÆ95 

WASHOE

COUNTY 

PERSHING

COUNTY 

HUMBOLDT

COUNTY 

8!447 

LYON

COUNTY 

þÆ95 

8!399 

8!140 

8!140 

8!290 

8!400 

§ ̈¦80 

CHURCHILL

COUNTY 

Empire 

Gerlach 

Unionville 

Golconda 

Imlay 

Valmy 

Orovada 

McDermitt 

Paradise Valley 

Lovelock 

Winnemucca 

Denio 

Standard 

Winnemucca Di ict Office RMP EIS

R:\NEW\15186_Winnemucca\GIS\Layouts\2009\Planning Area.mxd - 10/14/09 - YE 

Source: BLM 2007 

! ! 

! 

! 

Nevada 

Reno 

Elko 

Las Vegas 

Winnemucca 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forest Service 

Nevada State 

Private 

Water 

Land Status 

No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, str /

or completeness of these data for individual 

use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. Planning Area This information may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This product was Legend 

developed through digital means and may be BLM Winnemucca District Office updated without notification. Towns Administra ive Boundary 

BLM Winnemucca RMP Planning Area U.S. Highway 

U.S. Interstate Northwest Nevada Black Rock/High Rock NCA 4

RMP Area County Road 0 10 20
 County Boundaries 

Miles State Highway Figure ES-1
 
Executive Summary 

remains with the federal government (BLM). In addition, the BLM administers grazing on certain 

allotments outside the WDO administrative boundary through memorandums of understanding and 

inter-district agreements with other BLM administrative offices. Also, 230,163 acres in the Little 

Owyhee Allotment and 67,021 acres in the Bullhead Allotment are within the administrative 

boundary of the Elko District Office and are part of the Winnemucca RMP decision area. 

Therefore, while RMP decisions do not apply to lands not administered by BLM, lands that are 

interspersed with BLM-managed public lands could be influenced or indirectly affected by BLM 

management actions. Figure ES-2 depicts the Winnemucca RMP decision area addressed in this 

document. 

The RMP is being prepared using the BLM’s planning regulations and guidance issued under the 

authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. An EIS is 

incorporated into this document to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508), and requirements of the BLM’s NEPA Handbook, H1790-1. 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

The resource management planning process is a key tool used by the BLM, in collaboration with 

interested public parties, to ensure a coordinated and consistent approach to managing public lands. 

The RMP is being prepared to provide the BLM WDO with a comprehensive framework for 

managing lands in the planning area under its jurisdiction. The purpose of the RMP is to provide a 

single, comprehensive land use plan that will guide management of the public lands and uses 

administered by the WDO consistent with laws, regulations, policies, and guidance. The RMP 

incorporates new information and data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, and specifies where 

and under what circumstances particular activities and uses will be allowed on BLM-administered 

public lands. Public lands addressed in the RMP will be managed on the basis of multiple use and 

sustained yield, while preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands, including the 

protection of natural and cultural resources, in accordance with FLPMA. The RMP generally does 

not include a description of how particular programs or projects would be implemented or 

prioritized; those decisions are deferred to implementation-level planning. 

The Winnemucca RMP is needed because regulatory and resource conditions have changed, as well 

as public demands and uses, which warrant revisiting decisions in the 1982 Management Framework 

Plans (MFP) and 1999 lands amendments. Many new laws, regulations, and policies have created 

additional public land management considerations; as a result, some of the decisions in the MFP and 

amendments are no longer valid or have been superseded by requirements that did not exist when 

they were prepared. Likewise, user demands and uses have evolved, causing new impacts, requiring 

new management direction. 

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

The basic goal of developing alternatives is to prepare different combinations of resource uses to 

address issues and to resolve conflicts among uses. Alternatives must meet the purpose and need, 

must be reasonable, must provide a mix of resource protection, management use, and development, 

must be responsive to the issues (each issue must be addressed in at least one alternative), must meet 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

§ ̈¦80 

§ ̈¦80 

£¤95 

þÆ95 

WASHOE

COUNTY 

PERSHING

COUNTY 

HUMBOLDT

COUNTY 

8!447 

LYON

COUNTY 

þÆ95 

8!399 

8!140 

8!140 

8!290 

8!400 

§ ̈¦80 

CHURCHILL

COUNTY 

1 

2 

Empire 

Gerlach 

Unionville 

Golconda 

Imlay 

Valmy 

Orovada 

McDermitt 

Paradise Valley 

Lovelock 

Winnemucca 

Denio 

Standard 

Winnemucca Di ict Office RMP EIS

R:\NEW\15186_Winnemucca\GIS\Layouts\2009\Decision Area.mxd - 10/14/09 - YE 

Source: BLM 2007 

! ! 

! 

! 

Nevada 

Reno 

Elko 

Las Vegas 

Winnemucca 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forest Service 

Nevada State 

Private 

Water 

Land Status WDO RMP Decision Area for grazing management 

outside of the WDO RMP Planning Area 

Little Owyhee Grazing Allotment 

2 Bullhead Grazing Allotment

1 

No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, str /

or completeness of these data for individual 

use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. Legend Decision Area This information may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and may be 

updated without notification. BLM Winnemucca RMP Decision Area Towns 

U.S. Highway 

RMP Area

Black Rock/High Rock NCA 4 U.S. Interstate Northwest Nevada 

County Boundaries County Road 

0 10 20 State Highway 

Miles Figure ES-2 
Executive Summary 

the established planning criteria (Chapter 1), and must meet federal laws, regulations, policies, and 

standards, including the multiple use mandates of FLPMA. 

Five alternatives were developed and carried forward for detailed analysis in the draft RMP/EIS. 

Alternative A, continuation of current management, was developed using available inventory data, 

existing planning and management documents and policies, and established land use allocations. The 

action alternatives (B, C [Options 1 and 2], and D) were developed with input from public scoping, 

the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC-Winnemucca RMP Subgroup, and the BLM 

interdisciplinary team. 

Under all alternatives, the BLM would manage the public lands in accordance with all applicable 

laws, regulations, and BLM policies and guidance. All public lands would be managed in accordance 

with the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council Standards and 

Guidelines for Rangeland Health (Appendix E). 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative A, referred to as the No Action Alternative, provides the baseline against which to 

compare the other alternatives. This alternative would continue present management practices based 

on existing land use plans and plan amendments incorporated into the existing plans. Decisions 

contained in the 1982 Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan (MFP), the 1982 ParadiseDenio MFP, and the 1999 Lands Amendment would be implemented if they were not already 

completed. Direction contained in existing laws, regulations, policies, and standards would also 

continue to be implemented, sometimes superseding provisions of the 1980 MFPs and the 1999 

Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan Lands Amendment. The 

current levels, methods, and mix of multiple use management of public lands in the WDO area 

would continue, and resource values would generally receive attention at present levels. Key 

components of Alternative A are as follows: 

• Continue to manage the Pine Forest Special Recreation Management Area (37,259 acres); 

• On greater than 93 percent of BLM-administered lands in the WDO, continue to allow the 

public to travel cross-country (“open” designation) with motorized vehicles. On six percent 

of BLM-administered lands, limit motorized vehicle to designated routes within WSAs 

(“limited” designation); On less than one percent of BLM-administered lands, prohibit 

motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong (“closed” designation); 

• No allowance of fire for resource benefit; 

• Continue to manage Special Management Areas, which include one 60-acre ACEC at the 

Osgood Mountains; and 

• Maintain 2,989,030 acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal, based on 

established criteria identified in the 1999 Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Management 

Framework Plan Lands Amendment. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B emphasizes resource use (e.g., livestock grazing, energy, and mineral development, and 

recreation) in the planning area. This alternative has the fewest protected areas and restrictions to 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-5 
Executive Summary 

development and use. Potential impacts on sensitive resources (e.g., soils and sensitive plant habitat) 

would be mitigated case by case. Sustainable development concepts are included to maintain 

economic productivity, especially related to post-use of mining sites. For example, restoration 

actions that would enhance resource use or commodity production would be used. Sustainable 

principles promote the disposal of public lands that have been developed if it would foster postoperation reuse. Key components of Alternative B include the following: 

• Designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs)—the Nightingale 

SRMA (925,593 acres), the Winnemucca SRMA (151,824 acres) and the Granite Range 

SRMA (95,972 acres), and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA (98,874 acres); 

• Allow the public to travel cross-country (open designation) with motorized vehicles on 21 

percent of BLM-administered lands in the WDO. On greater than 78 percent of BLMadministered lands, limit motorized vehicles to designated routes (limited designation). On 

less than one percent of BLM-administered lands, prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the 

public yearlong (closed designation); 

• Allocate 110,167 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; 

• Restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition 

classes fire regimes, where appropriate. Improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 

70,000 acres; 

• Continue to manage existing special management areas, which include one 60-acre ACEC at 

Osgood Mountain; and 

• Identify 2,128,543 acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. 

Alternative C, Option 1 

Alternative C, Option 1, would develop management strategies to preserve and protect ecosystem 

health across the planning area, while providing multiple uses. Resource development would be 

more constrained than under Alternatives B or D, and in some cases and some areas, uses would be 

excluded to protect sensitive resources. This alternative includes the most special designations, with 

specific measures to protect or enhance resource values within these areas. This alternative 

emphasizes active and specific measures to protect and enhance vegetation and habitat for special 

status species, fish, and wildlife. Likewise, this alternative would reflect a reduction in resource 

production goals for forage, fiber, and minerals. Production of products would generally be 

secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats, such as sagebrush and riparian areas. Key 

components of Alternative C, Option 1 are as follows: 

• Designate two new SRMAs, the Winnemucca SRMA (151,824 acres) and the Granite Range 

SRMA (95,972 acres), and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA (98,874 acres); 

• On BLM-administered lands in the WDO, prohibit the public from cross-country travel 

(closed designation) with motorized vehicles; on greater than 99 percent of BLMadministered lands, limit motorized vehicle to designated routes (limited designation); 

• No allowance of fire for resource benefit; 

• Restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition class, 

where appropriate, and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-6 
Executive Summary 

• Create new special management areas where special values warrant such designation; 

management would create or expand four ACECs (for a total of 97,816 acres), would 

designate four specially managed areas that meet wilderness characteristics’ criteria, and 

would recommend segments of the North Fork of the Little Humboldt River, Washburn 

Creek, and Crowley Creek (for a total of 19 miles) found eligible and suitable for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and 

• Identify 1,215,963 acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. 

Alternative C, Option 2 

Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as those identified above 

under Alternative C, Option 1, with the exception of livestock grazing management. To fully explore 

the impacts from livestock grazing, Alternative C, Option 2, evaluates a no grazing alternative. 

Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative D includes recommendations made by the interdisciplinary team from issues identified 

through the assessment of current management and concerns raised during scoping, with some 

adjustments as necessary to meet current policy and guidance. It represents a mix and variety of 

management actions that best resolve the issues identified from the assessment of need for changing 

management, concerns raised during public scoping, and future management considerations. This 

alternative would reflect the goals and objectives for all values and programs. 

This alternative emphasizes an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of 

resources and services to meet ongoing programs and land uses. The management strategy would be 

accomplished by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation 

and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and 

special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence 

of an ecologically healthy ecosystem using a suite of proactive and specific prescriptive management 

tools and implementation measures. Commodity and development-based resources, such as 

livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific 

actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue 

to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands and would take into 

consideration the result of management actions on the economies of communities within the region. 

Unlike the other alternatives, this one provides sustainable development criteria for determining the 

suitability of reusing developed sites. Key components of Alternative D are as follows: 

• Designate three new SRMAs—the Nightingale SRMA (925,593 acres), the Winnemucca 

SRMA (151,824 acres), and the Granite Range SRMA (95,972 acres), and expand the area for 

the Pine Forest SRMA (98,874 acres); 

• Allow the public to travel cross-country (open designation) with motorized vehicles on four 

percent of BLM-administered lands in the WDO; on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands, 

limit motorized vehicle to designated routes (limited designation); on one percent of BLMadministered lands, prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong (closed 

designation); 

• Allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-7 
Executive Summary 

• Restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition 

classes fire regimes, where appropriate, and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 

by 70,000 acres; 

• Create new special management areas where special values warrant such designation; 

management would create or expand four ACECs (97,820 acres); and 

• Identify 1,281,959 acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would be a continuation of current management. Alternative 

B offers the greatest economic potential but greatest potential impact on the physical and biological 

environment. Conversely, Alternative C, Option 1, would have a lesser impact on physical and 

biological resources but the potential for a greater impact on the local economies and businesses that 

depend on the public lands in the planning area for tourism, recreation, and resource extraction. 

Alternative C, Option 2, would exclude livestock grazing on public lands. It would have the least 

potential impact on physical and biological resources but the greatest impact on the local economies 

and businesses that depend on the public lands in the planning area for revenue from livestock 

grazing operations. 

Alternative D would allow for many uses to continue but could constrain certain activities in order 

to maintain or improve land health conditions. Impacts under Alternative D tend to be within the 

range of Alternatives B and C (Option 1). Taking no action would prohibit the BLM from 

implementing management measures needed to both protect resources and to address concerns 

related to recreation pressure. Detailed descriptions of impacts of the five alternatives are provided 

in Chapter 4, along with a discussion of the cumulative impacts, irretrievable and irreversible 

commitments of resources, and unavoidable adverse impacts of the alternatives. 

RATIONALE FOR INDENTIFYING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Alternative D is the agency’s preferred alternative. 

The BLM selected the preferred alternative based on interdisciplinary team recommendations, 

environmental consequences analysis of the alternatives, and public input during scoping. 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, was not the preferred alternative because it minimally 

addresses current and relevant issues identified through public scoping, required components of the 

land use planning document, and concerns of the planning team. 

Alternatives B and C both address the identified relevant issues and required components necessary 

in a land use planning document focusing on conservation and commercial uses of the public land. 

Alternatives B and C also address the public’s issues and concerns through identified management 

direction, as well as the purpose and need, but they lack a balance between resources and resource 

use allocations. 

At this time, Alternative D, the preferred alternative, provides the most reasonable and practical 

approach to managing the public land resources and uses, while addressing the relevant issues and 

purpose and need. Alternative D provides a balanced approach to public lands management with an 

appropriate level of flexibility to meet the overall needs of the resources and use allocations. This 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-8 
Executive Summary 

alternative represents management that is proactive and provides flexibility to adjust to changing 

conditions over the life of the plan while emphasizing a level of protection, enhancement, and use of 

the resources into the future. 

COMPARISON AND SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Resources 

Air Quality 

The major sources of air pollution emissions within the WDO area include wildland fires, 

agricultural burns, vehicle traffic on unpaved roads, OHV use of unpaved roads, OHV use itself, 

wind erosion in dry lakebeds and other poorly vegetated areas following wildfires, mining and 

mineral developments, and energy resource developments. Wildland fires generally are the emission 

source with the greatest and most widespread impact on air quality in the WDO area. Depending on 

wind conditions, wildland fires and prescribed burns elsewhere can have an impact on air quality 

conditions in the WDO area. Other emission sources tend to have more localized effects on air 

quality. 

Air quality management objectives for all of the RMP alternatives focus on compliance with federal 

and state air quality standards and air quality management programs. Owners and operators of 

mineral and energy resource development projects would continue to be subject to state and federal 

air quality management programs, including air permit programs and fugitive dust control programs. 

Both existing and future gold and silver mining operations would be subject to Nevada mercury 

emission regulations. The WDO area has been designated as being in compliance with federal 

ambient air quality standards. It should be noted that air quality impacts associated with natural 

events generally are excluded from consideration when determining whether or not an area complies 

with federal ambient air quality standards. Existing programs and procedures would continue to 

ensure that if prescribed burns do occur, they would not result in excessive smoke impacts on 

smoke-sensitive areas. 

Alternatives A and C would not allow the use of wildfires for resource benefit while Alternatives B 

and D would. Allowing wildfires to burn in situations where the fire provides resource benefits 

would result in some increase in emissions for Alternatives B and D compared to Alternatives A and 

C. However, wildfire use for resource benefit is likely to be only a minor contributor to total annual 

emissions from wildfires. 

Future mining activities, oil and gas developments, geothermal developments, and renewable 

resource developments are expected to be similar under all RMP alternatives. Because mineral 

development is largely driven by forces external to BLM, these activities would be nearly the same 

under all alternatives. Most areas proposed to be closed to mineral development in any alternative 

have only speculative value for most mineral resources. When mineral development occurs there 

would be mitigations in place under all alternatives. 

RMP alternatives are expected to differ somewhat in the location and amount of recreational 

activity, especially OHV activity. Because the spread of cheatgrass has been a major factor affecting 

the location, frequency, and intensity of wildland fires, differences among RMP alternatives in the 

effectiveness of cheatgrass control are expected to produce differences in wildland fire emissions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-9 
Executive Summary 

Two aspects distinguish Alternative C from the other alternatives in terms of air quality implications. 

Alternative C is expected to have the lowest level of OHV use among the alternatives since OHV 

use generally would be limited to established roads and trails and, Alternative C may indirectly 

increase the recurrence interval for wildland fires since it is likely to have less effective programs for 

cheatgrass control than the other alternatives. Because wildland fires are a more significant source of 

air pollution than OHV use, the overall effect is that Alternative C may result in higher overall air 

pollutant emissions than the other alternatives. 

Geology 

Impacts on geologic resources occur from large-scale surface disturbance, such as mining, erosion, 

off-road vehicles, excavation, and vandalism. Damage and vandalism are usually concentrated near 

roads and trails. 

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from the management, objectives, 

or actions under any of the alternatives for most of the other resources. With respect to effects on 

unique geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Under Alternative A, mitigations and restrictions concerning unique geologic resources would be 

determined on a case-by-case basis, and the current OHV use within exclusion zones would be 

maintained. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the BLM would continue to evaluate sites containing 

unique geologic resources as to their significance and need for protection. Within areas with unique 

geologic resources, OHV travel would be designated as “limited” on existing roads and trails. 

Impacts on unique geologic resources would be limited to those already damaged by existing roads 

and trails. Increased regulation and increased protection of other resources would result in less area 

being subject to surface-disturbing activities and activities with increased potential for erosion. These 

changes would result in less general damage to unique geologic resources and would increase 

protection of specific identified resources. 

Under Alternative B, areas with unique geologic resources would remain open for all methods of 

mineral disposal, subject to mitigation measures sufficient to protect the values at risk. Under 

Alternatives C and D, these areas would be designated as exclusion zones for ROWs and other 

discretionary actions, and the areas would be closed to salable mineral disposal. The areas would not 

be available for leasable minerals exploration and development under Alternative C but would be 

under Alternative D with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation. Alternative C would restrict all 

mining activities, while under Alternative D the exclusion zones would be open for acquiring the 

rights to locatable minerals, but operations would typically require special handling, additional 

limitations, or stipulations applied. Under Alternatives C and D proposed nondiscretionary activities 

that may affect geologic features would be authorized with appropriate mitigation measures, while 

under Alternative C discretionary activities that may affect geologic features would not be allowed. 

Soil Resources 

Soil resources would be managed to maintain the natural habitat of the area and to minimize the 

potential for accelerated (human-caused) wind and water erosion. In order to maintain soil 

processes, a healthy, productive, and diverse plant community is necessary. Improved ecological 

condition would increase productivity, litter, soil biological crusts, soil fertility, infiltration, and 

nutrient cycling. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-10 
Executive Summary 

There are no likely impacts on soils resulting from the management, objectives, or actions under 

most of the other resources. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. Impacts on soil resources from management actions related to land use, 

grazing, fire management, recreation use, OHV travel, and other resources would vary the amount 

of land available for surface-disturbing activities and those that could impact the soil resources. 

Under Alternatives A and B, soil erosion would be reduced by maintaining and improving the 

vegetative cover in areas designated as having high erosion susceptibility. Under Alternatives C and 

D, improvements would be pursued generally instead of just in erosion areas, and soil mitigation 

measures would be applied to all activities. Surface disturbances to vulnerable biological soil crusts 

would be minimized on a case-by-case basis under Alternative A, including some seasonal 

restrictions; they would be allowed with adverse effects mitigated under Alternative B, they would be 

eliminated or fully mitigated under Alternative C, including seasonal eliminations and use 

restrictions, surface disturbances would be minimized in areas with inadequate vegetative cover 

under Alternative D, including case-by-case seasonal use restriction. 

Under Alternative A, surface disturbance activity operators would be encouraged to minimize 

disturbance. The BLM would pursue land reclamation in disturbed areas with conditions and 

methods determined on a case-by-case basis. Vegetation cover would be improved using a diversity 

of native and introduced vegetation with native seed. Vegetation grown from native seeds would be 

preferred over introduced seed. Under Alternative B, surface disturbance activity operators would be 

encouraged to minimize disturbance, and the BLM would pursue land reclamation in disturbed 

areas. Land reclamation to original conditions would be required with best available material for 

growth media. Soil amendments would not be required. Vegetation cover would be improved 

primarily using introduced seed. 

Under Alternative C, surface disturbance activities would be required to maintain, protect, or reduce 

adverse impacts on soil resources, and all land where the surface has been disturbed would be 

required to be reclaimed. Reclamation to or better than original conditions would be required for all 

surface-disturbing activities, with salvaged or imported growth media. Only natural or organic soils 

amendments would be allowed. Only native vegetation would be used, which could result in areas 

being untreated and dominated by invasive plants when native seed supplies are exhausted. 

Under Alternative D, surface-disturbing activities would be managed to ensure reclamation, where it 

is appropriate, with best available salvaged growth medium. Activities would be encouraged to 

maintain, protect, or reduce adverse impacts on soil resources, and, where appropriate, the BLM 

would manage surface-disturbing activities to ensure reclamation. Soil amendments would be 

allowed, where appropriate. Vegetation cover would be improved using a diversity of native and 

introduced vegetation with native seed. Vegetation grown from native seeds would be preferred over 

introduced seed. 

Water Resources 

Each alternative has a different emphasis, which is expected to result in different priorities for 

resource development. These priorities are expected to result in higher probabilities for adverse 

impacts on water resources under some of the alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-11 
Executive Summary 

Alternative A contains fewer, and generally less specific, management actions than the other 

alternatives. In some cases this is because new objectives have been formulated based on experience 

gained under the previous plans. In other cases, new or different management options have been 

formulated to address existing objectives that are carried forward in the RMP. Where Alternative A 

is silent about a new objective or less specific regarding existing objectives, this does not mean that 

the issues identified under the other alternatives would not be addressed under Alterative A. 

Without the guidance offered by an updated management plan, not only would Alternative A allow 

the BLM more latitude in addressing these issues, but the lack of guidance would also make it more 

difficult to implement actions that were not anticipated when the MFPs were developed. Alternative 

B generally prioritizes development of resources for economic return while relying on mitigation to 

reduce, rather than prevent, adverse impacts. Alternative B would likely have greater impacts on 

water quality than would Alternatives C and D. 

Alternative C is the most protective of water resources because it involves the least new 

development, excludes potentially impactful uses, and prioritizes protection and restoration of 

resources when conflicts among uses occur. As one measure of the difference between Alternatives 

B and C on water quality, Alternative C would reduce road use, resulting in less potential for 

associated erosion impacts. However, some management actions under Alternative C may also 

enhance impacts on water resources. For example, less aggressive fire management and greater 

reliance on natural processes could lead to greater potential for large fires in the short term and 

associated short-term adverse impact on water resources. 

Alternative D is less didactic in its overall approach, alternatively emphasizing development priorities 

or preservation priorities according to resource realm. Alternative D therefore represents a 

compromise, and its impacts on water resources are expected to be generally intermediate between 

Alternatives B and C. Overall, it tends to encourage economic development, but recognizes sensitive 

environmental concerns on a greater amount of land area, resulting in more acres excluded or 

restricted from conflicting uses than Alternative B. 

Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products 

Forested vegetation would be affected most by fire management and forest vegetation management. 

Restrictions on management activities for the protection of other resources, primarily cultural, 

visual, and special status species, would affect the level, location, and effectiveness of forest 

management actions to improve forest health. Effects from other resources could be limited and 

localized, considering the extent of forests and woodlands within the WDO. 

From the standpoint of managing forest stands to maintain or improve wildlife habitat, Alternative 

C would provide the greatest benefit, followed by Alternatives D, A, and then B. All alternatives 

would allow for managing forest stands for stand health and vigor. Multiple uses would be 

emphasized the most in Alternative B, followed by Alternatives D, A, and C. 

Vegetation—Weeds 

Weed potential would be affected most by fire and OHV management. Restrictions on management 

activities for the protection of other resources, primarily cultural, visual, and special status species, 

would affect the level, location, and effectiveness of weed management actions to reduce weed 

potential. Effects from other resources could be limited and localized. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-12 
Executive Summary 

The factors that most differentiate one alternative from another in terms of their potential for weed 

infestation are the degree to which areas are open to OHV use, the type of treatments that would be 

allowed within the WDO, the amount of acreage available for grazing and ground-disturbing 

activities. Alternative C would provide the greatest protection from weed spread, but Alternative D 

would provide the greatest flexibility in treating infestations. Alternatives A and B allow for more 

surface-disturbing activities and call for less aggressive weed treatment and avoidance overall, so 

these alternatives would allow for higher weed potential throughout the WDO. 

Vegetation—Rangelands 

This vegetative analysis is qualitative, as specific impacts of resource activities on vegetation cannot 

be quantified. Rangeland vegetation, wildland fire, livestock grazing, and cultural resources actions 

would have the greatest impact on rangeland vegetation within the WDO. It is BLM’s judgment that 

several resources areas are not likely to impact rangeland vegetation resources. These areas are 

geological resources, riparian and wetland vegetation, paleological resources, cave and karst 

resources, national trails, wild and scenic rivers (WSRs), and public health and safety. 

Surface-disturbing activities on public land that covers less than one acre would cause short-term 

disturbance to vegetation by removal or trampling, which would allow weeds to become established. 

Such activities include monitoring; small construction, implementation, and maintenance activities; 

fence building; road maintenance; wild horse and burro gathers; livestock impoundments; trap sites; 

recreational activities, such as camping, hiking, and backpacking; vegetation mowing; seed collection; 

and soil pit and cultural and paleontology site excavations for data recovery. Impacts would be 

limited and localized, due to the small area covered by these activities. 

Alternative C, Option 2 would have the greatest impact on rangelands, as grazing would be 

prohibited. Alternatives A and B would be the least prohibitive toward use of rangelands, while 

Alternative C, Option 1, and Alternative D allow for the most resource protection. 

Vegetation—Riparian Habitat and Wetlands 

This vegetative analysis is qualitative because specific impacts of resource activities on vegetation 

cannot be quantified. The greatest impact on riparian or wetland habitat within the WDO would be 

from wildland fire, livestock grazing, and wild horse and burro actions. It is the BLM’s judgment 

that several resources are not likely to impact riparian or wetland habitat resources. These areas are 

air, cultural resources, geological resources, paleontological resources, caves and karsts, national 

trails, and public health and safety. 

Alternative C would provide the most protection to riparian and wetland vegetation by restricting 

treatments, activities, and OHV use in these areas. Alternative D would provide a more flexible 

approach by protecting these areas while allowing for multiple uses. Alternatives A and B would 

provide less protection for riparian and wetland areas. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts on fish and wildlife resources in the WDO from other management programs include loss 

or alteration of native habitats, decreased food and water availability and quality, increased habitat 

fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, interruption of travel corridors, and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-13 
Executive Summary 

disruption of species behavior, leading to reduced reproductive fitness or increased susceptibility to 

predation, and direct mortality. Surface-disturbing actions that alter vegetation characteristics (e.g., 

structure, composition, and production) can affect habitat suitability for fish and wildlife, particularly 

where the disturbance removes or reduces cover and food resources. Even minor changes to 

vegetation communities can affect resident wildlife populations. 

The direct and indirect impacts of management actions on fish and wildlife resources may vary 

widely, depending on a variety of factors, such as the dynamics of the habitat (e.g., community type, 

size, shape, complexity, seral state, and condition), season, intensity, duration, frequency, and extent 

of the disturbance, rate and composition of vegetation recovery, change in vegetation structure, type 

of soils, topography and microsites, animal species present, and the ability of fish or wildlife species 

to leave or recolonize a site after a disturbance. 

Proposed management practices can mitigate many of the effects from these actions. Alternative C 

would best manage habitat to maintain biological diversity of wildlife, followed by Alternatives D, B, 

and then A. Although Alternative B is the resource use alternative, it includes more proactive 

resource management and conservation measures for fish and wildlife than the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative A). 

Special Status Species 

Impacts on special status fish, wildlife, and plant resources in the WDO include loss or alteration of 

native habitats, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, 

disruption of species behavior leading to reduced reproductive fitness, and direct mortality. Surfacedisturbing actions that alter vegetation characteristics (e.g., structure, composition, or production) 

have the potential to affect habitat suitability for special status fish, wildlife, and plants, particularly 

where the disturbance removes or reduces cover or food resources. Even minor changes to 

vegetation communities have the potential to affect resident special status populations. 

The direct and indirect impacts of management actions on fish, wildlife, and plant resources may 

vary widely, depending on a variety of factors such as the dynamics of the habitat (e.g., community 

type, size, shape, complexity, seral state, and condition); season, intensity, duration, frequency, and 

extent of the disturbance; rate and composition of vegetation recovery; change in vegetation 

structure; type of soils; topography and microsites; animal species present; and the mobility of fish 

or wildlife species (i.e., the ability to leave a site or recolonize a site after a disturbance). 

Proposed management practices can mitigate many of the effects from these actions. Alternative C 

would best protect habitat to maintain biological diversity of wildlife, while Alternatives A and B 

allow for some compromise to special status species and their habitat conditions. Alternative D 

combines aspects of the other alternatives to provide a flexible approach to achieving other 

management objectives while protecting special status species and their habitat. 

Wild Horses and Burros 

Each alternative has a different emphasis, which is expected to result in different priorities for 

resource development. These priorities are expected to result in higher probabilities for adverse 

impacts on WHB populations and habitat resources under the alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-14 
Executive Summary 

Alternative A represents current management under guidance of the 1982 Sonoma-Gerlach and 

Paradise-Denio Management Framework Plans and the amendments of 1999. Alternative A contains 

fewer, and generally less specific, management actions than the other alternatives. It represents the 

status quo. 

Alternative B generally prioritizes development of resources for economic return while relying on 

mitigation to reduce, rather than prevent, adverse impacts. Alternative B would likely have greater 

impacts on WHB than would Alternatives C and D. However, B is the only alternative that does not 

allow for the occupancy of elk to occur on BLM lands, which lessens overall habitat competition 

impacts on WHB. 

Alternative C is the most protective of natural resources because it involves the least new 

development, excludes potentially impactful uses, and prioritizes protection and restoration of 

resources when conflicts among uses occur. Option 1 emphasizes protection of wildlife habitat over 

WHB and allows for minimal development of WHB habitat. Alternative C, Option 2, removes all 

livestock grazing and is thus considered the best alternative for WHB. No livestock grazing would 

decrease competition with WHB for forage and water resources, would remove fence impediments, 

and would lessen disturbance. However, both options may impact WHB by reducing the appropriate 

management level in lieu of developing WHB waters and by allowing elk populations to occur. 

Alternative D represents a compromise between preservation and development. It attempts to 

balance appropriate multiple uses and manages for a healthy environment. It allows the greatest 

flexibility of potential management tools. Therefore, Alternative D impacts on WHB are expected to 

be generally intermediate between Alternative B and Alternative C, Option 1. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Protecting priority wildlife habitats, priority watersheds, cultural resources, commercial, mineral 

development, and recreation infrastructure would affect fire suppression priorities by increasing 

demands for fire suppression resources and fuel treatments. Conflicts could result as available 

firefighting resources become overextended. This could increase the costs of firefighting, if 

additional resources are needed. Overextended firefighting resources could also affect availability of 

firefighting resources locally, regionally, or nationally if they were diverted from other suppression 

efforts to the WDO. A similar trend is occurring nationwide. Because Alternative C generally has the 

most areas with priorities for protection, it has the greatest potential to increase demands and costs 

for fire suppression resources and fuel treatments. 

Alternative A provides the most access for fire suppression, but it would also has the highest risk for 

human-caused fire due to the number of acres designated open to OHV travel, compared to other 

alternatives. This alternative would have fewest fire suppression priority areas. Mineral and energy 

development would likely increase the number of facilities needing fire suppression. 

Alternative B has the greatest potential to increase the Wildland Urban Interface areas (WUI) as 

more public acres would be available for land disposal. The risk of human-caused fire would be 

lower due to fewer acres designated open to OHV travel compared with Alternative A. Alternative B 

has more open acres than Alternatives C and D. Alternative B has the most potential for increased 

commercial and mineral development infrastructure that would require fire suppression protection. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-15 
Executive Summary 

Alternative C would close or restrict the most areas to OHV travel, which would result in lowering 

the potential for human caused fires and reduce a major source of weed spread. Option 2, would 

eliminate grazing and both options would eliminate chemical and prescribed fire treatments for 

weeds and to reduce fuels. Potential for fine fuel buildup would occur which could result in 

increased size and intensity of fires. This alternative has the largest number of priority protection 

areas which would increase fire suppression complexity to prioritize fires. 

Alternative D encourages recreation more than Alternatives A and C but has fewer acres designated 

open for OHV travel. Additional priority protection areas would increase priorities for fire 

suppression, causing prioritization conflicts. ES&R actions to restore vegetation conditions, and 

prevent or eliminate the spread of noxious weeds, invasive plants, and to rehabilitate burned areas 

would all reduce condition classes in the long run. These actions would also support the return of 

natural fire regimes, along with reducing the risks from wildland fire to the public and other 

resources. 

Under all alternatives, large wildland fire suppression costs are expected to increase due to increasing 

operating costs (fuel, personnel, equipment, and supplies), additional development outside the 

control of BLM managers, and increasing populations. The following assessment of the impacts of 

the RMP actions that differ between alternatives, using Alternative A as the base line. 

Alternative A would cause the second least increase in the cost of large wildland fire suppression. 

This alternative has a mix of beneficial and adverse effects for fire suppression costs. It has few 

restrictions but also has few tools. 

Alternative B would have the least increase in the cost of large wildland fire suppression. Generally, 

it has the fewest restrictions on vegetation management, fire suppression, and access than other 

alternatives. It does allow for more development that would increase fire suppression priorities. 

Alternative C would increase the cost of large wildland fire suppression the most. While it restricts 

many of the activities that cause a spread of weeds (particularly Option 2) or development that needs 

protection, it also limits the tools available to reduce fuel, control weeds, and suppress fires. It 

increases fire suppression on the most areas. 

Alternative D would have the second most increase in the cost of large wildland fire suppression. It 

restricts vegetation management actions somewhat, has protection for wildlife habitat and 

watersheds, and allows development that would increase suppression priorities. The cost increase 

would be lower than under Alternative C because more fire suppression and fuel reductions tools 

can be used. 

Cultural Resources 

Proposed management actions that could impact or increase the risk of impacts on known and 

unknown cultural resources include those that require ground disturbance, that affect natural 

processes, such as erosion, that expose vulnerable cultural resources to intense fire, that open or 

close land to potentially incompatible uses, that affect the visual, atmospheric, or aural setting of 

some cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, sacred sites and National Historic Trails, that 

affect access to cultural resources, and that remove or add land subject to federal protections for 

cultural resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-16 
Executive Summary 

Most of the WDO has not been inventoried for cultural resources, and thousands of undiscovered 

or unrecorded resources are believed to be there. A Section 106 process and tribal consultation 

would be completed to address anticipated impacts resulting from authorized and planned activities; 

however, unauthorized or unplanned activities, wildland fire, dispersed recreation, natural processes 

and unauthorized collection, excavation, and vandalism could lead to impacts that may be more 

difficult to monitor and mitigate. Management actions include stipulations designed to avoid or 

reduce impacts. Impacts on TCPs, sacred sites, historic trails, and some other cultural resource sites 

which are significant for reasons other than data potential may be difficult or impossible to mitigate. 

Because planned actions would be subject to review as federal undertakings under the Section 106 

process, there would be further site-specific consideration and mitigation of cultural resource 

impacts for many of the actions. Overall, the emphasis in Alternative C on actions that emphasize 

resource conservation and protection and that restrict incompatible actions would best protect 

significant cultural resources, followed by Alternative D. Alternative B provides the least protection 

for cultural resources, and Alternative A represents the status quo. 

Paleontological Resources 

Impacts on paleontological resources are due to erosion, OHVs, excavation, theft, vandalism, and 

surface-disturbing activities, such as trampling by animals and humans. Experience has shown that 

damage, theft, and vandalism are usually concentrated near roads and trails. Impacts on 

paleontological resources may increase because of additional visitation to the areas containing these 

resources. 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from the management, objectives, 

or actions under most of the other resources. With respect to effects on paleontological resources 

from these other resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. Overall, objectives and 

actions associated with other resources that result in closure to surface disturbance activities would 

have less chance of disturbance to any paleontological resources that might be present. Impacts on 

paleontological resources are from management actions related to land use, geology, cave and karst 

resources, livestock grazing, minerals management, recreation use, OHV travel, and other resources. 

Management actions for the other resources would vary the amount of land available for surfacedisturbing activities and those that could impact the paleontological resources. Paleontological 

resources or impacts are not managed as unique geologic resources. Even though they are managed 

separately, any unknown paleontological resources within the boundaries of areas protected as 

unique geologic features would also be protected. 

While physical conservation measures, such as signing, fencing, controlling erosion, and observing 

administrative conservation, would be implemented under all of the alternatives, under Alternative 

C, these measures would not be implemented if they could result in increased visitation. Other 

actions, including withdrawing land, closing public access, and prohibiting OHV use, would be used 

to protect vulnerable paleontological deposits and to reduce the potential for impacts. Under 

Alternative D, other actions, including withdrawing land, closing public access, and prohibiting 

OHV use, would be used as appropriate to protect vulnerable paleontological deposits. 

If present, paleontological resources could be impacted by the extent and depths of ground 

disturbance associated with salable and locatable mineral development. However, the potential for 

paleontological resources would be assessed before these activities were authorized, and avoidance 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-17 
Executive Summary 

or mitigations would be required. Alternative C would have the greatest restrictions to mining, 

Alternative D would be less restrictive, with Alternative B would be the least restrictive. Under 

Alternative A, restrictions would be implemented on a case-by-case basis where they may be more 

restrictive than under Alternative B. 

Visual Resources 

In general, Effects Common to All Alternatives involve actions that maintain or improve the quality 

of visual resources. In addition to relying on the visual resource contrast rating system to preserve 

the overall scenic quality of BLM-administered land, specific actions also maintain or improve visual 

resources involving air, water, flora, fauna, wildland fire, cultural resources, minerals, and recreation. 

Alternative A would continue to rely on dated Management Framework Plans to manage visual 

resources. The plans are silent on certain issues related to geology, wildland fire, cultural resources, 

and cave and karst resources, all of which involve visual resources. This threatens visual resources 

associated with these resources. Also, incorrect or inconsistent visual resource management 

classifications would continue to make managing visual resources difficult and would threaten the 

quality of visual resources. Furthermore, the demand for recreational use is expected to continue to 

increase, increasing the value of open spaces and undeveloped landscapes and the need for 

management actions to protect sensitive visual resource values. 

Alternative C would provide the greatest protection to visual resources after Alternative B. Because 

Alternative C designates the most priority 1 wildlife habitat acres and the greatest total priority 1 and 

2 wildlife habitat acres, it would have the greatest impact on protecting visual resources. Alternative 

C would assign more VRM class designations that are equal to or more protective than the VRI class 

designations. Also, Alternative C would close the most acres to OHV use and would have no open 

areas. 

Cave and Karst 

Karst features can occur in carbonate rock formations, but no significant karst features have been 

identified in the WDO. The planning area has not been systematically surveyed for caves. Impacts 

on caves occur by excavation, theft, vandalism, and large-scale surface-disturbing activities, such as 

mining. Experience has shown that damage, theft, and vandalism are usually concentrated near roads 

and trails. Impacts on caves may increase because of additional visitation to areas within the 

planning area. 

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from the management, objectives, 

or actions under most of the other resources. With respect to their effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. The Lovelock Cave Byway is managed not 

as a cave resource but in accordance with cultural resource and byway management objectives and 

actions. Overall, objectives and actions associated with other resources that result in closure to 

surface disturbance activities would have beneficial impacts (less chance of disturbance) on caves 

and bat habitat and would increase protection of these resources. The education and public 

awareness provisions under the alternatives would increase visitation to those areas with caves and 

karst features, resulting in a greater risk of impacts from vandalism as access is improved and 

locations become known. While some individuals and small groups consider exploring caves as 

recreational, there are no caves that are recognized as recreation sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-18 
Executive Summary 

Alternatives B, C, and D include actions for implementing appropriate mitigation measures on 

caves, such as seasonal closures, avoidance, fencing, bat gates, and signing to protect the unique 

geologic features and wildlife habitat. All alternatives require an inventory for bats and habitat usage 

before allowing any surface occupancy or disturbance within at least 200 yards of caves that may be 

occupied. Under Alternatives A and D, large-scale surface-disturbing discretionary actions would not 

be allowed within 200 yards of occupied adits, caves, or other habitats. The associated caves would 

be protected from surface-disturbing activities as a result of the protection of the bats. Under 

Alternative B, surface-disturbing discretionary actions would be allowed near occupied adits, caves, 

or other habitats if mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts were developed. 

Alternative C would require an inventory for bats and habitat usage before allowing any surface 

occupancy or disturbance within 500 yards of caves that are not known to be occupied, rather than 

within 200 yards, as proposed under the other alternatives. Large-scale surface-disturbing 

discretionary actions would not be allowed within 500 yards of occupied adits, caves, or other 

habitats. 

Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

Grazing would be impacted when part of an allotment is restricted during vegetation treatments, 

prescribed burning, reforestation, or watershed or riparian restoration. Grazing exclusion areas 

designed to protect riparian habitat for wildlife and sensitive species or to protect cultural or 

paleontological resources would impact livestock grazing. Mineral and energy development also 

would minimally impact livestock grazing in the short and long term by decreasing the amount of 

grazing acreage available during construction and operation of these facilities. Alternative D would 

best provide opportunities for grazing while meeting Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC 

Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health, followed by Alternative A and then Alternative B 

followed by Alternative C, Option 1. Alternative C, Option 2 does not allow grazing on WDO 

managed lands. Actions under most resource categories have the potential to affect livestock 

grazing. 

Minerals—Leasable, Locatable, and Salable 

Mineral resources include fluid and solid minerals leased for development under the Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1920 and amendments, as well as the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, locatable minerals that 

may be claimed and patented under the 1872 Mining Law, and common variety materials that may 

be purchased under the Mineral Materials Sales Act of 1947. 

Development of the various alternatives involved the identification of BLM-administered land that 

is open or closed to salable, leasable, and locatable mineral activities. On BLM land open to leasing 

or mining, certain areas may be subject to surface use stipulations in addition to those required by 

regulation or policy or identified on the standard lease or permit form. These additional restrictions 

could include NSO and restrictions based on season or other location-specific environmental 

factors. In many instances, more than one stipulation may apply on the same parcel of land. 

Table ES-2 indicates the difference among the alternatives in terms of the level of mineral resource 

availability and surface use restrictions on subsequent operations. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-19 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-2 

Summary of Effects on Minerals—Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Mineral Materials (Salables) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Acres closed to mineral 

material sale or permit 

418,938 418,938 837,049 743,301 

Total Acres open to mineral 

material sale of some type 

6,786,059 6,786,059 6,367,789 6,461,201 

Acres open to sale/permit1 6,786,059 4,473,691 2,746,668 3,487,709 

Acres open to sale/permit1

with known seasonal or 

other restrictions 

0 1,445,244 0 1,202,535 

Acres open to permitted 

government agencies only 

0 867,124 3,621,121 1,770,957 

Leasable Minerals (Fluid) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Acres closed to leasing 446,887 1,132,594 4,455,028 1,198,464 

Acres open to leasing of any 

type 

6,745,878 6,068,969 2,749,810 5,994,301 

Acres open to leasing2 6,716,296 4,472,814 2,749,810 4,008,025 

Acres open to leasing2 plus 

known seasonal or other 

restrictions 

0 1,374,731 0 1,659,533 

Acres open to leasing2 with 

No Surface Occupancy 

29,582 221,724 0 326,743 

Leasable Minerals (Solid) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Acres closed to leasing 416,652 1,124,266 4,455,645 1,198,694 

Acres open to leasing of any 

type 

6,776,198 6,068,498 2,749,195 5,994,123 

Acres open to leasing2 6,776,198 4,472,950 2,749,195 4,007,923 

Acres open to leasing2 plus 

known seasonal or other 

restriction 

0 1,373,904 0 1,659,404 

Acres open to leasing2 with 

No Surface Occupancy 

0 221,644 0 326,769 

Locatable Minerals Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Acres closed to claim 

location 

6,543 6,543 281,892 27,941 

Acres open to claim 

location 

7,198,294 7,198,294 6,922,945 7,176,896 

Acres open to operations1 2,898,405 2,898,405 3,415,323 4,148,888 

Acres open to operations 

but having known 

conflicts3

4,299,889 4,299,889 3,507,622 3,028,008 

1Open with standard operation terms and stipulations. 

2Open with standard lease terms and stipulations. 

3Operations may be authorized, but one or more known conflicts may require special conditions or mitigating measures.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-20 
Executive Summary 

Almost all of the management decisions and actions under each alternative are aimed at protecting 

other resources. In general, these decisions and actions result in varying amounts of land available 

for each of type of mineral resource category detailed below. They also result in varying types and 

levels of mitigation required for protection of sensitive environmental resources. The costs 

associated with reclamation and other mitigations could affect whether individuals or organizations 

continue mineral exploration and development activities. Other goals and actions involve frequency 

and types of audits and inspection of activities related to mineral development to ensure permit 

compliance and fair compensation for the minerals extracted. 

Recreation and Facilities 

Effects on recreation management from the proposed alternatives would result in a range of 

possible outcomes. Surface-disturbing activities, such as wildland fire management and mineral 

development, would have short-term and long-term effects on recreation users. This would be the 

case if areas and activities were restricted or excluded until surface-disturbing activities had 

concluded, or if such activities were to change the landscape character or the available recreation 

opportunities. 

Special designations, including Wilderness Areas (WA), WSAs, and ACECs recommended as 

suitable for designation, affect recreation management. Typically, these designations protect 

important historical, cultural, and scenic values, which encourage nonmotorized and more primitive 

backcountry experiences. Opportunities for this type of recreation user would increase as the 

percentage of the designated acreage increases. Recreation users who prefer motorized travel as an 

activity or who require motorized travel to access an area could be affected if previously accessible 

areas were to become inaccessible to motorized travel. 

Maintaining and possibly increasing SRMA designations would protect recreation resources and 

would encourage appropriate recreation in these areas. The focus in these designations would 

include the most popular activities within the WDO, such as camping, OHV use, pleasure driving, 

photography, and picnicking. 

Alternatives B and D designate the greatest number of SRMAs and the largest amount of acreage 

with SRMA designations. Those two alternatives also designate the greatest number of Recreation 

Management Zones (RMZ). Alternative A designates no additional SRMAs but maintains the 

current Pine Forest SRMA designation, while Alternative D adds one designation. Alternative A has 

the fewest number of acres designated in SRMAs, and Alternative C has the second fewest acres. 

Under Alternative C, effects from general recreation use and designation of new SRMAs are similar 

to those described under Alternative B, with some exceptions. One SRMA containing a total of five 

RMZs and 151,824 acres would be designated under Alternative C and the array of recreational 

opportunities managed for would be more limited and provide more close-to-town activities than 

under Alternative B. 

OHV use, which is a very popular activity within the WDO, is open on the greatest number of acres 

under Alternative A, followed by Alternative B. Alternative D severely restricts open OHV use, and 

Alternative C completely precludes it. Limited OHV use occurs on roughly similar acreage under all 

the alternatives except Alternative A, which has the least acres with limited OHV use. Alternative C 

closes OHV use on the most acres, followed by Alternative D. Approximately the same number of 

acres is closed to OHV use under Alternatives A and B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-21 
Executive Summary 

Renewable Energy 

All four alternatives contain actions that would affect the availability of lands for energy 

development and that could limit the ability to harvest fuels for biomass development. In general, 

the alternatives with ROW exclusion areas containing the lowest acreage favorable to renewable 

energy development and with the greatest potential for biomass fuels would have the highest 

potential for renewable energy development. The amount of land available for disposal out of public 

ownership would be different for each of the four alternatives and could affect renewable energy 

development. Although lands that would be disposed of could be used for renewable energy, there is 

no legal mandate for this use under private or other types of ownership; therefore, renewable energy 

development could be affected where the land available for disposal also contains renewable energy 

resources. Disposal probably would result in a lesser effect than ROW exclusion. 

Alternative B has the greatest potential for renewable energy development, since there would be no 

ROW exclusion areas and a relatively high potential for biomass fuels availability. Although 

Alternative B does not have the lowest acreage available for disposal, it is lower than current 

conditions (Alternative A). Actions under Alternative C present the least favorable conditions for 

renewable energy development; Alternative C has more restrictions on fuels treatments and harvest 

and a relatively high percentage of favorable areas within ROW exclusion areas, even though they 

have the lowest acreage available for disposal. The potential for renewable energy development 

under Alternative D would be intermediate between Alternatives B and C. 

Transportation and Access 

The primary cause of effects on or changes to the transportation network is resource protection. 

Measures that are implemented to protect natural resources, such as wildlife, water, and soil, and to 

protect cultural resources could result in seasonal or permanent route restrictions or closures. 

Permitted activities on BLM-administered lands, such as those related to forestry and minerals, 

could expand the route network. 

Under Alternative B, effects from commercial harvesting of firewood, posts, and Christmas trees 

could include an increase in forestry-related traffic in the WDO. Long-term effects include an 

increase in the number of routes accessible on public lands by establishing new logging roads. This 

would affect opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized users overall by increasing road 

density in the WDO. Under Alternative C, certain transportation-related construction and 

maintenance could be restricted in designated old growth forests if impacts could not be minimized 

by implementing best management practices or if they could not be offset by mitigation measures. 

Under Alternative D, effects could be similar to those described under Alternative B, but they are 

expected to be less because commercial harvesting would be authorized only on a case-by case basis 

to achieve resource objectives. In addition, effects from designating old growth forests are the same 

as those described under Alternative C. 

Increased visitation due to new recreational facilities would increase the use of roads and trails and 

would increase the demand for new travel routes under Alternative B. Managing new SRMAs could 

constrain or restrict public access in certain RMZs within the SRMAs or could enhance or 

encourage greater public access in other RMZs. Impacts would be local. Also, under Alternative B, 

1,460,200 acres would be open to OHV use, 5,445,218 acres would be limited to OHV use, and 

24,832 acres would be closed to OHV use; this alternative would allow the most OHV travel of the 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-22 
Executive Summary 

RMP alternatives. Under Alternative C, effects from general recreation use and designation of new 

SRMAs are the same as those described under Alternative B. OHV travel would be the most 

restricted under Alternative C, with 61,427 acres closed, 7,143,177 acres limited, and no acres open 

to OHV use. Under Alternative D, effects from general recreation use and designation of new 

SRMAs are the same as those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 289,932 acres 

would be open to OHV use, 6,878,592 acres would be limited, and 35,483 acres would be closed to 

OHV use. 

Under Alternative B, constructing roads while avoiding fragmentation may affect the location of 

routes, limiting access in some areas. Also, installing directional signs would enhance travel within 

the WDO, particularly for recreational use, by indicating proper direction to destinations. In addition 

to minimizing the potential for visitors to become lost, signage would help direct traffic to main 

travel routes and would reduce the accidental use of roads that may not be suitable for all types of 

travel. Under Alternatives C and D, decommissioning, removing, or rerouting roads or trails that are 

adversely affecting the environment may limit access to some areas of the WDO. Constructing roads 

while avoiding fragmentation may affect the location of routes, limiting access in some areas. Effects 

from implementing a signage plan are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative B, designating 716,528 acres as avoidance areas to protect resources could affect 

future route planning in and through these areas, although the impact on route planning would be 

limited. This is because resource impacts from the granting of ROWs would not be completely 

prohibited but would require mitigation. Under Alternative C, designating 869,645 acres as 

avoidance areas for granting ROWs would have the same effects as those described under 

Alternative B. In addition, 1,279,481 acres would be designated as exclusion areas for granting 

ROWs in order to protect priority wildlife areas; this would limit route planning and could restrict 

access to some areas for certain uses. Under Alternative D, designating 1,325,967 acres as avoidance 

areas for granting ROWs would have the same effects as those described under Alternative B. 

Designating 699,929 acres as exclusion areas for granting ROWs would have the same effects as 

those described under Alternative C. 

Lands and Realty 

Alternative A would continue to rely on dated Management Framework Plans and the 1999 Lands 

Amendment to Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan to manage land 

use and land designations. These plans are silent on current issues (such as the scattered land 

ownership pattern, renewable energy development, and ROWs) affecting the management of BLMadministered land, diminishing the ability of the BLM to effectively manage the land. 

In absolute terms, Alternatives C and D would have similar impacts on land use and land 

designations. Alternative B would provide slightly fewer opportunities for changing land uses and 

designations. 

In relative terms, Alternatives B, C, and D differ in their degree of impact on land use and land 

designations. A noteworthy aspect of resource management actions that affect land use and land 

designations has to do with compatibility. For example, the allowance of one type of use can involve 

the restriction of a different type of use. Conversely, the restriction of one type of use can involve 

the allowance of a different type of use. Consequently, changes in land use typically involve both an 

increase and a decrease in the types of activities that can occur due to compatibility issues. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-23 
Executive Summary 

Special Designations 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

In general, effects common to all alternatives involve actions that maintain or improve the qualities 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Administrative designations include that of 

ACECs. Potential ACEC designated areas were identified in the ACEC Relevance and Importance 

Evaluations (2006), Appendix F. 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to rely on dated management framework plans, along 

with current policy and guidance for the Osgood Mountain milkvetch ACEC. These plans are silent 

on areas recently proposed for ACECs and wild and scenic rivers. 

Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A but includes additional protection for the Osgood 

Mountain milkvetch ACEC. For example, the ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, and 

there would be no surface occupancy. This would protect the special qualities of the ACEC from 

fluid mineral activities. There would be no surface occupancy for solid mineral development in the 

Osgood Mountain ACEC because the ACEC would be within a two-mile radius of known sensitive 

plants. This would protect the special qualities of the ACEC from solid mineral development. Also, 

the BLM would manage the ACEC and associated landscapes as VRM Class II. 

Alternatives C and D would increase the number of ACECs and, therefore, would increase the 

protection of special resources in the WDO. However, Alternative C would provide greater 

protection than Alternative D to those special resources by, for example, limiting land-disturbing 

activities and conserving resources in the ACECs. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

In general, Effects Common to All Alternatives involve actions that maintain or improve the 

qualities of areas with special designations. Administrative designations include eligible river 

segments that are suitable or unsuitable under the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968. Eligible river 

segments for WSR assessment were identified in the WSR report in Appendix G (BLM 2006). 

Under Alternatives A, B, and D, no segments of rivers or streams would be managed as WSRs in the 

WDO. This would threaten the outstanding remarkable values of eligible river segments identified in 

the WSR report (BLM 2006) from land disturbances and resource consumption. 

Under Alternative C, the BLM would provide for the protection of eligible river segments, in 

accordance with tentative suitability classifications for the North Fork of the Little Humboldt, 

Washburn Creek, and Crowley Creek. This would protect the outstanding remarkable values of 

eligible river segments identified in the WSR report (BLM 2006). 

Back Country Byways 

In general, the effects common to all alternatives involve actions that maintain or improve the 

qualities of backcountry byways (BCB). Specific actions to achieve this are associated with the 

management of rangeland vegetation, wild horses and burros, wildland fire, cultural resources, visual 

resources, livestock grazing, minerals, recreation and visitor outreach and services, renewable energy, 

transportation and access, lands and realty, and backcountry byways. In general, any actions that 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-24 
Executive Summary 

would change the visual or aesthetic character of the landscape surrounding the BCB would have 

impacts on the quality of the BCB. 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to rely on dated management framework plans to 

manage the Lovelock Cave BCB. Designation of new BCBs would be considered. An increasing 

population and increasing demand for recreation opportunities threaten the landscape surrounding 

the Lovelock Cave BCB and other potential BCBs because the management framework plans lack 

management actions for these areas. 

In absolute terms, Alternatives C and D would have similar impacts on BCBs, with some exceptions. 

Alternative C would provide additional protection to the landscape surrounding existing and 

potential BCBs because it would protect the areas from livestock damage, such as trampled 

vegetation. Compared to Alternatives C and D, Alternative B would provide less than half of the 

opportunities for protecting the special resources associated with BCBs. 

In relative terms, Alternatives B, C, and D differ in their degree of impact on existing and potential 

BCBs. 

Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

In general, effects that are common to all alternatives involve actions that maintain or improve the 

qualities of WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics. Specific actions to achieve this are 

associated with most resources. 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to rely on dated management framework plans to 

manage WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics. These plans are silent on areas with 

wilderness characteristics. In addition, an increasing population and increasing demand for 

recreation opportunities further threaten areas with wilderness characteristics because these public 

resources lack management actions in the management framework plans. 

In absolute terms, Alternatives C and D would have similar impacts on WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics, with some exceptions. Alternative C, Option 2 would provide additional 

protection to WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics because it would protect the areas from 

damage by livestock grazing, such as trampled vegetation. Alternatives B, C, and D identify six 

wilderness characteristics areas for management. Under Alternative B, BLM would manage these 

areas to achieve multiple use and sustained yield objectives, while Alternative C would close these 

areas to mineral leasing and salable mineral disposal and would be designated as ROW exclusion 

zones and priority 1 habitat. Alternative D would implement unspecified restrictions to provide a 

flexible and location-specific approach to management of areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Compared to Alternatives C and D, Alternative B would provide fewer opportunities for protecting 

the special resources associated with these areas. 

In relative terms, Alternatives B, C, and D differ in their degree of impact on WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-25 
Executive Summary 

Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites 

The BLM would maintain the following existing Watchable Wildlife Viewing sites (as published in 

the Nevada Wildlife Viewing Guide [Clark 1993]), and evaluate potential watchable wildlife areas in 

collaboration with local, state, tribal, federal agencies and interested publics: 

• High Rock Canyon, 

• Mahogany Creek, 

• Pine Forest Mountains, 

• McGill Canyon, 

• Santa Rosa Mountains, and 

• Sonoma Creek. 

New site-specific watchable wildlife viewing sites have not been identified in any of the proposed 

alternatives. However, the BLM plans on coordinating with NDOW to establish location-specific 

watchable wildlife viewing sites. The suitability and value of any proposed watchable wildlife viewing 

site depends on the presence of healthy undisturbed habitat composed of native vegetation and on 

maintaining healthy, viable wildlife populations. Therefore, actions to improve either of these 

characteristics would indirectly benefit potential watchable wildlife viewing sites. Detailed analyses of 

impacts on habitats and wildlife from the varying degrees of alternative objectives and actions are 

discussed under Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products, Vegetation—Weeds, Vegetation—

Rangelands, Vegetation—Riparian Habitat and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife, and Special Status 

Species. 

Social and Economic 

Tribal Interests 

There are no known Indian Trust Assets or treaty-based rights or responsibilities of the BLM in the 

planning area, so no impacts on these are expected. Effects of each of the management action 

alternatives on tribal economic interests on reservation lands are likely similar to those of other 

residents in rural low-income parts of the planning area, as described under Social and Economic 

Conditions and Environmental Justice. However, under Alternatives C and D, on congressional 

approval, lands would be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the expansion of the Fort 

McDermitt Indian Reservation. Expansion of the reservation land base may permit additional 

economic development of and income to the reservation. 

Public Health and Safety 

Nearly all management activities on the WDO lands could affect public safety to some extent. The 

main goal for public safety as a resource is to protect people from natural or human-caused hazards 

encountered on public lands. Essentially, any management activity that improves access to BLMadministered lands or encourages the use of BLM-managed lands increases the likelihood that the 

public and BLM employees could come into contact with abandoned mine lands, modern mine pits, 

high walls and pit lakes, hot springs, and hazardous material sites, including solid waste, illegal dump 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-26 
Executive Summary 

sites, and unexploded ordinance or explosives. However, improving access in the resource area 

could reduce the number of accidents that result from poor travel conditions. 

Under the Abandoned Mine Lands Program, management works to remove or remediate dangerous 

situations and materials when they are discovered. Remediation of abandoned mine hazards are 

prioritized by the potential for public exposure through access and proximity to populated areas and 

recreational uses. Increased public exposure to abandoned mine hazards would increase the priority 

to remediate those hazards in a timely manner. All alternatives would continue this work and would 

add procedures and safeguards for hazardous sites, including removing hazards, protecting 

significant sites, and stabilizing or limiting accessibility of abandoned mine lands and other 

hazardous sites when removal of hazards is not practical. Alternative C has some added restrictions 

associated with recreation, visitor outreach and services management, geology management, and 

chemical and biological control of vegetation management, on abandoned mine lands and hazardous 

sites. These restrictions exceed those under Alternatives A and B and are nearly the same as those 

under Alternative D. Long-term management of completed projects should include periodic 

maintenance and monitoring to determine success and stability of these measures. 

Social and Economic Conditions and Environmental Justice 

Alternative A would maintain current management practices; therefore, it would not induce any 

changes to the socioeconomic indicators. The actions proposed under Alternative B are more use 

oriented and call for the fewest surface occupancy restrictions, special stipulations, and exclusion 

areas to protect water resources, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and geological, paleontological, and 

cultural resources. As such, Alternative B provides the highest level of opportunity for economic 

development based on market goods, such as extractive industries, while potentially reducing nonmarket values, such as aesthetics and opportunities for solitude. Alternative C is more 

environmentally oriented, with the greatest acreage of restrictions; therefore, Alternative C has the 

greatest potential for limiting market-based economic activities but possibly enhancing non-market 

values, including bequest values for undisturbed lands. The acreage restrictions under Alternative D 

fall between Alternatives B and C. Actions designed to protect sensitive resources under all 

alternatives could result in increased expenditures as a result of the management of some resources, 

such as water. 

Each of the action alternatives has the potential to affect local expenditures for equipment, supplies, 

and services by generating income in the local economy and fostering growth, by minimizing the 

potential for changes in economic growth, or by reducing income in the local economy and limiting 

growth, depending on the resource being considered. In general, Alternative B has the greatest 

potential for generating or minimizing effects on economic growth. Alternative C has the most 

actions that would limit resource uses, thereby limiting the contribution of these uses to the local 

economy. In particular, Option 2 would eliminate grazing, which would impact individual ranchers, 

reduce local economies, and affect the social values of the local area. Alternative D would tend to 

have an economic effect that is intermediate between Alternatives B and C due to management 

actions relating to grazing, minerals, and recreation. 

None of the alternatives would result in direct changes in population or changes in the demand for 

housing, schools, and public facilities and services. Alternative B could result in an indirect stimulus 

to population growth by encouraging greater resource use. No low-income or minority populations 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-27 
Executive Summary 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS ES-28 

would be displaced or separated from community facilities, nor would minority businesses be 

disrupted by the proposed alternatives. Alternative C, Option 2, would eliminate a source of income 

for a specific group. To the extent that livestock grazing is the dominant or sole source of income 

for this group and that these ranchers’ incomes would be considered low income, Alternative C, 

Option 2, could have a disproportionate effect on an environmental justice population.